Agenda item

St Cloud’s Way Development planning consultation

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of agenda items was changed.

 

Ben Dawson, from Curtins, gave a presentation on the project. He explained that there were three points; the missing links alignment, the removal of the footbridge and the creation of a crossing on the A4. The missing links was part of a wider strategy and there was a requirement to create a missing links route through the site. After consideration on various proposals, it was decided that a clear east to west route would be created. The route would be shared use, with a separate pedestrian route to the south, but would not be open to general traffic. The route would not be straight and this was to ensure that cycling speed was acceptable for the number of pedestrians that would be using the route.

 

The council suggested looking at an alternative route, which was behind ‘Block B’ of the development. However, there was a level difference on this route and it would therefore require things like ramps. The route was also not very overlooked which was important from a safety aspect. The council and the project centre agreed that the route should therefore be in the public realm area through the middle of the development.

 

Considering the pedestrian route to Maidenhead town centre, a number of improvements had been suggested for the underpass including CCTV, general camera coverage upgrades and the introduction of a domed mirror. The developers had been looking at a crossing on St Clouds Way, which would take advantage of the existing traffic lights outside the Hines Meadow car park. Pictures were shown of what the crossing could look like and also of what the road looked like it its current form. The council had no issues with the removal of the current footbridge. A data survey had been conducted and there was a significant drop in usage since the leisure centre closed. In 2018, around 6,000 people a day were using the bridge, but this had dropped to 193 in 2021. Thames Valley Police had expressed concern about the lack of natural surveillance on the footbridge, especially as the footbridge terminated in the car park.

 

Councillor Coppinger said that he was pleased to see the progression of this project as he had a number of concerns about the area in its current form. There had been concern about how residents would be able to access the town centre, particularly at night. The underpass improvements looked good and the crossing on St Clouds Way was a positive step towards the future. Councillor Coppinger said that it would also benefit worshippers at the mosque who would have easier access, the crossing would meet the needs of the local community.

 

Lisa Hughes noted that the route would be shared between cyclists and pedestrians. She asked what the dimensions of the route were and whether entrances to buildings had an impact on this.

 

Ben Dawson said that the shared route was 3.5m wide at its minimum. The pedestrian only route was 2m wide. Entrances were 1.5m wide and opened inwards so did not impact on the path.

 

Lisa Hughes said that 94% of the entrances would be accessible, which had been stated on the planning application. She expressed concern about users that would be cycling at a high speed along the route, a shared cycle path should not be hazardous to pedestrians. Lisa Hughes also believed that there had been little consideration given to those with a visual impairment due to the paving surface and the lighting of the route.

 

Councillor Brar said that she was supportive of the missing links project. She asked how the usage between cyclists and pedestrians would be managed and if there was enough space for all users of the route.

 

Ben Dawson said that a key concern was the conflict between the users of the route. If the path was straight, it would encourage cyclists to travel at speed. A road safety audit would be undertaken which would highlight conflicts and would investigate if mitigation could be required.

 

Susy Shearer had noted in the presentation that there would be a ‘share with care’ sign, which she thought was a useful addition. She suggested that it would be useful to have it displayed at a number of places along the route, along with ‘pedestrian only’ signage for the other route. Susy Shearer asked how the developers planned to get the message across to all users of the route.

 

Ben Dawson said that it would be clear where cyclists would go, as the pedestrian route would be separate and would not be linked to the shared route. Further signage could be introduced if it was needed.

 

Jacqui Wheeler asked if there were any staggered barriers in the design.

 

Ben Dawson confirmed that there were no staggered barriers on the route, but there were some bollards.

 

Councillor Sharpe said that he was concerned for the safety of pedestrians and hoped that barriers would be introduced as a safety measure.

 

Councillor Singh commented on the junction where the crossing was proposed to be built, it was a busy junction and was on the exit coming out of Sainsburys. He said that there had been traffic issues on the junction in the past. He asked if the road going under the crossing had been considered.

 

Ben Dawson said that to have the road go under the crossing would require significant infrastructure changes. Discussions were still ongoing with the council on what the crossing would look like.

 

Councillor Singh asked if the north to south route through the site would be removed. He expressed concern about the route behind Block B not having level access.

 

Ben Dawson confirmed that the route was still in place, the developers wanted to keep the existing routes open. It was clarified that the route behind Block B was an option that was not being considered, due to the different access levels.

Supporting documents: