20 is Plenty??

Eastleigh’s Liberal Democrat council has passed a motion to impose a permanent 20 mph speed limit “in priority roads around our schools,” and wonders why it hasn’t been rubber-stamped by Conservative-run Hampshire County Council.

The reason is that there are very stiff criteria for imposing 20 mph zones.  They need to be self-enforcing, thus requiring minimal police attention, so traffic calming measures have to be applied.  And these will normally consist of speed humps and pinch points, as speed limit repeater signs aren’t used within a zone.

For this reason, they aren’t usually suitable for main roads with high traffic volumes or strategic routes.  Vehicles travelling at 20 mph can significantly increase vehicle emissions and add to traffic congestion. 

The HCC website says that under current legislation any speed limit has to apply at all times, so it’s “usually unsuitable beyond the school arrival or departure times, when traffic is not delayed by the school activities, therefore not forced to slow down.”   Due to congestion around most school gates, however, it is very unusual for traffic to be able to do much more than 20mph, so any measures to reduce the speed limit would be completely redundant.

But the Conservatives have a better way.  In respect of schools situated on main roads, a 20 mph speed limit could be imposed when school patrol warning lights are flashing, thus avoiding the need for costly and disruptive traffic calming measures. 

However, neither council can impose the limit demanded by the Borough councillors, so it would require national legislation and it would only apply to schools where a demonstrable need could be shown.

20 mph zones with the requisite traffic calming would cost between £7,000 and £12,500 each, whereas flashing amber warning lights and signs would cost a mere £2,700.  A school crossing patrol zone would cost about an additional £1,800 per annum for salary and £260 for uniform and sign.

But there is yet another cheaper and more effective solution.  Hampshire County Council already has three portable flashing speed limit signs, which are placed for a limited time outside places like schools.  These are much more effective than permanent signs, which tend to be ignored, as they are unexpected, and cost £3,000. 

So our LibDem councillors once again haven't thought the policy through but fortunately we have a Conservative County Council.

Lib Dems at it again

Conservative County Councillor Colin Davidovitz has put out the following announcement following the shameful accusations in the LibDem Voice newspaper:

Lib Dems are at it again. First they tried to scare the life out of young Mums by telling them that their valued Children Centres were closing down, when every one of the 81 centres across the County is open for business and delivering even more services for young parents and their children.

Now with the County Council elections looming, they are trying to scare people  again into worrying about there not being enough  places for their children in the Borough’s Schools  - when the facts are that Hampshire’s Conservatives are well ahead of the game and have  been planning to meet the increased demand for school places in Eastleigh that will be caused if the additional 9,700  extra houses Eastleigh Lib Dems plan to build over the next few years go ahead and attract more people and traffic from afar into our overcrowded Borough.

Even now, under their direction, County Council officers are increasing the capacity of the schools in the Borough to ensure that no child in Eastleigh will ever be without a place in our award winning schools which are acknowledged to be amongst the finest in the Country.

Perhaps when the  County Council elections are over next year and the truth is there for all to see, we will be treated to the  Eastleigh Lib Dem Leader  singing his apology on the Telly!

Don't Believe Everything the LibDems tell you!

In response to Liberal Democrat accusations, it is necessary to put the record straight.

Schools

Councillor Roy Perry says "Every child in Hampshire was offered a school place at the beginning of this term - well over 95% in a school of one of their 3 choices and almost 90% in their first preference.

 "There is no crisis, no shambles but there is a marked increase in the birth rate, and people moving into the area which is certainly increasing the pressure on school places.  Measures are in hand to increase school building over the next fifteen years so that there will continue to be no shortfall."

Police

Hampshire Police Authority state that there will be no reduction in front-line police officers.  Savings will be made by cutting bureaucracy.

Libraries

Regarding libraries, out of the 54 in the county, there will be no change in 17 of them and only an average reduction of 2.5 hours in the rest.  Two libraries will be run by the community because of a drastic decline in their usage over the last 5 years, North Baddesley by 33% and Stanmore by 50%.  The latter is used by only 3% of the population.

Buses

Bus services have been hit due to a 33% cut in the subsidy from central government, but council chiefs say they have made journeys to work, the shops and hospitals a priority. Council bosses have promised that no village or housing estate with a current bus service will be left without a public transport link.”
Despite LibDem claims to the contrary bus passes for the over sixties will NOT be affected.

Child Centres

4Children vision:

“for every child, in every community, to have the opportunities to realise their  potential – to learn, develop and be with friends – and for every parent to access the support they need to build a better future for their family”

This is what Hampshire County Council says:

We want to make sure that the funding cuts have as little effect as possible on the work children’s centres do with families, particularly those who need the services the most. The changes we are thinking of making would keep centres open and available for families everywhere to use.

