Councillor Craig Browne has been working with officers at Cheshire East on a number of projects which he hoped would be added to this year's programme.
One of which was to have a new footpath installed on the railway bridge, between Piccolinos and Heyes Lane, however he has now received confirmation that this will not be possible.
Speaking at the Parish Council meeting on Monday, 12th June, Craig Browne said "We know it's going to be resurfaced this year so I thought it was a good opportunity to ask about getting a footpath installed on the side of the railway bridge that doesn't currently have a footpath because it would be more cost effective to do at the same time.
"Apart from pedestrian safety it would also potentially act as a traffic calming measure but highways have been out and done an assessment and the current carriageway is not wide enough to accommodate another footpath. But we have explored it and it's been properly considered and ruled out for the right reasons."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
That has to be your best ever headline! It's beyond what any National could do. Locally, yes, important issue to many but it did make me smile.
2. some three or so years ago, I and the previous P.C. Chairman, sat down with people (either C.E. or chaps from the Company to whom this area was out-sourced;I don't recall which) and we were told that the road was quite wide enough to accommodate a footpath on the rail station side.
Has the road shrunk in the meantime?
3. they also told us that, subject to investigation, it might be possible to remove the tarmac and reinstate the cobbles underneath; which would act as a traffic slowing measure.
Funny old world eh?
Thanks for your questions and comments.
The correct procedure has been followed, an assessment has been carried out (by CE Highways) and the result is that it is not possible, so we move on. There are some S106 monies available that may have helped pay for it, so the decision was not taken for financial reasons.
Naturally I can't comment on any previous discussions that may have taken place. I'm sure the road hasn't shrunk; however, guidelines and codes of practice do change over time, so that might explain why two apparently different answers have apparently been given to the same question.
Kind regards,
Craig
thanks as always for your prompt response.
However, I am still unclear as to what C.E. mean by 'as assessment has been carried out'. Might it be possible for us to know what type of assessment it was?
Spurred on by your response, I tried to find out the minimum width for a B road such as London Road and the minimum width for a pavement.
To my great surprise, it would seem that there are no minimum figures for these two measurements! e.g. the D. of T. on 13th July 2011 issued a document wherein was '..no regulations as such for ... road widths, only guidance and advice'.
As you write above, the decision to say 'no' was not 'taken for financial reasons.'. So might C.E. tell us what the reason/s might be?
Cheers,
Duncan
In principle, that sounds like a good idea.
It may not be possible, due to the lack of a footpath on one side and the proximity to the Ryleys Lane junction on the other, but I will investigate this and come back to you.
Kind regards,
Craig
If full crossing not an option then how about a central refuge....(maybe Piccolinos will sponsor it