The report of the Strategic Director (Place) (Document “M”) considers four objections received from local residents regarding a proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to introduce parking restrictions in Prod Lane, Baildon.

Recommended -

(1)          That the proposed TRO (as shown within Drawing No. P/HS/THN/102807/CON-1A (attached as Appendix 1 of Document “M”)) be approved, sealed and implemented as formally advertised. 

(2)          That the objectors be advised accordingly.

(Simon D’Vali - 01274 431000)

Resolved –

(1)       That the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (as shown within     Drawing No.P/HS/THN/102807/CON-1A), as attached to Document             “M”, be approved, sealed and implemented as formally advertised, with the exception of the following:

(2)       That the lead petitioner be informed accordingly.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “M”) considered four objections received from local residents regarding a proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to introduce parking restrictions in Prod Lane, Baildon.

The Senior Engineer introduced the report to the Committee.

Following introduction, a question and answer session ensued –

·         Is the whole proposed TRO to be financed through a S106 agreement or a part of the scheme to be financially contributed by the Council?

o   The Council would not be contributing funding to the proposed TRO. It was being funded in full by the Developer of Chestnut Gardens (the proposed TRO forming part of a Section 106 planning agreement);

·         Had the Planning Department approved a further 5 houses for development?

o   Yes and residents at the location would require ample parking spaces for visitors; and,

·         What were the proposal for the timings of disabled parking?

o   3 hours.

The Chair stressed the point of the proposal was for the use of the S106 agreement for the proposed TRO and if the Committee refrained form moving forward with the officer recommendation, with or without Committee amendments then the Council may lose the S106 agreement.

He further stated that having taken into consideration the written objections, it was equally important for the Committee to have representations heard by individuals affected by the proposal. Therefore the Chair invited objectors who were present at the meeting to make representations to the Committee, as follows –

·         Representative for Shipley Glen Cable Tramway - That passengers on the Shipley Glen Cable Tramway were in its thousands and a proportion being disabled. There had been many visits to the historic tramway since the beginning of 2019. There were plans to rebuild the station. A regular working party for the tramway required the need of sufficient space for parking their vehicles. Contractors needed to park large vehicles in this vicinity and the proposed restrictions would cause nothing less than a detrimental operational impact on the station;

·         Resident of 2 Prod Lane – She had purchased a property in June and moved in July 2019. That the one of the reasons for the choice of the property was due to the availability of on street parking directly outside the house. Numbers 5 – 7 Prod Lane had shared driveways and her newly purchased property had a one car space in their driveway. That if the proposal was moved in favour of the officer recommendation then one member of the family would not be able to park directly outside of the house; and,

·         Resident of Prod Lane – There were no current significant issues with parking. Visitors of Shipley Glen Cable Tramway only attended during occasions and so the reaction to parking was a unnecessary panic and not required for a permanent basis. A proposed 14 spaces for 35 houses was not an ideal proposal. The top end of Prod Lane did have cause for parking concerns but not the whole of Prod Lane.

A Baildon Ward Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27