The report of the Strategic Director Place (Document “M”) considers objections to the advertised Traffic Regulation Orders associated with the proposed CityConnect 2 - Bradford Canal Road Corridor Cycleway scheme.

Recommended –

(1)          That the objections be overruled and the (moving traffic) Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as advertised for the reasons stated in Paragraph 2.8.1 of this Report.

(2)          That the objections be overruled and the (waiting loading and parking) Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as advertised for the reasons stated Paragraph 2.8.2 of this Report

(3)          That the objectors be informed accordingly.

(Environment & Waste Management  Overview & Scrutiny Committee)

                                                                        (Richard Gelder – 01274 437603)

The report of the Strategic Director Place (Document “M”) considered objections to the advertised Traffic Regulation Orders associated with the proposed CityConnect 2 - Bradford Canal Road Corridor Cycleway scheme.

The Leader referred to a letter that had been received from the Director of Uriah Woodhead & Sons dated 8 September 2017, which had been circulated to members of the Executive and noted that a detailed reply would be sent which would address the points raised in the letter.  Photographs which were also submitted were circulated to members at the meeting.

The Strategic Director Place introduced the report and outlined the background to the scheme, the approval of the scheme at Executive on 20 September 2016 and the advertisement of Traffic Regulation Orders between 17 February 2017 and 10 March 2017.  He referred to the summary of objector’s concerns and officer comments contained in Document “M”. 

An objections report was considered by the Bradford East Area Committee on 11 July 2017.  The Area Committee resolved:

i)          that the Committee recognises and welcomes the cycle link

ii)         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.

iii)        that officers are asked to fully investigate an alternative scheme in the urban green space alongside Valley Road, Bradford.

iv)        that the consultation be extended to include people who work along Valley Road, Bradford, and whether they had access to the Cycle to Work scheme.

v)         that the decision to overrule the objections be delayed until the above work is undertaken and presented to the Committee.

This decision  was subsequently called-in by the Environment and Waste Management Overview & Scrutiny Committee.  On 25 July 2017 the Environment and Waste Management Committee resolved:

i)          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 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 decision process so far.

ii)         that this Committee notes that the Executive resolved on 20 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.

iii)        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 20 September 2016.

iv)        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 E 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”).

v)         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”).

vi)        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 20 September 2016.  

The Strategic Director summarised the risk management and governance issues  as set out in paragraph 5 of Document “M” and the options set out in paragraph 9.

The Director of Uriah Woodhead & Son attended the meeting to represent a number of businesses located on Hillam Road.  He referred to the letter that he had submitted and Leader confirmed that he would receive a full response.  He stressed the need for assurances that alternatives had been explored.  He referred to the photographs that he had submitted.  He asked how the proposals allowed access for HGV’s to businesses on Hillam Road and Valley Road.  He contended that the roads were being designed purely for cyclists and not industry, in an employment and industrial area.  He added that if the Orders were implemented this would be damaging for businesses and asked if the Council could demonstrate that it would not.  He was of the opinion that If the answer to this was no then another route should be considered.  He pointed out that the combined businesses paid rates of £1bn per year and that the Council was wilfully damaging businesses and putting cyclists at risk in an industrial zone.  He stressed the collective strong objection to the scheme from businesses.  He questioned the safety of the scheme in an industrial zone.  He asked whether the Council had included people who work along Valley Road in the consultation and whether they had access to the cycle to work scheme.  He asked why Bradford East Area Committee was not involved in the decision making as the scheme straddled both Bradford East and Bradford West.  He added that the project would wilfully damage business and suggested that he should pursue the Council for compensation.  He asked whether the Council could demonstrate why the cycle route should be on Valley Road and not Midland Road and asked whether it was because of the refuse vehicles that used Midland Road.  He questioned putting local businesses to great expense to benefit cyclists and also questioned the safety of cycling through an industrial zone.  He stressed that the businesses had contributed a combined 300 years of business rates to the economy of Bradford.  He added that the proposals were contrary to the aims of the Council to improve employment levels in the district which were below national levels.  He reported that one business had relocated from Hillam Road to Geldard Road in Leeds.  He concluded by questioning whether the scheme was fit for purpose.

The Chair of b-Spoke attended the meeting and pointed out that this route was one of the core routes in the Cycle Strategy that dated back to 2009.  She was aware of a number of good cycle routes which went through industrial zones and referred to one in particular in Sheffield.  She referred to the closure of the Shipley Job Centre and that this would provide a key route into Bradford for people in transport poverty.

