STOP PRESS
Do you have some new information that you wish to publicise on this site? Please contact the Parish Council Clerk with the details, so that it may be included here.
LATEST...........LATEST..........LATEST
For the latest 2010/2011 budget information click on the links below:Finance & General Purpose Committee
Planning & Environment Committee
Parish Hall & Grounds Committee
Monday, March 01, 2010
PRESS RELEASE.
FESTIVAL VILLAGE FIGHTS FOR ITS SURVIVAL!
Trowell Parish Council will be hosting two special meetings in March to discuss the Nottinghamshire Aligned Core Strategy which details future housing development plans for the entire County & Erewash Borough.The first meeting is on Tuesday 9th March 2010 at 7.15pm at the Trowell Parish Hall & forms part of the Council's usual monthly meeting. Members of the public are encouraged to come along to listen & comment on the presentation to be given by representatives of Broxtowe Borough Council. Then on Wednesday 17th March 2010 at 7.45pm there will be a public consultation evening again at the Trowell Parish Hall, where residents will be able to discuss in detail the proposals contained in the strategy.
The Parish Council feels it is imperative that local residents come & give their opinions at both these meetings as if this strategy is accepted by the Borough Council in its current format, the village of Trowell will disappear completely.
Trowell has a proud heritage as the Festival Village of Britain & currently holds the title of Nottinghamshire's Calor Village of the Year. It has an active & vibrant community & its motto is Independence & Self Help yet despite 3 of the proposed housing developments being located in Trowell, the village is not even mentioned by name in the strategy.
It is vital that the public know that the proposed huge housing developments at "Land North of Stapleford", "Land West of Coventry Lane" & "Land West of Bilborough Road" are all greenbelt sites & they are all in TROWELL. This list does not include the site located on the other side of Trowell at Stanton. If all these sites are approved huge swathes of greenbelt will be lost & Trowell will be swallowed up completely, its village identity lost forever.
Of 13 proposed development sites, 4 are in Broxtowe & all 3 of those are green belt sites located in TROWELL. Broxtowe is already the most densely populated borough in Nottinghamshire with very little greenbelt left to its name. It is felt that this distribution of developments is unfair & unreasonable. There are other options available including brownfield sites in other areas. Trowell Parish Council knows that development is necessary but everyone in the County should take a share & communities should not be sacrificed in this way.
Should you require any further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Parish Clerk directly.
Alison K. Mitchell
Clerk to the Council
E-mail - tpc@gotadsl.co.uk
Tel: 0115 9730713 Mon-Fri 9am-6pm
Trowell has won the Calor Nottinghamshire village of the year competition for 2009. We have also won two of the five categories. We were presented with three certificates, and a plaque, plus £2000 in prize money.
'Better Place to live' WINNER, Trowell - £250 prize.
'Communications being in contact' WINNER, Trowell - £250 prize.
Winning Village – overall WINNER Trowell - £1500 prize.Unfortunately we did not win the regional finals, despite putting on a superb show. Thanks to all of those who contributed to a wonderful effort.
Trowell Parish Hall has won the Broxtowe round of the best kept village hall competition, and now goes on to the next round.
Back to the TOP of PAGE
TROWELL PARISH COUNCIL
TELEPHONE CONTACT DETAILS.
Clerk: Mrs. Alison Mitchell (9730713) email: tpc@gotadsl.co.uk
Cllr. Mrs. Margaret Birkitt (8751037)
(Chair)
Cllr. Stephen Hallam (9490720)
(Vice Chairman)
Cllr. Keith Birkitt (8751037)
Cllr. Mrs. Julie Bryant (9491760)
Cllr. John Bryant (9491760)
Cllr. Mrs. Pam Cardwell (9309709)
Cllr. Mrs. Lyn Harley (9171392)
Cllr. Graham Lockwood. (9329351)
Cllr. Mrs. Cynthia McGann (9392203)
Cllr. Robert McGann (9392203)
Cllr. Ken Rigby. (9307452)
(Parish, Borough & County Councillor)
TROWELL PARISH COUNCIL – FORTHCOMING MEETING DATES.
All meetings take place at the Parish Hall at 7.15pm unless otherwise advertised.
Open Forum & Council – Tuesday 9th September 2008.
Parish Hall & Grounds Committee – Tuesday 23rd September 2008.
Open Forum & Council – Tuesday 14th October 2008.
Open Forum & Council – Tuesday 11th November 2008.
Parish Hall & Grounds Committee – Tuesday 25th November 2008.
Planning & Environment Committee – Tuesday 2nd December 2008.
Finance & General Purposes Committee – Tuesday 2nd December 2008.
Open Forum & Council – Tuesday 9th December 2008.
Open Forum & Council – Tuesday 13th January 2009.
Planning & Environment Committee – Tuesday 27th January 2008.
Finance & General Purposes Committee – Tuesday 27th January 2008.
Parish Hall & Grounds Committee – Tuesday 3rd February 2008.
Open Forum & Council – Tuesday 10th February 2008.
Open Forum & Council _ Tuesday 10th March 2008.
Parish Hall & Grounds Committee – Tuesday 31st March 2008.
Open Forum & Council – Tuesday 14th April 2008.
Annual Parish Meeting – Tuesday 28th April 2008.
For further information, please do not hesitate to contact the Parish Clerk – Mrs. Alison Mitchell.
Back to the TOP of PAGE
Greater Nottingham – Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.
