Agenda item

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance dealing with the objections received after statutory advertisement of the  following traffic orders and traffic management schemes:-

The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in Aberdeen) (Citywide 1) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 – two objections

The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in Aberdeen) (Citywide 2) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 – no objection

The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in Aberdeen) (Citywide 3) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 – two objections

The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in Aberdeen) (Citywide 4) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 – three objections

20mph speed limit on Hazledene Road, with associated speed cushions – two objections

20mph speed limit on Elphinstone Road and Meston Walk, with associated speed cushions and speed table (also new build out at Meston Walk/Bedford Road) – no objection but constructive dialogue with Old Aberdeen Community Council was acknowledged in Section 6

The Aberdeen City Council (Torry Parking Management) Order 2010 – one objection

20mph speed limit on School Road and Golf Road – no objections

The Aberdeen City Council (Queen’s Road between Hazledene Road and Hazlehead Avenue) (Redetermination of the Means of Exercise of Public Right of Passage) Order 2010 – no objections

The summer advertisement process had removed a great deal from the outstanding business statement and had brought the Committee largely up-to-date with traffic orders and traffic management schemes.  The proposals had been advertised in the usual way and it was obviously pleasing that so many advertisements had attracted so few objections.  However, those that had come in now had to be treated seriously. 

(1)       The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in Aberdeen) (Citywide 1) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 – two objections

            Mr. Alan Carter was a resident of Powis Circle who felt that the proposed one-way would be of no particular value but would present a great deal of inconvenience for some residents who would have to travel along the entire length of Powis Circle to exit at its eastern junction with Powis Crescent.  The roads officials were of the opinion that this objection was well-intentioned, but that there could be no getting away from the fact that Powis Circle was a narrow street with a large volume of parking along its entire length, and that a one-way regulation would reduce vehicular conflict (and indeed increase parking potential for residents).  The street was already traffic calmed and therefore Mr. Carter’s concern about an increase in vehicular speed should not be an issue.  The scheme had first emerged after an approach by Councillor Robertson to whom local residents had actually suggested a one-way.  Under these circumstances, the recommendation was that the objection be overruled and the order made as originally advertised. 

            Keith Runcie and Lesley Fettes, residents of Don Terrace, had submitted an objection to intended waiting restrictions at that location (8am – 5pm, Monday – Friday).  The restrictions were intended to apply on both sides of a narrow section of the road (between Don Street and Don Gardens) where refuse vehicles found difficulty negotiating parked vehicles.  The roads officials had carried out observational parking surveys during the week beginning 8 February 2010 (two during the afternoon and one after 7pm in the evening), and one vehicle had been parked in the problematic section at the time of the afternoon surveys and six at the time of the evening survey.  Accordingly, it seemed clear that such low numbers would be unaffected by the new proposals. 

            Also, the Waste Collection Team had indicated that refuse vehicles did not ordinarily enter this area until after 8am, and so the current proposal had been confined to 8am – 5pm on weekdays, thereby maintaining existing residential parking potential during evening hours when demand was highest.  Otherwise, alternative on-street parking was available in Don Street and Don Gardens.  Taken together, these points suggested minimal difficulties for residents, and it was recommended that the objection in this case also be overruled, and the order made as originally envisaged.

(2)       The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in Aberdeen) (Citywide 3) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 – two objections

            Dr. S.J. Cuddy of 378 North Deeside Road had written to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to say that he believed it was an excellent idea to reserve part of the carriageway for loading and unloading between 7am and 8am (especially as a new nursery would be opening soon at the end of the row of shops) but that he would also like to ensure that the unloading did not start any earlier than 7am.  At present, apparently, Tesco deliveries woke up local residents as early as 5am.  The problem was one of moderate vehicular noise but unacceptable associated scraping noises (metal crates being dragged over metal interiors of lorries).

            The objector did not oppose the traffic order – indeed, he saw it as well-intentioned and hoped it would encourage better practice – but he recognised that creating a loading bay for the one hour period between 7am and 8am did not actually prohibit activity earlier than that.

            Operations at five in the morning would not contravene any planning condition, and so Tesco could theoretically look forward to their privileged hour at 7am but yet also do what they wanted earlier than that if they so choose.

            However Tesco had now written to Legal and Democratic Services to say that they saw themselves as committed to being a good neighbour, and that, if the proposed loading bay were to be established as advertised, they would then have guaranteed access at 7am (which they did not have as things stood) and therefore would have no need to take the precaution of arranging much earlier deliveries because of the fear of inaccessibility later on.  Of course this was not a contractual arrangement, but it was a public promise.  Breaking it would hardly sit well with “a commitment to being a good neighbour”.  Under the circumstances, this public undertaking, in conjunction with the operational weather window provided for by the order, looked reassuring.  Clearly, the situation would be kept under close review, but, as things stood, the recommendation was that the order be made with the loading bay retained.

