States Assembly | WQ-(620)-2017

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

PDF version

1240/5/1(620)

APPROVED

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON MONDAY 27TH NOVEMBER 2017

Question

Further to the answers given on 14th November 2017, will the Minister release to members the TMS (Parsons Brinkerhoff) design development/Safety Review commissioned in 2011, along with minutes or notes from departmental meetings at which the design brief/project funding/budget was discussed internally or with external agencies in 2010/11, and if not why not?
Why was it agreed on 27th September 2011 that the Town Park Capital Budget would fund all road improvements in Gas Place and Oxford Road (including rising bollards), but not Robin Place/Tunnel Street? What is the difference, if any, between these two access points?
Will the Minister release any minutes or papers to support his assertion in paragraph (c) of his written answer that the Council of Ministers had agreed funding for the creation of the Park?
Is it the case that there was no agreement between the Parish and Infrastructure over the removal of funding for rising bollards in Robin Place as recorded in the exchange of emails on 27/09/2011 and 04/11/2011?
What justification, if any, was given for the decision made in December 2012 to repay contingency funding of £500,000 despite the failure to agree Tunnel Street access with the Parish?

Answer

Further to the answers given on 14th November 2017, will the Minister release to members the TMS (Parsons Brinkerhoff) design development/Safety Review commissioned in 2011, along with minutes or notes from departmental meetings at which the design brief/project funding/budget was discussed internally or with external agencies in 2010/11, and if not why not?

The TMS Report is attached to this answer (see Appendix A). We were previously unable to release the report as it may have been required for the Inquest. The Deputy Viscount has since informed us that the TMS Safety Review, dated 14 April 2011, is not now required for the purposes of the Inquest. Therefore, I can now make that report available. A copy has also been placed online on the gov.je website.

It should be noted that the report deals only with the traffic management options to improve pedestrian access around the park being proposed at the time of the development of the Town Park (2010 / 2011). In particular, it considers safety issues that would need to be addressed due to vehicle reversing movements if bollards were installed in Tunnell St.

The Town Park was opened October 2011. The TMS report does not consider the final layout implemented by the Parish on Tunnell St starting in 2012 or the modifications made by the Parish five years later on, when it incorporated the La Raccouche pedestrian route as an independent scheme in September 2015.

It may also be interesting to note that the network traffic management proposals for the Town Park development were set out in the December 2010 Transport Assessment, submitted as part of the Town Park planning application. This document considered how traffic and transport needs could be met within the development and their impact on the wider road network.

Also, the Parish undertook the neighbourhood consultation on the traffic management measures proposed in October 2010.

The funding situation was made clear in email correspondence between the Connetable and TTS, as well as in the Parish Roads Committee meeting minutes, as set-out in the following responses:

"Original Message

From: : [TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering] Sent: Tue 27/09/2011 15:32

To: Simon Crowcroft ; Michael Jackson ; [TTS Chief Officer]

Cc: [TTS Principle Engineer]

Subject: Funding of the road improvements surrounding the new Town Park

Hi Simon,

Thanks for talking to me from your holiday last Friday regarding the funding of the road improvements around the new Town Park. Further to our discussion, I met with our Minister, Assistant Minister and .. [TTS Chief Officer] and all were happy with the solution we discussed.

As requested, I have listed out the details of what we agreed so there is no ambiguity The TTS capital budget for the Town Park will fund the following elements

* Full park remediation

* Full park construction

* Road improvements to Bath Street including street lighting and a new pedestrian crossing

* All road improvements including cycle track, street lighting and rising bollard in Gas Place and Oxford Road up to the junction with L'Avenue et Dolmen du Pres du Luminiere

* Provision of granite materials only for Robin Place and Tunnel Street

The Parish will fund all the remaining works in Robin Place and tunnel Street to include the laying of the granite, the street lighting and the rising bollard. We will arrange the transfer of the granite materials to your Parish yard in due course and provide copies of material suppliers, specifications and detailed drawings in due course

Trust this confirms our discussions and I would appreciate your confirmation of the above

: [TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering]"

And, see Parish Roads Committee minutes A Agenda of 27 January 2012, 10/12 – Millennium Town Park:

"The Constable said that looking back at the history of the Park project, £10M had been budgeted to complete the whole scheme. It was the States who deemed this amount was sufficient to complete all work and, in addition, create a café at the site. The Parish has not budgeted any funds to carry out work on the Park. The former Planning Minister's insistence that the Park be fenced in with a wall and railings had obviously used up some of the budget on items that were not originally included.

[ TTS Director of Projects and Engineering] Director of Projects and Engineering stated that the Council of Ministers had agreed the funding for the creation of the Park, but responsibility for the roads rested with the Parish and not TTS.

The Committee questioned whether when the budget had originally been set, anything had been put aside to do the roads. [ TTS Director of Engineering and Infrastructure] confirmed that the road design had been progressed later than the Park design.

