This
report summarises the feedback received from the Transport Strategy
Consultation, which was conducted 2-30 August 2021. Over 4,000 newsletters detailing
the transport proposals were delivered by Royal Mail to all IP16 postcodes,
including businesses, inviting residents to provide their feedback on
them. Two exhibitions were held in
Leiston for the community to visit and ask questions relating to the proposals
and a total of 179 people attended. We
also offered 24 slots for one-to-one clinics on three different days which 12
people booked and attended.
A
series of strong themes have been extracted from the feedback received. Despite
the responses being dominated by one topic, significant feedback has been
received across a number of proposals, providing
helpful views to incorporate, with some respondents making direct
recommendations.
There
is generally a very positive view of the efforts to enhance the appearance and
green spaces in the town, and the recognition that these could be a great asset
to the town, as well as strong support for attempts to increase pedestrian and
cycling opportunities.
However,
strong opposition has been received against the one-way system proposal, citing
many issues from environmental, safety and inconvenience. Additionally, there
was opposition to the re-routing of buses, mainly due to safety or traffic
concerns.
There
was additionally mixed feedback on the topics of the Market Square, Heritage Square and the Town Gateways.
Responses
to the consultation have been dominated by the proposals for the proposed
one-way system around Leiston, as will be demonstrated by this report. The
approach of this report has been to find themes to provide a summarised,
qualitative view of the responses, whilst also providing the quantitative
summary.
Total
responses: 295 (Email/Hard copy: 186/109)
|
Road |
Number |
|
Valley Road |
20 |
|
Sylvester Road |
14 |
|
High St |
13 |
|
Crown St |
12 |
|
Abbey Road |
10 |
|
Aldeburgh Road, Grimsey Road |
9 |
|
Carr Avenue, Waterloo Avenue |
8 |
|
Buller Road, Eastward Ho |
7 |
|
Haylings Rd, Urban Road, Red House Lane,
Seaward Ave |
6 |
|
Central Road, Heath View, Old Foundry
Pl, Prospect Pl, St Margarets Cres, Westward Ho |
5 |
|
Kings Road, Park Hill, Southfield
Drive |
4 |
|
Ashfield Dr, Buckleswood
Rd, Chandlers Way, Garrett Cres, Long Row, Potter's St, Sizewell, Sizewell
Gap, Sizewell Road, The Common |
3 |
|
Andrew Cl, Charles Adams Cl, Church
Rd, Daneway Gardens, Farrow Cl, Huntingfield
Rd, King George's Ave, Kitchener Road, Main St, Mill Hill, Paradise Pl, Queen
Elizabeth Cl, Victory Rd |
2 |
|
Arnhem Rd, B1078, Beaumont Cottages,
Cherry Ln, Church Ln, Church View, Cross St, Daisy Drive, Dinsdale Road, Goadby Rd, Grimsey's Ln, Hall Farm Cl, Hancocks Cl, Harling Way, Haven Rd, Hawthorn Cl, Haylings Grove, King Edward Rd, Lakeside Ave, Leiston
Road, Lovers Lane, Neale Cl, Old Homes Rd, Old School Cl, Old Store Gardens,
Orchard Rd, Primrose Lane, Rattla Corner, Sandy
Lane, South Cl, Station Rd, The Gables, The Haven, The Headlands |
1 |
A
lot of strength of feeling has been put forward within these responses, most of
which has been constructive and useful. However, a minority of responses have
had minimal analytical value, where respondents have chosen to oppose all
proposals without reason. Similarly, some respondents responded very
positively, but with very brief comments which have equally low analytical
value (such as “I liked all proposals”).
Comments
such as these have only been used to inform a view of “overall sentiment”,
which is either positive, negative, or neutral.
This
measure of “sentiment” has been further used against the prevailing themes
expressed in responses. Where responses haven’t been explicit in their overall
sentiment (“On the whole I am for these proposals”/ “Generally I am opposed to
these proposals”) this has been inferred.
