'Council wasted £62k over new speed zone' (From This Is Wiltshire)

So the residents want a 20mph zone but do not want traffic calming measures!?!
What springs to mind is that residents want to stop other drivers using their beloved streets to go about their own business, but do not want to have to put up with traffic calming measures themselves
Have one's cake and eat it.........

Who is responsible for the ‘A new age of prosperity’ article? It is totally biased towards Labour and has no room to be published in the local paper. I will never buy this paper again and ask others to do the same, it has sunk to a new low. BLOODY DISCRACE EVENING ADVERTISER.

Let's face it, Goddard Avenue is a major thoroughfare from Old Town to Kingshill.


If they got rid of all the parked cars on Goddard Avenue then you could easily and safely drive up and down there at 30mph.

politicrat wrote:
So the residents want a 20mph zone but do not want traffic calming measures!?!
What springs to mind is that residents want to stop other drivers using their beloved streets to go about their own business, but do not want to have to put up with traffic calming measures themselves
Have one's cake and eat it.........

There were plans for traffic claiming features but they have not been done. That's why residents are fed up. Goddard Avenue has 6 street signs and a bit of paint on the ground, the original plans included improved crossing's and build out's. The SBC ignored the original agreed plan, ignored the residents wishes and ignored the police objectives for not including the traffic claiming features.

ItsPavAgain wrote:
Let's face it, Goddard Avenue is a major thoroughfare from Old Town to Kingshill.


If they got rid of all the parked cars on Goddard Avenue then you could easily and safely drive up and down there at 30mph.

One small point in your statement that's wrong. Goddard Ave has a 20 mph limit. It's also a residential road not a major thoroughfare.

Mr_Big wrote:
Who is responsible for the ‘A new age of prosperity’ article? It is totally biased towards Labour and has no room to be published in the local paper. I will never buy this paper again and ask others to do the same, it has sunk to a new low. BLOODY DISCRACE EVENING ADVERTISER.

It's the 'Big Society' in action with local residents making the decisions on what goes - isn't that what we all want?

guiville wrote:

Mr_Big wrote: Who is responsible for the ‘A new age of prosperity’ article? It is totally biased towards Labour and has no room to be published in the local paper. I will never buy this paper again and ask others to do the same, it has sunk to a new low. BLOODY DISCRACE EVENING ADVERTISER.

It's the 'Big Society' in action with local residents making the decisions on what goes - isn't that what we all want?

The point of having a 20mph is to reduce accidents, now I am just curious, how many pedestrians or cyclists were hit by moving vehicles on this road and please can you tell me if these vehicles were residents or from outside the area?
Big Society yes, but No to Bigots Society!

“so we can deliver the 20mph zone in the area which we all want to see. - Richard Freeman SBC

The key words here are 20mph zone, which doesn't exist, isn't enforced, has poor signage and will only last for 18 months. Cost = £62,000 !!!

It's not public money its S106 money, get your facts right Adver!

Additional funding of £120K was available, but the SBC couldn't be bothered to apply for it.

ItsPavAgain wrote:
Let's face it, Goddard Avenue is a major thoroughfare from Old Town to Kingshill.


If they got rid of all the parked cars on Goddard Avenue then you could easily and safely drive up and down there at 30mph.

Bath Road is the main route from Old Town to Kingshill (Goddard Av. is a rat-run). Goddard Av. itself only goes from Bath Rd to Westlecot Rd.
-
Once Wichelstowe is complete there will be a new route from Croft Road/Pipers Way to Rushey Platt and Junction 16 - relieving some of the presure on Bath Road. I think Mill Ln will be closed as well (I could be wrong though). Even further reducing the need to use it as a rat-run.

politicrat wrote:

guiville wrote:

Mr_Big wrote: Who is responsible for the ‘A new age of prosperity’ article? It is totally biased towards Labour and has no room to be published in the local paper. I will never buy this paper again and ask others to do the same, it has sunk to a new low. BLOODY DISCRACE EVENING ADVERTISER.

It's the 'Big Society' in action with local residents making the decisions on what goes - isn't that what we all want?

The point of having a 20mph is to reduce accidents, now I am just curious, how many pedestrians or cyclists were hit by moving vehicles on this road and please can you tell me if these vehicles were residents or from outside the area?
Big Society yes, but No to Bigots Society!

