Agenda item

This report is intended to review the responses from the Statutory Consultation for the proposed introduction of a one-way travel on Walker Lane from Main Street to North Lane and provide a recommendation option.

A property owner requested Walker Lane, Wheldrake, a two-way road, be changed to a one-way road. 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 with an associated risk to any pedestrians also.

Resolved:   To approve Option A and to take no further action, leaving the road as a two-way road.

Reason:      This acknowledges the representations received in objection to the proposal.

The proposed changes conflict with commitments in the council’s transport strategy by failing to provide additional benefit to pedestrians on the road, and potentially exposing them to faster oncoming one-way traffic; cyclists would also be inconvenienced as the proposed scheme also prevents contraflow cycling.

This decision leaves in place potential conflict between pedestrian and vehicles and a risk of road traffic collision with potential injury to pedestrians and or damage to properties/vehicles.

The Executive Member suggested that future attention could be given to traffic restrictions at the corner surrounding the junction where collisions had occurred.

The report was presented by the Highway Regulation Manager, who explained that it discussed a proposed one-way system for Walker Lane in Wheldrake, following a request from a resident whose property had been damaged by a vehicle due to the width of the lane, which was approximately 3 metres.

The Highway Regulation Manager responded to one of the public speakers, who had said that the report was incorrect. He clarified why the report had stated the hairdressers didn’t have parking in front of the business; while officers had been aware that the hairdressers did have access to a parking space, they had been advised that this was staff parking only and not for customer use. He apologised for any misrepresentation on this point in the report.

He also addressed points raised concerning a lack of consultation with residents, noting that during the informal consultation a year ago, officers had received one objection to the proposed one-way system, which came from the speaker who raised the issue again at this meeting, while all other respondents were in favour of the proposal. Subsequent to the informal consultation, further objections had arisen, after residents had discussed this.

He stated that officers recommended implementation of the one-way system, due to the width of the street and the danger posed to users by two passing cars leaving no room for pedestrians/cyclists and a risk of further conflicts.

The Executive Member noted that this proposal had been instigated by an incident two years ago and that no further issues had arisen since then. She thanked officers for their work and agreed that the one-way system proposed was a logical proposal.

However, the Executive Member was concerned that by doing this, no additional benefit was being provided for people walking up and down the road, and in fact a one-way system could increase the confidence of drivers making the road more hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists. It would also prevent contraflow cycling and force cyclists to cycle a longer way round and the proposed plan therefore did not align greatly with transport strategy.

She was not convinced that there was enough of a concern about damage to the building being a regular occurrence to warrant moving forward with this proposal and stated that she would only want to bring forward a proposal that added benefit for pedestrians, cyclists and sustainable travel, which this did not do.

She was also mindful that public speakers had alluded to alternative solutions, such as the parking around the junction with Main Street, and she wondered whether it was worth exploring traffic restrictions here if this parking was contributing to a risk of collision with the car port.

The Executive Member therefore

Resolved:   To approve Option A and to take no further action, leaving the road as a two-way road.

Reason:      This acknowledges the representations received in objection to the proposal.

The proposed changes conflict with commitments in the council’s transport strategy by failing to provide additional benefit to pedestrians on the road and potentially exposing them to faster oncoming one-way traffic; cyclists would also be inconvenienced as the proposed scheme prevents contraflow cycling.

This decision leaves in place potential conflict between pedestrian and vehicles and a risk of road traffic collision with potential injury to pedestrians and or damage to properties/vehicles.

The Executive Member suggested that future attention could be given to traffic restrictions at the corners surrounding the junction where collisions had occurred.