Responses
of “neutral” sentiment are where there is no overall positive or negative
leaning. This can be either due to an equal amount of positive and negative
comments, or where no overall opinion has been expressed.
|
Overall Sentiment |
||
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
% |
|
Positive |
41 |
14% |
|
Negative |
204 |
69% |
|
Neutral |
50 |
17% |
As
mentioned previously, a lot of responses have been dominated by views on the
one-way system. This has skewed the overall sentiment summary, due to the
number of responses that focused on the single topic.
The
following is an analytical quantitative then qualitative view of the response
themes by comments provided in responses. The comments have been used to judge
a theme and an overall sentiment the respondent is aiming to express.
The
themes captured below are informed by the negative views expressed. Generally,
when comments have been positive, it has not been possible to capture a theme.
Where responses have been constructive with positive feedback, a “suggestion”
may have been captured, which can be found later in this report.
Note:
the number of responses in the “sentiment” summary may not be equal to the
number in the “theme” summary, depending on how many comments have been
submitted and whether a theme could be captured.
|
Sentiment |
|
|
|
Responses |
|
Negative |
|
|
|
399 |
|
Positive |
|
|
|
28 |
|
Neutral |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
446 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
Narrow Streets – respondents felt
that the roads being utilised for the one-way system were too narrow, causing
access, congestion, or accident issues. |
93 |
|
Inconvenience – a view that the
one-way system would make traveling around the town more difficult, or that
the one-way system could impact parking for a resident, making life more
difficult. Please note, this theme also captures responses which summarised
that the one-way system would be negative for disabled residents (who could
not walk very far so needed good access by road, and the ability to park
outside shops) and responses which highlighted the issues that the emergency
services could face getting around the one-way system, increasing their
response times. |
64 |
|
Safety – A view that the one-way
system creates a safety issue, either due to the way traffic is directed or because
of the roads utilised by the one-way system and the other users of this road.
A typical example was the use of Sylvester Road near to a school, and the
view that funnelling traffic nearer a school is unsafe. |
43 |
|
Bad for business - Responses which
summarised that the one-way system would be bad for business in some way,
mainly due to access to shops (lower footfall) or due to knock-on impact of appeal
of the town due to imposed measures. |
43 |
|
Busy residential streets – These
responses were against the proposals because they would create more traffic
down residential roads, which could cause issues for parking, safety of
resident or congestion when deliveries were being made or bins were being
collected etc. Generally, respondents were commenting on their own roads and
impacts on themselves. |
34 |
|
Rat running – A view that the
one-way system would create greater “rat-running” where drivers find a route
which they believe could be quicker, but is perhaps
not a route which is intended for traffic. |
27 |
|
Environment – Responses which
commented that the impact on the environment would be increased due to
increased congestion, or the longer routes required to get around the one-
way system. |
27 |
|
Ineffective plan – A view that the
plans would not have the desired impact and could make a traffic situation
worse. This could be due too the chosen roads, or
the knock-on effect of certain choices. |
20 |
|
Increase speeding - A view that
road users would feel empowered to speed along a one-way route in the
knowledge that they would not face oncoming traffic |
14 |
|
Wrong Route – A view that the
route chosen to direct traffic is not the correct one, sometimes inferring that certain routes could be more successful. |
11 |
|
Additional traffic - A view that
the one-way system could create the impression of additional traffic, or that
congestion could be worsened in some areas as a result of
the measures. |
11 |
|
Not needed – A view that Leiston
is too small for a one-way system or that the traffic situation does not
justify a one-way system |
10 |
|
Impact on house value – A view
that house prices along roads could reduce due to the impact of the one-way
system. |
5 |
|
Unclear plans- Responses that
indicated that they didn’t understand the plans or what was trying to be
achieved |
2 |
|
Deliveries – Explicit comments
that deliveries could be impacted by the measures (a subset of “bad for
business” theme) |
2 |
|
Roads unsuitable for HGVs – Explicit
comments that HGVs would be directed down routes which are not suitable for
them |
1 |
|
Less Appealing Town – A view that
the town would be made less appealing due to the implementation of the
measures. |
1 |
The
one-way system has attracted the most responses, with the sentiment generally
being in opposition to the proposals, with some very consistent themes. As
mentioned previously, a large number of respondents
chose to comment solely on the one-way system, and generally this was in
opposition. However, a handful of respondents did see some value in the
proposals.