The Okus and Old Town traffic study SBC has all the details, do a FOI and have a read.

Reducing the speed limit to 20mph is unjustified and irrelevant. This is another case of residents thinking they 'own' the highway outside their door.

reality_check wrote:
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph is unjustified and irrelevant. This is another case of residents thinking they 'own' the highway outside their door.

It's not residents it's the SBC's idea. They are aware of speeding traffic in Old Town.

Back in March 2003 the SDA developments conducted a study and here is just some of there findings:

'Traffic congestion on Croft Road and in the Old Town area is already a problem and forecasts suggest that this will worsen over coming years. Traffic assessment work has demonstrated that the SDA will exacerbate this situation and steps will need to be taken to manage the level of traffic in this area. The Old Town Southern Relief Road will relieve congestion throughout the day. Even with this relief, traffic on Croft Road and in Old Town is forecast to increase in the peak hours. On Croft Road approximately a third of vehicles are estimated to be generated by the SDA.'

That was way back in 2003, since then the old PMH has also had development that also compounds the traffic issues.

I'm not sure what SDA is, but I assume the "relief" road is the same as what Al Smith is talking about.

The sooner that road gets joined up, the better.

guiville, why would S106 money be available for this. S106 is usually used where Councils require infrastructure contributions in relation to planning applications, such as the EDA.

Given this was an LA traffic measure, and the 'contractors' would have been 'employed' by SBC.

For ease of people understanding S106 this is a simple map of the process albeit it Bracknell Council.

http://tinyurl.com/3
ydkv5n

Both the labour and current tory council have failed Swindon residents for years.Time for a change.Vote lib dem!

guiville wrote:

reality_check wrote: Reducing the speed limit to 20mph is unjustified and irrelevant. This is another case of residents thinking they 'own' the highway outside their door.

It's not residents it's the SBC's idea. They are aware of speeding traffic in Old Town.

1-speeding in Old town?! with all the congestion, traffic lights, roundabouts and potholes, I dare you to try speeding.
2-Lets face it, Old town residents and especially those living in affluent streets: Goddard Avenue, Avenue Road, Quarry Road want to reduce the traffic in these streets for no other reasons than their own little comfort.
3-If we were being consistent we would put the whole of Old town on 20mph and have wide ranging traffic calming measures, like speed bumps and curb extensions, chicanes.
=The reasons for a 20mph is to improve safety and improve environement for residents (air, noise), I personally very doubt that these streets carry such a large traffic as to justify the cost these measures.

Bobfm wrote:
guiville, why would S106 money be available for this. S106 is usually used where Councils require infrastructure contributions in relation to planning applications, such as the EDA.

Given this was an LA traffic measure, and the 'contractors' would have been 'employed' by SBC.

Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement.

These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.

Keyword here is 'highways'.

I know what S106 is, but unless I am mistaken the areas subject to the speed provisions are not recently built dwellings.

S106 is specifically for future development provision, not long term , I am not saying you are wrong in that SBC have used such money, I just don't know how it fits within the provision.

guiville wrote:

Bobfm wrote: guiville, why would S106 money be available for this. S106 is usually used where Councils require infrastructure contributions in relation to planning applications, such as the EDA. Given this was an LA traffic measure, and the 'contractors' would have been 'employed' by SBC.

Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement. These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing. Keyword here is 'highways'.

If you are serious about having a 20mph in these streets please bear in mind the regulatory framework which clearly states that "no point in the road can be more than 50m from a traffic calming feature "
I hope that you residents are aware of this rule?
If you are happy to have chicanes, speed bumps, bollards etc every 50m then you have my support
This will mean narrowing traffic lanes and in places of engineering measures reduced or not parking.
If you are happy with this you have my vote of support

politicrat wrote:

guiville wrote:

Bobfm wrote: guiville, why would S106 money be available for this. S106 is usually used where Councils require infrastructure contributions in relation to planning applications, such as the EDA. Given this was an LA traffic measure, and the 'contractors' would have been 'employed' by SBC.

Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement. These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing. Keyword here is 'highways'.

If you are serious about having a 20mph in these streets please bear in mind the regulatory framework which clearly states that "no point in the road can be more than 50m from a traffic calming feature "
I hope that you residents are aware of this rule?
If you are happy to have chicanes, speed bumps, bollards etc every 50m then you have my support
This will mean narrowing traffic lanes and in places of engineering measures reduced or not parking.
If you are happy with this you have my vote of support

You'd best read the DFT guidelines. They all changed in since Dec 2009.

guiville wrote:

politicrat wrote:

guiville wrote:

Bobfm wrote: guiville, why would S106 money be available for this. S106 is usually used where Councils require infrastructure contributions in relation to planning applications, such as the EDA. Given this was an LA traffic measure, and the 'contractors' would have been 'employed' by SBC.

Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement. These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing. Keyword here is 'highways'.

If you are serious about having a 20mph in these streets please bear in mind the regulatory framework which clearly states that "no point in the road can be more than 50m from a traffic calming feature " I hope that you residents are aware of this rule? If you are happy to have chicanes, speed bumps, bollards etc every 50m then you have my support This will mean narrowing traffic lanes and in places of engineering measures reduced or not parking. If you are happy with this you have my vote of support

You'd best read the DFT guidelines. They all changed in since Dec 2009.

I have already said that if you are being consistent and impose a blanket 20mph for all residential streets in Old Town, I would support it.
But It is simply unfair to get few very affluents streets to get to 20mph, all children and residents deserve the same protection and it is not the preserve of the ones with big houses and money.
Fairness and consistency for all

@ politicrat: I'm not entirely sure where your blatant jealousy comes from, but if you could leave aside your petty class war type angst for a moment you would realise that certain residential roads would benefit from a 20mph speed limit whilst others would not.
.
For example, in my road in Old Town there is no point in making it a 20mph zone as virtually no cars ever get much past about 25mph.
.
Still, if you want your road to be reduced to a 20mph speed limit, why not actually do something about it rather than whinging on about Old Town all the time.

Mr Blackwell wrote:
@ politicrat: I'm not entirely sure where your blatant jealousy comes from, but if you could leave aside your petty class war type angst for a moment you would realise that certain residential roads would benefit from a 20mph speed limit whilst others would not. . For example, in my road in Old Town there is no point in making it a 20mph zone as virtually no cars ever get much past about 25mph. . Still, if you want your road to be reduced to a 20mph speed limit, why not actually do something about it rather than whinging on about Old Town all the time.

This isn't a class war, it is about fairness!
Why should children in adjacent streets run more risks walking to school than the privileged few living on Goddard or Quarry Road?
I dont care if my street is 20mph or not but it makes me angry to see the selfishness of a few when it should be about the safety of children, pedestrians, cyclists.
All residential streets in Old Town should be 20mph, it is consistent (no rish of confusion) and fair for the drivers and pedestrians.

GGoddard avenue and Quarry road are rat runs.
Policrat your posts are more tedious and insular by the day.You are not the oracle you know?

Why is it that SBC shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity? I really would like to hear something positive about SBC. I am really fed up with having to make posts that moan and criticise the council, so on this occaision I will desist. So come on SBC do something that we can all admire and support.

'Fairness' does not necessarily involve making *every* residential street a 20mph zone simply because *some* are.
.
This really doesn't have anything to do with a 'priviledged few' at all - that's really all just in your head.

We should never be surprised at the incompetence of this council.

Certain words like "common sense" " Fairness " " proper consultation " and " competence " don't figure in SBC vocabulary and even less in understanding them .

bob - the section 106 money comes from the building works on the old hospital site.
.
It is perfectly reasonable, and completely correct to use this money in the local area (to the building site) in order to try and improve things for the local community.
.
My big question on the 106 money (purely from the old PMH site) is - where on earth is the rest of it ?!?
.
There was supposed to be around £600,000 as far as I remember - this has certainly NOT been spent locally in the Old Town area improving facilities....
.
With regards to the oracle Politicrat, it seems he just wants to argue for the sake of it
.
This is a typical response from a bitter fella...."It's not fair that Old Town get 20mph zones - we don't have them"
.
Well - a piece of advice......
.
Get off your backside and do something about it !
.
The ONLY reason this is happening is because the residents got together, formed a group that lobbyed the council and got things done !
.
Just the same as when the SBC were trying to sell the land which Commonweal school is on to developers, and build a school on the front garden, closing Commonweal and making a fortune from the land sale - residents came together, formed action groups and stopped it happening !
.
Whinging on the adver website won't get anything done - you are quick to criticise everyone else - go and do something about things yourself if you don't like it !!!

OT, thanks for the explanation, having been on the South Marston Planning Committee for a short while I was aware of S106 which is planning a major part of negotiations in the South Marston Plan. I wrongly assumed it seems that monies do not necessarily have to be spent on pre defined infrastructure.

As for the 20MPH limit it has actually been a HMG/DFT directive since last April I believe for all residential areas. So I guess in that respect this piece meal roll out, based on 'he who shouts the loudest' does appear a little unfair.

I do recall the ludicrous conclusion when South Marston wanted 20MPH, the study decided as the average speed through the village was 24 MPH, 30MPH was more appropriate. I think there were huge cries of Drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Ahhhhh - but apparently unless the average speed is over 33mph in a 30 zone (this is all now from memory !!!) then you will not see a reduction....
.
24mph in a 30mph zone is perfectly acceptable (apparently!!) - no need to reduce...
.
You figure that one out :-)
.
I am not sure it is unfair - it seems that the money was there (from section 106) and residents shouted very loud for a long time....
.
Maybe other areas need to come together and do the same - actually it's one thing I love about Old Town that people like politicrat will never see - community !!!
.

The rock says this. Remember a few years ago when the residents of Mill lane wanted it closed , as there was 1 accident for every 125.000 cars using that route. Thank goodness the council did'nt close it, in what after all is a public road. You cant get a public road closed just because you don't want traffic passing your house.
It's like Goddard Avenue, It's no different now to when i used to live there many years ago. Traffic was moving steadily then just as it was before the 20mph experiment started. And have you been down the 'Avenue', and if you have you will have noticed all the cars double parked, making it very dangerous for
vehicles to negotiate, let alone any children that might suddenly dash out from behind one of them. Just out of interest , what were the total number of accidents recorded there over any given period. I have to agree with some posts that GA residents want to have their cake and eat it too. I think one of the main problems with living in the area is that being large houses they attract larger familly's, which in turn means more cars in the area. How are the speed limits and pavement parking enforced, by Mr plod or a warden, but you don't see one, so what's the point anyway. It's a bit like the bottom of Victoria Road in the evenings, cars parked all over the place,why? because the know that they won't be booked.

Old Town wrote:
bob - the section 106 money comes from the building works on the old hospital site. . It is perfectly reasonable, and completely correct to use this money in the local area (to the building site) in order to try and improve things for the local community. . My big question on the 106 money (purely from the old PMH site) is - where on earth is the rest of it ?!? . There was supposed to be around £600,000 as far as I remember - this has certainly NOT been spent locally in the Old Town area improving facilities.... . With regards to the oracle Politicrat, it seems he just wants to argue for the sake of it . This is a typical response from a bitter fella...."It's not fair that Old Town get 20mph zones - we don't have them" . Well - a piece of advice...... . Get off your backside and do something about it ! . The ONLY reason this is happening is because the residents got together, formed a group that lobbyed the council and got things done ! . Just the same as when the SBC were trying to sell the land which Commonweal school is on to developers, and build a school on the front garden, closing Commonweal and making a fortune from the land sale - residents came together, formed action groups and stopped it happening ! . Whinging on the adver website won't get anything done - you are quick to criticise everyone else - go and do something about things yourself if you don't like it !!!

You do not understand, try to stop scoring points, listen!
Having a consistent 20mph in all residential streets in Old town is common sense, consistent and fair.
I really do not understand your objections, Goddard Av or Quarry Rd might be rat runs but thats isn't the reason why you should petition for a 20mph. Stop being so selfish, having a 20mph is for the safety of all!!! pedestrians, cyclists and motorists not only for the comfort of privileged residents in big expensive houses.
Children, pedestrians, cyclists in North st, south st etc have the same rights and deserve the same protection.
I am sorry to have to tell you but Quarry Road and Goddard avenue aren't the only residential streets in Old Town!
You guys want a big house near a good school but you dont want it to be a rat run street, hello?!? who uses that school? yourselves the nearby residents!!! you all are so selfish in using community based arguments to serve your own personal little agenda, using the safety of children to secure your precious comfort is frankly disguting

You really ARE an idiot !
.
You show me ONCE where I use the safety of children in this debate ? Just once will do...
.
I mention PEDESTRIANS - not children.
.
So get off your soapbox and grow up !
.
I want all Old Town residential to be 20mph - I am glad you agree with me on that !
.
I will use as MANY community based arguments as I like thanks ! The system is set up this way and therefore this is how to use the system.
.
I would not dispute the system might need changing - but I cannot do that so I will keep using the system in the best way possible !
.
There you go - nows your chance.....Get off your backside, get in amongst it and get the system changed....
.
No, thought not.....