A member of b-Spoke attended the meeting and stated that cyclist and cycling were not anti business and that they needed to find ways of co-existing.  He added that the route had existed for a number of years and was an advisory cycle route which would be improved in the City Connect2 scheme.  He referred to the Core Plan and specifically additional housing at Bolton Woods and the importance of looking at alternatives to the car.  He added that City Connect2 was to encourage  people who did not cycle to access work, school and leisure activities.  He noted that consultation on the scheme had started in 2015 and that the response was reasoned and considered.  He paid tribute to the Council’s engineers who had shown ambition and coming to a reasonable compromise which would benefit the health and wellbeing of Bradford.

In response to the question regarding consultation with Bradford West Area Committee, the City Solicitor noted that when considering the issue Bradford East could have requested that it also be considered by Bradford West Area Committee.  The Regeneration, Planning and Transport Portfolio Holder added that as a city centre strategic issue this would normally have been considered by the Executive rather than the Bradford West Area Committee.

The Strategic Director confirmed that the pre-scheme consultation with businesses on Valley Road included hand delivering letters to businesses on 10 December 2015 and 5 January 2016 followed by a phone call or site visit.  Following this certain aspects of the design changed.  Between 4 July and 29 July 2016 2,000 letters were delivered to businesses and residents along the route, a consultation leaflet was enclosed and public consultation events were held.  A low number of responses were received, experience had shown that unless people had a specific concern response rates would be low.

The Strategic Director referred to consideration that had been given to an alternative route via Midland Road and Hamm Strasse which would result in a longer, indirect route and introduce a steep hill.  He added that a segregated cycle track along Hamm Strasse would require space to be taken from the carriageway which would reduce traffic capacity and an alternative route along Canal Road.  Consideration had also been given to an alternative route along Canal Road but was disregarded due to the adverse effect on the traffic capacity of Canal Road and lack of feasible solutions for crossing numerous side roads and accesses along the route.

In response to a question from the Leader as to whether consideration had been given to the issue of cyclists using an industrial area the Strategic Director noted that Valley Road was quieter than Canal Road and Hamm Strasse and on a level gradient that would encourage more people to use the route.

The Regeneration, Planning and Transport Portfolio Holder stressed that the scheme had been consulted on widely with 2,000 letters, drop in events and face to face consultations. He added that where it had been possible to be flexible, amendments had been made.  External consultants had put forward the proposed route which was assessed by the Council.  He noted that this was the best route, while acknowledging that there were issues.  He stressed the benefits to health and safety, air quality and improved green infrastructure. Officers had been asked to reassess the route, however the width of the road and route had to conform to Government guidelines.

The Leader referred to the risk management and governance issues contained in the report and the need to consider the matter of urgency.

The Regeneration, Planning and Transport Portfolio Holder agreed with the officer assessment that if the scheme was not delivered on time and to budget there would be a risk of damage to the Council’s reputation with the Government, West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) and the general public in its ability to deliver major infrastructure projects.  He added that this was the third Council body to look at this issue in the Council’s democratic process.  He stressed that the tender period had passed and if the Council had to retender this could put the scheme in jeopardy.  He added that there was a possibility that WYCA may re-allocate the funding to other schemes.  He referred to the possible reputational issue with WYCA and the Government in demonstrating that the Council is able to deliver the project.

The Leader stressed that time was of the essence and that the finance allocated to the scheme had to be spent or it would be lost to this authority.  She emphasised the need to take action urgently.

The City Solicitor advised that based on what officers had set out it appeared that the urgency criteria was met  The test being if the decision was not exempt from call-in the delay would be prejudicial to the Council’s financial affairs.

The Leader noted that if the decisions were not exempted from call-in this issue may not be resolved until the 7 November 2017 meeting of the Executive.  The Regeneration, Planning and Transport Portfolio Holder added that the Council may have had to retender which would delay the process until the new year and would raise issues regarding the delivery of the scheme.

Resolved –

(1)          That the objections be overruled and the (moving traffic) Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as advertised for the reasons stated in Paragraph 2.8.1 of Document “M”.

(2)          That the objections be overruled and the (waiting loading and parking) Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as advertised for the reasons stated Paragraph 2.8.2 of Document “M”

(3)          That the objectors be informed accordingly.

(4)          That it is resolved that resolutions 1 and 2 meet the urgent decision criteria as set out at Paragraph 8.7.4 of Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution.  The reasons for urgency are detailed at paragraph 9.6 of Document “M”.  In summary, that any delay resulting from a call-in may be prejudicial to the Council’s financial affairs and cause reputational damage should the Council fail to complete the scheme in time and on budget.

Environment & Waste Management  Overview & Scrutiny Committee

ACTION: Strategic Director Place