To achieve this, we are proposing an approach that would:

·               Keep children’s centres open and accessible across the whole of Hampshire.

·               Take half of the savings out of the County Council’s central costs of running the children’s centre service.

·               As far as possible, protect staff who deliver children’s centre services directly to families - so that people who use the centres are affected as little as possible.

·               Keep enough managers across the centres to understand the needs of local families and to organise and supervise activities.

·               Reduce the costs of running the centres, for example allocating less money for travel and equipment. 

This is what Councillor Roy Perry said:

Commenting on the range of bids Councillor Roy Perry, Hampshire County Council's Deputy Leader and Executive Lead Member for Children's Services, said:

"I am delighted at the levels of response to the tendering process. We have had 17 bids involving at least 32 organisations with all clusters attracting more than one bidder.

"We have had significant interest from a range of local and national voluntary organisations and schools following the invitation to tender for the management contracts of up to 15 clusters of children centres. The centres will continue to deliver services through over 81 local centres and a variety of community-based venues."

In May the County Council approved the transfer of all its Children's Centres to third party management in a bid to secure the long-term future of Children's Centre services across the county and achieve savings in the wake of cuts in Government funding.

So don't believe the scaremongers!  The children's centres are safe.

A Better Town Centre??

That remains to be seen.  Fortunately, Sainsbury's have withdrawn their plans for extending their store so at least the Rec and market are safe. 

But are the LibDems still intending to go ahead with their disastrous plans to move the civic offices into the town centre?  To this, with virtually no parking space and thus inaccessible not only to staff but also to those who need to visit the council offices

 From here

at a cost of £12 million.  They say they'll recover £4 million by the redevelopment of the existing site.

Now that Sainsbury's have decided not to go ahead with their development, there is going to be a serious shortfall in parking for the proposed new council offices.

Protest in the park with us tomorrow

Please REMBEMBER that this protest is at 11.30am tomorrow - Saturday 22nd September - in Eastleigh Rec at the bandstand.

It really is vitally important that as many people as possible support this protest so we can let the council know that their plans are totally unacceptable.  Therefore, please let your friends know and bring as many people as possible with you in the morning.

Scroll down from this blog to see more information about Stoneham Park.

Cyclists again

What a lot of interest there's been in my last ;post about cycling on the pavement.  On my Facebook page I had a comment that the 1835 Highways Act Act came out before bicycles so I looked it up and this is what I found:

Cycling on pavements, footpaths or footways. - The law

 

By Dave Escandell

With the increase in cycle usage over the past few years comes the potential for conflict between cyclists and other road users, pedestrians and land owners. The laws, rules and  rights that apply to cyclists can be confusing, conflicting and contradictory. Having a better understanding of your rights should lead to more enjoyable and safer riding for everyone.

(Foot) paths: What are they?

Children, new cyclists, inexperienced cyclists and those without knowledge of existing legislation often cycle on footpaths. This may be understandable in some of our large urban areas, where road junctions consist of a number of lanes that converge and lead traffic in multiple directions. Cycling in this traffic can be daunting, but choosing to cycle on a footpath can be against the law, and the road or ‘carriageway’ is where you and your bicycle should be, unless directed otherwise.

The status of a footpath can become confusing for both cyclist and pedestrian, as many local authorities allow bicycle access to what appear to be footpaths, bringing the cyclist into possible conflict with pedestrians. So what is a footpath? And where can you ride your bicycle?

This is the legal position on the matter:

• a footpath means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980].
Cyclists have no right to cycle on a footpath, and it might be legally prohibited if local bye laws or traffic regulation orders are in existence.

• a footway means a way comprised in a highway, which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public has a right of way on foot only [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980]. 

Therefore, a footway is considered to be the pavement at the side of a carriageway. Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888, prohibits cycling on any footway. An offence is committed if one ‘shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway’.

One hundred years after the amended Act, cycling on a footway became punishable by a fixed penalty notice – usually £30 – under Section 51 Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

• a walkway is a footpath under a walkway agreement [Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980]. Cyclists’ rights on these areas are very much dependant upon local authority bye laws and as such differ from authority to authority.

So, while the legislation attempts to clarify the position on where people can and cannot ride bicycles, in reality the law remains very confusing. Many, including cyclists, motorists, local authorities and the police, are either not aware of the legislation or simply believe that it covers all paved areas. This is not the case.

 

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 and it’s 1888 amendment was not intended to apply to all footpaths. Its aim was to protect footpaths or causeways that run by the side of the road, leaving them free for pedestrians. This was later reinforced by the introduction of the fixed penalty notice on such footpaths.

