The following disclosure of interest was received in the interest of clarity:

During the consideration of the report ‘Objections to a Proposed Traffic Regulation Order for Parking Restrictions within Baildon Village and its Surrounding Areas’ (Minute 25), Councillor Greenwood disclosed that family members lived on Hinchliffe Avenue, Baildon but she had not discussed any of the matters now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

ACTION:       City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2018 be signed as a correct record (previously circulated).

(Claire Tomenson - 01274 432457)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2018 be signed as a correct record.

(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. 

(Claire Tomenson - 01274 432457)

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

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

To hear questions from electors within the District on any matter this is the responsibility of the Committee. 

Questions must be received in writing by the City Solicitor in Room 112, City Hall, Bradford, BD1 1HY, by mid-day on Monday 10 September 2018.

(Claire Tomenson - 01274 432457)

In accordance with the provision at Part 3B, Paragraph 6 of the Council’s Constitution the following public question was presented:

"Over 12 months ago the Community of Bolton Woods & District lost a valid and important community resource, known as Bolton Woods Community Centre, the loss was felt by the whole community, including the elderly, young children and not so young children, it was also a place were people could come together to get help and advice when needed or just to socialise as the centre was the only place in Bolton were this could take place, it was not the lack of will for it to succeed but more of a lack of finance in order to facilitate the communities needs, a proud community that just happen to live in a disadvantaged area of the City.  The local community have the right to know the up to date possible usage of the building and I don't mean what they got told over 12 months ago for this has not happened and it looks like it will not happen.  In the meantime more affluent areas of Windhill and Wrose are well served, which I do not begrudge as I applaud the work they do within their community, just one example; Wrose has an active Library staffed by volunteers a Community Centre (no building but active within the community) Youth Centre, two active Churches, a Parish Council, a active residents association, Bolton Woods as a Fish Shop and a Corner Shop.  I'm sorry this may be a long question but the depth of anger is there for all to see, a lot of the local communities money has been vested in Bolton Woods Community Centre please don't abandon them now.”

In accordance with provision at Part 3B, Paragraph 6 of the Council’s Constitution the Chair advised that a written response to the question would be provided as follows:-

“When the former Bolton Wood community centre closed, it was identified as being suitable for operational use as a day centre for persons with learning difficulties.  Funds have been identified to refurbish the premises and a final decision on whether to proceed is expected shortly and detailed discussions are still on-going with the proposed operator on behalf of the Council.

If the building is used to support persons with learning difficulties a condition of the operator’s occupation will be that they make it available for community use on evenings and weekends, which will provide the community facilities that were previously not sustainable.”

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: Regeneration & Environment

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place/Secretary

The Strategic Director, Place will submit Document “I” which presents a petition requesting the introduction of a formal pedestrian crossing on Bingley Road, Menston for the Committee’s consideration.

Recommended –

(1)       That the petitioners’ request for the introduction of a formal pedestrian crossing be noted and proposals to introduce a speed table to assist crossing pedestrians be included on the list of scheme candidates to be considered by this Committee for possible inclusion within its future capital works programme.

(2)       That the lead petitioner be informed accordingly.

(Regeneration & Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee)

(Simon D’Vali – 01274 431000)

The Strategic Director, Place presented a report (Document “I”) which asked Members to consider a formal petition containing 20 signatures that requested the introduction of a formal pedestrian crossing on Bingley Road, Menston at the junction with Main Street and Menston Drive.  He reported that the junction had been the site of a mini roundabout and since its removal vehicles no longer slowed down.  Traffic and pedestrian surveys had been undertaken, however, there had not been any reported accidents in the last five years.  Members were informed that it had not been possible to replace the school crossing patrol officer who had retired a number of years ago, therefore the location could not be considered for a school crossing patrol.  The Strategic Director, Place then recommended that a speed table be introduced which would slow down traffic and, with an estimated introduction cost of £5,000, could be included within the Committee’s capital works programme.

The Chair then drew Members’ attention to a letter submitted by the lead petitioner which stated that a pedestrian crossing would be a safer option, but welcomed the introduction of a speed table and requested that additional warning signs be placed at the junction.

