Thursday, 14 June 2012

Traffic and parking changes in Launceston get the go ahead after public consultation

After a very good response to the recent public consultation, my fellow councillor Adam Paynter and I met with officers yesterday to decide the next steps on the proposed traffic and highways changes in Launceston.

There were more than a dozen individual changes proposed - from the installation of a disabled bay in Cross Lanes to new residents parking schemes in Race Hill, Kensey Hill and Western Road.

Yesterday we reviewed the responses and the individual comments that had been made. As a result, we made some significant changes to some of the proposals, but, on the advice of officers, have decided to move all of them forward either in their original form or as modified.

You can review the detailed proposals on the Cornwall Council website, but in brief:

- the two parking spaces on St Thomas Road outside the old Newport Post Office will be formally removed
- the residents parking scheme in Race Hill will go ahead but with the entitlement to buy permits extended to areas missed out of the original proposal
- the residents parking scheme and yellow lines at Kensey Hill will go ahead but with the scheme area extended to enable more cars to park there. We will look at whether there is enough scope to extend the entitlement to buy permits
- the 30mph limit at Boyton will go ahead
- a disabled parking bay will be created outside 12 Cross Lanes
- no left turn will be permitted from Kit Hill View (part of the new Wain Homes development) into Hurdon Way
- new yellow lines will be installed outside St Catherine's School in Moorland Road to enable the town bus to get through and we will carefully monitor the impact to see whether an extension is needed in the future
- yellow lines will be introduced at the junction of Windmill Hill and Penworth Close but the scheme will be modified from the original proposal so that the lines do not extend as far
- the motorcycle parking bay will be moved to Southgate Street, next to the arch. The original bays were little used due to being on a slope and this led to motorcycles parking (legally) in bays across town. We believe that the new location will be attractive to motorcyclists while retaining enough space for loading.
- new lines will protect the safety of the junction of St Cuthbert Close and St Stephen's Hill
- a disabled parking bay will be created outside 30 St Joseph's Road
- a limited waiting bay will be created on St Stephen's Hill outside the barber shop
- the residents parking scheme in Western Road will go ahead but with the entitlement to buy permits extended to a property that had been missed off the original scheme
- The yellow lines at the North Western (Southgate arch) end of Madford Lane will be strengthened to prohibit all stopping so as to improve safety in the area. The original proposals for a loading bay outside the bridal shop at number 6 and for a disabled only bay outside the Dental Surgery will not go ahead and these areas will stay as they are at present
- a disabled bay will be created outside 12 Poltamar on Tavistock Road
- the yellow lines in Fair Park Close will become enforceable

The timetable for these changes is still to be decided, but we hope to have the majority in place by the end of the summer or beginning of the autumn. Once in place, we'll keep all of the changes under review. Our aim throughout this has to make our town safer and I hope these changes will achieve that.

1 comment:

Lanson Chamber said...

Overall a good result Alex, and thank you for listening on the Madford lane proposals.

Not sure if you can include the provision of residents parking schemes in the claim that this project was safety driven (your last paragraph) but then you know my views on the residents parking issue.

Cornwall Council have an easy option available to them to provide residents parking for those living in the town centre - much easier & cheaper in fact than marking and signing at roadside.
These people have been driven out of their 'street' parking by being asked to pay £470 a year for what is in effect their 'residents permit'.

I think there might be some disquiet when residents of the flats surrounding Tower Street (for example) find that people living on the very edge of the town have been provided with a scheme which will entitle them to a residents permit for just £25 a year.

But well done on the rest of it.

Paul Loft