ELC’s transport team recommends alternate footpath again

After the recent public consultation held in Trevelyan Hall, ELC’s Transport department has returned a recommendation to Cabinet that the plan proceed with one change – no additional car parking spaces will be added to the school.

After the recent public consultation held in Trevelyan Hall, ELC’s Transport department has returned a recommendation to Cabinet that the plan proceed with one change – no additional car parking spaces will be added to the school.

Following a recent public consultation ELC's Transport department is recommending the footpath plan proceed minus the additional (in pink) car parking spaces at the school.
Following a recent public consultation ELC’s Transport department is recommending the footpath plan proceed minus the additional (in pink) car parking spaces at the school.
The proposals included the addition of car parking spaces in the school grounds. A number of Glebe residents, who live around the school’s entrance, were supportive of the parallel footpath but stated they felt they had to object to those current proposals as they did not wish to see further car parking spaces added to the school as part of pedestrian safety improvements.

The original intent was that these further spaces would provide additional car parking in the heart of the village which, courtesy of a new disabled access footpath between the Church, Carriage House and school, would mean that cars could utilise these facilities on evenings and weekends where required. The view was that this would alleviate parking issues on both the main road outside the church and remove the need for cars to potentially park in the Glebe.

Now, with Transport recommending the footpath proceed without the additional parking facilities for the community, it is hoped that Glebe residents’ concerns will be addressed.

The public consultation consisted of an event held in the Trevelyan Hall plus both a paper and online survey. After removing any duplicate responses the results of that process were as follows:

From the public consultation comment book:

  • 44 For the parallel footpath
  • 24 Against the parallel footpath
  • 12 Not stating a position

The online element was more emphatic:

  • 61 For the parallel footpath

There was also a door to door survey:

  • 31 for the parallel footpath Plan

In addition the Community Council received one email for the footpath plan to be completed and one against.

In summary, this meant that there were 137 in total for the parallel footpath, 25 against and 12 where a view on the footpath being completed wasn’t expressed.

Next Steps

The parallel footpath proposals are already widely supported by a number of community groups, many of whom contributed to these proposals after plans to move the lights and widen the main road pavement were rejected by the ELC.

Now that ELC’s Transport department has submitted its recommendation to cabinet, it will be debated on the 11th of December. If the recommendations of ELC’s Transport department are accepted by Cabinet it will then go before a future Planning Committee meeting for a final decision.

Update 8 March 2013

Interested parties received a letter today informing them of the Planning Committee’s decision to go ahead with the revised plan for a parallel footpath through the middle of the village, thus avoiding the narrow pavement. However, it remains unclear as to when this work will actually be completed and the alternate path usable by members of the community.


Author: pencaitland

Pencaitland Community Council exists to represent the views of local residents about local issues that matter to them. This involves close liaison with other groups in the community and helps to develop a more coherent and dynamic village environment.

5 thoughts on “ELC’s transport team recommends alternate footpath again”

  1. Ian

    I respect your view. I just want to understand it.

    How will you benefit from not having more off pavement parking in school grounds to discourage people from just leaving their cars in your street instead? It just seems deeply counterintuitive?

    Best

    Ralph

  2. Dear Ralph,
    I find it difficult that you don’t understand why the overwhelming majority of residents of the Glebe did not want a community car park open all hours , evenings and weekends when we are already very tolerant of weekday school parking. You as Chairman of our Community Council should try to understand the views of some of the people you represent. Perhaps we should be looking at a solution to the problems of traffic chaos during school hours
    Yours, Ian

  3. Very glad to hear there is a chance something is going to happen. I hope that someone at ELC doesn’t decide there has been insufficient consultation, because I’m not sure what else one could do?

    I share Ralph’s puzzlement about the ‘off-Glebe’ parking (perhaps that’s what they should have called it!) not going through. I think some people who live there felt they’d be constantly watching cars going past their windows. Even though that seemed unlikely (or only an occasional issue) they were very much within their rights to be concerned, since none of us have a crystal ball. No doubt people driving past can get annoying.

  4. Speaking personally I can’t help but feel that this slightly revised plan, minus extra car parking in the school, is ultimately going to be to the disadvantage of the residents living in the Glebe. I just can’t get how the addition of 11 extra off-street parking spaces in a cul-de-sac, that would take cars off the roadside kerb, was so resoundingly felt to be an unwelcome improvement?

    Sadly, I fear that with fewer spaces available inside school grounds outside of school hours, if anything it increases the chances of people parking on the Glebe roadsides at busy times in the church, school or carriage house.

    If there was a rationale that I’m missing then I’d really like it explained to me? Otherwise I’m left with the nagging feeling that Glebe residents are going to come to regret this as a missed opportunity they really ought to have grabbed when it was offered to them. 🙁

    Of course, it’s everyone’s prerogative to object for any reason whatsoever, but in light of the other much needed improvements this new path will provide, I just cannot see the logic…

    Cheers

    Ralph

Comments are closed.