The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “E”) considers objections to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order on various roads in the Bradford West Constituency.

Recommended –

(1)       That the No Waiting At Any Time restrictions proposed for the   area between Sandsend Close and Neville Grove be removed from     the draft Order, and the remaining objections be overruled and the   Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as otherwise             advertised.

(2)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

(Andrew Smith – 01274 434674)

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “E”) considered objections to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order on various roads in the Bradford West Constituency.

The Chair opened the discussion by bringing the committee’s attention to the presence of members of the public who wished to express sentiments on their respective highway matters concerning Highfield Crescent and Great Horton Road.

However, as a matter of custom, he first invited the Principal Engineer to give a synopsis of the report to the committee.

During the introduction of the report, it was explained that the report presented objections to Bradford West’s various traffic regulation orders. The proposals were approved by the committee last year as part of the current year's several roads programme. The scheme was primarily for waiting restrictions at various locations in Bradford West. Proposals were advertised earlier this year and as a result, objections in respect of four of the sites. 

Following the introduction of the report, the Chair invited the public to address their matters of views to the committee.

Highfield Crescent:

A resident of Highfield Crescent expressed his strong support in favour of the proposed parking restrictions. However, he expressed concerns as to whether the restrictions went too far as it was important for allowance to be made for some parking spaces; the implementation of the full extent of the proposed traffic measures could possibly instigate the misuse of parking restrictions by residents’ parking their vehicles very late at night to avoid enforcement action; motorists were parking in the cup-de-sac, eating takeaway food and discarding their rubbish on to the street before driving away. The consideration for the allowance would alleviate unexpected problems or congestion in the tight cup-de-sac.

In response to the resident’s concerns of enforcement, the Principal Engineer explained enforcement was relied heavily on those who were responsible to enforce restrictions and to simply have such restrictions in place was a form of deterrent in itself.

Another resident addressed the committee on her objections to the proposed waiting restrictions. She explained that if the proposal was implemented then this would result in no parking directly outside of her house. This proposal would cause detrimental impact on her family as her two children were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); as current circumstances stood, it was extremely difficult to care for her children due to their hyperactivity movements through their impulsivity acts. The lack of parking provision would entail a greater and arduous nature of attention to her children in comparison to present status. Furthermore, with the proposed waiting instructions would result in parking in front of other properties to the extent of blocking driveways.

The committee sought clarification that further to the layout on the map. It seemed there was ample space on driveways to park vehicles and therefore had it been identified if residents’ used their garages and driveways or whether they parked their vehicles on the street. In response, it was stated that this was a factor that was not taken into consideration and therefore unknown.

Great Horton Road:

The Principal Engineer gave a light synopsis on the proposed TRO on Great Horton Road. This was a proposal for no waiting any time restrictions. Waiting restrictions was initially proposed and also approved by this committee at a previous meeting. The TRO was promoted early last year and objections had been received during the time the area committee was not sitting. The non-sitting was due to the cancellation of the Bradford West Area Committee at the time at the time of lockdown; a temporary alternative decision making process to ensure that items were not overly delayed was put in place. In accordance with the Council’s constitution, Area Committees acted on an Executive delegated function. As such Executive, acting through the respective portfolio holder, considered the petition. It was resolved that the objections be overruled and the proposed pedestrian island be implemented. However, it was now a matter for this committee as the associated Traffic Regulation Order formally advertised with any valid objections to the Order being reported to the Bradford West Area Committee.

The Chair then requested the business owner who was in attendance to put his objections to the proposal to the committee. He explained that his business had been operating for nearly a decade. The front of the business was in the region of 24 meters in length. A big part of the decision to take this restaurant business was due to the ample parking spaces and various access points to the restaurant which was a key to the its business operations including deliveries. The proposal for yellow lines all the way around, including the opposite end was a great concern as such waiting instructions would have detrimental impact on the operations of the busy restaurant. Due to the pandemic lockdown the restaurant had suffered financial losses and a significant money was owed in tax. The business employed the local community as a contribution towards giving back to the community. Evidence to substantiate the proposal was requested from the Principal Engineer and following evaluation of the information, no basis for the proposed waiting restrictions had been evidenced. The recommendation of the report was prejudicial towards the business operations of the restaurant as they need for access to refrigerated trucks would be impacted daily; parking and access was already an issue and this proposal would clearly exacerbate it. No evidence had been substantiated for such draconian measures to be implemented. In addition, the four accidents out of the five were in the last five years’ period.

In response to the concerns outlined by the objector, the Principal Engineer explained that Great Horton Road was a public highway and it was preferred by residents to park directly outside of their houses. Ultimately, the consideration towards highway safety on public highways in terms of collisions was paramount feature during the contemplation of such schemes. The report was devised beginning of 2020 when we consideration of the island was formulated. In regards to traffic collisions, there were a total of six in five years, five of which involved pedestrians and three led to series injury. There had been one further collision since then, which involved a cyclist. So this feature was of primary concern. In relation to some waiting restriction features was detailed in a document which is called the lens for concern, and this report had been produced by the experts at the Leeds Accident Studies Team. The lens for concern ranks lengths of roads in any district in terms of their severity of issues with collisions. Great Horton Road ranked number two on the list. The produced report specifically detailed the lack of pedestrian facilities as an issue. Furthermore, the proposal was not only about the island, but to address concerns to the side road movements. The objector had referred to an alternative scheme; this was looked at in detail but not referred as the favourite scheme for this location.

The committee sought information on if residents’ parking permit schemes existed in the neighbouring streets or not, would people be able to park in other places rather than Great Horton Road or even directly outside of the restaurant. It was reported that there would be residents parking adjacent to the houses from 1 to 15 on Gathorne Street and the remaining spaces open be open for everybody.

During the discussion the committee stated that the importance of such schemes was to save lives and stopping injuries which was significantly paramount than any other aspect on busy public highways; and, most restaurant trading would be during the times when residents were at home so there would be no availability of parking on the streets.

The Chair concluded this discussion by stating that as ward councillors, the committee was grateful for this scheme, that had been designed and proposed by officers on the basis of factual data and statistics. The scale of this scheme was on a level of improving road safety for pedestrians and residents in the area. As a committee it is important to acknowledge for communities, public safety must always preside over profits for the fact that one accident is one accident too many for any area.

The Committee echoed the sentiments of the Chair and therefore:

Resolved –

(1)       That the No Waiting At Any Time restrictions proposed for the area between Sandsend Close and Neville Grove be removed from        the draft Order, and the remaining objections be overruled and the           Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as otherwise            advertised.

(2)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place