Trowell Parish Council wishes to make the following statement on this issue –
“Trowell Parish Council wholly rejects any development on the sites identified in the Greater Nottingham – Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and would refer all interested parties to the Trowell Parish Design Statement.”
Should you require any further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Parish Clerk directly.
Alison K. Mitchell
Clerk to the Council
E-mail – tpc@gotadsl.co.uk
Tel: 0115 9730713 Mon-Fri 9am-6pm
Back to the TOP of PAGE
Dear Sir/Madam The First Contact Signposting Scheme was launched in the Broxtowe area of Nottinghamshire in September 2007. One simple checklist enables people aged 60 or over to receive vital services to stay safe and independent in their own homes. The Scheme works with a number of partners including Notts Fire & Rescue Service, Broxtowe Borough Council, the Local Pension Service, Welfare Rights, Nottinghamshire County tPCT, Greater Nottingham Healthy Housing, Nottinghamshire County Council Adult Social Care & Health, Stapleford Bureau and Beeston Volunteer Centre to deliver services together in the Broxtowe area. If a staff member from any of the partner agencies, such as a firefighter, police officer or volunteer, goes into a home, they will complete a checklist (sample enclosed) to find out if the older person has any other particular needs - for example: o A fire safety check and/or home security check o Any repairs or mobility adaptations that need doing in the home o Energy saving improvements to keep warm and reduce energy bills o Confidential advice on any money the householder may be entitled to o Signposting to local voluntary and community groups and clubs and transport schemes o Advice on types of housing accommodation that may be available Householder responses to the checklist will be fed back to one central point of contact where staff will co-ordinate referrals to partner organisations. A representative from the organisation will then contact the person to discuss what might be available. An older person can therefore receive a whole host of services without going to the trouble of contacting all of the various different organisations themselves. First Contact began in 2005 with funding from Nottinghamshire County Council Adult Social Care & Health, Notts Fire & Rescue Service and Rushcliffe Council for Voluntary Service. In November 2006 funding from the Department of Work & Pension Link Age + enabled the project to roll our countywide. We attach a copy of our latest report for the Gedling area for your information. Since the start of the project in November 2005, over 2,200 older people countywide have been helped to access services that otherwise may not have done so resulting in over 5,200 referrals being made to a whole host of services. Over £500,000 worth of unclaimed benefit has been awarded to older people through the project via The Local Pension Service If you would like any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours Julie Folkett First Contact Co-ordinator South Nottinghamshire
Broxtowe Women's Project
Broxtowe Women's Project is a Women's Aid organisation offering outreach support to women experiencing domestic violence, primarily operating in the North of Broxtowe and Stapleford area. Our information and awareness service operates across the borough and includes domestic violence awareness sessions - tailored to a group's needs, mobile displays and leaflet racks, leaflets, stickers, posters, information packs, support services 'z-cards' and training opportunities, as well as general advice and support for any agency needing information about domestic violence. We also produce a newsletter on behalf of Broxtowe Domestic Violence Practitioners Network, which is distributed to over 100 organisations. Additionally, we have a comprehensive website which offers guidance to individuals and agencies who may need information, advice or support: www.broxtowewomensproject.org.uk
Project Volunteers Having seen a 100% increase in our referrals to the service in the last year, we are now actively seeking female volunteers who may want to become involved in the diverse and innovative work of the Project and in particular supporting women who make contact with the service. We are keen to involve women who have an understanding of the issues of domestic violence and who are sensitive to the diverse needs of women experiencing domestic violence. We would like volunteers to help staff our support line, which operates 10am until 1pm Monday - Friday. This line is used by women we are already supporting, and women who may want to self-refer or simply talk to someone about the violence they are going through. Having a volunteer may mean that we can give more support to women who are on our waiting list. We are also keen to have volunteers involved in assisting with administrative tasks and/or assisting with the distribution of the Project's publicity. We are a warm and welcoming team of women who work in a challenging and stimulating environment to improve the lives of women experiencing domestic violence.
If you are interested in joining our team as a volunteer then please give call Lynne for an informal chat on 01773 718555. The Project operates in the North of Broxtowe Borough and Stapleford where there are less services available to women. Travel costs will be covered. A Criminal Records Bureau enhanced disclosure is necessary and DV awareness training, Child Protection training & Diversity training will form part of the induction package. Volunteers can also expect regular support and supervision. Management Volunteers Broxtowe Women's Project are also looking for female management committee volunteers to contribute to the sustainment and development of the Project. The Management Committee is responsible for the whole of the project. This ranges from making sure it has money to run and is spent on the right things, that the workers are properly employed, paid regularly and supported, that the building is a safe environment through to the staff having the right equipment to help them do the job. These are all shared responsibilities and decisions are made through discussion and agreement by members at meetings. What can an individual offer? Most women have lots of skills/experience of running a home and/or working at their jobs that are very useful to the project. You will probably have experience of managing a household budget, you may know what it means to be a paid employee, you will probably look at how comfortable/safe your home or workplace is, you probably insure your home and contents. These are all valuable skills/experiences that you could use to help run the project. When we meet The management committee normally meet every month for 2 hours at a regular time. In between meetings there are things that need to be done to ensure that the project is supported & working safely and effectively, which may involve 1-2 hours a month.If you have any comments or queries about the service or would like an information pack sending to you, please contact us on 01773 718555 or e-mail enquiries@broxtowewomensproject.org.uk If you are a woman experiencing domestic violence and you would like to talk to someone in confidence about your experience then please give us a call on 01773 719111 - this line is usually staffed between 10am - 1pm Monday to Friday - there's a confidential answerphone when we are not there - and we will get back to you as soon as possible when it is safe to do so.
