Crossing needed

First published in Letters

OVER the weekend I visited Newport Retail Park, at Spytty, and witnessed again some near- misses as pedestrians tried to cross the busy road between Tesco and their car park, and the shops like Marks and Spencer opposite.

If there was ever a need for a dedicated pedestrian crossing facility, this is it.

I understood that the council has been considering for months adopting the road, but requires the developer to provide such a crossing first.

When you consider the council spent more than £50,000 on the SDR, to provide a pedestrian crossing to allow a few people to cross from Maesglas to the council’s recycling facility, (the tip) I would have thought this was a priority requiring urgent attention by officers.

Steve Delahaye Bassaleg Road Newport

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:03pm Wed 28 May 14

landyman3030 says...

I agree with you that there should be a dedicated crossing accessible for pedestrians, wheelchair users etc across this road. It is dangerous and very busy. I fail to see why the council should have to pay for it when it is something the developers should have incorporated from the beginning.
As for the SDR nd the civic amenity site there, don't get me started.
Council decided to change policy and reduce opening hours to one shift per day stopping the summer hours of open until early evening. Council decided to reduce the Sunday opening times. Council decided to close completely on Bank Holidays.
So we are now left with a recycling centre that cannot be accessed by day workers because it closes before i finish work forcing the day workers to queue for up to 20 minutes at a time on a very busy road.
The council says anything outside of the site gates is Ringway responsibility. Ringway say there is nothing wrong with the road or access,it is the site user who may be at fault. i was informed that if i was concerned about the road safety due to congestion i should contact the police which i have done several times because the traffic comes around the roundabout, sees the lane blocked and veers all over the place.
I said don't get me started about councils and crossings..........
I agree with you that there should be a dedicated crossing accessible for pedestrians, wheelchair users etc across this road. It is dangerous and very busy. I fail to see why the council should have to pay for it when it is something the developers should have incorporated from the beginning. As for the SDR nd the civic amenity site there, don't get me started. Council decided to change policy and reduce opening hours to one shift per day stopping the summer hours of open until early evening. Council decided to reduce the Sunday opening times. Council decided to close completely on Bank Holidays. So we are now left with a recycling centre that cannot be accessed by day workers because it closes before i finish work forcing the day workers to queue for up to 20 minutes at a time on a very busy road. The council says anything outside of the site gates is Ringway responsibility. Ringway say there is nothing wrong with the road or access,it is the site user who may be at fault. i was informed that if i was concerned about the road safety due to congestion i should contact the police which i have done several times because the traffic comes around the roundabout, sees the lane blocked and veers all over the place. I said don't get me started about councils and crossings.......... landyman3030
  • Score: 2

8:29pm Wed 28 May 14

pbhj says...

>"it is something the developers should have incorporated from the beginning" //

Indeed it is. It's a very obvious shortcoming of the site - if not included from the start then when the new permissions were sought to widen the road (creating bus stops and, IIRC, a taxi rank) then pedestrians should have been considered.

TBH it probably needs a bridge or underpass to allow the traffic to keep flowing.

It's just bad planning.

The area in question http://goo.gl/maps/E
F4kT. (did they remove the shown refuge?).
>"it is something the developers should have incorporated from the beginning" // Indeed it is. It's a very obvious shortcoming of the site - if not included from the start then when the new permissions were sought to widen the road (creating bus stops and, IIRC, a taxi rank) then pedestrians should have been considered. TBH it probably needs a bridge or underpass to allow the traffic to keep flowing. It's just bad planning. The area in question http://goo.gl/maps/E F4kT. (did they remove the shown refuge?). pbhj
  • Score: 2

8:39pm Thu 29 May 14

mocyoung says...

Perhaps if the drivers stuck to a 10mph speed limit within the confines of the car park environment instead of accelerating down the straight as if it is the outside lane of the M4 the pedestrians would have more of a chance.
Perhaps if the drivers stuck to a 10mph speed limit within the confines of the car park environment instead of accelerating down the straight as if it is the outside lane of the M4 the pedestrians would have more of a chance. mocyoung
  • Score: 1

8:50am Fri 30 May 14

landyman3030 says...

mocyoung wrote:
Perhaps if the drivers stuck to a 10mph speed limit within the confines of the car park environment instead of accelerating down the straight as if it is the outside lane of the M4 the pedestrians would have more of a chance.
The fact remains that enough thought has gone into this road by the planners and developers. It is a rat run, especially when the Pullmans roundabout is backed up. Which is more often than not. So maybe traffic calming measures as well as a crossing. I still see it as a developers responsibilty and not another drain on council finances.
[quote][p][bold]mocyoung[/bold] wrote: Perhaps if the drivers stuck to a 10mph speed limit within the confines of the car park environment instead of accelerating down the straight as if it is the outside lane of the M4 the pedestrians would have more of a chance.[/p][/quote]The fact remains that enough thought has gone into this road by the planners and developers. It is a rat run, especially when the Pullmans roundabout is backed up. Which is more often than not. So maybe traffic calming measures as well as a crossing. I still see it as a developers responsibilty and not another drain on council finances. landyman3030
  • Score: -1

10:22am Fri 30 May 14

Severn40 says...

The Council should have forced developers to provide adequate crossing points and footpaths as part of the planning conditions for the developments at Spytty. They should have conditioned these facilities before the premises opened. At the end of the day, why anyone would want to go to a drab and souless place as Spytty I don't know. The developers are racking in the money in and Newport as a town loses out.
The Council should have forced developers to provide adequate crossing points and footpaths as part of the planning conditions for the developments at Spytty. They should have conditioned these facilities before the premises opened. At the end of the day, why anyone would want to go to a drab and souless place as Spytty I don't know. The developers are racking in the money in and Newport as a town loses out. Severn40
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree