Travel & Transport
Action Point 3.1 TRAFFIC CALMING
| 1. The Issue or Problem Speeding traffic in Ringmer - implications for safety and quality of life ("living environment"). |
| 2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People Overwhelming response in the survey by RADAR (Ringmer Against Drivers Acting Recklessly) and a clear mandate in replies to the Village Plan Questionnaire. In question 31 responses indicated the following roads as needing priority traffic calming - Lewes Road/B2192 (152), Gote Lane (67), Springett Avenue (67),Harrisons Lane (62) and Broyle Lane (44). Mini roundabouts were supported at Springett Avenue/Lewes Road 469 (65.7%), Paygate Corner 332 (50.2%), Harrisons Lane/Lewes Road 371 (53.9%). 562 (75.3%) respondents support a controlled crossing near the Community College. |
| 3. The Action (a) Immediate. Encouragement of lawful behaviour. (b) Longer term. Physical calming or remedial measures. |
|
4. How it will be tackled |
| 5. Who will do it (a) CSW pilot scheme began on May 13th 2003 and is co-ordinated by RADAR in conjunction with Sussex Police. TBUSD week will occur from 23rd - 28th June 2003 and is a community-involvement exercise co-ordinated by RPC and ESCC. This includes driver commitment pledges. (b) RPC and ESCC have so far agreed in principle on priority for more major calming and safety measures, including a controlled crossing by the Community College and the siting of mini roundabouts at Paygate Corner and Springett Avenue (subject to funding). Additional measures may need to be considered and prioritised in the light of experience with CSW and TBUSD (RADAR and RPC). |
| 6. When should it be done by Permanent "speed check area" signs are urgently needed to replace those on loan from Sussex Police. The success of CSW to a large extent depends on signs properly fixed and displayed at the entrances of the village at all times. The CSW pilot scheme will be evaluated by the Police and by RADAR in August and November 2003. If it is decided to continue the scheme it will be necessary for the village to purchase a laser speed gun. It would also be necessary that the pilot scheme be formally constituted as a permanent scheme. When the effect of CSW has been analysed the necessity for other measures should be re-examined without prejudice to previous discussions. |
| 7. Resource implications (a) We need 6 CSW speed check area signs which have been costed at £98 + VAT (excluding fixing). A speed gun could cost between £1,000 and £2,000 depending on the type and model, although it may be possible to reduce this figure. (b) Mini roundabouts and the controlled crossing - approximately £20,000 each and £50,000 plus. |
Action Point 3.2 STREET PARKING
| 1. The Issue or Problem On-street car parking has become a progressively more significant problem in Ringmer in recent years. Many older houses have little or no on-site parking provision. Some 1960s estates have inadequate parking because the numbers of cars residents now possess is greater than was then anticipated. Most houses built between the 1970s and 2001 have adequate off-road parking. Ringmer life is highly car-dependent, with 90% of all households (including sheltered households) possessing a car and over 40% possessing two or more cars. Two factors threaten to exacerbate car parking problems in the village. The first is the application of the government Planning Policy Guidance, PPG3 for new greenfield developments, in which off street parking is restricted to 1.2 cars per household. It is unlikely that many such households will confine themselves to a single car. The present on-road parking problems have occurred when only about 15% of village households cannot accommodate their vehicles off-road, but this proportion is set to increase. The second factor is a Park & Ride scheme being considered by East Sussex County Council, which proposes to alleviate parking problems in Lewes by encouraging commuter cars to park in Ringmer instead. |
| 2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People Q 32 of the Questionnaire shows that a high proportion of residents identified on-street parking in Ringmer. While problems were identified at over 30 locations, by far the most frequent responses were the area around the Shopping Precinct (175) and Harrisons Lane (146). Other residential roads with significant problems were Broyle Lane (49), Mill Road (30) & Anchor Field (18). Q29 sought views about the proposed Park & Ride scheme. 27% of residents supported this but more than twice as many, 58%, were opposed. |
| 3. The Action (a) Attempt to minimise problems caused by on-street parking in areas where this is a particular problem, giving priority to the area around the Shopping Precinct and Harrisons Lane. A recently introduced scheme in Broyle Lane has led to some safety improvement. (b) Attempt to minimise the parking problems that can be predicted to arise on and around the new greenfield developments. (c) Abandon the proposed Park & Ride scheme. |
| 4. How it will be tackled (a) Shopping Precinct: By discussing with East Sussex County Council, Lewes District Council and Sussex Police whether the situation around the Shopping Precinct can be improved by provision of additional parking, imposition of parking restrictions and enforcement of existing restrictions. Harrisons Lane: By discussing with East Sussex County Council and householders whether the situation in Harrisons Lane can be alleviated by the means used with some success in Broyle Lane. (b) By discussing parking provision with greenfield developers and/or by seeking to ensure that planning constraints include restricting new residents' car ownership to those vehicles they can accommodate off-road and/or imposing and enforcing parking restrictions around the new developments. (c) By persuading East Sussex County Council that the proposed Park & Ride scheme should not be pursued. (a), (b) & (c) By informing relevant local councils of the relevant action points included in the Ringmer Action Plan. |