Back to the TOP of PAGE
Parent Partnership Service is
We offer a volunteering opportunity that is rewarding and challenging.
Our volunteers; · develop in confidence · learn new skills · help parents of children with special educational needs play a more informed part in their child's education. · contribute to making a child’s educational experience more positive.
Parent Partnership Service is recruiting volunteers from a wide range of backgrounds who are; · good listeners · willing to learn · able to develop positive relationships with people · able to communicate effectively, verbally and in writing.
Our volunteers make a real difference. A parent said of their volunteer, “The advice she gave me was sound and it worked, but it was the praise and boost to my morale that I found invaluable”.
For more information and to find out when the next training course begins please contact Edwina on 0115 948 2888 or Denis on 0115 840 0081 or visit our website www.ppsnotts.org.uk.
You can also contact us at enquiries@ppsnotts.org.uk.
This could be the opportunity you’ve been waiting for!
Parent Partnership Service, Suite 5, Clarendon Chambers, 32 Clarendon Street, Nottingham NG1 5LN. Tel 0115 948 2888
Back to the TOP of PAGE
Making Small Changes, Making Big Savings
Would you like to save money? Do you know how your everyday actions have an effect on your household bills as well as the environment?
Day to day habits such as not leaving the television on standby or not leaving lights on in a room you are not using, cuts the amount of electricity you use, which in turn cuts your household bills and also helps reduce the threat of global warming. It is really as simple as remembering to make some small but invaluable changes to the way we live. To help people make changes such as these, the charity Global Action Plan have created a programme called EcoTeams.
An EcoTeam is a group of between 6-8 households who meet once a month for four months. Together the team discusses ways to reduce electricity, gas and water consumption as well decrease the amount of rubbish that they throw away.
The initiative only takes a couple of hours each month and it's a great way to meet and get together with like-minded people. It includes a monthly meeting, looking at different topics, and time for measuring (for example, how much electricity is used each month). Anyone can form an EcoTeam: friends, neighbours, colleagues, acquaintances, or through a local interest or Church group.
It works! To date, over 250 households have taken part in Nottinghamshire. Households have on average reduced their Gas by 15%, Electricity by 9%, Water by 21% and Rubbish 28%. This means lower bills.
There are already EcoTeams up and running in Broxtowe and Global Action Plan are looking for people in Trowell to take part. It is free and support is on hand throughout the programme.
Join today and start saving. Contact Julie Pescod on 0115 917 8080 or 07905 534580 or email: julie.pescod@globalactionplan.org.uk.
The EcoTeams Project is funded by and works in partnership with the Big Lottery Fund's Community Recycling and Economic Development (CRED) Programme.
Back to the TOP of PAGE
For information on the Parish Council APPROVED PUBLICATION SCHEME, please click on 'Links'.
OPEN FORUM
The newly appointed Parish Council have agreed to the open forum being included in all Parish council meetings for the WHOLE OF THIS COUNCIL SESSION.
WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY?
NEED TO GET SOMETHING OFF YOUR CHEST?
WELL NOW YOU CAN! TWENTY MINUTES WILL BE ALLOCATED AT THE START OF EVERY MEETING TO ENABLE PARISHIONERS TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF COUNCIL ANY MATTER THAT THEY WISH.
IT IS YOUR CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR SAY, SO BE THERE AT 7.15pm, IN THE PARISH HALL.
Please see meeting dates for Parish Council meetings.
Back to the TOP of PAGE
Click on the link to go to the new Parish Council news letter:
TROWELL TIMES
Back to the TOP of PAGE
'School Travel Plan' document now available for viewing - click here
Minutes of public meeting held on Wednesday, 23rd January, 2002, at 7.30p.m. in the Parish Hall to discuss proposed Safe Routes to School scheme for Stapleford Road, Trowell Park/Trowell Grove area
Present: Coun.A.J.Porter, Chairman.
Couns. A.Barton, Mrs.M.Cornhill, R.E.Cornhill, F.A.Kay, G.Lockwood,
J.Naylor, K.E.Rigby (Parish and Borough Councillor), and R.J.Thomas.
Mr.C.Charnley, Highway Manager, NCC.
Mr.S.Parkes, Education Dept., NCC.
Mr.N.Parlor, Chairman, School Travel Plan Steering Group.
Approx. 36 residents.
Clerk: Mrs.B.R.Cobon.
1. County Council representations
Mr.Charnley commented that they had put forward a scheme for Stapleford Road for a Zebra crossing on a ramp with associated traffic calming which was basically speed cushions similar to those in other places nearby such as Stapleford Town centre.
