People living near a new pedestrian crossing in Carlton say it is a waste of public money.
Nottinghamshire County Council approved the proposals for a new puffin crossing in Westdale Lane, Carlton, between Adbolton Avenue and Darley Avenue on February 3.
Puffin crossings use sensors to detect when pedestrians are waiting and when they’ve finished crossing, and are designed to be safer and more efficient.
The new crossing will be built on raised sections of pavement sticking out into the lane which currently acts as an unofficial crossing point.
The crossing will cost £100,000 through funding provided to the county council via a Government grant.
However, some residents who live on the street say there is no need for it.
Resident Gordon Donaldson, who formally objected to the plans, has lived on Westdale Lane for five years.
He said the crossing is an “utter waste of money” claiming the road does not get much traffic per day.
Mr Donaldson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “Our objections to the crossing are not out of sheer awkwardness, the data they’re using to support the argument are way off scale and are post-pandemic figures.
“We don’t get much traffic here. The numbers are way off scale.
“The footfall of traffic doesn’t justify £100,000 to build the crossing.
“It’s wasteful, and council budgets are tight are generally tight.
“The money has to be spent wisely. They should use other methods, such as putting advance warning signs but to spend that money for a crossing that will be used very little – I don’t see the point.”
A council survey said 148 pedestrians use the unofficial crossing on Westdale Lane daily, with 93 crossing also crossing at the nearby Co-op store.
Around 9,100 vehicles drive through the route per day, according to the survey.
Other resident questioned the location of the crossing, saying it is “not needed” in the area.
The resident, who did not want to be named, said: “We’ve tried to put forward viable alternatives to do this.
“Nobody wants it around here, it’s not needed. It’s a waste of money.
“We live here so we can see how many people are crossing the road. Nobody uses it.
“People get off the bus and cross where the bus drops them off, there is hardly anybody that uses that bit of road.
“They’re crying out for a crossing further up the road near the school.”
She said the crossing would also cause issues for her parking in her drive-way due to the zig zag markings.
“We’re going to lose a parking space outside of our house because of this.
“I have to pull up on these white zig zags and wait, so we’re being forced to do something which is prohibited in the high way code.
“It also says do not reverse out on to the main road. You can’t win.”
Another resident, who has lived in the area for 25 years, also said the location of the crossing was not ideal – and said it would be much more useful nearer to schools in the area.
She said: “The amount of people who cross the road is nothing like the council claims.
“The statistics are well out of date. The crossing should be further up by the school.
“People have been asking for a crossing near the school for a long time.
“Surely the safety of children should matter, so a crossing there would be needed.”
Cllr Andrew Ellwood (Lib Dem), the councillor for the Phoenix Ward where the puffin crossing will be built, said he had raised concerns over its location.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “I’m not opposed to a crossing itself, but where they suggesting it is the wrong location.
“I did propose the crossing be located further along Westdale Lane opposite the Co-op store, which is a safer location for pedestrians and will inconvenience fewer households.”
Cllr Ellwood added: “Where they’re proposing locating it at the moment, children who are crossing to the nearby school would have to cross Adbolton Avenue as they are crossing two roads.
“I have concerns about traffic moving down there moved fast, so really we’d want to avoid children from crossing at Adbolton avenue and staying on the other side.”
Notts TV has approached Nottinghamshire County Council for comment but did not receive a reply.
