Rothwell Labour councillors’ news on Wood Lane parking latest plans

Great news, we now have the plan of how the council’s highways officers propose to tackle the double parking and other problems on Wood Lane. This is a result of me and David getting highways officers, the executive member and director to come to Wood Lane to see the problem for themselves.

The proposals contain further restrictions to try to combat some of the current problems with cars parking along both sides of Wood Lane and at the entrances to streets off Wood Lane. It is a difficult balance to strike but we would be interested to know what people think before we feed back to the highways officer our views on this proposed scheme.

The plan looks like it could help, but we think it is unlikely to solve all the issues. Let us know what you think in the comments below or contact us direct.

This is the plan. You can click on the magnifying glass icons at the bottom to zoom in and out, or click on the right hand icon with the four arrows to make it full screen. Or you can download a PDF of the map here.

Wood Lane Parking Plan by karenbrucelab on Scribd

This was the info in the email accompanying the new plan:

Dear Councillors,

Please find a plan showing a traffic regulation order scheme to formalise parking to address the concerns you have raised which are mainly sight lines been obstructed due to parking and that the width of Wood Lane does not safely permit parking on both sides of Wood Lane.

The proposals therefore removes the ability to park on either side of Wood Lane both in the rural section and the urban area to address your concern. I am aware that the parking demand in this area will not simply disappear and I do have a real concern that parking will migrate into some of the side streets. As I have previously explained the policy for resident permit parking is that

a. There is an all day parking issue.

B. Residents are unable to park in close proximity to their homes when they return to the area and

C. The residential properties do not have their own off street parking provision/ opportunity.

As you are aware many of these side streets all have off street parking opportunity and therefore we would not be able to support permit parking in these area.

I am also mindful that the restrictions within the urban area will inconvenience local residents who do and have for many years parked on both sides of Wood Lane and also often park partially on the pavement which was also a complaint you raised at the meeting.

As I have previously explained that from a Traffic Engineering perspective their is no justification for such wide scale measures and that in my opinion some extension of the double yellow lines would address the sight line concerns and the parking on both sides of Wood Lane does act to slow vehicle speeds, particularly when the service used to get regular complaints of speeding.

I trust the above and attached is of interest.




9 Replies to “Rothwell Labour councillors’ news on Wood Lane parking latest plans

  1. All well and good parking in Rothwell. Having said which, I do hope your not intending to park the Tory racist concerns mentioned in yesterdays e-mail to you?

  2. Karen, surely the root cause here is that when we build new office space the council doesn’t require sufficient parking to be built in the first instance. I’d be intetested to know if that problem is being addressed too. In America/Canada, underground parking and multistorey car parks are provided, and surely it would be better to challenge/enforce a policy regarding car park provision in the first instance.


  3. I don’t know what the big problem is. They should park where they work – and the employer who engages them should be made to provide enough parking. Why does it need “schemes” and endless discussions? Everyone concerned has faffed about with this for too long, ignoring all safety concerns. I’m still waiting for an answer about what white chevrons are supposed to signify in the middle of a road : as far as I know, they are not designed to bring vehicles within inches of each other.
    Sorry, but I’ve lost all confidence in everyone handling this issue.

  4. Karen, it’s got to be an improvement on what’s happening now, let’s hope it’s in place before an accident occurs. I have to mention though, I really cannot understand how planning permission is granted for a call centre to be built with insufficient parking available on site.

  5. It should be sorted out asap they have started parking in the side streets. I live on low shops and they aleady parking on our street. I do not understand your proposals so a bit of everyday jargon would be appreciated before i can comment on the proposals.

  6. The problem is that the selfish persons who are parking along both sides of Wood Lane will not car share, which their relevant company’s promote. The highways department should continue with the double yellow lines along both sides of Wood Lane and this will stop the issue of double parking. The car owners are also parking on the pavement, which blocks of the access for pedestrians, they even block access to the field on the right hand side of Bell Hill going towards Leeds, this denies access to the farmer who own these fields. When do they stop?

  7. Regarding that last post, it is the left hand side of Bell Hill, my apologies.

  8. I imagine all that will happen under the proposed plans is that these drivers will go further in to the residential areas and park on those streets instead. There is already “creep” of this problem as it is. With not having residents’ only parking/permits, we’re just going to be driven further away when parking at home as I can’t see that these drivers are going to care too much about taking spaces outside people’s homes.

    The bigger issue is surely that the call centre etc. are not providing enough parking spaces on site and I can’t see that this plan is actually working to resolve that at all.

  9. The fact that a major office development was allowed to be built in such close proximity to motorways, without enough car parking space for it’s staff, is ridiculous. Being so close to the motorway means staff were always going to come from further afield and therefore not use public transport. As for the current plans, it’s an improvement but only just. One problem it will not eliviate is gaining access on to Wood Lane from Castle Lodge Avenue. The ‘proposed no waiting at any time’ needs to stretch further along Wood Lane, in both directions, from the top of Castle Lodge Avenue. I would suggest it should stretch to the bus stop at the top of Low Shops Lane and the same distance in the opposite direction. It also seems to me that you are playing politics with this issue by, (according to your recent letter), “insisting that if these (plans) go ahead it has to go hand in hand with other parking provision”. By other provision i’m guessing you mean the Stourton park and ride scheme, which will either be a massive white elephant or result in further traffic problems in that area. I for one never asked you to “insist” on further provision, I only asked you to solve a problem before someone is killed. I have to agree with one of the comments above, I too have lost all confidence in this being handled in the best interests of local residents.

Comments are closed.

Malcare WordPress Security