He explained that they get many requests for pedestrian crossings from various places per year and they look at various ways they can promote road safety which as a County Council and Highway Authority they have a duty to do and they are always keen to try to ensure where people want to cross the road they can do so safely. They have various ways of looking at where they can put safety crossings in but the first thing they look at as to whether a crossing is justified is how many people want to cross there. There is an established way of assessing that and the reason why they look at that in a unit fashion is because they get so many requests they have to have a benchmark where they look at the level of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles and there is a formula they use to justify putting it in a particular place, i.e. if there are 100 pedestrians to 1,000 vehicles generally speaking a crossing is justified because the level of difficulty crossing the road is fairly high. If it is less than that the formula changes. There can be a situation where the volume of traffic is incredibly high or
conversely where there are huge numbers of people crossing the road and these would necessitate a crossing. In Stapleford Road the number of pedestrians and the number of vehicles, plus the number who would use the road and do not at the moment for some safety reason, have been taken into account and there were 154 people on their
count wanting to cross that road in a day. The number of vehicles was just over 6,000 a day so under the measure of whether a crossing would be justified they have about 60%. It needs to be 100% to put one in, so it was well short under that criteria.
The other way is on accidents where there is a situation of people trying to cross the road and cannot and have been injured as a result of that they can justify a crossing, e.g. in Stapleford Town centre where quite a few of the Zebras there have gone in as a result of accidents. They have a programme of introducing schemes to prevent
accidents and are more than happy to consider putting a crossing in to reduce accidents.
He knew of accidents on Stapleford Road, and a fatality years ago, but they had to look at the criteria and what they actually do is take accidents recorded in the last 3 years.
He had taken them over 4 years which showed 4 injury accidents in 4 years on that length of road, none was pedestrians, one was a cyclist, so they could not justify putting in a scheme to reduce pedestrian accidents because there were none at the moment. It was not a case of "waiting until someone is killed before they do anything" - they know the situation, they have 4,000 injury accidents a year and they have a duty to reduce that level. They do not have to take account of accidents where no-one is injured. They only have resources to deal with 4,000 that are actually occurring to the person. In the case of Stapleford Road it could be said they do not have justification for spending accident reduction money to reduce pedestrian accidents. In Stapleford they put in a scheme which no-one liked but the reality is that it has drastically reduced accidents, down from 9 to 3 a year, so it had been successful in terms of fulfilling their duty of preventing accidents. So taking into account the fact of the dozens and dozens of school children crossing to catch the bus and people going to work they were quite convinced it could have been safer.
Mr.Parkes, Education Officer, said the Safe Routes to School attitude was slightly more relaxed in that where the criteria did not meet the exact criteria they could allow that to slip slightly. As far as he was aware the maximum number at peak times was 40 pupils crossing and also included people going to catch a bus. In terms of providing a pedestrian crossing they would be looking at 5 times more than that to cross. They had a limited budget and they had to spend it where it was going to be of greatest benefit to the largest number of pupils, e.g. they would be looking at 1100 pupils using it every day and this was not the case here so they could not justify spending lots of money on a Pelican crossing which is why they offered a Zebra crossing.2. School Travel Plan Steering Group representations
Mr. Nigel Parlor, Chairman of the School Travel Plan Steering Group, explained that the Steering Group was started when the Government came up with an initiative to reduce numbers of vehicles going to schools for the good of the environment and the health of children. They put funds in to help local people improve the lot for school travel by assembling a group of interested people who were willing in their own time to put together a plan to improve the way children get to school, hopefully to
reduce the number of cars, etc. At Trowell the Steering Group was open to anyone willing and able to help - he invited people to join the Group which included parents, Governors, Head Teacher, and local residents - he said they still had a lot to do.
The stated aim was to reduce the number of cars to and from Trowell School, minimize congestion around the school, and promote safety for pedestrians on school routes.
Over the past year various people had talked to them about the issues that had been raised but quite a few had told them that on a cost basis they could not afford a Pelican crossing as funds were not available for a Pelican crossing. He understood the preference as expressed by the Parish Council. However, they understood the Parish Council had unsuccessfully tried to have a crossing at that point for longer than most Parish Councillors can remember. He said if we turned down a Zebra crossing we would not get a crossing at that point. So they as a group would prefer to have a Zebra crossing than no crossing at all. He asked if the Parish Council preferred to wait until whenever for a Pelican crossing.3. Parish Council representations
Coun.Naylor opened by saying he had lived in the village for 40 years, had been a pedestrian for 60 and a driver for about 40 years and was a member of the School Travel Plan Steering Group and contrary to what some people had been led to believe the Parish Council was not against the Safe Routes to School scheme - they were against the scheme proposed by NCC for Stapleford Road in the Trowell Park area. He said Mr.Parlor in his summing up was not quite correct. The Committee supported the whole of the scheme as laid down by NCC, not just a pedestrian crossing. The Parish
Council were in favour of a pedestrian crossing but a light controlled one - they were totally against any speed humps on that section of Stapleford Road. Looking at the status of that road, since the early 1960's bends had been taken out to facilitate the railway bridge and motorway bridge and in 1988 it was widened because of NCC's concern with regard to Trowell Park being built so that in essence had increased the speed of traffic on Stapleford Road, even though it was a 30mph road. Also because of the amount of traffic, it was originally a B road, it was upgraded to an A road and then designated as a feeder road to Junction 25 of the M1. Subsequently all the commercial traffic from the industrial estate at the bottom of Furnace Road and Hallam Fields use Ilkeston Road/Stapleford Road as the main road to Junction 25 of the M1 and whilst the Parish Council were not against a Safe Route to School scheme they were against a scheme that would affect adversely all the people living in that area. The scheme in Stapleford may have slowed traffic down but it cost a lot of people their businesses, and as a Parish Council they were charged with looking after residents of the whole of the Parish including children. Last year there was a problem when Colt put in a faulty manhole and the Parish Council had hundreds of complaints about lorries going over it and disturbing people's sleep at night imagine if there were lorries crossing speed humps, a raised crossing, and speed humps again - that was why the Parish Council were against that particular aspect of the scheme. The Parish Council view was where there is a Zebra crossing there is doubt - people stand at the edge of the road asking themselves if a car is going to stop or not and drivers are undecided as to whether people are going to cross or not. With a Pelican crossing there is no doubt - they see a red light and stop, it is the law - and children know that if it is green the red light is on for the motorists and they can safely cross that road. Motorists coming along may not be concerned with whether people want to cross but seeing a red light they know to stop. With this in mind the Parish Council at their December meeting passed a resolution to pay £10,000 to NCC if they would supply a scheme for that section of Stapleford Road that would provide a Pelican crossing and no road humps. He suggested NCC should set aside the criteria and formula and percentages and pick up that paper that says commonsense and provide a pelican crossing for Stapleford Road.5. Comments and questions from residents
The Clerk read out a letter from Mr.&.Mrs.Sampson, Iona Drive, who could not attend the meeting but wished their support of the Parish Council view to be recorded.
