Gratwicke Road school run

We hear a lot of comments locally and at surgery about the top of Gratwicke Road being blocked every morning as mums drop their kids off to school by the junction with Corwen Road. Well the council have proposed a double yellow line along the inside of the bend in Gratwicke Road from the Corwen Road junction to the first houses. Just along one side and with no loading allowed during the school drop-off and pick-up times.

I spent this evening talking to some of the local residents and most appear to be in favour although they worry about pushing the parking problem further down Gratwicke Road. However the proposal makes sense to just about everybody as a way of keeping the junction clear, maintaining visibility round the bend and keeping Gratwicke Road free for passing traffic.

This will take some time to work its way through council procedures but it does look like an improvement that locals are generally happy with.

There also remains the question of enforcement and whether the council has the means to enforce any new restrictions when it struggles to maintain compliance with existing parking restrictions.

Changes to Feed In Tariffs (FITs)

The government’s sudden decision to drastically reduce the FITs from 12 December has come as a real bolt from the blue to the solar panel industry. Up till now the UK had been developing a new, green, industry in the manufacture and installation of solar panels. These panels when fitted on the roofs of houses could provide a large chunk of the house’s domestic electricity needs. But the real bonus comes when during the day the solar panels are producing more electricity than the house needs and it is possible to feed excess electricity in to the national grid and get paid for it via a FIT which is paid direct to the consumer by his electricity supply company. The FIT for a typical householder is currently 43.3p for every kWh (kilowatt hour) of energy sold.

For an average house an outlay of £10,000 is needed to install the solar panels and the payback time is around 8-10 years, after which the solar panels could bring in an income of nearly £1,000 a year net for the remaining years of the scheme which runs for 25 years from installation..
After a slow start the demand for solar panels took off over the last year thanks to the government’s FIT mechanism which made solar panels affordable. The government wanted to boost the take up of solar panels so the FITs were raised temporarily for new installations that completed by 31 March 2012.

Already last summer the government was forced to rain back the FITs for larger installations as they noticed many country landowners were taking advantage of the generous FITs to create large scale solar farms. It produced more income than growing crops. Quite rightly the government did not want to be seen to be subsidising large landowners when the aim of the scheme was to encourage private householders.
However, the government seems to have got cold feet over the amount of subsidy it was paying out to support the FITs, and it has abruptly reduced the FITs from 43.3p to just 21p per kilowatt hour.

Many householders are now uncertain over the eventual returns on their investment as any installations completed after 12 December will only receive the new FITs, leaving them with payback periods extending to 15-20 years and greatly reducing the value of solar panel installation. There is now a real fear that the new rates will put most potential customers right off if they see the length of time it will take to recoup their investment and only a few years at the end of the scheme to reap any substantial benefit.

At a stroke, a new modern green industry has gone into a major panic. Firstly to complete as much work as possible before 12 December but then they face losing many of their potential customers who will be put off by the new FIT levels. Some 20,000 jobs may be at risk if the industry collapses as a result.

Tight Squeeze on Norcot Hill

Last week I wrote to Tony Page, the Lead Ciouncillor for Transport asking what he was doing about the width restriction on Norcot Road in Tilehurst.

It has been widely reported in the press that the supposed 6′ 6″ gap on the downhill side was in fact only 6′ 4″ wide. Not a huge difference but enough to force hundereds of van drivers to avoid the width restriction by using the adjacent bus lane. THis was never a problem until the council installed a traffic camera to police the bus lane and within weeks hundreds of drivers have been fined for avoiding the width restriction which was actually narrower than it should be.

This is all just another example of the council now actually preying on motorists in order to boost the council’s own finances as my colleague Warren Swaine has already made clear here

Unsurprisingly Cllr Page has been in no hurry to respond and the number of fines just keeps going up and the coun cil cannot even get its width measurements put right.

Vodafone 0 Tilehurst 3

Joyous news from West Berkshire ! Their Planning Committee has refused Vodafone’s application to install an 11 metre mast in Dark Lane.

Having fought off two previous attempts by Vodafone to install even higher masts along Lower Elmstone Drive I was approached by residents in West Berkshire about this application last month. I (with some help from Lib Dem colleagues) knocked on doors in the area and encouraged residents to respond to the initial ‘consultation’ and then organised a petition when the application was finally tabled.

This is another brilliant result for local residents who do not want intrusive telephone masts in residential areas. Well done to all concerned.

This is the third mast I have had to campaign against, I am probably one of Vodafones least liked customers!

Tilehurst Car Park Charges – time is running out

With time running out before the new car park charges are implemented at the end of the month, I have written again to Cllr Page (the Lead Councillor for Transport) appealing to him to re-think these charges which could seriously damage trade for local shopkeepers in Tilehurst. Last month I helped the traders present a petition with over 2,200 signatures to Cabinet as the council was planning to do away with the free first hour parking in Recreation Road and Dunstall Close car parks.

This Labour Council says it wants to encourage local shopping centres but then hits Tilehurst with these car park charges. They have offered to keep just the first 30 minutes free but this is not enough for many elderly folk to do their shopping and they are a large percentage of local customers.

The council just does not see the potential losses for traders in The Triangle if shoppers prefer driving down to Sainsbury’s rather than using local shops.

This is no way to encourage local businesses in the middle of a serious recession.

