At its meeting on 11 July 2017 Bradford East Area Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place, (Bradford East Area Committee Document “D”) which asked Members to consider objections to recently advertised Traffic Regulation Orders associated with the proposed CityConnect 2 - Bradford Canal Road Corridor Cycleway scheme.

Bradford East Area Committee Resolved –

1.    That the Committee recognises and welcomes the Cycle link.

2.    That the Committee is not content that the solution offered is a safer, more attractive urban environment that will make the positive contribution to Bradford’s Cycling ambition. The Committee also recognises the challenges of the current site.

3.    That Officers are asked to fully investigate an alternative scheme in the urban green space along side Valley Road, Bradford.

4.    That the consultation be extended to include people who work along Valley Road, Bradford and whether they had access to Cycle to Work Scheme.

5.    That the decision to overrule the objections be delayed until the above work is undertaken and presented to the Committee.

Action:           Strategic Director, Place

The decision of the Committee has been called in.  The reasons for the call-in are set out below:

“I am asking for this decision to be called in on the grounds that the Area Committee’s decision to defer approval of the project proposals puts the entire scheme at risk. The decision jeopardises a cycleway project that is a key element of our District Cycling Strategy and which is backed by the Bradford Cycling Campaign;  and – crucially - risks losing altogether WYCA investment of £2.5 million that will benefit Bradford District as a whole for years to come.

I would be very grateful if you could please accept this request, and ask that the decision be referred to the Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration”.

In accordance with Paragraph 8.6.9 of Part 3E of the Constitution Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee can, following consideration of the matter, resolve to:

(1)  Release the decision for implementation.

(2)  Refer all or part of the decision back to the Executive or area committee as appropriate, to reconsider it in the light of any representations the committee may make.  The decision may not be implemented until the Executive or area committee, as appropriate, has met to reconsider its earlier decision.

(3)  Refer the decision to full Council for consideration, in which case the decision may not be implemented until the Council has met to consider the matter.

If the Committee makes no resolution, in accordance with paragraph 8.6.9 of the Constitution, the decision may be implemented.

At its meeting on 11 July 2017 Bradford East Area Committee had considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place, (Bradford East Area Committee Document “D”) which had asked Members to consider objections to recently advertised Traffic Regulation Orders associated with the proposed CityConnect 2 - Bradford Canal Road Corridor Cycleway scheme.

Bradford East Area Committee had resolved –

1.    That the Committee recognises and welcomes the Cycle link.

2.    That the Committee is not content that the solution offered is a safer, more attractive urban environment that will make the positive contribution to Bradford’s Cycling ambition. The Committee also recognises the challenges of the current site.

3.    That Officers are asked to fully investigate an alternative scheme in the urban green space along side Valley Road, Bradford.

4.    That the consultation be extended to include people who work along Valley Road, Bradford and whether they had access to Cycle to Work Scheme.

5.    That the decision to overrule the objections be delayed until the above work is undertaken and presented to the Committee.

That decision of the Committee was subsequently called in.  The reasons for the call-in were as set out below:

“I am asking for this decision to be called in on the grounds that the Area Committee’s decision to defer approval of the project proposals puts the entire scheme at risk. The decision jeopardises a cycleway project that is a key element of our District Cycling Strategy and which is backed by the Bradford Cycling Campaign;  and – crucially - risks losing altogether WYCA investment of £2.5 million that will benefit Bradford District as a whole for years to come.

I would be very grateful if you could please accept this request, and ask that the decision be referred to the Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration”.

In accordance with Paragraph 8.6.9 of Part 3E of the Constitution, Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were reminded that they could, following consideration of the matter, resolve to:

(1)  Release the decision for implementation.

(2)  Refer all or part of the decision back to the Executive or area committee as appropriate, to reconsider it in the light of any representations the committee may make.  The decision may not be implemented until the Executive or area committee, as appropriate, has met to reconsider its earlier decision.

(3)  Refer the decision to full Council for consideration, in which case the decision may not be implemented until the Council has met to consider the matter.

Alternatively, if the Committee made no resolution, in accordance with paragraph 8.6.9 of the Constitution, the decision may be implemented.

The Principal Engineer and Senior Engineer, Design & Construction both attended the meeting and outlined the background to the issue, explaining that the Area Committee had received a report which detailed objections raised to a proposed traffic regulation order. Those objections had included concerns about waiting and loading and the proposal to make Valley Road one-way. Comment had also been made at that meeting about the scheme being over-engineered. The engineers confirmed that they still considered the scheme fit for purpose and that the issue of engineering involved the inclusion of a hard kerb which was necessary for the comfort and safety of cyclists and two crossings which were also considered necessary for safety.

Members were advised that there had been a consultation process which had led to the scheme being amended to take into account comments from local businesses and cycling groups. Alternatives routes had also been looked into but they would have involved a departure from the Local Development Plan.

The Chair questioned whether larger HGVs would still be able to access their business premises safely after the scheme was implemented and whether swept path analyses had been carried out. He was advised that safe access would still be possible and that analyses had been carried out. In addition, it would also be possible to widen the gateways on the business owner’s land to improve access even more.

In response to a Member’s questions about whether the Council could cover the full cost of the works and whether there had been recent enquiries made about the sale of land in the affected area, it was stated that the Council would cover the full cost of works and that the engineers had made enquiries about contacting the new landowner. The Member then went on to question whether customers of the affected businesses had been consulted; whether the environmental impact of the scheme had been assessed and whether the condition of a wall running alongside the route had been assessed. He was informed that customers had not been directly consulted but that the scheme had been advertised in the press and that the Tesco supermarket had been among the consultees; that an environmental impact assessment had not been carried out but that the nature of the scheme would improve traffic flow along Valley Road and that the wall in question was in private ownership and a detailed structural survey had been requested.