-
Eastward
Ho/Grimsey Road/Arnhem Road/Sylvester Road currently too narrow for two cars to
pass due to the parking on either side of the road. A one-way system is seen to
improve this.
-
Wider
pavements would be a
benefit to these streets to increase the safety of pedestrians, or that the
one-way system would increase the safety of road users
-
Environmental
benefits to the one-way system
-
Acknowledgement
of the need to re-route traffic around Leiston for if Sizewell C is built
-
A
number of people
simply noted a one-way system was a good idea due to the improvements for
pedestrians
-
The
measures would stop HGVs trying to squeeze down unsuitable, narrow corners
-
Acknowledgement
that the High Street should be one-way, but the changes to the rest of the town
are not needed.
-
Agreement
with the need for a one-way system as long as
deliveries are adequately provisioned for
-
Agreement
for the implementation of a one-way system, but not down residential streets
which cannot handle the traffic.
-
Fear
that drivers could park and block the High Street with a one-way system in
place
-
Fear
that parked cars could block roads on other residential streets
-
Despite
the need for a one-way system, was there a better way which didn’t cause
parking issues for residents
-
Respondents
fearing the wrong route has been chosen. Specifically:
o Starting the one-way system at Park Hill
preventing easy departure from the doctors surgery
o Crown Street change makes traffic meet
Co-op traffic
-
Diverting
traffic down residential streets will make them busier, making it more
difficult for people to leave their homes/park
-
The
streets that cars are being diverted down are too narrow to accommodate the
traffic, let alone the larger traffic such as buses and HGVs. Specifically:
o Grimsey Road
o Eastward Ho
o Crown Street
o Seaward Avenue
o Cross Street
o Urban Road
-
Deliveries
will be prevented from accessing the shops they need to get to as they cannot
negotiate the tight turns they encounter on the routes
they are diverted to, or that adequate provisions haven’t been made for
deliveries at all. We had comments from:
o
Sandlings
o
Owner of the carpet shop
-
A
view that the town is too small to require a one-way system and that having one
will cause greater congestion
-
Diverting
cars down residential streets is a safety concern, particularly when diverting
closer to the school, making these routes busier.
-
The
one-way system creates rat-runs through the town. Specifically:
o Sylvester Road due to Sizewell Traffic
-
Some
commented that the plans disproportionately affect residents compared to those
passing through the town.
-
Stopping
people from gaining easy access to the shops will be bad for business, and
could cause shops to close
-
There
were some general comments around the inconvenience caused due to reduced
access in some areas or longer journeys to destinations
-
A
view that making streets one-way will actually increase
speeding down residential streets as drivers are confident of no on-coming
traffic.
-
Criticism
that the increased journey time would be bad for the environment.
-
More
difficult for disabled drivers to access the shops/services they need, either
due to the diversions or the inability to park close to shops.
-
Fear
that the plans could make transit more difficult for emergency vehicles
-
Some
comments that the plans will not have the intended effect and will exacerbate
current issues of the roads.
One
of the "themes" of responses to the consultation, especially on the
impact of the one-way system, was that it could be "bad for
business". This involved responses from both shop owners, employees and
residents responding to the consultation. Some of these responses were more
general, but others were specific to the impact on deliveries to the shops on
the High-Street, or the Co-op, for example.
The
comments were mainly referencing a knock-on impact to the footfall in the High
Street, caused by the inconvenience of the one-way system or the inability to
stop outside the shop for a quick purchase. Respondents believed that customers
would instead choose to use shops in other local towns. The second reason for
this area of opposition was a direct reference to the inconvenience caused to
delivery drivers along these streets, and how this could impact the business in
some way. This was either due to the impact on the delivery itself or the
impact to the road which delivery drivers would be blocking. The final sub-theme
in this category was the impact to disabled customers, who rely on the need to
park close to, or outside of, their shops. There was a view that the available
parking would be too far away for a disabled person to walk to certain shops.
One
response from an employee of an unnamed business referred to the negative
impact on businesses that the one-way system would cause, referencing the carpet shop and an unnamed
pub, and that receiving deliveries was already an
issue with the current design of the High Street.
A
shop owner highlighted concerns for large delivery vehicles specifically in
relation to widened pavements and a narrower carriageway and the issues caused
when delivery vehicles and buses use the street concurrently.
One
positive response from an unnamed business owner was received, but the majority of comments in this category opposed the
one-way system because of an impact to business.
There
were a few comments on other proposals relating to the impact on businesses,
but these tended to follow a similar theme. For example, 2 negative comments
were received on the gateways, with suggestions that these would negatively
impact the appeal of the town and cause drivers to shop elsewhere, but mainly
these comments were focussed on the one-way system.
Responses
received from the following businesses:
-
Unnamed
business - I would just like to thank you and I am glad to be part of the new
look Leiston. As a shop owner in Leiston it can only be good for me and my
business. I’m glad there are a few who see progress in Leiston. Thank you.
-
Sandlings - "As the owner of Sandlings (11-13 High Street) I have
concerns with regard to deliveries and loading/
unloading for my shop. We have several shops in this street that have larger
vehicles making deliveries on a regular basis and brewery deliveries. I wonder
how this will work with widened pavements and a narrower carriageway as it will
also still be a proposed bus route"
-
- "Carpet shop" - I
manage the carpet shop
and we have to take deliveries from the front of the
shop. .We cannot be the only business this will
affect. You’ll have a high st with no shops because
they can’t take in goods. It isn’t rocket science.
-
- "takeaway owner"
- I cannot see any reason at all in a town with declining footfall to its high
street (we own a takeaway
on the high street so we have noticed this) to further
reduce the traffic travelling through the high street. As we run a takeaway that especially
in summer has 80% of our business being traffic driving through the town from
Aldeburgh and Thorpeness. We fear that once the
traffic turns off at Kings Road we will no longer
attract our passing trade. If we lose revenue this will lead to us having to
downsize our staff and as we employ 6 Leiston based staff and are their only
source of income so worry that this will cause yet more local people to become
unemployed.
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Negative |
22 |
|
Positive |
6 |
|
Neutral |
1 |
|
Total |
29 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
No issue |
16 |
|
Ineffective |
4 |
|
Adverse effect |
3 |
There
were a handful of comments relating solely to the management of traffic and the
current level of traffic in the town. A number of
respondents could not see the problem of traffic or congestion in Leiston at
all, suggesting that the suggested proposals were not required.
-
Some
comments were generally supportive of any measure to move traffic out of
Leiston and to benefit pedestrians in the centre of town
-
A
handful of respondents recognised that traffic will
increase in Leiston
-
A
few comments that the plans proposed will make traffic in Leiston worse
-
A
view that the plans do not alleviate traffic in the town, only move it to less
capable areas
-
A
number of strong
views that Leiston does not have a traffic problem at all and doesn’t require
the proposals
-
One
respondent felt plans were being put in to benefit Sizewell C rather than the
residents.
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Positive |
7 |
|
Neutral |
6 |
|
Negative |
4 |
|
Total |
17 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
Lacking info |
5 |
|
Safety |
1 |
|
Inconvenience |
2 |
A number of residents did not fully understand the
road closure measures and what this meant in practice (what cars were
restricted and when) so were not able to provide substantive responses,
requesting more information. However, a couple of respondents could see the
value in these measures, for the benefit of traffic flow around the one-way
system, but not adversely affecting emergency vehicles or buses.
