Issue - meetings

Forward Plan Ref: 2019/130

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by Director for Community Operations (CMDE9).

This report considers responses to a consultation for a proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for two sections of the Icknield Way in order to deliver Route 1 of the Science Vale Cycling Network Project, presents arguments supporting and objecting to the proposed TRO along with background and supporting information and includes proposed amendments to the TRO based on submitted representations.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed prohibition of motor vehicles and horse drawn carriages from parts of the Icknield Way, with the single exception that subject to design constraints, technical approvals and project thresholds being satisfactorily met, permit light horse-drawn carriages that meet the stated weight and width limitations.

Approved

The Leader of the Council considered (CMDE9) a report setting out responses received to a consultation for a proposed Traffic Regulation Order for two sections of the Icknield Way in order to deliver Route 1 of the Science Vale Cycling network Project, presenting arguments supporting and objecting the proposed Order and a number of proposed amendments to the Order based on submitted representations.

Nicholas Berry a resident of Marlborough then made the following representations. Objecting to the proposed Order he referred to DfT Local Transport Note1/12 Section 3.3 which stated that “in general improved provision should only be made where there was (or would be) a demand for cycle trips and where existing conditions were unsuitable and not simply because an opportunity existed to do so”. He maintained that there was an existing scheme that was suitable and, therefore, no need to create a new opportunity. Regarding the proposed bridge at Ginge Brook the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges BD 29/17 stated that the total width for unsegregated pedestrian versus bicycles or equestrian use should be 3.5m and moreover the bridge should be aligned in such a way that all on-motorized users could see the entire length of the structure from the approaches and suitably sized equestrian waiting areas provided off the structure to allow users the option to cross when the deck was clear. The current design gave a clear width of just 2.5m which was well short of the mandated 3.5m.  Also the curved design of the bridge did not give clear vision across its deck. The report admitted that increasing the width to 3.5m was prohibitive in terms of cost and environmental damage bringing into question the need to build the bridge or impose a TRO. He then stated that an email sent by County Councillor Yvonne Constance to local parish councils on 17 July had, in his view, breached one of the 7 principles of public life that holders of public office should act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

Ilse Lambert likewise a resident of Marlborough but also representing the Trail Riders Fellowship then spoke against the proposal. Access to the countryside for all was integral to the TRF’s ethos of sharing along with respect and responsibility and so rather than imposing a complete mechanically propelled vehicle TRO on the 2 byways in question the TRF saw no need to include motorcycles in the Order.

A TRO needed to be based on facts and not on expectations and prejudices but, unfortunate!y, in this case many of the county council’s arguments in support of the Order seemed to be guided by assumptions such as user numbers would increase substantially, cyclists and other non-motorised users would be deterred from using the route and that there was a strong likelihood that motorcyclists would continue to use the whole route. These were prejudices that the TRF refute and would suggest instead that the situation be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68