However, while cyclists do not have a divine right to cycle on footpaths in parks, shopping areas or other pedestrianised areas, it is not prohibited. The fixed penalties do not automatically apply to footpaths where there is not a road or any of the above mentioned areas. These can only fall into a fixed penalty scheme where a local byelaw prohibiting cycling in such an area has been passed, and even then they do not apply to under 16’s.

Where a local byelaw is in place, it should be clearly signed. However, many signs can fall into disrepair and are often not seen. According to the Department for Transport's Code of Conduct, ‘In pedestrianised areas, only ride your cycle if there aren't too many pedestrians about; otherwise dismount and push it."

Pushing your bicycle along any footpath is allowed. By doing this you would be considered to be a ‘foot passenger’. In his Court of Appeal Judgement in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said:

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."

 

So this is the law and it must be enforced.  However, motorists should take note of this comment on my Facebook page:

 I'm a cyclist and refuse to cycle on the pavement, even when cars get angry at me for being in the road.I've been knocked off my bike by selfish ignorant drivers 4 times, yet i still agree if you cycle on the pavement, you are a hazard. its the drivers that make cyclists go on the pavement. 

Please help me to get this legislation enforced.

Are cyclists above the law?

This afternoon I was walking east towards the pedestrian crossing on Romsey Road, Eastleigh, when all of a sudden I heard a voice behind my right shoulder:  "Excuse me, mi:e."  I nearly jumped out of my skin: it was a cyclist trying to ride past me on the narrow pavement.  I stepped out of the way and then another cyclist followed him at a fairly rapid pace, making me feel really vulnerable.  This is where I was.  You can see that the cycle way starts after the crossing.

This is the beginning of Romsey Road:

As you can see, there's no cycleway here either and the law is quite clear:

The Highway Code

Rules for cyclists (59-82)

64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

They ignore traffic lights, frequently don't have lights at night and frighten - and perhaps injure - pedestrians.

So I have contacted Hampshire County Council and the police and intend to start a campaign to make cyclists comply with the law.

Protest in the Park

I've just returned from Eastleigh Market, right by the entrance to the Rec, where we've been giving out leaflets - "Save our Green spaces and Strategic Gaps."

And I'm very pleased to report that the response has been excellent.  This is the leaflet:

On the reverse we say:

This is your only chance to get your objections considered by the Independent Planning Inspector.  We have until just the 12th October 2012. 

What can You do?

You can find details of the lates t revised plan at the council offices, library or online at www.eaastleigh.gov.uk/localplan

You can respond anytime from August 17th to October 12th by e-mailing localplan@eastleigh.gov.uk , by downloading the online form or by putting your comments in writig t the Policy Planning Team, Eastleigh Borough Council, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh SO50 9YN.

You can comment on the documents issued on 17th August which are available forn consultation:

Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2012

Sustainability Appraisal Report

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Transport Assessment

All previous comments submitted by you will not be seen by the Independent Planning Inspector, as that stage was "passed" by the council.

This is now finally your last chance for your voice to be heard!!

The formal examination of the plan and your objections to it should start in Spring 2013.

Why should you care?

For the past 20 years considerable work has been done to protect and restore the "Avenue" area of Stoneham Park, the last surviving Capability Brown landscape in the Southampton area.

Now in 2012 the entire parkland is threatened with 1,300 houses, yet in 1996 61 acres of this parkland was acquired by Hampshire County Council for its long term protection.

From 1991 to 2001 a landscape restoration project was carried out by the Itchen Hamble Countryside Project, funded by the redevelopment of the local Rectory and its grounds - using substantial resources, just under £200,000, volunteer time and goodwill.

Between 208 and 2011 the Stoneham War Shrine was restored to provide a focus for the preserved landscape and, importantly, to encourage the ongoing conservation of the parkland.  The parkland's future seemed secure, but in July this year Eastleigh Borough Council voted for this entire area to be scheduled for development with 1,300 houses in the approved local plan.

Traffic 

 

1,300 houses will bring at 2,600 cars to the adjoining Stoneham Lane Chestnut Avenue which, at peak times are already experiencing 107% traffic saturation!!  This will bring a total standstill to the whole of Eastleigh as traffic tries to enter and leave the M27 and even to pass through Eastleigh.

Local Tip

It is also intended to move the local recycling centre from Passfield Avenue to Stoney Croft Rise, off Chestnut Avenue, and it will be FIVE TIMES as large as the existing one.  At certain times of the day the existing tip causes considerable congestion in Passfield Avenue.

Please would you support us in opposing these ill-thought-out plans and attend next week's Protest in the Park at 11.30am, The Band Stand, Leigh Road, Eastleigh.