(Members Code of Conduct - Part 4A of the Constitution)

To receive disclosures of interests from members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

Notes:

(1)       Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct.  Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.

(2)       Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them.  A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. 

(3)       Members are also welcome to disclose interests which are not disclosable pecuniary interests but which they consider should be made in the interest of clarity.

(4)       Officers must disclose interests in accordance with Council Standing Order 44.

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 15 and 29 June 2016 be signed as a correct record (previously circulated).

(Palbinder Sandhu – 01274 432269)

That the minutes of the meetings held on 15 and 29 June 2016 be signed as a correct record (previously circulated).

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item.  Certain reports and background papers may be restricted. 

Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic Director or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report. 

If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting. 

Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal. 

(Palbinder Sandhu - 01274 432269)

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents. 

There were no questions submitted by the public. 

The Strategic Director of Regeneration will submit Document “M” which presents five objections received to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order relating to proposed waiting restrictions within the Lysander Way Estate, Cottingley.

Recommended –

(1)   That the proposals as shown within Appendix 2 of Document “M” be implemented as advertised.

(2)   That the objectors be informed accordingly.

(Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

(Simon D’Vali – 01535 618181)

The Strategic Director of Regeneration submitted Document “M” which presented five objections received to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order relating to proposed waiting restrictions within the Lysander Way Estate, Cottingley.

The Principal Engineer provided a summary of the report and tabled large scale drawings of the proposals and photographs of the highway.

An objector to the proposals addressed the Committee.  She stated she was a parent of a child that attended Cottingley Village Primary School and was concerned about child safety if the proposals were implemented as parents would have to park further away from the school and children would need to cross more roads to access the school; there was also a lack of crossing facilities to aid this.  She stated that parents often dropped their children off at school on their way to work and it was not always possible to walk to school.  She urged that adequate parking solutions be put in place.

Another objector addressed the Committee to state that parents of children attending the school had not been consulted and no alternatives for car parking for parents had been put forward.

An objector and resident within the vicinity of the proposed scheme addressed the Committee.  He considered the proposed scheme to be crude and that it would require some residents to unreasonably move their cars twice a day during term time.  He urged that the scheme be amended.  He also stated that other residents were unaware of the impact of the proposals.

An objector and resident within the vicinity of the proposed scheme addressed the Committee to state that he considered the meeting to be one-sided and questioned why all residents of Lysander Estate had not been informed of the meeting.

An objector and Chair of Governor’s at Cottingley Village Primary School addressed the Committee.  He stated that parents of children affected by the proposals had not known about the scheme and the school had not received written notice of this meeting.  He informed Members that the school had received two letters from residents and three from parents asking the school to object to the proposals and a petition had been handed to the school signed by 50 parents against the proposals too.  The school had received one letter asking it to support the proposals.  He suggested that the plans be suspended so that other alternatives could be explored as the restrictions proposed would only push the problem to another area of Cottingley.

The Principal Engineer confirmed that notices had been erected to advertise the proposals for four weeks on 13 May 2016 and that he had emailed the school within the following week to inform them and had spoken to a staff member at the school to ensure the email had been received.  He suggested that parents, in conjunction with the school, could consider a yellow bus service or walking bus as alternative options.  The Chair of Governor’s of the school responded that the school already had those facilities in place.

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

The Strategic Director of Regeneration submitted Document “N” which considered one objection received following the advertisement of proposed waiting restrictions on Hirst Lane, Saltaire.

The Principal Engineer provided a summary of the report.

The objector to the proposals addressed the Committee.  She stated that no waiting at any time restrictions had already been imposed on the other side of the road and that the proposed restrictions would leave no parking space outside her property.  She stated that the T junction at Hirst Lane/Clarence Road was unsafe and that HGVs approached it too fast.

In response to questions raised regarding why additional restrictions were being proposed since the original approved design, the Principal Engineer stated that, due to parked vehicles, some longer vehicles were having difficulties in turning left at the give way junction of Hirst Lane and Clarence Road.  The proposals were to ease the manoeuvring of longer vehicles and reduce the risk of damage to parked vehicles.

A discussion ensued regarding the lack of a give way sign at the Hirst Lane and Clarence Road junction.

Resolved –

(1)   That the objection to the proposal to ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions, as shown on plan no. HDB/CM//101307/TRO-1B, attached as Appendix 1 to Document “N”, be overruled.  That the orders be sealed and implemented as advertised and the works be implemented.

(2)   That consideration be given to the introduction of a ‘Give Way’ sign and/or improved road markings on Hirst Lane, Saltaire.

(3)   That the objector be notified accordingly.

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: Environment and Waste Management

ACTION: Strategic Director, Regeneration

The Strategic Director of Regeneration will submit Document “O” which considers a petition requesting the introduction of traffic calming, a residents permit parking scheme, and the introduction of a ‘One-way’ traffic system or ‘Point Closure’ (ie. physical closure) on Carlton Road, Shipley.

Recommended –

(1)   That the petitioners’ concerns be noted and no further action be taken regarding the request for a permit parking scheme at this moment in time. However, the petitioners' request be reconsidered should the Council’s permit parking policy criteria be revised.

(2)   That the petitioners’ concerns be noted and no further action be taken regarding the request for traffic calming and a one–way traffic system or point closure.

(3)   That West Yorkshire Police be formally advised of the petitioners’ concerns regarding enforcement of the existing 20mph speed limit on Carlton Road , Shipley.

(4)   That the petitioners be advised that obstruction of private driveways and/or garages is something West Yorkshire Police and/or the Council's Parking Services Unit could potentially investigate with a view to carrying out enforcement.

(5)   That the lead petitioner be advised accordingly.

(Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

(Simon D’Vali – 01535 618181)

The Strategic Director of Regeneration will submit Document “L” which seeks to advise the Area Committee regarding the replacement of street lighting columns determined as non compliant and the subsequent recommendations as to how the West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Funding allocation is most effectively utilised.

Recommended –

That the Priority 1 street lighting column replacement schemes listed in Table A of Appendix 1 of Document “L” be implemented.

(Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

(Allun Preece – 01274 434019)

The Strategic Director of Regeneration submitted Document “L” which sought to advise the Area Committee regarding the replacement of street lighting columns determined as non compliant and the subsequent recommendations as to how the West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Funding allocation was most effectively utilised.

The Senior Engineer provided a summary of the report.

The Chair requested that further information about how the Local Transport Plan Funding allocation was determined per constituency and the amount of funding for each be circulated to Members.

A Member stated that the scheme listed in Table B of Appendix A for Windhill Old Road was in the Idle and Thackley Ward in Bradford East, not the Windhill and Wrose Ward.  She also stated that it would be beneficial for Members to be informed of the category 1 and 2 schemes within their Wards.

A Member stated that there had been problems with the new lamps introduced in Baildon and that some lamps were covered by trees which should have been cut back.  In response, the Senior Engineer stated that there had been less maintenance carried out due to budget cuts; he stated that trees would be cut back if required before any further implementation works were carried out.

Resolved –

That the Priority 1 street lighting column replacement schemes listed in Table A of Appendix 1 of Document “L” be implemented.

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: Environment and Waste Management

ACTION: Strategic Director, Regeneration

The Strategic Director of Regeneration will submit Document “Q” which seeks approval for a programme of Safer Roads Schemes for the Shipley Area for the 2016/17 financial year.

Recommended –

(1)       That the previous programme of outstanding Safer Roads Schemes programme for 2015/16 as listed in Appendix 1 of Document “Q” be re-approved.

(2)       That those Casualty Reduction schemes (to form part of the Shipley Area Committee’s 2016/17 Safer Roads Schemes programme) as outlined in Appendix 2 of Document “Q” be approved.

(3)       That those Locally Determined schemes (to form part of the Shipley Area Committee’s 2016/17 Safer Roads Schemes programme) as outlined within Appendix 4 of Document “Q” be approved.

(4)       That any Traffic Regulation Orders, or any legal procedures linked to the processing of traffic calming measures or pedestrian crossing facilities which are necessary to implement the chosen schemes be approved for processing and advertising subject to the scheme details being agreed with local Ward Members.

(5)       That any valid objections to the advertised Traffic Regulation Orders, traffic calming or pedestrian facilities be submitted to this Area Committee for consideration or in the event of there being no valid objections the Traffic Regulation Orders be sealed and implemented and the traffic calming or pedestrian facilities be implemented as advertised.

(Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

(Simon D’Vali – 01535 618181)