ACCESS BARRIER PROPOSALS DECEMBER 2014

[sbc]

From: Richard Dunn, Silver Birch Cottage, Chiltern Hill
Note to: Chalfont Heights Roads Committee re Access Barriers

We have been asked to comment and vote upon the recent undated note and proposals distributed by Chalfont Heights Roads Committee Ltd.
It appears that the basic premise underpinning the formation of the study Group was twofold:-
1 Concern regarding increased wear and tear of Estate Roads
2 Concern over an increase in burglaries from properties and vehicles.

In my opinion the paper and proposals fail to produce a compelling argument to proceed with the works in their current format. We are being asked to vote on a single proposal on a straightforward “yes” or “no” basis to erect two barriers at a capital cost of £27,000 – £32,000.

However we are told in the Background notes to the proposal that the increase in traffic is “perceived” since the traffic counts undertaken from 2007 to 2014 show, in fact, that the average number of vehicles has not significantly changed at the point of measurement. If that is so what are we trying to stop?

We are further informed that the number of reported crimes increased from 2012 to 2013 but that no breakdown of statistics is available. This latter comment is not quite true as you can interrogate the “Police Map” online. This reveals that on the Heights there were, in 2013, 6 burglaries, 7 crimes against vehicles, 5 acts of criminal damage and/or arson and 2 “other thefts.” If you want to play with statistics then the figures for 2014, (up to end October,) show 1 burglary, 5 crimes against vehicles and 1 act of criminal damage and/or arson. This of course is a significant reduction in burglaries thus far this year. It is my understanding that thefts from vehicles, (and we ourselves have suffered outside our property,) are opportunist thefts where handbags etc have been left on view in parked vehicles which the proposal would not necessarily assist in prevention.

I have serious misgivings about the necessity to place barriers at Chiltern Hill and Woodside Hill entry points. The FAQ’s section of the paper states that no barrier is proposed at Upway because an assumption has been made that traffic could back up in Joiners Lane. It seems obvious to me that, if we are seeking to prevent through traffic, and there is a single point of entry/exit at the top of the estate, then this is where there should be control – if control is required. It has always been my understanding that the properties in Morris Close do not form part of the Heights but they have rights of access over the roads. If this is the case then why even consider a barrier to the north of Upway/Winkers Lane junction. A single point of control could be located anywhere to the south of this junction and above the Ellis Avenue/Chiltern Hill junction, well away from any potential conflict with Joiners Lane. This would immediately save 50% of capital costs and ongoing maintenance costs. I seem to recall that there was a proposal a couple of years ago for entry control towards the southern end of Upway but this was quietly dropped. No explanation is given as to why this is not being resurrected.

There is, I believe, a fundamental flaw with the proposal to place a control at the bottom of Chiltern Hill. If we have to accept that the users of the Montessori School and Tithe Barn have access to those properties I assume that they will not be given RFID’s. In the mornings, at lunchtime and in the early afternoon there will therefore be a very significant number of vehicles which will have to be stationary to secure opening of the barrier at the time that residents want access/egress to the Estate. Whilst the traffic counts showed no significant change to vehicle numbers in upper Chiltern Hill what has significantly increased, (and having lived here for over 30 years I have seen it with my own eyes,) is the traffic on “lower” Chiltern Hill up to the Sandy Rise junction. This traffic, coupled with delivery vehicles, including all those associated with building works, the potential congestion both up and downhill from this barrier, is a very unpleasant prospect . If the barrier were to be placed somewhere to the top of the Estate these problems would be avoided and inconvenience to residents driveways minimised/avoided.

If we are satisfied that the traffic increase through the upper parts of the Estate has not significantly changed, and that the 2012 crime statistics were a spike, then what are we seeking to achieve? Is the inconvenience to our visitors and non-resident families of having to manually operate the barrier justified? It may get rid or deter “hard-core” drivers using the Estate as a rat run but surely these could be identified when the CCTV is up and running.

If we are seeking to reduce the speed of vehicles through the Estate then these proposals will do no such thing. As an aside if you want to reduce wear and tear on the first two ramps in “lower” Chiltern Hill, (and the tarmac damage would appear to support this,) then may I respectfully suggest you paint white triangles on them so that they can be seen. The visibility was compromised further by the patching of the road surface being the same colour as the tarmac on the ramps. At the present time they cannot differentiate normal carriageway from ramps and the white marker bollards are clearly not sufficient. In the past we have been told that this would make the roadway seem more urban. However the proposals to place red and white electric barriers presumably mean that this is no longer a consideration.

In short therefore:-

1 The location of the barriers is wrong and only one barrier is required.
2 Slow people down by letting them see clearly where the first two ramps are. Once they have slowed down they may be more inclined to look for further barriers.

I DO NOT agree with the proposals in their current form or location, and VOTE AGAINST.

8 December 2014

[Author]

Posts