The Chair then requested comments from attendees representing cycling groups and cyclists . The Chair of City Connect Advisory Group and the Secretary of Bradford Cycling Campaign attended and made representations in support of City Connect 2, stressing how detailed the consultation process had been and how this had led to the development of the best possible scheme. Members were advised that the scheme was in the best position of all the potential schemes across West Yorkshire in terms of progression and that the consequence of delay was significant, both in terms of this funding and future funding. The scheme was intended to keep Bradford at the forefront of cycling and it would be a great shame to lose that.

The Member who was the Council’s cycling champion  also attended the meeting and spoke in support of the route as a flat route which connected the City to Shipley. He also stressed his desire to encourage family cycling and his concerns that Canal Road was currently too busy to use confidently.

The Chair then went on to request representations from local business owners who were in attendance. Representatives of Uriah Woodhead Ltd and Trevor Iles Ltd attended the meeting and re-iterated their concerns that the  proposed traffic regulation orders would affect their working arrangements significantly, especially the proposal to make part of the route one-way. Both had concerns about the future operation of their businesses during the scheme’s construction and afterwards.

The Chair of Bradford East Area Committee also attended the meeting and spoke in respect of that Committee’s concerns which had led to the original resolution being made. She referred to the Committee’s support for the cycle route and the positive aspects of the scheme but re-iterated that concerns about Valley Road had led to the request for a pause while the scheme was re-examined for other options. She considered that a route involving Midland Road could offer a solution which would not adversely affect local businesses. She also referred to the success of the greenway as an attractive cycling route and queried whether there was an opportunity to do something similar again which the local community could make use of. The Committee’s comments about over-engineering had been as a result of concerns that the present scheme did not support businesses to operate or expand. She also stated that she would not personally feel able to cycle this route in its current form. She also noted that she had been contacted by residents who had been unaware of the proposals. She concluded by stressing that while the Committee welcomed the scheme, it had serious concerns about the implications for local business and employment.

The Member with portfolio responsibility also attended the meeting and expressed his concerns for the future of the scheme if there were to be significant delay. He stressed that he was always willing to listen to the concerns of the business community and that a lot of business engagement had already taken place, which had led to improvements to the scheme being incorporated. He noted that the cycling community considered the scheme  to be a high quality piece of infrastructure and concluded by stressing his concern that, at this late stage of development, he was not sure that there was any benefit in additional consultation.

The Chair expressed his appreciation of the contributions made by everyone who had spoken and reminded his colleagues of the options open to them.

A Member queried the boundaries involved and was informed that the scheme began in the City Centre, which lay in the Bradford West area, but went on to Bradford East and that, while the TROs covered both areas, all three objections had come from Bradford East. 

A Member also noted that the original resolution made by the Executive on 20 September 2016 had included a requirement for any objections to the TROs to be considered by both the Executive and Bradford East Area Committee and queried why that was. In response, it was acknowledged that the resolution had not been well worded but that it was important to get the views of both bodies.

In response to a question about timescales, Members were advised that the next scheduled meetings of the Executive and Bradford East Area Committee were set for 12 and14 September 2017 respectively but that full Council was not scheduled to meet until October 2017.

A Member questioned whether, given those dates, an investigation of viable alternatives could be undertaken in the meantime. He was advised that, while some issues could be sorted quite quickly, others such as compulsory purchase matters could potentially take years. The portfolio holder also stressed that other options has already been assessed and considered to be not viable. 

Resolved -

1. That this Committee notes (a) Paragraph 12.14 of Part 3E of the Constitution of the Council, which states that “area committees may not make a decision which affects, in a significant way, another area without first obtaining the agreement of the area committee for that area”, (b) that part of the Bradford Canal Road Corridor Cycleway Scheme is located in the City Ward and therefore also falls under the purview of the Bradford West Area Committee; and (c) that the Bradford West Area Committee has not been involved in this decision-making process so far.

2. That this Committee notes that the Executive resolved on 16 September 2016 that “any valid objections to the advertised Traffic Regulation Orders, traffic calming, crossing facilities and cycle tracks be submitted to the Executive” and that this action has not yet been implemented as required.

3. That this Committee refers the decision back to the Bradford East Area Committee for further consideration of the advertised Traffic Regulation Orders in accordance with the resolution of the Executive dated 16 September 2016.

4. That this Committee recommends that the Bradford East Area Committee refers this matter with its comments to the Executive for decision when it meets on 14 September 2017, according to the provisions of Paragraph 12.15 of Part 3E of the Constitution of the Council (which states that “an area committee or two or more area committees jointly may refer a matter in relation to an executive function to the Executive for decision”).

5. That, in the event that the Bradford East Area Committee does not refer this matter to the Executive for decision on 14 September 2017, this Committee recommends that the Executive determines this matter instead in accordance with Paragraph 12.16 of Part 3E of the Constitution of the Council (which states that “the Executive may require a matter in relation to an executive function due to be considered by an Area Committee to be determined by itself, in which case the delegation of that matter to the area committee shall cease to apply”).

6. That this Committee notes, in any case, that the Executive has the option of determining this matter when it next meets on 12 September 2017 in accordance with Paragraph 12.16 of Part 3E of the Constitution of the Council and the Executive’s own resolution of 16 September 2016.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place/City Solicitor