Question
On 28th September 2018, WBC received a joint letter from the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government and the Department for Transport, written in response to the Department for Transport's publication of the Inclusive Transport Strategy. This publication asks local authorities to pause the development of shared space schemes whilst it updates its guidance to ensure that road schemes like this meet the statutory requirements under the Equalities Act 2010. The Department for Transport did this due to long standing concerns raised by vulnerable road users, and is the consequence of the recommendations of a Parliamentary Select Committee published on 25th April 2017 that recommended a halt to shared space schemes that remove kerbs and signal-controlled crossings as well as a review by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation Review of Shared Spaces published in April 2018.
With this in mind, I have concerns about the redevelopment of California Cross given that the design that went to public consultation at the end of last year has several shared space characteristics. To add to these concerns, the parking bays of the design are at an angle to the carriageway which is a major route, and means that vehicles leaving the parking bays would need to reverse onto the carriageway. At the 'Community and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee,' earlier this year, where the new marketplace was under review, one of the senior highways engineers stated that parking bays like this were too dangerous to implement where a vehicle reverses at an angle onto a busy carriageway. As the California Cross parking bay proposals appear to be similar, and given the request from the government to pause the development of shared space schemes, what is happening with regard to your plans for California Cross?
Minutes:
On 28th
September 2018, WBC received a joint letter from the Ministry
of Housing, Communities & Local Government and the Department
for Transport, written in response to the Department for
Transport's publication of the Inclusive Transport
Strategy. This publication asks
local authorities to pause the development of shared space schemes
whilst it updates its guidance to ensure that road schemes like
this meet the statutory requirements under the Equalities Act
2010. The Department for Transport did this due to long
standing concerns raised by vulnerable road users, and is the
consequence of the recommendations of a Parliamentary Select
Committee published on 25th April 2017 that recommended a halt to
shared space schemes that remove kerbs and signal-controlled
crossings as well as a review by the Chartered Institute of
Highways and Transportation Review of Shared
Spaces published in April 2018.
With this in mind, I have concerns about the redevelopment of California Cross given that the design that went to public consultation at the end of last year has several shared space characteristics. To add to these concerns, the parking bays of the design are at an angle to the carriageway which is a major route, and means that vehicles leaving the parking bays would need to reverse onto the carriageway. At the Community and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, earlier this year, where the new marketplace was under review, one of the senior highways engineers stated that parking bays like this were too dangerous to implement where a vehicle reverses at an angle onto a busy carriageway. As the California Cross parking bay proposals appear to be similar, and given the request from the government to pause the development of shared space schemes, what is happening with regard to your plans for California Cross?
Answer
The California Cross proposals were progressed, as you said, and broadly approved as part of a planning permission obtained by the developers associated with the Arborfield SDL development. A decision was made by Council Members to take the scheme inhouse and widen its scope rather than let the developers deliver the scheme included within its application.
The Council is fully aware of the publications from the DfT with regard to shared space schemes. However as the DfT publications came at a point after the project had reached an advanced stage of design, and given that the scheme is not a fully shared space scheme, for example there are kerb upstands, which I now know is the way the kerb sticks up, a decision to progress with the project up to a concept design stage was made including public consultation on the proposals The progression to this stage allows us to gather valuable site data that can be used for whichever scheme design is progressed, to comply with the planning consent requirements, and to take on board consultation results. In addition, there is further time to consider the scheme, due to recently identified utilities works within the vicinity of California Cross, which has resulted in a construction embargo in this area until July 2020. Should further advice be provided by the DFT during this time, this will, where appropriate be incorporated into the scheme.
WBC have followed the principles of the Equality Assessment guidance and during the consultation period including additional consultation with vulnerable groups and disabled users. The findings from these have been fed into the concept design and discussed in the public consultation.
With regards to the parking arrangements we are considering amending the design from the current proposal to stop vehicles using the parking bays reversing onto the main carriageway. We still have work to do on this to check the flows and turning circles which we will do when the project reaches the detailed design stage. You are not alone with this. I have also had feedback from Councillor Weeks whose ward this is in, saying very similar things to what you have said.
Supplementary Question:
Really pleased to hear that this has been taken on board. Just finally, obviously the local authority’s statutory requirement is to ensure that we evidence that equalities have been taken into consideration. The best way of doing this is an Equality Impact Assessment. Is there going to be one of these out there or is there another way of evidencing this? Is it going to be an Equalities Impact Assessment?
Supplementary Answer:
I can assure you that whichever way we do this scheme it is in full compliance with all the guidelines around Equality, and if you want to talk about it a bit further, I would be happy to talk to you.