To present to Cabinet the findings of the recent Queen Street, Dunraven Place and Market Street Access Study (April 2016), prepared by Capita Glamorgan, on behalf of the Council, and to seek approval for a wider public consultation, to inform the Equalities Impact Assessment.

The Corporate Director Communities reported on the finding of the recent Queen Street, Dunraven Place and Market Street Access Study which had been prepared by Capita Glamorgan, on behalf of the Council and sought approval for a wider public consultation to inform the Equalities Impact Assessment.

He reported that Bridgend town centre was pedestrianised in 2002 as part of a sustained programme of investment in physical regeneration measures to address issues related to safety and quality of the environment.  The pedestrianisation zone prohibited vehicle access between 10am – 6pm and restrictions that apply outside of these hours to vehicles loading only.  He stated that the lack of vehicular access to Queen Street, Dunraven Place and Market Street has been cited by the town centre traders, property agents and developers as a key issue that impacts on trade and lettings. Making changes to access arrangements in these streets will require an understanding of the equalities implications, risks, costs and physical constraints and an independent report has been commissioned to review methods and assess risks of increasing vehicular access, and in particular, to assess the impact of any changes on vulnerable road users.   

He reported on the scenarios which had been assessed in the Access Study and that if vehicles were re-introduced to the above-mentioned streets, physical changes would be required.  He stated that the study has considered 4 options, ranging from the most basic and least expensive, to the most complex and expensive, assessing the benefits and risks of each option.         

He reported that the consultants had found that the risk of collisions would naturally increase if vehicles are allowed back in the town centre and that vehicle speed did not appear to have been a major contributory factor to collisions, either before or after pedestrianisation.  He stated that pre and post-pedestrianisation collision data had strongly indicated that collisions will increase if the streets are reopened to vehicles and that the risk of collisions would also be higher as pedestrian and motorists adjust to the changes. 

The Corporate Director Communities reported on the assessment of the different options, in that option 1 involved limiting physical changes to signage and road markings, estimated to cost £250,000, which is the most cost effective and shortest to implement.  He stated that this option would have the greatest risk in terms of public safety and it was not recommended that this option on its own be implemented.  Option 2 involved installing a system of tactile paving to provide warning to the visually impaired; however in some areas, the footways are too narrow to accommodate the recommended width of tactile surface.  This was estimated to cost £350,000.  Option 3 proposed the use of bollards to demarcate the carriageway and footway, physically preventing motorists from mounting the footway, but without comprising pedestrian movement across the street.  This option would reduce footway widths requiring frequent maintenance.  He stated there would be a risk of visually impaired people walking into the bollards, or unintentionally walking between them into the carriageway.  This option was considered by the consultants to be the most balanced scheme in terms of rad safety, implementation cost, impact on existing infrastructure and protecting footways from vehicular damage.  Tactile footways in some areas could be considered as a supplementary measure to this option.  The estimated cost of option 3 was £552,000.  Option 4 provided a kerb upstand of at least 60mm, reverting the street to a standard form of segregation of vehicles and pedestrians.  This option would facilitate the installation of speed bumps to achieve low speeds and motorists would be less likely to park on footways.  He stated this option would create a trip hazard for the elderly and visually impaired and create a physical barrier for mobility impaired pedestrians.  This option would be the most costly, approximately £855,000 and disruptive to implement. 

The Corporate Director Communities reported that crossing points would be required for all options and that two puffin crossings are proposed and regardless of the scheme chosen, a speed limit of 20mph was advised and the one way system in Caroline and Wyndham Street would need to be reversed.  He outlined the key conclusions of reintroducing vehicles to the town centre in that there would be a risk of an increase in the number of collisions.  However, suspending the pedestrianisation of Queen Street, Dunraven Place and Market Street with the introduction of parking spaces would enable the town centre to become more accessible.  The Corporate Director Communities also reported that option 3 presented the most balanced scheme in terms of road safety, implementation cost and the impact on highway infrastructure, however there was a need for wider public consultation to reach a conclusion. 

The Corporate Director Communities also reported that in the event of a pedestrianisation order being pursued, external funding would have to be sought.  He stated that the Business Improvement District Steering Group have indicated that should a BID be established in the town centre, part of the bid levy would contribute to the costs.  Equalities Impact Assessment screening had identified the need to undertake a full consultation to enable the EIA to be completed.  He stated that upon completion of the consultation and engagement process a further report would be presented to Cabinet outlining the results of the consultation and recommendations of a way forward together with the findings of the full EIA.  He stated that the appropriate statutory procedure would need to be undertaken, which would involve a further consultation on the agreed option before implementation of the scheme.

The Cabinet Member Regeneration and Economic Development commented that he was pleased that the findings of the town centre access study had reached this point, which had already been the subject of a great deal of discussion culminating in the consultants’ report.  He stated that option 3 is the most attractive option offering a balanced solution.  He thanked the BID Steering Group for their support of the proposals.  The Cabinet Member Resources informed Cabinet that the proposals demonstrate the Council’s concerns for the town centre with the safety of pedestrians uppermost and the need for the town centre to be attractive to visitors.  The Deputy Leader in supporting the proposals stated there was a need to provide as much as detail as to the proposed costs as part of the consultation and give opportunities for as many citizens as can to be involved in the consultation.  The Leader commented on the importance of the proposals being explored as the Council did not have the funding to undertake the works. 

RESOLVED:           That Cabinet:

1. Considered the key findings of the Queen Street, Dunraven Place Market Street Access Study;

2. Noted the recommendations contained therein;

3. Authorised officers to undertake the necessary consultation outlined in the report;

4. Authorised officers to consider external funding options to meet the implementation costs, in the event that the consultation process indicates a positive response to the proposal to change the pedestrianisation order;

Receive a further report upon completion of the consultation exercise together with the findings of the full EIA and any potential external funding options.