Mrs.Harley, a Trowell resident and member of the Steering Group, asked in view of the Parish Council offering £10,000 to the scheme what the cost and shortfall would be.
Mr.Charnley replied it would be a Puffin crossing which puts more responsibility on pedestrians by allowing them to extend the times the lights are showing for people who are slow to cross the road. That kind of crossing was about £35,000. It could actually be more than that because they had to make sure when they put in a light controlled crossing drivers can actually stop at the crossing. They may have to have a system of laybys on the approach particularly in the case of a road like Stapleford Road where the average speed is 38mph. People who use that road would have to slow down. But that costs money, at least £35,000. The shortfall would be £10,000.
Mr.Corns of Trowell Grove commented that no mention had been made in the figures of the speed of cars and motorbikes which do well over 60mph and the fact that it took 3 minutes before he could cross an elderly person over the road. He asked what criteria would be used for the installation of speed cameras and what the cost would be. Mr.Charnley replied that at the moment County Council did not support the further introduction of speed cameras. There were some in Nottingham City area and a decision was taken that County remain to be convinced of the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing accidents. Mr.Corns replied that they worked well in Derbyshire and he thought the Government paid for that. He asked if the Government paid for the installation of cameras not County Council. Mr.Charnley said they used to pay for the actual camera and the Police used to pay for the resources of changing the film and processing the errant motorists' tickets for speeding but it was now done by digital linking to computers so the Police did not have to go onto site to get the pictures. Mr.Corns said he thought we should not take the cheap option on this. Mr.Charnley said they did not have an option.
Mr.Bryant of Kingsmead Avenue who had been in the area all his life and had lived in Trowell Park for 10 years commented that he had badgered Coun.Robinson a lot on this and he had worked hard to try to resolve the problems put forward. He had not found any neighbours in favour of speed bumps. He supported what the Parish Council were trying to do but feared NCC's mind was already made up and they would take some persuading to cut across the criteria. He remembered the difficulty in trying to get Zebras in the road in the past when only buses used it but this wide arterial road had now been upgraded to an A road and he could not find another A road in the County that had speed bumps like those being proposed. He shot Coun.Robinson down in flames when the grey speed signs appeared instead of proper ones. He knew it would be said that was because it is not the start of a 30mph stretch. Also he knew of a gentleman in the room who was selling his property in the area of the speed bumps - his property could be de-valued. He said he was totally opposed to the whole idea and preferred a Pelican.
D.Griffiths of Trowell Park Drive commented that the Parish Council was holding out for a Pelican crossing. He asked what was going to change the situation for us to get a crossing. Coun.Naylor replied that if people looked at their community charge NCC take millions of pounds from the people of Notts each year, they were not short of money and could afford to do that next week. It was the money on the Safe Routes to School plan that was short. NCC were not paying any money into the scheme. The money came from the Government under that scheme. NCC had not said they were adding anything to that. The best thing to do was to put pressure on County Council to provide some of those millions for a scheme that would put in a safe crossing on that road for everyone. Mr.Griffiths asked what sort of delay there would be as he wanted his children and wife to be able to cross the road safely and if this meant 30mph could be achieved he was in favour of it. A lady in the audience intervened saying that for people with spine trouble the bumps were murder. It was a 30mph road but people did not keep to it. Mr.Charnley explained that it was not true that NCC is paying any money into this scheme. It was NCC money - it came from Central government in the form of a grant for paying for Safe Routes to School but it was County Council money so they were committed to providing some sort of scheme out of that pot of money in preference to giving that money somewhere else. As Mr.Parkes had been saying they were not just talking about Trowell, the fact was that the £150,000 allocated next year for pedestrian facilities was for the whole of the Broxtowe/Gedling/Rushcliffe area. They were not awash with money. He gave Coun.Robinson his due in that he had been very vociferous about the need here. They were not in a position where they could say they could double the budget they have available for this type of scheme because they would have to double it for everyone else - they had not got it.
