Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

No apologies were received.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24^th November 2021.

The Committee were advised that the Minutes of the meeting held 24 November 2021 would be submitted for approval at the next meeting of the Committee.

The Committee were advised that the Minutes of the meeting held 24 November 2021 would be submitted for approval at the next meeting of the Committee.

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.</AI3>

<AI4>                                                                                            

No interests were declared.

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.  

A petition was received in relation to the proposed parking restrictions in the  Luck Lane parking scheme.

The Committee received a petition from residents of Luck Lane in support of the objection to the length of the double yellow lines in the proposed Luck Lane parking scheme.

RESOLVED: That the petition be registered.

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.

No member questions were asked.

To consider one objection received to: 30mph extension Cumberworth Road, Skelmanthorpe.

Contact:

Jonathan Walsh - Principal Engineer

Wendy Blakeley - Strategic Director – Highways and Streetscene

The Committee considered 1 objection received in response to the public advertisement of the traffic regulation order for the extension to the 30mph speed limit ,and the consequent changes to the start point of the national speed limit, on Cumberworth Road/Ponker Lane, Skelmanthorpe.

RESOLVED: That the objection to the extension be overruled, and the proposals are implemented as advertised.

The Committee considered a report presented by Ken Major, Principal Engineer – Environment Services, in respect of 1 objection received in response to: the public advertisement of the traffic regulation order for the extension to the 30mph speed limit, and the consequent changes to the start point of the national speed limit, on Cumberworth Road/Ponker Lane, Skelmanthorpe.

The Committee were informed that planning permission was granted, in July 2020, for the erection of 190 dwellings and the associated landscaping and infrastructure at Land to the north of Cumberworth Road, Skelmanthorpe. The planning condition (no. 26) stated that before any dwelling was occupied a detailed scheme for the provision of the new relocation of the 30mph speed limit and any additional traffic calming provision should be submitted to, and approved, in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The speed limit change proposals were formally advertised between 16 November 21 and 14 December 21, and during that period 1 objection was received. The main concerns raised in the objection were in relation to the current lack of adherence to the 30mph speed limit, and the lack of adherence in the future despite the proposed extension. The objector explained that they believed this was due to the 60mph section of the road and proposed that the 30mph restrictions instead be increased to the full length of the road.

In response, Ken Major explained that the extension of the 30mph section by a distance of 100 metres was specifically to move the start of the speed limit to an appropriate point before the new access road into the housing development. The position of the new speed limit change was to be outside the built-up area and placed at the transition point between a rural road and the village. The remainder of Ponker Lane was intended to remain national speed limit and under Department for Transport guidance – Setting Local Speed Limits - 01/2013, this was the appropriate speed limit for a road of such nature.

The Officers recommendation was that the proposed extension to the 30mph speed limit was to facilitate the safe operation of the access to the new housing development site, and to ensure that it was located within a suitable distance beyond the start of the 30mph. For these reasons, the Officer recommendation was that the objection to the extension be overruled, and the proposals be implemented as advertised.

The Committee confirmed that national Department for Transport Guidance was being applied and the Officer recommendations, supported by the Cabinet Member for Environment, would allow the road safety benefits to be realised. Having considered the information presented both verbally and in writing the committee:

RESOLVED: That the objection to the extension be overruled, and the proposals are implemented as advertised.

To consider one objection received to the double yellow lines and consequently the remaining space for the permit parking bay.

Ken Major - Principal Engineer

Wendy Blakeley - Strategic Director – Highways and Streetscene

The Committee considered one objection received during the formal advertising period to the proposed permit parking and “no waiting at any time” restrictions on Luck Lane, Huddersfield

RESOLVED: That the objection be upheld, and thatthe scheme be deferred until further consultation with residents.

The Committee considered a report presented by Ken Major, Principal Engineer – Environment Services, in respect of one objection received to the double yellow lines, and consequently the remaining space for the permit parking bay, on Luck Lane, Huddersfield.

An application was made by the residents of Luck Lane for the introduction of a residents only permit parking bay outside their properties to help with the problem of parking due to people visiting and working in the shops on New Hey Road and the mill building on Luck Lane. The application was approved and in addition to this, new sections of double yellow line restrictions were included in the scheme to prevent any displaced parking in unsafe locations such as around the various accesses off Luck Lane.

The traffic regulation order was advertised in the local press, notices were placed on site and on the Councils website.  The objection period covered 20 August 2021 to 20 September 2021, during which time 1 objection was received.

The Objector, David Richardson was in attendance and was invited by the Chair to explain their reasons for the objection. The Committee were informed that the objection related mainly to the double yellow line’s element of the scheme, due to the consequent shortening of the available parking area.  The Objector highlighted that ‘Keep clear markings’ were a preferred alternative measure for Luck Lane. It was further requested, if possible, that the Committee direct highways to revisit the scheme as residents felt that the proposed scheme no longer met their needs.

Ken Major responded to advise that ‘Keep Clear Markings’ were partially effective, but there was opportunity to implement double yellow lines and those parking restrictions would be enforceable by Kirklees’s own enforcement team. Whilst accepting that this would shorten the available parking, the double yellow lines alongside the permit scheme would guarantee a degree of parking. In accordance with guidance in the highway code the 10-metre length would be required to achieve visibility from the accesses, and to prevent parking too near too them. 

The Committee confirmed that in the officers view the double yellow lines were necessary for the scheme to be implemented. Ken Major confirmed and added that to amend the scheme, a new order with new information would need to be formally advertised.

The Committee further highlighted that the scheme safeguarded the visibility and ensured enforcement opportunities but did acknowledge that there was always an element of compromise required when implementing new schemes.

Upon hearing the Committee and officers’ comments, the objector advised that residents of Luck Lane may prefer not to have a permit parking scheme. This was supported by a petition signed by residents of Luck Lane which was submitted to the Committee (under item 5) supporting the objection to the proposed double yellow lines and by alliance the parking permit scheme which included them.

The Committee felt that the decision to implement the scheme or not should be made following further consultation with residents highlighting that the scheme was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.