| 5. Who will do it (a) Ringmer Parish Council, Lewes District Council, East Sussex County Council, Sussex Police & local residents. (b) Ringmer Parish Council, Local Councillors, Lewes District Council, East Sussex County Council & Sussex Police. (c) Ringmer Parish Council |
|
6. When should it be done by |
| 7. Resource implications a) Unknown, but potentially significant. (b) Minimal. (c) Would save resources. |
| 1. The Issue or Problem One possible means of meeting the objective of improving transport by means other than the private car within Ringmer and between Ringmer and Lewes would be by means of a network of cycle tracks. Many Ringmer people have bicycles and the distances involved are within easy bicycle range, but this mode of transport is used much less than it might be because of the danger, especially to children, of cycling in amongst other traffic on the busy B2192 and other local roads. There have also been complaints from older residents about the dangers caused by children cycling on pavements. |
|
2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue
to Ringmer People |
| 3. The Action Support the development of a dedicated off-road cycle route between Ringmer and Lewes and future development of cycle routes within the parish. |
| 4. How it will be tackled By identifying a safe Ringmer-Lewes and intra-Ringmer cycle routes and seeking the necessary resources from 'planning gain' charged to future housing development. Priority should be given to the Ringmer-Lewes route. |
| 5. Who will do it East Sussex County Council, Lewes District Council, Ringmer Parish Council, local councillors and Ringmer schools & colleges. |
| 6. When should it be done by As soon as possible and intimately coupled with an ongoing necessity for keeping abreast of progress and timing on the RG3 Development (Forges site) in relation to proposal for use of RG3 planning gain. |
| 7. Resource implications Probably substantial - initial estimates of the Ringmer-Lewes cycleway costs are in the range of £250-£500K. However, such a sum might not be an unrealistic charge against planning gain if planned development takes place. |
Action Point 3.4 ALTERNATIVES TO PRIVATE CAR TRAVEL
| 1. The Issue or Problem To reduce number of car journeys to and from Ringmer. |
| 2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People
Respondents to Q 33 of the Questionnaire gave, as the second most popular improvement which would encourage them to use public bus services more "a regular, frequent and reliable service between Ringmer and the Rail Station" (553). In Q35, 295 people (40.6%) said a Railway through Ringmer would be a good thing in the long term. 82 people were interested in participating in a car share or car club scheme, (Q37). |
| 3. The Action To reduce number of car journeys to and from Ringmer. To explore the possibility for developing car sharing and/or a taxi-bus service between Ringmer and Glynde Rail Station. |
| 4. How it will be tackled (a) Recruit a computer literate volunteer. (b) Build, maintain and update a register of regular car journeys between Ringmer and the Rail Staion. (c) Build, maintain and update a register of volunteers to drive car or mini-bus for specific journeys not fully covered by public transport. (d) Liaise with other agencies including RDH Bus Company |
| 5. Who will do it Ringmer Parish Council and other agencies following initial research. Cllr Alan Grindley will try to find volunteer to co-ordinate car sharing, lifts etc via email. |
| 6. When should it be done by On going. |
|
7. Resource implications |
Action Point 3.5 IMPROVEMENTS TO A27
| 1. The Issue or Problem Traffic congestion in Ringmer is substantially worsened by traffic diverting on to the B2124 & B2192 through Ringmer to avoid queues on the unimproved section of the A27. A particular cause of delay on the A27 is the level crossing at Beddingham. However, recent Dept of Transport proposals to upgrade the A27 between Beddingham and Lewes are being opposed by some local pressure groups. |
| 2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People When asked in the Village Survey (Q 28) whether they supported upgrading this section of the A27, 89% of respondents were in favour and 5% against (6% had no opinion). Excessive traffic on the B2192 is a major problem for Ringmer, and has led to the formation of an active local pressure group, RADAR. Heavy traffic, diverted from the A27 by congestion, has been a major target. |
| 3. The Action (a) Make it clear to the Dept of Transport, our constituency MP, and relevant councillors that Ringmer residents overwhelmingly support the proposal to upgrade this section of the A27. (b) Counter arguments from local pressure groups against the proposal in local media. (c) Ensure that the Ringmer viewpoint is represented at any Public Enquiry. |
| 4. How it will be tackled (a) By informing Dept of Transport, our constituency MP, and relevant councillors of the outcome of the Village Survey. (b) By monitoring local media and responding where necessary. (c) By making representations in support of the proposal, and providing evidence of the negative impact of the status quo, in the event that a Public Enquiry is held. |
| 5. Who will do it Ringmer Parish Council. |
| 6. When should it be done by (a) On adoption of the Action Plan (b) Ongoing (c) When a Public Enquiry is announced. |
| 7. Resource implications Minimal local resource implications |
click here for Action Plan Index
click here for Parish Council page
