The report of the Strategic
Director, Place (Document
“G”) considered the results of a survey,
carried out with local residents, to determine if there was support
for a road closure on Duchy Avenue.
The Principal Engineer
was in attendance and gave a synopsis of the report. In
addition, he stated that he had received a further petition on the
same subject matter as being discussed at this Committee to which
he had acknowledged.
Following a synopsis of the
report by the Principal Engineer, a question and answer session
ensued:
- What had been the
total cost to date to the Council from the point of the petition
being submitted through to the delivery of the survey to determine
the final outcome?
- Around the sum of
£5,000;
- How many residents
had expressed favour towards a road closure?
- A total of 45
residents of Duchy Avenue;
- Why were the
residents of Duchy Avenue in the mind set that officers had given
more emphasis on the concerns of residents outside of Duchy Avenue
including neighbouring Wards?
- The immediate
neighbouring Ward was part of the residential area in which Duchy
Avenue was and residents outside of Duchy Avenue had expressed
concerns as to the knock on detrimental flow of traffic being
transferred onto their streets, should a road closure be
approved;
- Was it correct that
a number of residents had raised concerns to have not received
any form of correspondence during the consultation?
- Every resident had
been hand delivered a consultation letter on 26 July 2017. In
response to the question at hand, this is correct, therefore a
second letter had been hand delivered to all residents who had
stated they had not received any form of correspondence and in
order to ensure that every resident who raised concerns, a Senior
Engineer was on site to ensure the smooth delivery of the
consultation to each respective household;
- What was the basis of
Appendix 2?
- A detailed
statistical representation of households response to the
survey;
- There was a clear
reflection of residents’ frustration towards speeding
vehicles driving excessively, hence the petition. Had officers
embarked on the pursuit of seeking any other alternative to bring
concerns to an amicable halt for concerned residents?
- The initial inception
of the petition was not due to speeding vehicles but through
passing traffic and residents were adamant on a road closure as
opposed to implementing restriction to reduce the levels of
speeding vehicles. Nevertheless a discussion had emanated
previously on other traffic calming measures but this was a
proposal that was not favoured;
- Clarification was
sought on the further petition submitted by residents prior to this
Committee meeting?
- This was correct but
the petition had not been included into Document
“G” as it was submitted only 3 days prior to
this scheduled item on the same subject as this item. As mentioned
earlier, the petition had been acknowledged;
- What would be the
impact on highways of a road closure?
- Duchy Avenue may
improve but this would be at the cost of other streets being
inundated with increased volumes of traffic including conflict of
traffic on other busy road junctions. It would also result in
inconvenience for the residents of Duchy Avenue as they would have
to divert around the closure.
Following the question and
answer session, the Chair invited 3 Petitioners who were in
attendance to address their concerns to the Committee, as
follows:
- Petitioner
1: The residents were all law abiding citizens but were victims
of continuous road rage, verbal abuse with the occasional
violence by car users driving through Duchy Avenue. Residents had
also been spat at during times of altercations. The closure would
give Duchy Avenue residents a sense of safety, peace and only the
residents on the street would be affected by the closure as opposed
to traffic being transferred to neighbouring streets.
- Petitioner
2:?
Children’s lives were being put at risk on a daily basis
hence it was time this safety concern being finally addressed
at this stage. Resident cars were incessantly being
damaged by passing vehicles. Most residents of Duchy Avenue were
families with young children.
- Petitioner
3: That he had lived on the corner of Duchy Avenue at the junction
of Heights Lane and had witnessed 4 serious accidents in the course
of his residence. His garden wall had been driven into twice
by non resident vehicles.
Following representation of
Petitioners, a further question and answer session arose, as
follows:
- It was earlier stated
that “the immediate neighbouring Ward was part of the
residential area in which Duchy Avenue was and residents had
expressed concerns as to the knock on detrimental flow of traffic
being transferred from Duchy Avenue onto their streets, if a
road closure was approved. Therefore this Committee had implemented
a road closure on Crow Tree Lane in 2015. Why were residents
of Duchy Avenue not consulted on the proposals for traffic calming
measures Crow Tree Lane during the consultation stage?
- Crow Tree Lane was a
Casualty Reduction Scheme hence a very different distinct purpose
as opposed to Duchy Avenue. Also it was remote from Duchy Avenue;
and,
- What information was
given to residents during the survey’s consultation process
for Duchy Avenue?
- Residents were given
a basic Yes or No option for a road closure.
During this point, the discussion of the item ascended to comments
being made by the Committee, as follows:
- It could be assumed
that the possibility of language barriers amongst residents which
was a restricting factor for not understanding the concept of the
consultation;
- In
response to comment, or it could be
argued that not everyone was in favour of a road
closure;
·
The whole point of traffic calming measures on Crow
Tree Lane was to reduce road accidents; and,
- It was clear that
many residents were not in favour of a closure and transferring a
problem from one area to another would be totally
unfair.
Two Councillors of the Bradford
West Constituency were at the meeting and shared their sentiments,
as follows:
·
Ward Councillor, Toller made representations to the
statement of, if a road closure was approved by the Committee then
the current levels of traffic passing through Duchy Avenue would be
transferred to Coniston Grove and other surrounding streets in his
Ward resulting in traffic being transferred from one area to
another without a solution to a problem. Crow Tree Lane had the
highest number of road accidents in one year in the whole
surrounding area hence the implementation of a traffic calming
scheme. This Committee had always favoured the majority entreaties
of residents.
·
Ward Councillor, Heaton highlighted that 3 of his
constituents had written to him in support of the closure on Duchy
Avenue. Equally so, a number of residents had been in contact and
had expressed their opposition to a closure. During the Municipal
Year 2012-13, two ex Councillors of the Heaton Ward had also been
heavily involved with discussions on a road closure with residents
and there had been a similar mixed feeling as to discussions during
this time round. In the past, two other streets in neighbouring
areas had road closures implemented but a few years later residents
had submitted requests to reopen the closures.
The Committee concluded that if
a road closure was approved then the volume of traffic would mean
moving a problem from one area to another. It was further commented
that many residents were not in favour of a closure and
therefore:
Resolved –
That
no further action be taken on the request to introduce a road
closure on Duchy Avenue.
Note: In accordance
with Paragraph 42.2 of Part
3A of the Constitution, the Chair and Councillor Mohammed requested that their votes against the above
decision be recorded.
ACTION: Strategic Director, Place
PDF 741 KB