Traffic Study in Tilehurst

Last week’s Traffic Management Advisory Panel (TMAP) discussed a brief report calling for a traffic study of the Tilehurst area to be made. As most residents already appreciate, there are some significant issue with traffic in Tilehurst, speeding along many roads, irresponsible parking, lack of crossings over some major roads, lack of facilities for cyclists and a general point that we give too much priority to cars in residential areas and we tend to forget about pedestrians and cyclists.

The council decided to set up a traffic study to look at the various issues in Tilehurst and draw up suggested solutions where feasible. The study will involve myself and the other Tilehurst Ward councillors.

I have raised Tilehurst traffic issues on numerous occasions in the past and I took the opportunity to report on the recent survey we did around the Elvaston Way and Hardwick Road area where we found that 89% of residents who responded to our survey (and over 120 of you did – out of some 400 properties) were in favour of a 20mph zone in their area. We think that 20mph zones should be the norm in residential areas. However the council is still dragging its feet on implementing then even though there is a wealth of statistics to support such a move. Follow this link to see some of them:
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Documents/20%27s%20Plenty%20prof%20briefing_v4.pdf

I look forward to participating in the new study although with the current council administration I am less than optimistic about concrete action any time soon.

Vodafone Mast in Dark Lane

Vodafone certainly are not hanging arond. Barely had they given time for residents to respond to their ‘consultation’ than they formally sent in their planning application for an 11 metre mast in Dark Lane. 11 metre masts are not welcome in residential areas as we have pointed out to Vodafone several times.

Details of the application are on the West Berkshire website at :
http://publicaccess.westberks.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LQSNYORD02K00

You can also post comments and objections online as well. It is important to register your objections online or by post to the council before 27 September.

Tory Tricks in Tilehurst

Yesterday I was shown a leaflet put out by the Tories in Tilehurst in which they claim that Sandra Vickers is ‘leading a petition to reverse the [car park] charges’.

Well excuse me for raising a discordant note but I was under the impression that it was the local traders themselves who organised the petition and, indeed, presented it to the council. It was I who first wrote to the press about the changes to the car park charges and it was I who arranged for the petition to be presented to the council’s Cabinet where the Leader of the Council was forced to publicly back down from the original proposals. Oh and I also wrote in previous blogs in support of the campaign.

In short we can all make exaggerated claims in leaflets but this ludicrous claim is an insult to Tilehurst’s shopkeepers and will only serve to lower the reputation of all of us local councillors who try to support our local communities.

Cllr Vickers may be new on the scene but she has enough old heads around to advise her that misleading the public is never a good idea.

Wide Area 20 mph Limits Encourage Cycling and Walking

From the 20’s Plenty Campaign

Slowing speed limits from 30 mph to 20 mph contributes to increasing the attractiveness of cycling and walking relative to other options. 20 mph increases physical activity and reduces traffic.

With the exceptions of road closures and congestion charging, it is hard to prove that any single traffic intervention results in raising active travel. A choice to walk or cycle is complex, involving factors like distance, route knowledge, safe routes, weather, topography and cycle parking. Yet, it is well researched that traffic speeds are a major barrier to choosing to walk or cycle. Perception of risk is strongly involved in the “how shall I get there?” decision.

Volumes and speeds of traffic are inversely correlated to walking and cycling levels – when one side of the equation rises, the other falls. Interventions that reduce traffic speed and volume are likely to promote walking and cycling and thus result in public health gains.[i] This is compounded by critical mass effects. Where there are more cyclists or walkers, safety increases due to its visibility and popularity, making drivers more conscious of vulnerable road users.

The key prerequisite for sustainable travel is creating the conditions in which walking and cycling are more attractive than car use. Reviews have found methods that pull people toward active travel include increasing the percentage of the local road network where speeds are limited e.g. to 20 mph (30 km/h)[ii] Unsurprisingly, in Europe 30km/h speed limits are the foundation of cycling and walking policies in Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

In Portsmouth, which implemented 20 mph limits on 94% of its roads in 2008, “over 40% of respondents stated that since the introduction of the scheme, there has been a safer environment for walking and cycling; and as a result, around a third of respondents felt that there had been an increase in pedestrian and cyclist activities in the local areas.”[iii]

Health professionals see lower traffic speeds as a foundation for increasing “active travel” leading to a healthier nation. The Association of Directors of Public Health with the National Heart Forum have developed a “position statement” on the benefits of 20mph as the default limit for residential and urban areas.[iv]

It is time to give people a real choice in how they travel by removing the fear of fast traffic from community streets. The authorities of over 6 million people have committed to do so.

More information at www.20splentyforus.org.uk
________________________________________
[i] Jacobsen,PL; Racioppi,F; Rutter,H (2009) Who owns the roads? How motorised traffic discourages walking and bicycling, Injury Prevention, v15, pp369-373.
[ii] Oja,P; Vuori,I (2000) PROMOTION OF TRANSPORT WALKING AND CYCLING IN EUROPE: Strategy Directions, The European Network for Promotion of Health-Enhancing Physical Activity. http://www.panh.ch/hepaeurope/materials/HEPA%20Walking%20and%20Cycling%20Strategy%20.pdf
[iii] http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/20mphPortsmouth/
[iv] http://www.adph.org.uk/files/ourwork/policies/NHF_PositionStatement20mph_2010.pdf