[POSH Director Technical and Environmental Services] advised the Committee that a Parish team of stone masons was available to start almost immediately on the Tunnel Street section of the project, and while the team could be allocated to carry out the Gas Place work as requested by TTS, this would leave the southern section of the street words unfinished. He also recommended that the offer of project management by TTS would be of great assistance. His preference was to allow the contractors engaged by TTS to continue to work on the Gas Place section, albeit at Parish cost, while the Parish completed Tunnel Street as planned. He said that the cost of the extra work in Gas Place could be met from reprioritising the roads' programme for the current year.

The Committee maintained that the roads issue was a fundamental one, yet it appeared that instead of addressing the roads issue first, TTS organised the fountain and swings area. As a result the Parish is being passed the responsibility to complete the project. It was considered unfair that ratepayers had to increase their budget rather than tax payers meeting the additional costs.

However, it was accepted by the Committee that Gas Place and the area in front of Indigo House was due for resurfacing but had been delayed due to development of the Park. It was further agreed that there have been several instances in recent years where Parish teams have worked in partnership with TTS, such as on the Broad Street project. The Committee was also keen to see the project completed as soon as possible, which would have to include the refurbishment of the roads around the park.

The Committee voted by a majority to ask at a Parish Assembly for additional funding so as not to delay the roads' programme. [Parish Roads Committee Member] asked that his dissent be recorded. However, it was explained that the delay involved would make it impossible for the TTS contractors to complete the Gas Place section of the works. It was also stated that the Roads Committee has responsibility for the roads programme and that adjustments of this nature were sometimes necessary. Accordingly the Committee voted to rescind its earlier decision and voted by a majority to agree to include the Gas Place refurbishment to be funded out of this year's budget.

and [two Parish Roads Committee Members] asked that their dissent be recorded". [Emphasisadded]

Why was it agreed on 27th September 2011 that the Town Park Capital Budget would fund all road improvements in Gas Place and Oxford Road (including rising bollards), but not Robin Place/Tunnel Street? What is the difference, if any, between these two access points?

The Parish of St Helier Roads Committee is the responsible authority and is the only body that can direct changes to its roads layout or operation, all implementation work on the roads was commissioned and funded by the Parish.

The capital funding for the Millennium Town Park was primarily for the creation of a community park to the benefit of the North of Town.

As outlined in our 14 November 2017 answer, the division of funding was the result of a negotiation between the Connetable of St Helier and TTS. We cannot speak or answer for the Parish. As a St Helier Deputy , we can only suggest that the Deputy makes enquiries of the Connétable , the Parish Procureurs and the Parish Roads Committee. .

See email from TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering to Connetable Crowcroft of 27 September 2017.

It is clear that the responsibility for work on the Parish Roads was with the Parish of St Helier, and that authority for additional funding was going to be sought by the Parish Officials. The decision as to how that funding could then have been allocated rested with the Parish.

The difference between Gas Place / Oxford St and Robin Place / Tunnell St is that the traffic modelling within the Planning Application showed that the latter could potentially be closed to through traffic, if access to premises was maintained.

Will the Minister release any minutes or papers to support his assertion in paragraph (c) of his written answer that the Council of Ministers had agreed funding for the creation of the Park?

See Parish Roads Committee minutes A Agenda of 27 January 2012, 10/12 – Millennium Town Park:

"TTS presented various facts to the Committee

the Council of Ministers had agreed funding for the creation of the Park, but the responsibility for the roads rested with the Parish and not TTS"

Is it the case that there was no agreement between the Parish and Infrastructure over the removal of funding for rising bollards in Robin Place as recorded in the exchange of emails on 27/09/2011 and 04/11/2011?

Funding for the bollards in Robin Place was not removed as it was never provided for. The TTS Director of Engineering and Infrastructure states in his email of 27 September 2011 to the Connetable of St Helier, with the then Minister for TTS copied in:

"As requested, I have listed out the details of what we agreed so there is no ambiguity The TTS capital budget for the Town Park will fund the following elements

* Full park remediation

* Full park construction

* Road improvements to Bath Street including street lighting and a new pedestrian crossing

* All road improvements including cycle track, street lighting and rising bollard in Gas Place and Oxford Road up to the junction with L'Avenue et Dolmen du Pres du Luminiere

* Provision of granite materials only for Robin Place and Tunnel Street" [Emphasis added]

The fact that the Connetable of St Helier did not dispute this record of the negotiations and then went on to raise the issue of Parish funding at the Roads Committee meeting of 27 January 2012, where it was concluded that Parish would undertake and fund the works on its roads, would seem to indicate agreement.

N.B. Email correspondence was of 27/09/2011 and 04/10/2011 and not as erroneously set out in the Deputy 's Written Question.

What justification, if any, was given for the decision made in December 2012 to repay contingency funding of £500,000 despite the failure to agree Tunnel Street access with the Parish?

We refer you to the Ministerial decision of 14 December 2012, which explains the repayment of carry over funding retained as an emergency contingency (to fund exceptional events) and had to be handed back if not required. It was not for TTS's discretionary use.

https://www.gov.je/Government/PlanningPerformance/Pages/MinisterialDecisions.aspx? docid=FBBD917D-75CB-4FB4-A4A1-717E017EB2F9

That Ministerial Decision is almost 15 months after the discourse between the TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering and Connétable Crowcroft referred to above.

