THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL
CABINET: 1ST JUNE 2015
REFERENCE FROM SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT): 14TH APRIL 2015
“1092 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TASK AND FINISH GROUP OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – UPDATE ON ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN (DDS AND DHVS) –
The Committee was provided with an update on the progress on the actions contained within the Traffic Management Task and Finish Group report which had been considered by the Committee on 29th April 2014 and agreed by Cabinet on 12th May 2014. The Scrutiny Committee had at that time recommended that an update on the delivery of the Implementation Plan be presented within 12 months.
In referring to progress to date and commencing with ref IP-1(Implementation Plan 1) being that consideration be given as to whether or not the criteria for some of the money received from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be dedicated for highway improvements. The Director of Development Services advised that progress on adopting the CIL was pending the adoption of the Local Development Plan (LDP) which was expected late 2016, and that although the CIL could potentially generate more income, the definitions for negotiation would be stricter than those under the current section 106 process. It would also be essential that the Council had an infrastructure plan in place at the time.
With regard to IP - 3 the Principal Transport and Safety Officer advised that the feasibility study had been completed although no funding stream had as yet, been identified. Members requested, that the detail from the study for this aspect be emailed for their information.
In referring to the Active Travel Plan, Members were informed that further information was awaited and that it was a work in progress.
For IP- 5 integrated Traffic Management and sustainable travel, it was noted that a draft Local Transport Plan (LTP) had been submitted to Welsh Government in January 2015 for which officers were awaiting a response. However, as an update the officer advised that the Cardiff City region response which had been late, had been very supportive.
IP-6 – Impact Study. As a result of the Metro Network Study the works at the Culverhouse Cross (HTV site) had been recommended but were subject to the HTV site being developed.
IP-7 – It was noted that all new development would take into account infrastructure identified within the draft LTP and emerging LDP.
IP-9 – Devise a programme of engagement - A procedure was in place to notify elected Members by e-mail prior to any works commencing which the action plan advised would be reported to Committee in June 2015.
IP- 10 Devise a programme of engagement with businesses, organisations to encourage alternative travel planning and promote sustainable transport links. This was partly complete, it being noted that new developers were engaged through the planning process and existing businesses engaged through road safety talks.
IP-11 – Equipment Purchase – the action referred to the acquisition, lease or otherwise of Mobile Vehicle Message Signs. However, unfortunately although there was potential for S106 funding, this was an outstanding action due to budget constraints. During the discussion it was suggested that IP11 should be given a higher priority in view of the recent traffic congestion issues on Barry Island over the Easter weekend, which was to be addressed later in the meeting.
IP-14 – Road Improvement Actions – although it was noted that the feasibility study was complete, the officer advised that the best option to fund the project would be through the Metro development. Following a query as to whether there would be a stipulation for a bus lane from the Merrie Harrier to Barons Court, Members stated that in their view this would be a retrograde step. The officer’s response was that it was an action that was being considered and one that would be modelled first to assess its effectiveness before any works would be signed off. The Chairman referred to the excellent resurfacing work that had been undertaken on Cardiff Road / Biglis Road but queried what further work was likely to be undertaken with regard to congestion. In referring to the feasibility study that had been undertaken the Chairman requested that Members be apprised of the detail for the IP via email.
IP-15 – Priority 9 – Merrie Harrier – a Member considered that the Council needed to take a firm line with regard to any future planning permission at Llandough Hospital with the Member suggesting that the use of the bus lane be reconsidered with the possibility of allowing other vehicles access via staggered times throughout the day.
Due to the unsafe right turn at the junction it was also suggested that further work be undertaken in relation to this area. The Cabinet Member, with permission to speak, advised that work was currently ongoing with regard to a 20mph zone pilot project which could include consideration of the right turn at the junction. Members were also informed of a new bus service that had been created from Bridgend to Cardiff through the rural Vale taking in Llandough and Cardiff Bay by the company New Adventure Travel. During the discussion a number of Members referred to the demographic changes in and around Llandough, recognising the need for major work to be undertaken on the infrastructure and requested that a plan be drawn up for consideration.
