Agenda, decisions and minutes

This is where councillors who are attending as substitutes will say for who they are attending.

No apologies were received.

No apologies were received.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23^rd June 2021.

  The Committee approved the Minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd June 2021  as a correct record.

  The Committee approved the Minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd June 2021</AI2><AI3>  as a correct record.

The Councillors will be asked to say if there are any items on the Agenda in which they have disclosable pecuniary interests, which would prevent them from participating in any discussion of the items or participating in any vote upon the items, or any other interests.

No interests were declared.

No interests were declared.</AI3>

Most debates take place in public. This only changes when there is a need to consider certain issues, for instance, commercially sensitive information or details concerning an individual. You will be told at this point whether there are any items on the Agenda which are to be discussed in private

All agenda items were considered in public session.

All agenda items were considered in public session.

The Committee will receive any petitions and hear any deputations from members of the public. A deputation is where up to five people can attend the meeting and make a presentation on some particular issue of concern. A member of the public can also hand in a petition at the meeting but that petition should relate to something on which the body has powers and responsibilities.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10 (2), Members of the Public should provide at least 24 hours’ notice of presenting a deputation by emailing executive.governance@kirklees.gov.uk   

No deputations or petitions were received

No deputations or petitions were received

The Committee will hear any questions from the general public.

No public questions were asked.

No public questions were asked.

To receive questions from Councillors.

No member questions were asked.

To consider objections received the below TROs and proposals

Kirklees Council Traffic Regulation [No. 18] Order 2021– Proposed Prohibition of Waiting, Loading and Left Turn, Fenay Lane and St. Helen’s Gate, Almondbury

Kirklees Council Speed Limit [No. 108] Order 2021 – Proposed 20mph speed limits, Fenay Lane and St. Helen’s Gate, Almondbury

Contact:

Dean Barker -Principal Engineer,  Highway Safety

Tel: (01484) 221000

The Committee considered a report presented by Dean Barker, Principal Road Safety Engineer – Highways Design and Road Safety in respect of 2 objections received to:

·         Kirklees Council Traffic Regulation [No. 18] Order 2021– Proposed Prohibition of Waiting, Loading and Left Turn, Fenay Lane and St. Helen’s Gate, Almondbury

·         Kirklees Council Speed Limit [No. 108] Order 2021 – Proposed 20mph speed limits, Fenay Lane and St. Helen’s Gate, Almondbury

It was explained that Highway Safety proposed to construct a signalised ‘PUFFIN’ pedestrian crossing on Fenay Lane east of its junction with St. Helen’s Gate, and to impose a 20mph speed limit along St. Helen’s Gate between Fenay Lane and Arkenley Lane to meet planning conditions arising from an application to expand King James’s School, the subsequent crossing assessments and requests from Ward Councillors.

The Committee heard representations from the objectors who outlined their concerns and reasons for opposing the proposals. In summary, these included:

·         That the introduction of double yellow lines outside 1 objectors residential property would prevent loading/unloading and drop off and pick ups at the property for a relative with a disability.

·         The PUFFIN crossing was to be placed on a slope and there were concerns about the accessibility of this for disabled users.

·         The quality and tread depth of the steps and the suitability of the handrail to enable pedestrians to use the steps safely. 

·         There was no timeline stated for the widening and realigning of the steps.

·         The steps were not maintained by Kirklees and were overgrown with ivy. There were concerns that this was dangerous for pedestrians.

·         That the steepness of St Helen’s gate combined with the location of the proposed crossing would reduce visibility for north bound traffic at school start and finish times and there were concerns about what risk this may pose to pedestrians.

·         In respect of visibility issues, 1 Objector highlighted that safety mirrors (to be placed on bend on St Helens Gate) were requested in consultation and questioned why this feature was not mentioned in report.

·         There were questions as to whether the location of the proposed PUFFIN crossing was to be placed on the primary walking route for students travelling to and from King James’s High School.

·         It was asked if a detailed survey of students and the local community had been conducted to identify where they would choose to cross the road and if the principal of King James’s High School had been consulted with on the matter.

·         There were concerns that the proposals to reduce the width of the road would reduce access for emergency services, HGV’s and local farmers.

·         That notices of public consultation were late to be published on the website which did not allow enough time for responses.

Dean Barker responded to the issues raised.  In respect of concerns about the double yellow lines it was explained that there were no loading restrictions and that the introduction of the yellow lines would not affect deliveries and pick up/drop off to the property. In respect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider two objections received to:  Construction of 4 no, traffic humps,

Cumberworth Road, Skelmanthorpe

Contact:

Ken Major - Principal Engineer , Tel (01484) 221000

That the objections to the installation of the proposed traffic calming features be overruled and the proposals are implemented as advertised.

The Committee considered a report presented by Karen North, Principal Technical Officer (Highways Design and Road Safety) in respect of an objection received in response to the proposed traffic calming features on Cumberworth Road, Skelmanthorpe.

Planning permission had been granted for the erection of a residential development of up to 190 dwellings at land to the north of Cumberworth Road.  

As a part of this the following traffic calming measures were proposed:

·         Construction of 4 no. road humps;

·         The relocation of the current 30 mph speed limit further along the road.

The proposed schemes were aimed at reducing and maintaining the speed of traffic travelling into and through the residential area and past the development to 30 mph. The traffic calming proposals were publicly advertised between 5 July 2021 and 2 August 2021, and during that period 2 objections were received.

The Committee noted the written representations from the objectors who outlined their concerns and reasons for opposing the proposals. In summary, these included:

·         Concerns about snowploughs/ Winter maintenance vehicles being unable to traverse speed humps during winter weather.

·         Vehicles leaving Sklemanthorpe having to give way to oncoming traffic.

·         Unnecessary air and noise pollution as a result of increased traffic and vehicles speeding up and down in between speed humps.

In response, Karen North explained that whilst there was a risk posed by any traffic calming measure on a route during winter weather, the requirement to closed a traffic calmed road due to icy conditions/snow was low where as if the traffic calming features were not introduced, the benefits of reducing speeds here, at all times of the year would be lost.

The Committee were further advised that the scheme was designed in accordance with guidance to deter drivers from speeding up and slowing down between speed bumps and in response to the alternative suggestions made by objectors, the Committee were advised that:

·         The installation of a 20mph speed limits would require average speed recordings to be no more than 24mph and therefore traffic calming measures would be required alongside a speed limit. 

·         Reducing the road width to introduce a pinch point was a well-used horizontal traffic calming feature. However, forward visibility on the section of road concerned was excellent and whilst most drivers would slow and stop to give way to oncoming traffic, potentially some drivers may accelerate to speeds above the speed limit to avoid giving way.

·         Mobile speed cameras were enforced by the police and were used in areas where there were a high number of collisions. They are not provided as an alternative to the installation of traffic calming features or to maintain the adherence to the speed limit in such circumstances.

RESOLVED: The Committee considered all the information received both verbally and in writing and it was agreedthat the proposed traffic calming features on Cumberworth Road Skelmanthorpe be implemented as advertised.

.