PHIL CREIGHTON – the only journalist present at Wokingham Borough Council’s Executive meeting on July 26 – presents his incisive and brilliant round-up of the debates, the questions and the decisions made on your behalf
ANGER over the decision to axe lollipop staff outside the borough’s schools came to the fore during the executive meeting.
The councillors faced a number of questions from members of the public keen to challenge the decision to spend hundreds of thousands on pedestrians crossings instead of keeping the much-loved school crossing patrollers.
In his question, Trevor Sleet, a former school governor for Walter Infant School, pointed out that the evidence gathered by the council took place during the February half-term when schools were off and the number of people looking to cross the road were fewer.
The leader of the council, Cllr Charlotte Haitham Taylor, pledged to look at the issues.
She told Mr Sleet: “[WBC] officers will work with [executive member for highways and transport] Cllr Pollock on issues at [the Murray Road] site. We will have a meeting on the site.”
Sally Cairns asked on behalf of Annette Medhurst whether additional measures would be needed at Murray Road due to the constant fluctuation of numbers of people wanting to cross the road.
Cllr Anthony Pollock said: “I do not agree that a patroller is a better solution. Formal crossings … are an effective long-term measure.”
Ms Cairns also asked her own question, wanting to know if the decision to axe the school crossing patrollers could be made on a site-by-site basis.
“The number of consultation responses from the different sites indicated very different levels of concern,” she said. “The full council debate highlighted that the situation is very different outside the different schools, in terms of how helpful a crossing will be given the road layout and whether there are likely to be other groups of people wanting to cross the road at different times of day. Does this have to be an all-or-nothing decision?”
Cllr Pollock replied: “The provision of the school crossing patrol services is discretionary and, as such, the council agreed to remove all funding for the service in 2015. No allowance is made for the provision of the service in part.”
Wokingham’s Mrs Lolly, Diane Burch, said that the council’s plan was being rushed through and that the survey by Road Safety Experts took place between 5pm and 6pm when “only 10 pedestrians crossed the road at the [Murray Road] crossing.”
Cllr Pollock said that the assessment met “the Department of Transport’s guidances” and that the survey “showed that no crossing was necessary”.
“Delaying the delivery of the crossings and undertaking further surveys is not considered necessary as it will not change the outcome of the assessment.
“However, as a result of the concerns you and the public have raised, the designs of both crossings are being reconsidered with a view of providing traffic signal controlled crossing.”
She also reminded Cllr Charlotte Haitham Taylor, the leader of the council, that after the May local elections, in which the Conservatives lost seats to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, she had said: “The residents sent us a clear message … if our residents feel that they are not being listened to, then we need to redouble our efforts to show that we have taken on board what they have to say.”
“Bearing this in mind,” Ms Birch said, “Why does it appear that they are no listening to the parents and children at least at the Keephatch and Murray Road crossings?”
She urged the council to delay the installation pending another survey being taken “instead of trying to rush through these unwanted and expensive alternatives”.
Cllr Pollock again insisted that the proposed crossings “are safe forms of crossing facilities” and that the designs had passed independent road safety audits.
He also said that the survey conducted on the roads “considered the demand throughout the day, the survey results … showed that no crossing was necessary”.
He did promise to reconsider the designs of the crossings following feedback from residents.
There were more queries in councillors’ question time.
Cllr Lindsay Ferris, leader of the Wokingham Liberal Democrats, wanted to know more about the costs of the crossings, as the installation of the different crossings would significantly outweigh the salary costs of the lollipop staff they were replacing. The council’s documents also didn’t reveal the annual cost of running the new crossings.
He said: “I have considerable concerns that the financial information presented … [is] inaccurate and omit a number of ongoing revenue costs associated with the provision and future running of the cross facilities.
“Why have these ongoing revenue costs been excluded, as it gives a false impression of any supposed savings?”
Cllr Pollock replied: “I believe the costs you are referring to relate to any interest payments associated with capital borrowing and the ongoing maintenance and operation costs.
“The majority of capital funding has been allocated from a grant with a very small proportion from developer proportions. Therefore there are no additional costs associated with this element.
“As for maintenance and operation, these costs are relatively small and will be absorbed within the existing maintenance budgets … The approximate annual cost is less than £600 per site.”
Cllr Rachel Burgess raised the issue of the Keephatch Road crossing and concerns that were “backed up by the independent road safety audit”. These included the proximity of the zebra crossing to the roundabout on Keephatch Road, which “could result in an increased risk of collisions. Are the findings … going to ignored at the Keephatch Road site?”
Cllr Pollock said: “The audit did not identify the design would provide an unsafe crossing facility but highlighted recommendations that if implemented would improve safety further.”
He added that a hedgerow Cllr Burgess had mentioned would be cut back to make it safer for pedestrians.
In a written question, Cllr David Hare wanted to know why an uncontrolled crossing had been planned for Murray Road, saying: “It would cause traffic chaos and might well lead to injury of the crossing users”.
Cllr Pollock said that after a site meeting, officers had been considered a change from a zebra to a puffin crossing. “The scheme has now been put on hold while the redesign is completed,” he added.
The final question came from Cllr Andy Croy, leader of the Wokingham Labour group, who wanted to know why the executive were making a financial decision based on incomplete financial information.
Cllr Pollock said: “The decision being made today is not based on financial considerations. That decision was made in 2015 and we are today deciding on whether we continue to implement that decision.”
In the subsequent vote, all the Executive members agreed to axe the lollipop staff in favour of new crossings.
