Decision details

To consider the comments received following the formal advertisement of proposed waiting restrictions in the town of Chippenham and to recommend an appropriate way forward.

Restrictions were proposed at various locations as part of a town-wide approach. The full list of waiting restriction proposals included in the legal advertisement can be found in Appendix A. Proposals at the following locations were subject to objections and as such this report considers those objections. The remaining proposals will proceed to implementation as advertised.

·       Stanley Lane/Abbeyfield School Entrance

·       Deansway/Malmesbury Road junction

·       Rowden Lane

·       Queens Crescent

·       London Road

·       London Road (Spur)

·       Gascelyn Close

·       Lamberts/Pipsmore Road junction

·       Station Hill

DECISION MADE

I approve the decision set out in the attached report.

This decision was published on 1 April 2025 and will come into force on 9 April 2025.

It is proposed to proceed as advertised with the exception of Gascelyn Close where proposals are to be abandoned and an access protection marking provided as an alternative.   This ensures that the concerns raised by residents, parents and other members of the community in Chippenham are addressed with restrictions implemented where required to improve access and road safety for all users.

To:

1. Implement the proposals as advertised.

2. To implement amended proposals

3. Abandon the proposals.

Consultation has been undertaken with:

• The elected Wiltshire Council Member through the statutory TRO consultation process.

• The elected Chippenham Town Council through the statutory TRO consultation process

• Emergency services through the statutory TRO consultation process

• Members of the public through the statutory TRO consultation process

The proposed waiting restrictions were subject to formal consultation between 16^th January and 10^th February 2025. During the consultation period a total of sixty-seven items of correspondence were received in response to the Council’s proposals of which twelve were objections.