| Support the LCWIP |
10 |
Noted |
| Do not support LCWIP |
|
Noted |
| Neither support nor do not support LCWIP |
8 |
Noted |
| Review and/or extend links from Chadbury to Wood Norton (was supposed to be done when retirement village was build). |
2 |
We will commit to reviewing progress relating to these links. |
| A46 issues, a lack of facilities for villages south of Evesham to access the town of Ashton). Need to think wider than Evesham. |
3 |
The LCWIP proposes connections to villages south of Evesham using the route away from the A46. |
| A46 facilities for pedestrians to cross. |
1 |
This road belongs to National Highways, Worcestershire County Council will continue to engage with NH to reach a solution. |
| Consider the Salt Way bridleway. |
1 |
This scheme is outside the scope of this LCWIP at this time, however, it can be considered in the future for connectivity. |
| Improve links to Valley to/from Evesham. Delivery timescales too long! |
4 |
This scheme is currently being investigated by Wychavon District Council. Worcestershire Council Council will offer support and collaboration. |
| Consider designated parking for horseboxes, cyclists and walkers so that they can park and then enjoy the new footways etc. |
2 |
Parking is outside the scope of this LCWIP and will not be considered at this time. |
| Plan should link up to work already in progress with The Council's Public Rights of Way Team. |
1 |
Where feasible Worcestershire County Council always take the opportunity to work collaboratively with our Public Rights of Way Team to link schemes. |
| Evesham to Pershore link must be developed (inc Charlton and Fladbury) as priority. |
3 |
This route is currently under feasibility. |
| Funding concerns to enable delivery/business case development. |
2 |
We will endeavour to attract funding wherever possible. |
| A44 ped crossing at the roundabout where it links to A46. |
1 |
We require further detail. |
| Mixed use paths in some places is not appropriate (e.g.along river banks where ped flow is high and paths are narrow). |
1 |
Dedicated cycle lanes are not always feasible due to width constraints in which case shared use must be considered, where shared space is applicable Worcestershire County Council include signage to ensure safe us by all. |
| Challenge for pedestrians on Port Street. |
1 |
We would need to understand the nature of these challenges. |
| The plan does not fully recognise the issues of linking trip attractors on either side of the river. |
1 |
The proposed Hampton bridge scheme will go some way to addressing this matter. |
| More dedicated cycle paths and routes in the built-up areas of the town. |
1 |
Where feasible this will be undertaken but we are constrained by existing infrastructure. |
| Traffic lights should have cycle phases. |
1 |
We need more info to respond, toucan or early release at signals? |
| NCN41/442 on the Evesham bypass leg of the roundabout, is still a hazardous crossing. |
1 |
This is a National Highway matter, however Worcestershire County Council continue to engage wit National Highways and we will endeavour to feed these results back |
| Consider 20mph speed restrictions. |
3 |
Where feasible this will be considered. |
| Include additional cycle routes at Vine Street, High Street, Davies Road, Orchards to Common Road, St Mary’s Roa d and the town centre via a bridge over the Avon. |
4 |
|
| The plan doesn't mention schools or mode shift. Hard and soft measures working together. |
2 |
The LCWIP primarily covers the introduction of infrastructure, Worcestershire County Councils works collaboratively with Wychavon District Council, Schools and Public health in relation to soft measures. |
| Consider parking restrictions around schools to encourage walking or cycling. |
1 |
Worcestershire County Councils works collaboratively with Wychavon District Council, Schools and Public health in relation to behaviour change. |
| Electric scooters are part of the future and should be included in the plan, electric bikes should be far more prominent. |
2 |
Electric scooters are currently subject to trials, WCC will await the results of ongoing trials. Use of electric scooters outside trial areas is still illegal. The LCWIP includes all types of bicycles, including electric bikes. |
| Consider further zebra or pedestrian crossings for example at The parks towards Offenham. |
1 |
This level of detail has not been considered yet. The Council needs to check alignment. |
| Examine and review the Bridge Street Traffic Regulation Order, is it really pedestrian safe? |
1 |
Worcestershire County Council will work with Wychavon District Council to identify any enforcement action that may be required. Delivery vehicles must be enabled |
| Concern with Para 9.2 that states the Town has a “Transport Lead”. Who is it? Where are the reports? How was that person selected? |
1 |
The Transport Lead is a member of the public (Evesham resident) with a background knowledge of transportation planning and transport issues within Evesham. They have consulted with the Town Council on various occasions. This person is a non-statutory position and has volunteered their own time to represent local walking and cycling groups. |
| Consultation draft had little info. Needs greater stakeholder engagement to enable development and delivery. |
6 |
A 6-week engagement period has just been undertaken and prior to this the Evesham Stakeholder Transport Group were engaged. |
| Plan is too out of date. Aimed at recreational walking or cycling rather than tacking congestion. |
2 |
The LCWIP takes a balance approach to linking key trip attractors including town centre, residential and employment areas. |
| Can infrastructure be prioritised? |
1 |
Within the LCWIP an indicative prioritisation of routes has been set out. |
| Clarity required on some proposed links and routes. Link 10 implies the building of a river bridge at Offenham. Link2 appears to link to Haselor Lane. Link 5 still hazardous. Improvements to the A46 Badsey Road roundabout are unclear. Is there a link from Orchards over river. |
2 |
The links proposed within the LCWIP are indicative, the final detail has not yet been agreed. Future feasibility exercises will enable more detailed information. |
| Signposting are mapped and road marked. |
1 |
Signposting and waymarking of all routes will be included within the scope of scheme delivery. |
| These footpaths should not be made dual use to accommodate cyclists. |
1 |
Wherever it is practicable to do so Worcestershire County Council will endeavour to build to the design guidance as set out in the item 1 to 20. However dedicated cycle lanes are not always feasible due to width constraints in which case shared use must be considered, where shared space is applicable Worcestershire County Council include signage to ensure safe us by all. |
| Suggestions and amendments to incorrect text. |
1 |
Amendments will be made. |
| Specific comments on each link. |
2 |
Needs more context. |
| Suggestions as to what might be missing. |
1 |
Needs more context. |
| Improve condition and signage of existing paths (work with ramblers etc). |
1 |
Worcestershire County Council endeavour to keep existing paths in adequate condition, specific defects should be reported for the attention of maintenance. |