-
The
plan to prevent large commercial vehicles turning down unsuitable roads and ensuring
they all have to use Lover's Lane for access to
Eastlands
-
Plans
will mitigate adverse effects of Sizewell Traffic
-
Removes
large vehicles from the centre of town
-
More
information needed
-
Plans
do not adequately enforce restrictions
-
Closed
roads are an inconvenience for some drivers
-
More
challenging route out of town, decreasing the safety
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Negative |
23 |
|
Neutral |
9 |
|
Positive |
1 |
|
Total |
33 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
Lack of parking |
21 |
|
Parking enforcement required |
5 |
|
Free Parking |
1 |
|
Safety |
1 |
The majority of comments relating to parking were
criticisms of impacts to residents’ parking due to the implementation of the
one-way system, without clear provisions to mitigate this loss of parking. Some
took the opportunity to request better parking enforcement as the
implementation of the one-way system combined with the current level of parking
on double yellow lines could cause major safety and traffic issues.
A number of respondents commented that proper
operation of the one-way system could not be provisioned without proper
enforcement of illegal parking in Leiston.
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Negative |
29 |
|
Positive |
6 |
|
Neutral |
1 |
|
Total |
36 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
Unsuitable routes |
23 |
|
Adverse effect |
1 |
|
Ineffective plans |
1 |
|
Not needed |
1 |
|
Inconvenience |
1 |
This
was an area of the proposals that also received quite unanimous opposition to
the plans. Whilst a small minority of respondents could see the attempt to
provide better access to bus routes to those on the Eastern side of the town,
the vast majority opposed the plans on the route chosen.
-
Providing
a bus service to the Eastern Side of town is a positive
-
Increased
number of bus stops
-
The
routes chosen are simply not suitable for buses, partly due to safety concerns
down narrow streets and partly due to parked cars. Specifically:
o Seaward Avenue (due mainly to the
school)
o Sylvester Road
o High Street (due to street furniture)
-
Plans
to provide access to buses for the Eastern side of town is not achieved by
these measures.
-
Changes
to bus stops is disruptive for elderly or vulnerable
-
Bus
routes with cycle routes is a safety concern
-
Buses
being routed down residential roads is a safety concern
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
||
|
Positive |
14 |
||
|
Negative |
7 |
||
|
Neutral |
2 |
||
|
Total |
23 |
||
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
|
|
Removing History |
4 |
|
|
|
Parking issues |
1 |
|
|
|
Not needed |
1 |
|
|
Generally,
the proposals for the market square were very well received as it would provide
a much-needed central hub for the residents. The minor detractors to this idea
cited the increased pressure on parking or the fact that market squares are
generally in decline as reasons for why the proposals weren’t very good, but
this was a proposal that was very well supported.
-
People
generally being positive about the introduction of a community space.
-
Introduction
of green spaces and more street furniture
-
Better
draw for people outside of town
-
Better
for business in the town
-
Attractive
development
-
Market
Square isn’t needed with empty shops on the High Street.
-
Market
Square addition would create greater parking issues in the town
-
The
creation of a space like this could damage the history of the town,
specifically due to the chosen location
-
The
centre of town is not the right location for more residential spaces.
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Negative |
6 |
|
Positive |
0 |
|
Neutral |
0 |
|
Total |
6 |
This
theme was quite niche but has been captured for completeness. Some respondents
criticised the approach for consultation and assumed that the plans were
already a foregone conclusion. The following comments have been captured
verbatim:
-
“Concerned
that these ‘plans’ are already way beyond the planning stage and this ‘consultation’
is just a tick-box process”
-
“I
have to question, is it really necessary to go to such drastic lengths, as many
people I have spoken to consider the town is just fine as it is, and the money
spent on the one-way system and associated infrastructure could be better spent
on attracting more businesses and visitors to the town.”