Neil Jackson, member of STRAG, and resident of Trowell whose wife crosses the road 4 times a day taking their child to Trowell School, said STRAG was originally formed as Stapleford and Trowell Road Action Group to try to deal with the problems along the road itself. Their main concern had always been the speed of the traffic along the road. He said the gentleman from the Council who made a statement that the speed is 38mph seemed to suggest the average speed was 15mph but most people's average speed was over 40mph and motorbikes travelled frequently over 60mph. He pointed out that he was not against any form of pedestrian crossing - what they were against was the continued reluctance of County Council to deal with the problem, and the problem was the speed of traffic. What had not been mentioned by County Council was the reason for having a platform, bumps and crossing was because they had identified the speed of the traffic, fumes, and the chances of accidents occurring on a crossing. He felt their figures were distorted. He had seen a man killed under a truck trying to avoid one of these bumps. The bumps moved the danger farther back from the crossing to the bumps themselves. Motorbikes would not slow down and some large cars, some vans and trucks could straddle these bumps. If a vehicle went slowly over the bumps the following vehicles did not expect it to slow down. There would be noise through the night. Coun.Robinson campaigned for a long time but rather than County Council coming up with signs in a red area on the road they decided to put a grey sign that cannot be seen at night, so it could only be assumed people who work at County Council and the Borough Council were people who exceeded the speed limit and went home at night. He said they wanted a measure along the whole length of the road that would reduce the average speed to 30mph which was the speed limit and that would do away with the need for the speed humps and the raised Zebra - he pleaded with them to do something positive for Trowell rather than fudge the issue for Trowell. And all in all it was a B road used as a rat run because Coventry Lane was not then capable of coping with the traffic. They spent £5m on that - he asked why they did not re-designate it as an A road and install traffic reduction measures like those outside Alderman White School where there are no humps or bumps, and deal with the issue instead of fudging things and blackmailing and forcing people to go down a road with humps that no-one wants.Dr.Bicknell, a Nottingham Road resident for 6 years, and member of the Steering Group for 2 years, with 3 daughters at Trowell School, said he worked as a Doctor out at night crossing speed bumps throughout the city and different locations. He said he was lucky in that they were able to walk to school and do not have to cross a road. When the Steering Group was founded he said they were challenged by the people of Smithfield and Derbyshire Avenue that they would never get a crossing on Stapleford Road and they were heartily surprised when they were offered one which could have been in place last September if everyone had agreed. But unfortunately the issue had become very divisive to the village and as parents what particularly upset them was that none of this seemed to be particularly child concentrated and at the end of the day that was why they were there. He asked residents once again to focus their minds on being child concentrated saying he had tremendous respect and understood the worries people had about properties being close to the traffic calming measures but he said with respect none of those present were being particularly child concentrated on how to get children across that road to Trowell School and Bramcote School and get into town with families, parents and grandchildren. He asked people to consider if the Parish Council was playing a clever game of brinkmanship where they believe if they hold out they can get a Pelican crossing and was that right or would people prefer to have a scheme now which many thought would help enormously to achieve their aims with a view to up-grading it to a Pelican if it were found to be lacking, or were people going to run the risk and be incredibly selfish and end up with nothing and lose the goodwill and drop-off zones at the Parish Hall and Festival to keep traffic off Derbyshire and Smithfield - he asked if people were going to risk throwing that away and end up with nothing. He thought the parents who sat on the Steering Group would ask people to support this scheme with a view to working hard to improve it with a commitment to lobby for better and safer routes both on and off the roads, on public rights of way, bridleroads, canal towpath, the lollypop ladies. They had been working really hard to improve things for the village and feared they would be going back to square one which would be a pity.
Mrs.Jennie Phillips, of Stapleford who lived on Ilkeston Road and was Chairperson of Strag, was fully aware that everyone had their own opinion on this road and was very supportive of children and anyone crossing the road but she did not think people should lose sight of the issues that speed is a problem. It was the same along Ilkeston Road and as a resident who was hit by a car that was speeding despite being on the opposite side of the road, she said the speed on these 2 roads needed to be looked at for cars, lorries and buses.
Coun.Robinson commented that his attention was first brought to the problems on this road in 1997 when residents of Stapleford Road asked for something to be done for a permanent speed reduction on Stapleford Road. He attended monthly meetings of the Parish Council during the years and the issue was also raised on many occasions and there appeared to be an intractable problem with the long history which pre-dated his time as County Councillor. He had disussions with the Police and County Council to try to make some progress on this issue and balance conflicting representations he was getting and make progress on it. He discussed it with the Police in Summer of 2000 and they put out the blue "no speeding" signs on Stapleford Road. He pestered them for ages for that and some monitoring was done to see what the speeds were. Information indicated the speed on Stapleford Road was well above 30mph. Later in November 2000 at a Local Area Forum day Trowell Park representatives, residents of voluntary groups, etc. looked at what people liked or did not like in Trowell . A whole host of issues came out - problems on Pit Lane, Festival Inn junction, and Stapleford Road. He met with Mr.Charnley on 17th November to see if they could bottom some of the problems of speeding on Stapleford Road. One of the problems was the speeding signs and where they could put them - they were put in place in Spring of last year. Also the Parish Council had been asking for a while for hazard marker posts and they were put in place. Coun.Lockwood, Chair of Governors at the School, asked him in December 2000 to join the group at the school to see if he could help make some progress on problems raised by some people of Smithfield and Derbyshire Avenue of people parking down there and annoying the residents and the whole idea as Nigel Parlor explained was that the School Travel Plan was not just about speeding humps but about an integrated scheme, using car parks and walking children to school from there. The group includes the Head Teacher, parents, Dr.Bicknell, School Governors and a Parish Councillor and what County Council, who are the proper authority for education and the roads, look for is a scheme to reduce speed and get a scheme for children where it is safe to cross. As mentioned recently that was the primary motivation for having the group and is the whole reason why the County Council have said you have got to have a Zebra and something else as well but people do not like speed humps. He felt if there was a consensus of people there no-one liked them but he put the case they could see the benefits from them. The whole reason why safety humps were being put in was because if they were not in speeds may not be reduced and it would be more dangerous. When each of the groups were consulted last year the Parish Council made their response and he made his taking into account the Parish Council case and but felt the scheme would have a two-fold effect of reducing speed and enable children to cross the road safely and although speed cushions may be unacceptable to to drivers, etc. his view was that the safety of children was paramount.
