Shinfield Parish Council has published the results of its traffic consultation.
The council first set out its objectives regarding traffic in the Shinfield Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan. This document was submitted to a formal referendum of all residents in December 2016 and was supported by 87 per cent of voters. These traffic measures are therefore not something new but are the long-term established policy of the parish council.
Now they are putting forward proposals based on the impact of traffic from all the developments that were anticipated in 2016 and have now been built.
A spokesman said: “Shinfield Parish Council knows the residents are concerned about traffic speeds and the volume of traffic on the roads. We sincerely believe that there are practical measures that must be taken.”
Suggestions include:
• To divert traffic that doesn’t need to use roads in the parish which make life better for all remaining road users.
• To reduce speeds within the parish.
• To encourage more people to walk, cycle or use the bus.
The council believes these measures will make the roads in the parish safer and less congested for residents and others who must use them.
There appears to be a majority view that traffic is an issue but relatively low support for the traffic calming measures put forward, in particular the traffic chicanes in Arborfield. Shinfield Parish Council will only propose chicanes where there is no effective alternative.
A spokesman said: “Consultation is only viable if the council is prepared to listen and respond appropriately to the feedback provided. We feel the actions set out below show that we have done just that.”
Short-term (in the next 12 months)
• Push for the speed limit reductions proposed accepting that this may need to be done on a road-by-road basis.
• Push for controlled crossings at and Beech Hill Road and Hollow Lane (southern end).
• Encourage Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) and Thames Valley Police (TVP) to bring the existing speed cameras on Hyde End Road back into use.
• Push for four enforceable yellow box markings on the Black Boy roundabout.
• Conduct a formal consultation with residents of Church Lane between Brookers Hill to St Mary’s Church about measures for this section of road.
• Discuss further with Grazeley residents and WBC about traffic calming to slow vehicles arriving in the village
• Continue to promote local bus services to help increase passenger numbers and ensure the routes remain financially viable.
• Continue to push for the reinstatement of the bus gate proposed for Beke Avenue.
• Provide village gates at key locations.
• Review our consultation process to improve it for the future.
Medium term (in the next 36 months)
• Assess the impact of speed reductions and traffic volumes and, if it is felt necessary, come forward with revised traffic calming proposals using the best solution for each specific location. WBC will have had time to fully evaluate the Arborfield traffic calming scheme. This will be done in conjunction with an independent traffic consultant and WBC.
• Continue to work with Swallowfield Parish Council about options to encourage traffic on to the A33 Swallowfield bypass.
• Assess further options for improving road crossings in key locations in the parish.
• Further consultation with residents of Hyde End Lane regarding a possible one-way scheme.
The council had a total of 434 completed feedback forms (34 who completed on the day and 400 who submitted their views online) on the proposals and the overall results were as follows:
The vast majority who submitted their views were more often than not strongly opposed to the traffic proposals. However it is interesting to note that those who actually attended the consultation day, albeit in much lower numbers than online, were able engage in the detail of the proposals and were actually much more in favour of the proposals.
Of those 434 respondents 382 made additional comments beyond just ticking boxes on the overall and individual responses.
Contrary to some of the comments received, the councillors on the working party and the council officers all live and drive, walk, cycle and use the bus in the parish and see for themselves first-hand what the traffic is like in the parish. Councillors know that traffic is a fact of modern life and accept a lot of that traffic necessarily starts and ends within the parish boundaries. If they can influence these journeys then, even with any speed restrictions or traffic calming measures the net result is a benefit for all the residents and addresses concerns expressed in the feedback on issues such as air pollution.
What is it about Chicanes?
There were 88 respondents (20.3 per cent) who voiced concerns specifically about chicanes with many pointing to the situation in Arborfield. We have been at pains to say that we think there are too many in Arborfield and in many cases they are in the wrong place. We specifically stated on our proposals that if there was to be a chicane then the final positioning would be done with care to avoid replicating the issues in Arborfield. We do NOT want to have the same problems here. However we know of other locations locally where chicanes are having a positive impact.
We have also said that if we could achieve the traffic reduction and speed reductions we hoped to see in any other practical way then we would be open to considering any and all such options.
Chicanes and cyclists
Many people pointed out that the style of chicane we used to illustrate our proposals is “good in theory, but bad in practice” for cyclists. While in theory cyclists can cut through the gap left for them, in practice these tend to become blocked with detritus forcing cyclists to use the main section of the road.
As stated above we will look and see if there are any better options for traffic calming but we will ensure that if a chicane is the appropriate method it will be bike friendly.
Speed Bumps vs Chicanes
We did consider speed bumps and cushions as part of the traffic calming options but we felt that they also had their own set of problems such as noise and vibration issues to neighbouring properties also air quality issues.
Speed Reductions
Without any prompting, 68 respondents (15.7 per cent) made specific comments supporting the concept of speed restrictions. Our proposals have stated that we would like to see those roads currently with 40 mph limits reduced to 30mph and to 20mph outside schools. We will be asking WBC to implement the speed limit reductions they have already made public as soon as possible.
Speed Cameras
Despite some respondents suggesting that we were doing this as a money making exercise, all our proposals were put forward on the basis of encouraging improved driving through passive measures. However a recurring suggestion from respondents was that speed cameras would be preferable to chicanes.
Improving walking and cycling routes in the parish
Again without prompting, 23 respondents (5.3 per cent) made comments that there could be a reduction in vehicle journeys if there were improvements to main walking and cycling routes. For example improving road crossings in key locations; this might reduce the number of vehicles doing the school run by providing safe routes to school which is a Shinfield Parish policy. This was one of the reasons that we wished to push for reinstatement of the bus gate originally planned for Beke Avenue. Having a bus gate would reduce the total number of vehicles on this road and make crossing from Footpath 11 (and the new Lidl’s) much easier.
We will now expand our thinking to include key road crossing points within the parish starting with looking at our proposals for Beech Hill and the southern end of Hollow Lane
There were a number of comments along the lines of pavements are blocked by cars parking on them and other requests for improvements to cycle routes to make this an easier option for some people. These were not included in our initial proposals but we have always intended to listen to, and act on, feedback. We will also look to see what we can do in these areas.
Shinfield Parish Council and Wokingham Borough Council
Some respondents seemed unclear that the proposals were coming from Shinfield Parish Council (SPC) rather than Wokingham Borough Council (WBC). SPC can put forward proposals but they are only suggestions and need to be supported and approved by WBC as they have responsibility for highways in the borough.
There were many comments such as fix the potholes and we strongly suggest that those concerns are addressed directly to WBC via their website reporting tool. We intend to work with WBC in a proactive manner to seek the best outcome for our residents.
Waste of money
There were 15 comments that this was ‘a waste of money: either the consultation itself and/or proceeding with the proposals. We have not incurred any expenditure (other than on some stationery costs in preparing the consultation presentation). The plans have been developed internally and the independent traffic management consultant gave their time free of charge. We held the consultation to get feedback on what might work or not work. We know that money is tight for councils as it is for individuals, and it is important to get things right.
Shinfield Parish Council recognises that the historic infrastructure on local roads within the parish has not developed to keep pace with the new developments.
Communication with Residents
We promoted the consultation at our venues, on our website, and through our newsletter and social media. Some people felt that we should have done more to communicate that we were having the consultation. For example they felt that we should have conducted a mail out to residents or gone door to door to promote the consultation. We wanted to minimise expenditure and make sure that your precept is spent wisely. This will be a long and careful process.