Decision details

1. The proposed changes in movement regulations are required to realise the traffic management benefits planned with the Platform for Prosperity Scheme (if the scheme is approved through due process).
2. The Council has carried out extensive consultation and the scheme has attracted one movement regulation change objection.
3. The traffic analysis undertaken by ROMANSE/Halcrow shows that by increasing traffic capacity in the locality of Platform Road, the prospective increase in travel time from the growth in traffic associated with the port and other prospective developments can be significantly reduced (see Appendix 5).  The proposed expansion of the carriageway may however, impact on certain residential or business properties adjoining the scheme and these can be considered through the Planning process together with any mitigation required from the Environmental Impact Assessment.  Overall however, the benefits for the community in economic and social terms outweigh any impact or interference with adjoining property rights for the reasons set out in the report.

To approve the proposed movement regulation changes to the Platform for Prosperity Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) as advertised.

Cabinet further directs officers to approach ABP again to determine if a solution to the parking issues at Admiralty House and access to the Rex Development land for residents’ parking can be negotiated on their behalf. Cabinet recognises it cannot direct or enforce the co-operation of ABP in this regard but would wish to offer one further opportunity to try to find a mutually acceptable way forward in this regard.

In reaching its decision Cabinet has had regard to the objections received to the TRO proposals and the concerns expressed in the meeting today but is satisfied that the TRO proposals are appropriate in traffic management terms and meet the needs of the wider transport and public realm improvements of the Platform Road Scheme.  Cabinet recognises there are further land, design and planning issues to be addressed but is satisfied these will considered as part of the wider project proposals and the planning decisions to be made in due course.

The alternative of retaining the current traffic movement and carriageway alignment was rejected as the scheme benefits could not be realised in these circumstances.