He had had 3 complaints against it including the one from Mr.&.Mrs.Sampson which was read out earlier. He said he had been as upfront and honest as he could - he knew humps were not a driver's best friend but he respectfully urged residents not to turn down the opportunity now to permanently reduce speeds. It was not just about speed humps, the primary focus was to make it safer for children to cross the road.
Mr.Griffiths asked if people were not decided whether this would mean there would not be a crossing of any description. Mr.Charnley replied that it did not mean we would not get a crossing. He needed to take away the feelings of the meeting regarding speed humps and type of crossing they have there and see if there was not some other without humps to reduce speed of vehicles. His hands were tied - they could only put in speed cameras where there were accidents. It was true to say inappropriate speed does cause accidents and this was the case in Stapleford. Their inappropriate speed within the shopping area was causing accidents and they did not want a repeat of that on Stapleford Road. It was really a question of whether they could put in something else to protect the safety of the crossing, of whatever form that is, so that people using it could do so in a safe manner and until they have gone through that process it was difficult to say how they should go forward - there had been many objections to the scheme.
One lady reiterated the problems of parking on Derbyshire Avenue and Smithfield Avenue from people taking children to school in cars. She felt the proposed Zebra would ease the concerns of the many elderly people there that emergency vehicles may not get up the road at peak times because of the number of cars. She had also seen the other side of the problem where children had had cycling accidents by speeding cars and she would gladly slow down for a speed bump if it meant having a safe place for children to cross.
Coun.Lockwood, Chair of Governors of Trowell School, and Steering Group member, and Parish Councillor, said he felt guilty because he instigated the Safe Routes to School plan for Trowell. His main concerns were for Smithfield and Derbyshire Avenue residents and parents parking on these roads for many years and it was rearing its head again. He was delighted with the prospect of a crossing on Stapleford Road because he had wanted that for a long time but he was dismayed by the prospect of speed humps. He said speeding on Stapleford Road and other roads was often down to residents and they needed to look at themselves to see if they were a cause of that problem. He asked Mr.Charnley what was the criteria for humps as only a little way down the road on Nottingham Road at Ilkeston, many many light-controlled crossings with no speed humps had been installed - they had skid resistant surfaces put down - so why was it a criteria for Notts that speed humps are necessary where there are crossings whether light-controlled or not whereas other authorities seem to provide them without humps, in other words do Notts work to a different set of criteria from other authorities and where are the figures to say if accidents are any worse in Erewash. He agreed there was a need to come to a compromise on this and if County Council could come up with £10,000 extra the Parish Council would provide that funding.
He said they had not had an answer whether that was acceptable but he would like to think there would be little opposition from the vast majority of residents for a light controlled crossing without the dreaded speed humps and a reduction in accidents as outside the Festival Inn.
One gentleman said speed humps was the main issue but at the end of the day he believed a physical barrier was the thing that would be most effective in slowing things down and the humps might do that.
Borough Councillor Ken Rigby commented that the Parish and Borough Councils took a slightly different angle on this. He had been in the village for 30 years, his children had been born and educated in Trowell, and speaking as a local he would say to the good Doctor who no doubt attended fatalities every day and saw some dreadful things that as a parent he could remember the morning when he had to tell his son that his very good friend had been killed on Stapleford Road. He could remember him bursting into tears so he had the emotional feeling of that and it was not very nice. He apologised if there was a relative at the meeting and hoped he had not offended them. He said he was trying not to be political, but another slant was that Mr.Charnley was a very nice man who did a good job but he had to go by the rules and there was this dreaded formula which he had to work to but when they got a Zebra crossing up-dated to a Pelican after numerous accidents on the A609 the numbers did not meet the criteria then but County Council was good enough to see the problem and upgrade the Zebra to a Pelican and as proof of it there had thankfully not been a serious accident on that site since. He had stood on a wet rainy day 14 years ago with County Council officers asking for a Zebra crossing on Stapleford Road but since then traffic had increased, speed has increased, and drivers had got more aggressive so he believed the ultimate aim ought to be a Pelican - he thought everyone would agree that speed humps actually punish the innocent. Re. Coun.Lockwood's comments about the attitude to road safety in Derbyshire which is 9/10ths of a mile over the border where they slipped in 2 4 Pelican crossings in two weeks and have just upgraded them with anti-skid surfacing, he asked Mr.Charnley to phone up his compatriot at Derbyshire CC with his quote of £35,000 to put a Pelican in - in Ilkeston at Stanton Road they were going to up-grade a Zebra to a Pelican for £14,000. He commented that perhaps they had better contractors than Notts have. Finally he wondered if the people who hold the coffers at County Council were actually aware of the fact that Trowell people were very good citizens of County Council - 98% of them actually paying all their rates, only 2% failing to do so. He pleaded that if we do not meet the criteria for a Pelican surely as good citizens of the County we should get something out of these coffers. Coun.Naylor asked how many objections County had had to the proposed scheme.