-
“Once
again there is not a single councillor’s property that will be impacted by
these proposals, Similar to the closure of Goldings lane
to raise property prices”
-
“I
and others are organising a petition against the proposal and the inept way
this has been handled without consulting the residents of Leiston, only after
the fact.”
-
“You
don’t care what us the public/resident think as you’ll go ahead with the plans
anyway. This document is just so you can say you followed procedure.”
-
“The
council is supposed to be a democratic institution, but you have made it very
clear you intend to plough ahead with these ideas. You’re not even bothered
[to] present this feedback form as part of a consultation exercise.”
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Negative |
26 |
|
Positive |
23 |
|
Neutral |
10 |
|
Total |
59 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
Safety |
11 |
|
Not justified |
6 |
|
Inconvenience |
4 |
|
Ineffective plans |
3 |
|
Appearance |
1 |
The
cycle routes seemed to divide opinion. A large number of
residents were very appreciating of any plans to enhance cycling and walking
infrastructure around the town, but some did not agree, suggesting that plans
were at the expense of the majority in the town and that plans were not
justified.
-
Increased
safety for cyclists very well received.
-
Cycling
provision on Lover’s Lane noted a number of times
positively.
-
Plans
that benefit cycling will encourage more cyclists
-
Generally
supportive comments about cycling provision and the plans
-
Increased
safety for cyclists
-
Will
reduce the number of car users in town
-
Could
increase anti-social behaviour (relating specifically to youths who cycle in
town)
-
These
plans will only be successful with adequate maintenance of paths (inferring
that there isn’t currently)
-
A
view that cyclists will not properly adopt the infrastructure implemented.
-
Having
cyclists near to pedestrians is a safety hazard
-
Not
enough cyclists in Leiston to justify the provisions they receive
-
Increasing
cycle routes will create a loss of pavements
-
Cycling
isn’t accessible to all residents and cycle paths can have an adverse effect on
mobility scooter users.
-
Criticism
on the location of certain routes, creating traffic and use of paths near homes
(where there wasn’t traffic previously).
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Negative |
22 |
|
Positive |
9 |
|
Neutral |
0 |
|
Total |
31 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
Safety |
9 |
|
Not needed |
4 |
|
Congestion |
3 |
|
Ineffective plans |
3 |
|
Bad for business |
2 |
The
comments on the Gateways into Leiston are divided currently, with some being
appreciative of measures to calm traffic into the town, whilst others only see
them as adding congestion and being a safety hazard.
-
Gateways
on the main routes are a good in terms of reducing speeding
-
a
welcoming feature
-
Reinforces
the fact that care needs to be taken in the town
-
Road
narrowing alone ineffective
-
Gateways
are dangerous for people that do not know them, particularly in adverse conditions
-
Will
cause congestion on the routes into town
-
Especially
hazardous for Motorbikes and HGVS and bikes
-
Gateways
are unnecessary
-
“Out
of date thinking”
-
Effect
of gateways, particularly when coupled with other traffic measures, may
dissuade vehicle users from coming to the town for shopping
-
No
speed issue justifying gateways
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Negative |
24 |
|
Positive |
7 |
|
Neutral |
2 |
|
Total |
33 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
Lack of parking |
12 |
|
Ineffective plans |
5 |
|
Not needed |
3 |
|
Losing heritage |
2 |
|
Bad effect |
1 |
The
plans for Heritage Square are surprisingly not as well received as the Market
Square proposals. Those who liked the plans were generally supportive of more
community spaces and enhancements for pedestrians. However, the opposing
majority bemoaned a reduction of parking here and that the plans would actually be a waste, as it is not the right area to create
this type of community space (“Why would you want benches to look at charity
shops, takeaways and the one supermarket”). The main criticisms were due to the
loss of parking and the impact this would have on the bank and doctor’s
surgery.
