SERIOUS flaws were found in the way Poole’s two bridges road system was designed and the council should act now to improve the situation.

That was the message from Cllr Brian Clements, whose economy overview and scrutiny committee, held a select committee review of the controversial £1million Marston Road/Bay Hog Lane gyratory system.

“The committee found that there were serious flaws in the way that the two-bridges system was designed,” said chairman Cllr Clements, whose committee made nine recommendations, approved by full council.

“The system allows vehicles to move effectively but designers did not take proper account of its impact on pedestrians, cyclists or people with disabilities and the quality of life for people who live in the area.

“The council must now do all that it can do improve that situation.

“Safety issues must be dealt with as a priority and there also needs to be a programme of medium and longer term changes to create the sort of area that people can live in and enjoy,” he said.

During the committee hearing in November, residents spoke of the dangers of crossing the roads, the lack of pedestrian crossings and the wrong decision to go ahead using out-of-date figures.

Recommendations included an action plan to examine and address any safety concerns, a two-way traffic system instead of the present one-way gyratory, appointing a “place champion”, involving the public and user groups at an early stage in future schemes and giving a higher priority to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists when planning new schemes.

The committee endorsed the principles of a Quality Audit approach to the design of transport schemes and chief executive John McBride has confirmed the principles will be applied to improvements in Ashley Road.

Bill Constance, chairman of Poole Old Town Conservation Group, said the independent report prepared for the review, which heavily criticised the scheme, “says everything we said”.

He said a lot of positive things had come out of the hearing and hoped residents who gave evidence would be asked to contribute to a solution. “We need them to right what is a very, very big wrong.”