He commented that the 44 objections to 6 for spoke for themselves.
A STRAG representative commented that to be fair the problem was one of speed from the Festival down to the junction at Ilkeston Road. Strag were saying the 2 areas where the driving is fastest is where it leaves the Festival to the railway bridge and from the road measures proposed to be put down to the island at Ilkeston Road, Stapleford, so it would have the effect of slowing traffic where the Zebra crossing was proposed but he suggested that it would encourage the people who are flouting the law to use this point to see how fast they could get to it as when they have got past Pit Lane it is quite common for cars to overtake each at 40/50mph. He suggested there was quite an expense in putting humps in the road and raising the siting of the Zebra crossing. If that cost were removed and replaced with lighting he was sure it would not come to £35,000.
Mr.Charnley said he had not made the figures up. They were putting in a Pelican crossing in the middle of Burton Joyce at the moment at a cost of £33,666. It was narrower than the one in Trowell, which would also have a central island. It was suggested that the humps could be removed leaving a flat Zebra crossing but it was said that if we had that we would not have a safe crossing. Mr.Jackson said that would do nothing to reduce speeds. Measures had been put to County Council such as 30mph speed cameras or just signs but Mr.Charnley said they could not put up signs without cameras.
Mr.Bryant commented that earlier on Mr.Charnley had said something to the effect that to be safe a Zebra must have humps. He did not believe that was a case for safety, just a point of principle by NCC. He asked why NCC could not have an ordinary Zebra crossing without bumps but with sufficient lighting in the evenings at low level or old fashioned Belisha beacons. All they had to do was make it a lot more tangible for people to see and once they got into the habit speed would drop. Mr.Charnley said they had discussed the plan with the bus companies and they supported it as did the emergency services. They could not ensure the facility without traffic calming would be safe and they had a duty to do that. The reality of it was notwithstanding what Coun.Rigby said but a pedestrian crossing, Zebra or Pelican, usually has accidents associated with it. On average in the County there was one accident to a pedestrian per year on a Zebra and the same for a Pelican. At the moment there were no accidents so the reality was that it was likely on average accidents would increase if a Zebra or Pelican was put in to what there is now and what they were trying to do was ensure the facility was as safe as possible from the start and did not jeopardise the safety of children using the crossing because it had not got humps.
Mr.Corns said he would support a Zebra but he asked how they would stop motorcycles doing 70/80mph when the speed cushions have gaps in them allowing them to drive through the middle. He asked if it would be a feasible compromise to have a Zebra crossing on a raised platform to reduce speed to the bridge and make the crossing safer.
Coun.Barton commented that although it was an inconvenience the only truly safe way to slow down a vehicle was by physical obstruction.
A young girl asked if they had actually asked any children what they would think about this crossing. Mr.Parkes replied that as part of the School Travel Plan they took a group of children down to walk the roads and to ask them basically about the problems they had along the road and what they would like to see. The major problem was crossing Stapleford Road at that junction and they said they would like some formalized crossing.
Strag rep. commented he had only heard of one County Council opinion on traffic calming which was for speed humps. He asked if there had been any proposals or suggestions for other measures that would reduce speed along the whole length of the road. Mr.Charnley had mentioned Alderman White. Mr.Jackson said he was involved with health and safety and there was a direct calculation which pointed to the fact in a short period of time there would be another fatality along Stapleford Road.
Mr.Charnley replied the fact was they have 4,000 injury accidents occurring on the roads, 40,000 damage only, and they do not have the resources to deal with the situation where there might be an accident tomorrow. He could take anyone to hundreds of places where there might be an accident.
Mr.Jackson said we wanted a pedestrian crossing, Mr.Charnley wanted to put humps in and the reason for the humps was because the road has a speed problem. He said we wanted him to deal with the speed.
A resident of Trowell Park said Mr.Charnley said a Zebra crossing may not resolve our issues - he asked if we could not work towards finding the money required for upgrading it to a Puffin.
Mr.Bryant suggested trying to find out the technology of using approach lights away from the crossing that change to red when faced with a crossing light. Mr.Charnley said they do that sometimes and they call them set on red lights.6. To draw conclusion from the meeting
Dr.Bicknell commented that we needed to get some unity on this. At the end of the day people had to accept County Council were the proper authority for education and highway matters. 44 people were against and 6 in favour but it did not mean they had to go with that. As Mr.Charnley had already said the emergency services supported the plan and we needed to look at the whole aspect. County Council had tried to look at the whole scheme, they had not reached any conclusions only that there was a problem with speed.
Coun.Porter thanked everyone for attending and passing their comments. Everything had been noted and he hoped a conclusion could be reached immediately.
Mr.Charnley said he would take all the comments back and see if there was any other scheme they could come up with that deals with the issue of speeding along the road and the requirements that residents would like to put in some form of crossing to get children to school as part of the School Travel Plan.
Mr.Jackson suggested that a mandate should be given to Mr.Charnley from the people of Trowell who want a crossing, without speed bumps, and who believe the speed of Stapleford Road needs reducing.
Coun.Porter felt Mr.Charnley had taken all the comments on board and this was not needed.The meeting closed at 9.10p.m.
For information on local doctors & the school , see the 'Local Amenities' page.
Back to the TOP of PAGE