            Mr. Andrew McKenzie, a resident of Fonthill Terrace, had objected to alterations in on-street parking provision on Whinhill Road, precipitated by the redevelopment of the property at 20 Whinhill Road.  The objection had been founded upon the supposed loss of residential parking potential, a perceived reduction in visibility at the Fonthill Terrace junction, and the handing over of kerbside space to Grampian Police for on-street parking of police vehicles outside a police station.

            However, parking surveys undertaken by consultants representing the developer in this case had indicated ample parking capacity during the day and in the evening, and so the loss of some residential parking bays was calculated to be unlikely to have much effect.  As regards the issue of visibility for traffic exiting Fonthill Terrace, technical analysis had confirmed that there would be no encroaching upon minimum permissible visibility splays at the location.

            As regards the positioning of the intended police parking bays, the objector had suggested that they be located further south but, as one might expect, Grampian Police saw considerable merit as having them as close to the front door of the police station as possible, to improve response times and minimise the distance that detainees were required to walk (if being taken under duress from a police vehicle to the station).

            Again, the report suggested that the objection be overruled and the order implemented as originally advertised.

(3)       The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in Aberdeen) (Citywide 4) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 – three objections

There were three quite separate objections to different aspects of this order:  one relating to Shepherd Place, one relating to the intended prohibition of left turns from Esplanade into Accommodation Road, and one relating to Blackfriars Street/Schoolhill/St. Andrews Street.  The recommendation here was to defer consideration of the Citywide 4 order until the November meeting, by which time it would have been possible to meet with the objectors in the first two cases.  In the third case, the proposals for Blackfriars Street, Schoolhill and St. Andrews Street would be readvertised altogether as a small-scale order providing exclusively for those provisions (this to take account of concerns on the part of Robert Gordon’s College that the recent statutory process had run during the summer, outside term-time).

(4)       20mph speed limit on Hazledene Road, with associated speed cushions – two objections

There were two objections to this proposal, these being from a local resident (Alison Fraser) and a non-resident (Mr. Eric Murdoch) who used the road on a regular basis. 

An advisory 20mph speed limit was already in place in Hazledene Road but had had little effect on vehicular speeds.  The 85 percentile speeds were still in excess of 30mph in both directions, and so the intended traffic calming features would make a significant difference. 

It had been suggested that there might no longer be a significant problem here as a result of the recent closure of Dobbies Garden Centre, but the thoroughfare was still used by school children crossing towards Hazlehead Primary School, still bore the burden of significant commuter use during the morning peak, and also attracted traffic from the golf course (exiting Hazlehead Park).  Accordingly, the recommendation was to overrule the objections and go ahead with the proposal.

One of the local members, Councillor Greig, agreed with this recommendation, emphasising that he knew of residents of Hazledene Road who were very supportive of the plan, but did draw the attention of the elected members to the objection from Mr. Murdoch, which, at his request, had been circulated in its original form to all members of the Committee the previous Friday.  Councillor Greig sympathised with Mr. Murdoch but concurred with the roads officials in seeing traffic calming at this location as being of clear virtue. 

(5)       The Aberdeen City Council (Torry Parking Management) Order 2010 – one objection

            The only objection here had been from King Foods, 15 Crombie Road, who had been concerned that allowing vehicles to park at the kerbside during business hours would have a detrimental impact on loading operations.  The roads officials had agreed, and were now of a mind to abandon four new parking bays on the south side of the road, and also to reduce the proposed loading ban on the north side so that it would extend from Victoria Road for thirteen metres instead of thirty-eight metres.  This cured the objection.

(6)       20mph speed limit on Elphinstone Road and Meston Walk, with associated speed cushions and speed table (also new build out at Meston Walk/Bedford Road)

            There was no objection on file but there had been constructive dialogue with Old Aberdeen Community Council who were generally supportive of the proposal but felt the extended speed table could prove to be an undesirable feature for buses.  As requested, the roads officials had checked that the arrangements were acceptable to First Bus, and the company had confirmed that they were indeed happy with the proposal and had no intention of cancelling the No. 20 route. 

            The Community Council had also noted that the number of speed cushions in Meston Walk had been reduced, but continued to feel that the eastmost cushion would serve no purpose because of its proximity to the Elphinstone and College Bounds junctions.  However, this cushion was unavoidable in terms of the statutory specifications.

The Committee resolved:-

except where cured by relaxation or adjustment (or proposed for deferral as in the case of The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in Aberdeen) (Citywide 4) (Traffic Management) Order 2010), to overrule the objections, make the orders and implement the schemes.