As stated in my response to Deputy Southern 's final supplementary question on 14 November 2017 the Connetable and the Parish's Roads Committee were the masters of their own destiny in this matter.

APPENDIX A

April 2011, TMS Millennium Town Park – Jersey Restricted Access Proposals on Tunnell St, Safety Review Rev B. Cost £700.

This report deals with the traffic management options to improve pedestrian access around the park being proposed at the time of the development of the Town Park in 2010 / 2011. In particular the report reviews the safety issues that would need to be addressed due to vehicle reversing movements if bollards were installed in Tunnell St. It does not consider the final layout implemented by the Parish on Tunnell St, starting 2012, in after the park had opened, or five years later on in September 2015 when the Parish introduced the La Raccouche pedestrian route as an independent scheme.

Drawings are referred to in the report which were later superseded but the report references were not updated. The later version of the drawings are attached as:

Date	Designer	Title	Drg. No.
13/04/2011	Parsons Brinkerhoff	Tunnell St Square Option 1	Figure 1
13/04/2011	Parsons Brinkerhoff	Tunnell St Square Option 2	Figure 2
13/04/2011	Parsons Brinkerhoff	Tunnell St Square Option 3	Figure 3*

* The drawing 407074406-0001 Option 3 reference in TMS's report refers to a computer generated PDF code and the drawing is in fact a duplicate of Tunnell St Square Option 3'

Millennium Town Park - Jersey

Restricted Access Proposals on Tunnell Street

on behalf of Parsons Brinckerhoff

Safety Review Rev B

April 2011

Vanguard Centre, University of Warwick Science Park, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ

Tel: +44 (0)24 7669 0900 Fax: +44 (0)24 7669 0274

Email: info@tmsconsultancy.co.uk Web: www.tmsconsultancy.co.uk

Millennium Town Park - Jersey Restricted Access Proposals on Tunnell Street

Safety Review

1 Introduction

This report refers to a Safety Review commissioned by Parsons Brinckerhoff.
TMS Consultancy was established in 1990 to provide specialist consultancy, research and training services in traffic management and road safety Engineering. TMS currently provides these services to a wide client base in both the public and private sectors in the UK and internationally. TMS Consultancy has an internationally recognised reputation in this field of work and runs the industry standard RoSPA 2- week Road Safety Engineering (AIP) and 1-week Advanced Road Safety Engineering training courses.

2 Methodology

TMS Consultancy has been commissioned by Parsons Brinckerhoff to carry out a safety review of the proposals to restrict access from Tunnell Street into Robin Place as part of the Millennium Town Park proposals in Jersey.
The review has been carried out by Elaine Bingham, BEng (Hons), a Senior Engineer with TMS Consultancy.
No site visit was undertaken. The review consisted of a desktop study of the following information:

Drawing No 501 Rev F Option 1
Drawing 01_10244.SK14 Option 2
Drawing 407074406-0001 Option 3
Proposed Sign Sketches – Option 3

3 Safety Observations

Options 1 and 2 restrict access from Tunnell Street into Robin Place to residents only by the use of rising bollards operated with an ANPR system. Any vehicles not on the ANPR database will have to u-turn at the proposed turning head.
Option 3 also restricts access from Tunnell Street into Robin Place, however for this option any vehicles not on the ANPR database will have to wait 90 seconds before the rising bollards are activated to allow access onto Robin Place.
It is understood that emergency service and refuge collection will be able to pass through the point closure.
The turning heads in options 1 and 2 have been designed to allow a transit van size vehicle to turn around.
For all three options "No Entry Except for Access" signs are to be provided at the junction leading to the park on Tunnell Street and at the location of the rising bollards. The signs may be misleading to drivers not familiar to the area particularly delivery drivers who may interpret the signs that they have access to Robin Place whilst making a delivery. The signs do not provide a warning of the rising bollards.
In Option 1 and 2 any vehicles larger than a transit size van will have difficulty u- turning and may require them to reverse back down Tunnell Street, where there is a risk of collisions with other users due to driver's visibility being restricted. In Option 1 drivers would have to negotiate a tight S' bend.
For Option 1, the turning head would be located within the raised area where pedestrian and cycle flows are likely to be high. The proposed turning head would be in the vicinity of the pedestrian entrance to the park and a cycle route linking the park to Tunnell Street crosses the turning area. Pedestrians and cyclists would be vulnerable in this area whilst a vehicle manoeuvres around, particularly when reversing due to driver's visibility being restricted. The turning head in this location would not be appropriate due to the risk of collisions between reversing vehicles and pedestrians.
Forward visibility to the rising bollards in all three options may be restricted by the highway alignment and the landscaping proposals.
For Option 2, the turning head is located away from the park entrance and compared with Option 1 there would be a lower risk of conflicts between reversing vehicles and pedestrians.
For Option 2 and 3, the relocating of the bollards before the S' bend should be considered. This would improve forward visibility to the rising bollards and any vehicle waiting. The rising bollards in this location would also act as an additional traffic calming feature before drivers continue through the area where pedestrian and cycle flow are high.