News

Lack of accidents means no Kilnsea Drive crossing

By Jon Nurse
February 12, 2013

Petitioners calling for a crossing on an Lower Earley street will not get council funding because of a lack of accidents.

Resident Clive Jones asked at the borough council’s executive meeting on Thursday whether any developer contributions could be used to provide a crossing in Kilnsea Drive near to Hornbeam Drive after a 427 strong petition was presented to the council.

No budget has been made available for the crossing, as surveys have found no pedestrian or speed related accidents.

Mr Jones said: “The community has made it quite clear that a crossing of Kilnsea Drive is a safety requirement.”

Councillor Keith Baker, executive member for highways and planning, responded: “Officers have carried out speed surveys, have scheduled a pedestrian survey and have this request on the future scheme list waiting for funds.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (3)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 3 of 3

#cllr keith baker.

"It is interesting to note that no mention of the cost, £50,000, has been included in this article which is a key piece of information."

How does putting in a crossing cost £50.000 pounds. If you allow an extortionate sum of £5.000 for the lights, wire and paint, that leaves £45.000 labour. That is 2 weeks work for 45 people. Is it any wonder council tax is so high if they come out with rubbish like this. Don't blame a reporter if this is a typical council response.

parlovero, Earley
16/02/2013 at 17:05

Can't agree re the need for this. Visibility is good, there's never any parked cars on the road and most of the time it's pretty quiet.

There's also already a crossing just 100 metres up the road.

Friday's child, Reading
14/02/2013 at 09:56

I am sorry but this article is totally wrong and my answer to his question has been edited to give the wrong impression.

At no stage has there been any refusal to do this crossing and the rest of my quote, which was not printed, actually said that.

It is interesting to note that no mention of the cost, £50,000, has been included in this article which is a key piece of information.

We have to complete the pedestrian survey before we can go forward on this. Clearly we will have to find the money from somewhere in order to do this which means something else will have to give way and not be implemented.

I am sorry to say that this is a very poor level of reporting which is unusual knowing the reporter quite well.