The report of the Strategic Director, Regeneration (Document “N”) considers objections and suggested modifications to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order on various roads in the Bradford West Constituency.

Recommended –

(1)       That the proposed Traffic Regulation Order for waiting restrictions at various sites in Bradford West  be modified to incorporate the changes to Town End as shown on the attached drawing TDG/THCW/103076/CON-10B and Paradise Street as shown on the attached drawing TDG/THCW/103076/CON-20B and the remaining objections be overruled.

(2)       That the modified Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented.

(3)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

(Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

(Andrew Smith – 01274 434674)

The report of the Strategic Director, Regeneration (Document “N”) considered objections and suggested modifications to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on various roads in the Bradford West Constituency.

The report revealed that the TRO had been promoted to resolve a number of requests for small areas of existing waiting restrictions to be amended or new restrictions to be introduced. The requests had been raised by local residents or businesses that had problems with on street parking, gaining access to premises or parking for customers.

The Traffic Regulation Order was formally advertised between the 12 August and 9 September 2016. At the same time consultation letters and plans were delivered to residents and business affected by the proposals. Subsequently  objections to Arthington Street, Frizinghall Road, Paradise Street and Town End had been raised.  The objection to the proposals on Arthington Street also included a petition (89 signatures)  A letter of support had also been received for Arthington Street. Plans of the proposals that had received objections are attached as Appendix 1 to Document “N”.  A summary of the points of objection and corresponding officer comments was provided.  

With regard to the proposals at Arthington Street objections had been received from customers of a gymnastics club in that location.  It was felt that there had been some confusion and it was clarified that there were no proposals to introduce restrictions along the frontage to the gym.  The proposals had been promoted to assist large vehicles access to premises at the end of Arthington Street and to protect the turning area from parked vehicles.  By not introducing the yellow lines proposed heavy goods vehicles would continue to experience access problems from time to time.  The proposals could, however, have a detrimental affect on other businesses on Arthington Street.

A representative of local businesses in the area addressed the meeting.  He maintained that the businesses had operated for a number of years without any problems.  The location where the waiting restrictions were proposed only protected access to gates that were not used.  Businesses would be affected and customers would not be able to park outside of their premises.  It was feared that the restrictions would cause businesses to lose custom. 

It was stressed that road was wide enough for large vehicles to turn; no one was ever blocked or found access difficult at any time.  It was felt that the restrictions would cause hindrance for businesses on that road and would be a waste of Council resources.

Members questioned where the request for restrictions had originated and were advised that the request was from a business in the area.  It was questioned why representatives of that business were not present at the meeting.

A Member who had visited the location said he had discussed the issues with people in the area who had stated there were no parking issues occurring.  The absence of any accident or health and safety issues was discussed and the necessity to protect long established business in the area was acknowledged. 

The proposals for Frizinghall Road were reported and the objections to and corresponding officer comments contained in Document “N” were discussed.

A representative of a local business addressed the meeting.  He explained that he wished to support the scheme but felt that the proposals should be extended to restrict parking on both sides of the road to ensure traffic could flow freely.  He explained that parking was blocking the entrance to the business which received up to 20 wagons per day.  The significant contribution that the business made to the local economy was raised and it was feared that the detrimental effect on the business could force them to relocate.

In response to the request for additional restrictions it was explained that there was concern from local residents about commuters parking in the residential streets.  Parking restrictions on both sides of the road would transfer parking to residential streets.  The road safety implications and the potential for parking to act as traffic calming in that area were also discussed.

Members discussed the possibility of introducing a traffic layby in that location.  In response, it was explained that the TRO under discussion could not be modified and that a new Traffic Regulation Order would be required which would include consultation and significant costs would be incurred.  Limiting the restrictions would also leave the area open for commuter parking resulting in the entrance to the warehouse still being blocked. 

The business representative stressed that the restrictions should not be reduced as it was the parking which was preventing access to the warehouse. He was requesting that restrictions on both sides of the road be imposed.  If that was not possible he suggested that arrangements to ensure the business did not incur penalty charges whilst loading in that area  be implemented.

In response it was explained that the TRO under discussion did not  provide a solution to allow the business to park but restrict other users.  It did include an exception to allow 30 minutes for loading/unloading and the issue could be discussed with the Council Wardens.

Officers from the Transportation and Highways Section and the Bradford West Area Coordinator were thanked for their involvement and help with the issue.

Resolved

(1)       That the proposed Traffic Regulation Order for waiting restrictions at various sites in Bradford West be modified to abandon proposals for Arthington Street;  to incorporate the changes to Town End as shown on the attached drawing TDG/THCW/103076/CON-10B and Paradise Street as shown on the attached drawing TDG/THCW/103076/CON-20B;  and the remaining objections be overruled.

(2)       That the modified Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented.

(3)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

(4)       That the Strategic Director, Regeneration, be requested to give consideration to loading arrangements on Frizinghall Road in the vicinity of Salisbury Road and, if feasible, add to the list for future consideration by the Bradford West Area Committee.

Overview and Scrutiny Area: Environment and Waste Management

Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration