|
Meeting: |
Executive Member for Transport Decision Session |
|
Meeting date: |
12/11/2024 |
|
Report of: |
Director – James Gilchrist |
|
Portfolio of: |
Cllr K Ravilious - Executive Member for Transport |
Decision Report:
Walker Lane, Wheldrake
Subject of
Report
1. A property owner requested Walker Lane, Wheldrake, a two-way road, be changed to a one-way road.
2. The decision is requested as damage was being caused to an adjacent residential property by vehicles failing to negotiate the adjacent junction into/out of the narrow roadway, and, because of the narrow width of the road, opposing vehicular conflicts could occur.
3. The report requests approval to undertake Statutory Consultation to amend the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to propose a One-Way restriction on Walker Lane Wheldrake.
Benefits and Challenges
4. The benefit is that a one-way road would eliminate or minimise risks of damage being caused to the property concerned and will eliminate the risk of opposing vehicular conflict.
5. The challenges are the introduction of a one-way will not be welcome by all residents as it will increase some vehicle movements. There will also be opposing views on which direction the one-way travel should be signed, and whether to allow cyclists to travel in either direction.
Policy Basis for Decision
The policy basis for this decision is to achieve a reduction in the likelihood of road traffic collisions resulting in injury and/or damage to residential properties and the highway network. The removal of two way travel will help to remove the footpath overrun and property damage that has been occurring, which will help to manage effective maintenance of the highway network.
Financial Strategy Implications
6. There are no high-level financial implications of any of the recommendations or long-term financial implications, and the costs of implementation are relatively low.
Recommendation and Reasons
7. Option B - approve statutory consultation to propose an amendment to the TRO and make Walker Lane one-way from Main Street to North Lane (recommended): Is to change the road to one-way travel south to north, Main Street to North Lane. The advantages are that this eliminates the risk of vehicular conflict, meets the majority of consultees wishes, and provides better visibility owing to the ‘visplay’ available at the Walker Lane/North Lane junction. The disadvantage may be that vehicles turning too sharply into Walker Lane may strike the structure of 45 Main Street (as has previously happened), but this is thought less likely as the possibility of opposing conflict with oncoming vehicles has been eliminated.
Background
8. A property boundary wall along the frontage on Walker Lane, has been hit several times, due to the available width on the lane, the maintenance of the wall has been at the expense to the property owner. The vehicles exiting Walker Lane on to Main Street, Wheldrake have also been witnessed over running the footpath, which is a safety concern for user of the footpath and potentially an additional maintenance cost for the footpath.
9. The width of Walker Lane varies between 3 metres and 3.8 meters (Annex A), so it is very narrow for two vehicles to safely pass each other. Walker Lane does not have any footpaths, so all movements along Walker Lane are required to be undertaken on the carriageway.
10. The decision is requested as damage was being caused to the residential property by vehicles failing to negotiate the adjacent junction into the narrow roadway, and, because of the narrow width of the road, opposing vehicular conflicts could occur.
11. There has also been a request to maintain two way cycle travel on Walker Lane should approval be granted to make the road one way. LTN 1.20, states there should be a general presumption in favour of cycling in both directions in one-way streets, unless there are safety, operational or cost reasons why it is not feasible. In urban areas where vehicle speeds are low, the recommended minimum carriageway width is 2.6m, if there is no carriageway parking occurring. Walker Lane does not have any carriageway parking, but one property does have off street parking for one vehicle adjacent to the carriageway. LTN 1.20 does recommend an additional 500mm width at vertical features over 600mm high, whilst this advice is for cycle tracks it may be pertinent to consider it here, due to the high hedges and walls along the lane.
12. There have been no previous Member decisions on the subject.
Consultation Analysis
14. There are seven properties with a frontage on to Walker Lane and all seven property owners/residents were in favour of the introduction of a One-way restriction introduced on the street (Annex C).
15. Out of seven property owners/residents consulted five preferred the Main Street to North Lane direction of travel, one was happy with either direction, whilst one requested the direct of travel be North Lane to Main Street.
Options Analysis and
Evidential Basis
16. Option A take no further action (not recommended): Is to do nothing and to leave the road as it is, a two-way road. The advantages are that local residents are familiar, and there is no cost. The disadvantages are that vehicular and pedestrian conflicts would continue and the risk of road traffic collisions with injury and/or property damage would remain. There is evidence of prior collisions with a residential property, and reports of vehicular conflict.
Option B approve statutory consultation to propose an amendment to the TRO and make Walker Lane one-way from Main Street to North Lane (recommended): Is to change the road to one-way travel south to north, Main Street to North Lane. The advantages are that this eliminates the risk of vehicular conflict, meets the majority of consultees wishes, and provides better visibility owing to the ‘visplay’ available at the Walker Lane/North Lane junction. The disadvantage may be that vehicles turning too sharply into Walker Lane may strike the structure of 45 Main Street (as has previously happened), but this is thought less likely as the possibility of opposing conflict with oncoming vehicles has been eliminated.
Option C approve statutory consultation to propose an amendment to the TRO and make Walker Lane one-way from North Lane to Main Street (not recommended): Is to change the road to one-way travel north to south, North Lane to Main Street. The advantage is that this eliminates the risk of vehicular conflict and reduces the risk of damage to 45 Main Street. The disadvantage is that the majority of the consultees are not in favour owing to their concerns regarding limited views available at the Walker Lane/Main Street junction owing to parked vehicles.
Option D approve statutory consultation to propose an amendment to the TRO to create an access only restriction to Walker Lane (not recommended: Is to change the vehicular access right to enter the road to access only. The advantages are that opposing vehicular conflict would be minimised but not eliminated. The disadvantages are that this option only benefits those residents with a right of access onto the lane and limits the opportunity for any vehicle to make a journey between Main Street and North Lane, forcing them to either end of Main Street to make a ‘go round’ to get onto North Lane. An access restriction is only enforceable by North Yorkshire Police, this is low on their list of priorities for enforcement, due to the labour-intensive nature of the enforcement. Any future proposal for an access restriction is likely to receive an objection from North Yorkshire Police. If the restriction is unlikely to be enforced, it is unlikely that it will be adhered to.
Option E Include an exemption for two-way cycling on Walker Lane for the proposals to create a One-way restriction (not recommended): This option relates to the matter of whether cyclists should be allowed two-way travel in the event a decision is made for vehicular traffic to become one-way, in either direction. This option would maintain an opposing conflict between vehicles and cyclists, and the risk of a road traffic collision with injury and/or damage would remain, contrary to the intentions of implementing a one-way system.
Organisational
Impact and Implications
17. The report has the following impacts and implications:
· Financial: None, the cost of implementation will be met from existing available signing and lining budget, if approved.
· Human Resources (HR): None. The work will be undertaken by existing CYC staff trained to complete such installations if approved.
Legal:
The Council regulates traffic by means of traffic regulation orders (TROs) made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which can prohibit, restrict, or regulate the use of a road, or any part of the width of a road, by vehicular traffic. In making decisions on TROs, the Council must consider the criteria within Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and, in particular, the duty to make decisions to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians).
The proposal would require an amendment to the York Traffic Management Order 2014
The statutory consultation process for TROs requires public advertisement through the placing of public notices within the local press and on-street. Formal notification of the public advertisement is given to key stakeholders including local Ward Members, Town and Parish Councils, Police and other affected parties.
The Council, as Highway Authority, is required to consider any objections received within the statutory advertisement period of 21 days, and a subsequent report will include any such objections or comments, for consideration. Where the Council does not “wholly accede” to any objection, it is required to provide reasons for this in its notification of the making of an order to any person that has objected.
The Council has discretion to amend its original proposal if considered desirable, whether or not, in the light of any objections or comments received, as a result of such statutory consultation. If any objections received are accepted, in part or whole, and/or a decision is made to modify the original proposals, if such a modification is considered to be substantial, then steps must be taken for those affected by the proposed modifications to be further consulted.
The recommendation in this report is for the decision maker to consider the initial consultation and approve the advertisement of an amendment to the TRO and undertake the required statutory consultation period.
· Procurement: Any public works contracts required at each of the sites as a result of a change to the TRO (e.g. signage, road markings, etc.) must be commissioned in accordance with a robust procurement strategy that complies with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and (where applicable) the Public Contract Regulations 2015. Advice should be sought from both the Procurement and Legal Services Teams where appropriate.).
· Health and Wellbeing: None.
· Environment and Climate action: None.
· Affordability: None.
· Equalities and Human Rights:
· The Council recognises its Public Sector Equality Duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct; advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it in the exercise of a public authority’s functions). The impact of the recommendation on protected characteristics has been considered as follows:
· Age – Positive, the recommended option will remove two way vehicle movements from the street and allow more space for walking on the street, which will make a safer environment for all road users;
· Disability – Positive, the introduction of a one-way restrictions will remove some vehicle movements and increase the available area for use by all user;
· Gender – Neutral;
· Gender reassignment – Neutral;
· Marriage and civil partnership– Neutral;
· Pregnancy and maternity - Neutral;
· Race – Neutral;
· Religion and belief – Neutral;
· Sexual orientation – Neutral;
· Other socio-economic groups including :
o Carer - Neutral;
o Low income groups – Neutral;
o Veterans, Armed Forces Community– Neutral
· It is recognised that individual traffic regulation order requests may impact protected characteristics in different ways according to the specific nature of the traffic regulation order being considered.
· Data Protection and Privacy: None. The outcome of a decision does not involve any particular named individual.
· Communications: Consultation has taken place and any subsequent decision will be published and advertised accordingly.
· Economy: None.
Risks and
Mitigations
18. There are no known risks.
Wards Impacted
19. Wheldrake only.
Contact details
For further information please contact the authors of this Decision Report.
Author
|
Name: |
James Gilchrist |
|
Job Title: |
Director of Place |
|
Service Area: |
Place |
|
Telephone: |
Please insert |
|
Report approved: |
Yes/No |
|
Date: |
DD/MM/YYYY |
Co-author
|
Name: |
Peter Marsland |
|
Job Title: |
Traffic Projects Officer |
|
Service Area: |
Highway Regulation |
|
Telephone: |
Please insert |
|
Report approved: |
Yes/No |
|
Date: |
DD/MM/YYYY |
Annexes
Annex A – Walker Lane Wheldrake Road Width
Annex B – Walker Lane Consultation Letter
Annex C – Consultation Responses