The Strategic Director, Regeneration, presented a report (Document “I”) which identified the Freestanding Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) currently being processed within the Area Committee Boundary and proposed new starts for 2016/17. 

Members were advised that it was not feasible to implement all outstanding requests for TRO’s as total cost (staff time, legal costs, advertising and construction costs) would greatly exceed available resources.  Therefore, there was a need to prioritise which Orders were to be approved in the current financial year 2016/2017.   

Appended to Document “I” were details of those Orders which were currently being processed where previous Committee approval had been granted.  Those items may have previously been reported to the Executive Committee, or this Area Committee.  Members were requested to reaffirm their approval to progress and implement those schemes in 2016/2017.

Appendix 2 to the report detailed the locations, which were recommended for processing during the 2016/2017 financial year, at an estimated cost of £20,000. Appendix 3 revealed other locations where TRO’s had been requested.

A Member explained that a resident, whose request for No Waiting restrictions included on Appendix 1, was now selling that property and it was agreed to look into what stage that request had reached.

Disabled parking provision currently being processed at Rawdon Road was raised and it was questioned if this would prevent coach drop off arrangements outside of school term times.  It was questioned if signage could be erected to allow coaches to use that areas during school holiday periods.  The Strategic Director agreed to investigate if the legislation would allow for those arrangements.  He questioned why the provision in the tourist centre could not be utilised for that purpose and was advised that area was only suitable for small ‘hopper’ buses.

The arrangements for schemes included on the lists, but not processed within five years, were queried.  In response it was explained that some schemes had remained on Appendix 3 in error and should have been removed if not processed within five years. 

An Ilkley Ward Member requested that consultation be undertaken with him and his ward colleagues before finances were committed to schemes in the Ilkley area included in Appendix 3.

Proposals at Wharfe View Road, Ilkley to address congestion problems were raised.  It was explained that those measures had not been processed but it was expected that they would feature in more strategic schemes being considered in the area. 

Members questioned why a request received from a Judge in 2011 regarding sight line problems at Broomhill Avenue had not been processed.  It was stressed that residents were concerned about the lack of progress.  The Strategic Director was unable to explain why that scheme had not been selected in 2011 and it was agreed that the Member raising the issue would provide further details to allow the request to be investigated further. 

The rationale for recent requests from bus operators being prioritised more highly than schemes received some time ago was questioned.  Concerns that bus operators may remove services if they could not utilise turning areas were reported.  Members were assured that lists compiled were not set in stone and that Members may adjust them to accommodate  immediate priorities.

The requirement, and subsequent, cost incurred advertising TRO’s in the Telegraph and Argus was discussed and measures to reduce those costs were suggested.  A view that many residents of the Keighley area would not read the Telegraph and Argus newspaper was expressed and it was suggested that the use of alternative channels of communication should be explored.  Members were advised that investigations had been undertaken previously to explore ways alternative methods to publicise the schemes.  The legislative requirements for TROs to be publicised was explained and it was agreed that Members’ views would be raised with the City Solicitor.  

It was questioned if the schemes selected for progression in 2016-17 would be implemented in 2017.  In response it was explained that it was expected that those schemes would be completed by April 2017.

Customer parking problems experienced by a shop in the vicinity of the post office at Bar Lane were raised and it was requested that the limited waiting restrictions recommended for that area be extended to include that shop.  In response it was explained that the cost of that suggestion could be prohibitive but the feasibility would be investigated.

The inclusion in Appendix 2 of waiting restrictions at Laycock Lane were questioned by a Ward Member who was concerned that neither her or ward colleagues had been made aware of the request.  It was explained that the request had been received before the Chair of the Committee, who would ordinarily be consulted, had been appointed.  It was acknowledged that consultation could have been undertaken, however, it had been felt to be inappropriate when a Chair was not in place. Difficulty with buses being unable to turn in that location had been raised and the issue had been included for consideration as it was feared that bus services would be missed.  Consultation had been undertaken with the West Yorkshire Combined Authority but nothing had been decided.  The concern that Ward Members had not been consulted was acknowledged.

For clarity a Member explained that Glen Lee Lane was in the Keighley East Ward.

Concern at the use of acronyms in the report was raised and it was requested that these be annotated in future reports.

Resolved -

(1)       That the commitment to the previously approved and ongoing schemes as detailed in Appendix 1 to Document “I” be confirmed.

(2)       That the Traffic Regulation Orders shown in Appendix 2 to Document “I” be approved for processing and implementation from the Traffic Regulation Orders Capital budget for 2016/2017.

(3)       That the Traffic Regulation Orders selected from Appendix 2 of Document “I” be prepared and advertised.

(4)       That any valid objections to the advertised Orders be submitted to this Committee for consideration or, in the event of there being no valid objections, the Orders be sealed and implemented as advertised.

(5)       That the Strategic Director, Regeneration, be requested to investigate the feasibility of extending the limited waiting restrictions and the request for residents only parking on Barr Lane, Riddlesden.

Overview and Scrutiny Area: Environment and Waste Management

Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration