City of Salford (Blackfriars Street, Ordsall) (One Way Traffic with Contraflow for Cyclists) Order 2022 and City of Salford (Blackfriars Street, Ordsall) (Prohibition of Waiting and Loading/Unloading Parking Places, Amendment) (Experimental) Order 20
August 15, 2023 Approved View on council websiteFull council record
Content
Salford
City Council - Record of Decision
I,
Councillor Mike McCusker, Lead Member for Planning, Transport and
Sustainable Development in exercise of the powers contained within
the City Council constitution do hereby:
Authorise
the permanent making of the Traffic Regulation Order below in the
form given in the Notice of Proposals and as set out in the
report:
City of Salford (Blackfriars Street, Ordsall) (One Way Traffic with Contraflow for
Cyclists) Order 2022 and City of Salford (Blackfriars Street,
Ordsall) (Prohibition of Waiting and
Loading/Unloading Parking Places, Amendment) (Experimental) Order
2022
The Reasons are: That the necessary
action be taken under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to
advertise the intention to make the Traffic Order to introduce City of Salford (Blackfriars Street, Ordsall) (Prohibition of Waiting and
Loading/Unloading Parking Places, Amendment) (Experimental) Order
2022 and City of Salford (Blackfriars Street, Ordsall) (One Way Traffic with Contraflow for
Cyclists) Order 2022 as permanent Traffic Orders.
Implementation of these orders will promote a safer environment for
the public to walk and cycle to and from the city centre region;
and reduce the dominance of car journeys in accordance with the
City Centre Transport Strategy.
Options considered and rejected were: Officers have considered several options requested by
stakeholders from relocating the loading bay further south closer
to business premises, reallocating road space by formalising a
bi-directional cycle facility within the existing contraflow cycle
lane, and removal of the northbound cycle lane to facilitate
kerbside access for residents and businesses. These options were
all considered and rejected on road safety grounds.
Assessment of Risk: The scheme in its
current form has been constructed and operational for 9 months
under the experimental traffic order and therefore making the order
permanent will result in no physical changes to the current road
layout. The scheme has been designed in accordance with the Traffic
Signs Manual and Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions
2016 and has been subject to inspection from Active Travel England
who have confirmed there are no issues preventing the permanent
making of the Traffic Orders.
The source of funding:
The scheme has been funded by the Department for Transports Active
Travel Fund.
Legal Advice obtained: The Council, by
virtue of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can introduce orders
to manage traffic. Where Traffic Regulation Orders are required,
they should not give rise to any particular legal implications
provided the works and procedures are carried out in accordance
with the relevant statutory requirements, which would include the
consideration of any objections to a proposed Traffic Regulation
Order.
Financial Advice obtained: N/A
Procurement Advice obtained: There are
no procurement implications contained within this
report.
HR
advice obtained: N/A
Climate
Change advice obtained: N/A
The
following documents have been used to assist the decision
process:
Proposal Plan and Lead Member Report.
Contact Officer:
Michael
Kilby Tel No.
07808016343
Email: michael.kilby@salford.gov.uk
This decision is not subject to
consideration by another Lead Member.
The appropriate scrutiny panel
to call-in the decision is the Growth & Prosperity Scrutiny
Panel.
Signed: Councillor Mike McCusker
Dated: 15th August 2023
Lead Member for
Planning, Transport & Sustainable Development
This decision was published on 17th August 2023.
This decision will come into force at
4.00pm on 24th August 2023, unless it is called-in in accordance with the
decision-making process rules.
Details
| Outcome | Recommendations Approved |
| Decision date | 15 Aug 2023 |
| Subject to call-in | Yes |