Mr Blackwell - "For example, in my road in Old Town there is no point in making it a 20mph zone as virtually no cars ever get much past about 25mph."
.
See what I mean.. 'my road'. It's not your road, its a public road.

Wise Old Town

Personally i think the stories that appeared here not so long back on this issue reflected there is very little community spirit in old town and that its folk hardly know their area. I mean Lethbridge Rd was described as a rat run? A cul-de sac that only leads to the school!! Then the famous accident where a speeding car hit the door of a car whilst the mother loaded her kid into the back seat= roadside--not kerbside. Then the lady who calmly said her kids cant play in the road--or on the pavements. No mention by either that despite there being 2 schools by their famous Goddard Ave there are no pedestrian crossings anywhere to link any of the roads--so surprising there has not been hundreds of deaths there. There are plenty of garages to the rear of the properties but rarely used by residents. There is also a path at the rear of Goddard Ave into town gardens thus i wonder why madam is so keen for her kids to play in the street? Ah yes--traffic calming--take a look at Gorse Hill and the monstrosity called speed tables that have claimed many more minor accidents than before despite bringing traffic to a standstill with its stupid protrusions. Many more examples--and many removed. Of course we have a Council that wastes funding and is not tackling safety issues like repairing the potholes and crazy calming schemes that create dangers.

itsamess, glad you recall the bit about children playing in the road. It seems I didn't imagine it.

Old Town wrote:
You really ARE an idiot ! . You show me ONCE where I use the safety of children in this debate ? Just once will do... . I mention PEDESTRIANS - not children. . So get off your soapbox and grow up ! . I want all Old Town residential to be 20mph - I am glad you agree with me on that ! . I will use as MANY community based arguments as I like thanks ! The system is set up this way and therefore this is how to use the system. . I would not dispute the system might need changing - but I cannot do that so I will keep using the system in the best way possible ! . There you go - nows your chance.....Get off your backside, get in amongst it and get the system changed.... . No, thought not.....

You are suing chidlren safety all the time in your argumentation with Bobfm, don't you read what you write?!?
many on here know exactly what sort of people live in these streets and we all know what is on the back of your minds.
It has nothing to do with safety but everything to do with "owning" the street you live in.
Taking this idea litterally, if residents want to buy it and maintain it themselves, I would be more than happy to see your council tax reflect the cost of maintaining the streets you so dearly care about LOL
62K/100 families= 600/year minimum extra for you to pay, I can already see you guys choking looking at the council tax bill, but dont worry so far it is the whole of swindon that has paid this for you!!!!
Ungrateful people that you are

Speed bumps etc. do not slow the dangerous drivers down so police the area properly and fine them.
Is this yet another example of wastage of public money?
You know what to do on May 6th!!

reality_check wrote:
Mr Blackwell - "For example, in my road in Old Town there is no point in making it a 20mph zone as virtually no cars ever get much past about 25mph." . See what I mean.. 'my road'. It's not your road, its a public road.

'My' road, as in the road I live in. I'm well aware that I don't own it. It's a commonly used figure of speech - but, then, you already knew that.
.
It's the same as when people refer to 'their' town - they're not claiming to own the entire place.

politicrat I really do sometimes struggle to understand your posts. Why would my comments in anyway suggest 'owning' a street I merely pint out it is Government/DFT policy for all residential areas to have 20mph speed limits.

Grimwald wrote:
Speed bumps etc. do not slow the dangerous drivers down so police the area properly and fine them. Is this yet another example of wastage of public money? You know what to do on May 6th!!

after 65 years of Tory / Labour and the results we know, I certainly hope people will know what to do about it!

Politicrat,
"Goddard Av or Quarry Rd might be rat runs but thats isn't the reason why you should petition for a 20mph.
"
Well, it IS a reason