Discussion Council has received various complaints from residents within Hinton Lane over the last 4 years regarding the condition of the Lane. The concerns predominantly relate to the perceived lack of pedestrian safety due to poor pavement condition, inadequate lighting and inadequate drainage. Residents from 5 properties (8 dwellings) use the laneway as their only access. For these properties, their pedestrian access requires walking along the length of the laneway and sharing it with vehicles. Council has also received complaints regarding difficulty with the use of prams, wheelchairs and trolleys on the existing bluestone pitcher pavement. Having regard to the access requirements and in response to the complaints, it is proposed to reconstruct Hinton Lane with a surface that meets disability access requirements and as part of the works to improve the drainage and lighting. This report examines the suitability of alternate pavement materials. In 2015, a questionnaire was send to the residents and owners of Hinton Lane, providing them with an option to reconstruct the laneway in asphalt with a bluestone central invert, or to retain the current bluestone pitchers (full width). A response rate of 29% indicated that, 77% of participants chose to retain the bluestone pitchers. Although retaining the bluestone pitchers keeps in harmony with the heritage nature of the area and is generally the practice for laneway reconstruction, it does not present a favourable solution for pedestrians, in particular for the use of prams, wheelchairs and trolleys. The following options have been considered for the treatment of pavement at Hinton Lane. Pavement Description Pros Cons Sawn bluestone Accessible by   Option 1 Aesthetic will differ  pitchers (full prams, wheelchairs, slightly from traditional trolleys, walking bluestone pitchers frames Maintains a  Additional 10% to  somewhat classic the project cost appearance Does not encourage  vehicles to reduce speed Traditional  Option 2 Accessible by Aesthetic will differ   bluestone pitchers prams, wheelchairs, slightly from traditional with 900 wide trolleys, walking bluestone pitchers sawn bluestone frames pitcher central  Additional 10% added to Uneven surface  channel invert the project cost encourages  Forces pedestrians to vehicles to reduce walk in the central speed channel invert, which is not ideal during rain events Traditional Traditional aesthetic Not easily accessible by    Option 3 bluestone pitchers prams, wheelchairs, Uneven surface  (full width) trolleys, walking frames encourages vehicles to reduce Not ideal for elderly  speed pedestrians Asphalt treatment Accessible by Aesthetic will differ from    Option 4 with Concrete prams, wheelchairs, traditional bluestone spoon drain trolleys, walking pitchers frames
Discussion Council has received various complaints from residents within Hinton Lane over the last 4 years regarding the condition of the Lane. The concerns predominantly relate to the perceived lack of pedestrian safety due to poor pavement condition, inadequate lighting and inadequate drainage. Residents from 5 properties (8 dwellings) use the laneway as their only access. For these properties, their pedestrian access requires walking along the length of the laneway and sharing it with vehicles. Council has also received complaints regarding difficulty with the use of prams, wheelchairs and trolleys on the existing bluestone pitcher pavement. Having regard to the access requirements and in response to the complaints, it is proposed to reconstruct Hinton Lane with a surface that meets disability access requirements and as part of the works to improve the drainage and lighting. This report examines the suitability of alternate pavement materials. In 2015, a questionnaire was send to the residents and owners of Hinton Lane, providing them with an option to reconstruct the laneway in asphalt with a bluestone central invert, or to retain the current bluestone pitchers (full width). A response rate of 29% indicated that, 77% of participants chose to retain the bluestone pitchers. Although retaining the bluestone pitchers keeps in harmony with the heritage nature of the area and is generally the practice for laneway reconstruction, it does not present a favourable solution for pedestrians, in particular for the use of prams, wheelchairs and trolleys. The following options have been considered for the treatment of pavement at Hinton Lane. Pavement Description Pros Cons Option 1  Sawn bluestone pitchers (full  Accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking frames  Maintains a somewhat classic appearance  Aesthetic will differ slightly from traditional bluestone pitchers  Additional 10% to the project cost  Does not encourage vehicles to reduce speed Option 2  Traditional bluestone pitchers with 900 wide sawn bluestone pitcher central channel invert  Accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking frames  Uneven surface encourages vehicles to reduce speed  Aesthetic will differ slightly from traditional bluestone pitchers  Additional 10% added to the project cost  Forces pedestrians to walk in the central channel invert, which is not ideal during rain events Option 3  Traditional bluestone pitchers (full width)  Traditional aesthetic  Uneven surface encourages vehicles to reduce speed  Not easily accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking frames  Not ideal for elderly pedestrians Option 4  Asphalt treatment with Concrete spoon drain  Accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking frames  Aesthetic will differ from traditional bluestone pitchers
cl_23042018_agn.docx