In response to Members’ queries, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that:

·         A pedestrian crossing cost £25,000.

·         A speed survey had not been undertaken, however, speeds of 25 to 30 mph had been observed.

·         The position of a school crossing patrol officer would be re-advertised.

·         West Yorkshire Metro had not been consulted.

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and confirmed that the road was not a bus route.  He explained that the junction was only three way, not four and this further complicated matters as people were that one of the roads was closed to traffic.  Members noted that he supported the request for a pedestrian crossing and the officer’s recommendation.  The junction was not safe and the proposal would be a significant improvement.  The Ward Councillor also suggested that funding from partners be sought.

In response to a further Member’s question, the Strategic Director, Place indicated that speed checks could be undertaken.    

Resolved –

1.         That the petitioners’ request for the introduction of a formal pedestrian crossing be noted and proposals to introduce a speed table to assist crossing pedestrians be included on the list of scheme candidates to be considered by this Committee for possible inclusion within its future capital works programme and that funding contributions be sought from local partners and nearby development proposals.

2.         That the lead petitioner be informed accordingly.

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: Regeneration & Environment

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place

(Simon D’Vali – 01274 431000)

The Strategic Director, Place will present Document “H” which outlines objections received from local residents and businesses to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to introduce parking restrictions in and around Baildon village.

Recommended –

(1)       That the formal objections relating to the proposed Baildon Traffic Regulation Order (as shown within Drawing No. P/HS/THN/104041/TRO-1A (attached as Appendix 1 to Document “H”) be overruled and the proposed Traffic Regulation Order beapproved, sealed and implemented as formally advertised.

(2)       That the objectors be advised accordingly.

(Regeneration & Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee)

(Simon D’Vali – 01274 431000)

The Strategic Director, Place presented Document “H” which asked Members to consider the objections received from local residents and businesses regarding the proposed Traffic Regulation order (TRO) to introduce parking restrictions in Baildon village and its surrounding areas.  He explained that the proposal aimed to be consistent and restrictions could be removed but not added, as this would require a new TRO.

The Chair stated that the scheme had taken a large amount of planning but noted that some slight amendments may be required.  He acknowledged there were road safety issues but noted that residents and businesses should also be considered.  Long term parking was a problem in the area and in trying to resolve the matter residents should not be disadvantaged. 

During the discussion the Strategic Director, Place informed Members that time restrictions on parking were in place in some areas and care had to be taken as to where resident only parking was located.  He confirmed that a new policy was under review in relation to permit parking schemes for residents and this should resolve many issues.

Objectors were present at the meeting and raised the following points:

·         Perseverance Street, Angel Street and Wainman Street had been proposed for a Residents Only Permit Parking (ROPP) scheme.  However, Perseverance Street would also be subject to short stay public parking, but should be resident parking only.

·         The proposed double yellow lines on St James Road would reduce the amount of on-street parking for the residents in the area forcing them to park further away.

·         Long stay parking would be forced further along the affected roads and the only way to deter the practice would be to increase the length of the associated walk.

·         Ian Clough car park was hardly used as people parking in the area on a long term basis would not pay.      

·         Residents of Perseverance Street would be entitled to permits enabling them to park on Angel Street and Wainman Street as well, but not vice-versa.

In response to some of the comments made, the Strategic Director, Place clarified that the Council’s policy would not permit parking restrictions on Angel and Wainman Street.  However, he indicated that if Members were minded they could remove the ROPP scheme on Perseverance Street in order to alleviate any issues.  With regards to St James Road it was noted that the proposed double yellow line restrictions could be amended. 

Resolved -

1.         That, following consideration of the objections, the proposed Baildon Traffic Regulation Order (as shown within Drawing No. P/HS/THN/104041/TRO-1A (Appendix 1 to Document “H”)) be approved and implemented as formally advertised, subject to the following amendments:

(i)            That the proposed parking restrictions on Perseverance Street, Angel Street and Wainman Street be removed.

(ii)          That the proposed double yellow lines on Springfield Road be removed.

(iii)         That the proposed ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ parking restrictions to be introduced only on the actual junction radius of St James Road (western side) with Centenary Road and not to extend beyond that radius.

(iv)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.