IP – 16 – Access to Barry Island via Broad Street and the Causeway. In referring to the excellent attraction of Barry Island, the Chairman requested information in relation to the Easter weekend and the criticism that had been levied in the press regarding the traffic congestion. In response the Director of Visible Services and Housing stated that the Police had advised that they were unable to arrange PCSO coverage as the PCSO’s that had been asked had not wanted to work over the Easter weekend. However, the department had been advised that a Police Officer would be present to undertake traffic duties and apparently a Police Officer had attended on the day, but having undertaken their own risk assessment of the situation refused to remain on their own however, they did not inform anyone of that decision. As a result officers subsequently spoke to the Police about the issue and by Bank holiday Monday Police officer support was provided. However, in view of the issues for the following weekend the Director had agreed for the department to engage a company who thus provided six staff to manage the traffic on the Island.
At the meeting, in also referring to traffic management issues at Ship Hill (IP17), Members were presented with a copy of a map which outlined proposals that were to be put in place on a permanent basis after the May Bank holiday. Prior to that time, the department had agreed to pay for traffic marshals to control traffic along the route. Appropriate signage for the top of St. Nicholas Road was also required as well as for Barry Island.
Whilst referring to the new road development across the causeway, the Director of Development Services stated that the intention had been for the Consortium to build in three phases. The first phase beyond the new ASDA car park, the second phase the exit and entrance of the car park and phase 3 to link between the car park and Cosy Corner. The Council had thus entered into the agreement to deliver the phases in one phase. Phase 1 was completed in time for ASDA to open on Monday 13th April with Phases 2 and 3 remaining to be completed by Summer 2015. The Director was currently in discussions with the developers regarding options to try to bring forward the development, however it was noted that a considerable amount of on-street work would be required in particular, works at Cosy Corner appeared to be extensive with British Telecom needing to undertake advance work before the highway could be completed. Members were informed that any future information would be presented to Committee, with Members being advised accordingly on progress.
In referring to the Trinity Street trial that had commenced on 1st April 2015 (IP18), the Chairman acknowledged the work of the Councillor Stuart Egan and the late Margaret Alexander (Ward Members of the area). Feedback on the trial would be presented to the Committee in due course.
Regarding IP-19 the Chairman noted the improvements that had been made with the installations of the “Keep Clear” boxes on a number of streets and urged the Department to consider such initiatives in other areas in and around the Vale where necessary as these appeared to be working well. The action was however, noted as partly completed as the feasibility works at Laura Street with access onto Cardiff Road were to be programmed for 2015/16. The “Keep Clear” box had also been installed to improve access and egress with the action for IP-20 being completed.
IP-21, 22 and 23 – some had been partly completed with the remainder being due to be considered in April 2015/16.
IP-24 – Five Mile Lane – the work was noted as ongoing with design work by a Welsh Government employed consultancy firm, which was progressing to enable a planning application to be made. A report on the subject was to be presented to Cabinet in July 2015.
In referring to IP-25, 26 and 27 the evaluation for the possibility of bridle paths / cycle / walk ways for Gilbert Lane, the disused railway line at St. Andrews Major, Wenvoe and East Aberthaw to Cowbridge, IP-26 and 27 remained outstanding. However, with regard to Gilbert Lane, the Active Travel map was due to be completed by 24th September 2015 as directed by legislation with the progress noted as to be considered at that time. A Member stated that in their view the Gilbert Lane bridleway, would be easy to adopt and that the only works required would be for a drop bollard to be installed to ensure that cars and vehicles did not use the lane. The officer present advised that comments would be taken on board when the action was to be considered in the Active Travel Plan.
In conclusion and in referring to IP-28, the Cardiff Bay Barrage feasibility for the bus link over the Barrage to Penarth, the officer stated that Cardiff Council were also keen to address the issue and that early indications showed that it was a viable option.
Having fully considered the report and the responses received, it was subsequently
(1) T H A T the report and update on the Implementation Plan of the Task and Finish Group as detailed at Appendix A to the report be accepted and referred to Cabinet for approval.
(2) T H A T a further update on the delivery of the Implementation Plan be presented to the Scrutiny Committee in April 2016.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To apprise Members and seek Cabinet approval.
(2) To monitor progress of the recommendations of the Traffic Management Task and Finish Group.”
Attached as Appendix – Report to Scrutiny Committee (Economy and Environment): 14th April 2015