-
Good
idea for creating focal points in the town
-
Supporting
the heritage of the town
-
New
seating and planting is positive
-
“Why
would you want benches to look at charity shops, takeaways and the one
supermarket, which is not ideal as they keep increasing prices”
-
Removing
the car parking spaces at the Library
-
Questions
around the number of users of the proposed space
-
Potential
for misuse in the evenings.
-
Inadequate
replacement of parking
-
Opposition
to the renaming of the Old Post Office Square and Long Shop Museum area
|
Sentiment |
Responses |
|
Negative |
9 |
|
Positive |
5 |
|
Neutral |
0 |
|
Total |
14 |
|
Theme |
Responses |
|
Adverse effect |
2 |
|
Not needed |
2 |
|
Safety |
1 |
A number of respondents commented specifically on
the changes to the High Street. A number of these were positive, with general
approval of the increase to green spaces and street furniture, although some
were against the proposals, suggesting the pedestrianisation was simply not
needed, and that the measures would have an adverse impact on the high street
(footfall or safety).
-
A
good feature for the town
-
Making
the town more attractive
-
Encouraging
pedestrians/cyclists
-
Encouraging
new business
-
Under
the road is a network of Victorian pipes, so planting trees here will cause
lots of problems
-
Safety
issues when bus, pedestrian and cyclists combine
-
Insufficient
width of road
-
Not
workable due to the number of delivery vans and cars stopping
-
Buildout
features in High Street will result in even more congestion
Several
recommendations have been made within the responses. It is recommended that
these are reviewed directly, as it hasn’t been possible to group or theme these
recommendations and suggestions, although an attempt to summarise can be found
below.
Respondents
have made specific recommendations about certain one-way route plans. These
could be alterations to proposals, or new routes altogether.
There
were also interesting suggestions, such as a timed one-way system, or a one-way
system but only for certain vehicles.
Recommendations
have been made for certain routes which should be closed/restricted for certain
vehicle types, as well as suggestions on how to ensure this occurs, through
various monitoring and enforcement techniques.
Again,
the suggestion of timed restrictions has been proposed here. There is a strong
feeling that restrictions should be made based on weight category, although
there is varying opinion on what form of enforcement will be most successful.
These
suggestions centre on different crossings (installing/removing) to increase
road safety. There are specific suggestions here to replace gateways with
chicanes, as a more effective method of traffic calming.
Generally,
these suggestions centre on the provision on new or free parking options. However,
quite a large number of suggestions centre on parking
enforcement, and the use of cameras or wardens to prevent parking on double
yellow lines (which will have a positive effect on traffic).
Suggested
traffic calming measures include suggestions for 20 mph and 40 mph sections
(specifically 20 mph in the whole town centre). Additionally, some have
suggested the need for road humps to calm traffic.
Suggestions
relating to cycle paths include calls for strong maintenance regimes or signage
strategies. There is also a few suggestions that use
of cycle lanes needs some enforcement.
A
Single suggestion for a community working group to help develop the transport
strategy.
Suggestions
for increased bus services or double yellow lines to support bus services.
Generally,
these are around road surface improvements and pothole repair. The area outside
the town council offices has the most suggestions for the need for repair.
However,
this section also has some of the more helpful and unique suggestions, such as
a mini roundabout at the white horse pub or improvements to drainage.
The
suggestions here include retaining the parking, increased cycling
infrastructure (bike racks), and an improved information board.
Suggestions
that the market square needs to include a rival supermarket.
This
was a bit of a catch-all category and had the largest range of recommendations.
These included things like the need for a new dentist and shops or creating
better EV charging infrastructure.
One
suggestion for even more seating on the High Street proposals.
This
section includes some suggestions for further gateways around the town. Better
gateway signage or enhanced gateways, with speed bumps (for example).
The Transport Group will discuss the findings of this report, review the data and consider a way forward.