In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 10 to consider Motions on notice from Members. Motions must be received in writing or by email to the Monitoring Officer by 12 noon twelve clear working days before the meeting.
The following motion has been submitted.
Motion A – Submitted by Councillor R Shipman
This Council notes that:
Derbyshire County Council and North East Derbyshire District
Council have consulted on proposals to introduce traffic lights at
the junction of the A61 and Mill Lane in Wingerworth.
The published consultation results show a clear majority of respondents opposed to the scheme, with approximately 65% stating they do not support the proposals, compared with fewer than 30% in support.
Local residents have raised significant concerns about increased congestion, road safety, and traffic being displaced onto surrounding residential streets.
This Council believes that:
Local communities must have a meaningful voice in decisions that
directly affect their daily lives.
Proceeding with a scheme that lacks public support risks undermining trust in the consultation process.
There is a need to properly consider alternative solutions that reflect local knowledge and community priorities.
This Council resolves to:
Formally oppose the proposed traffic light scheme at the end of
Mill Lane, Wingerworth.
Write to Derbyshire County Council, as the Highway Authority, urging them not to proceed with the traffic light scheme.
Request that Derbyshire County Council works with local residents and ward councillors to explore alternative, community-supported options to address traffic and safety concerns at this junction.
Minutes:
The Chair confirmed that one Motion had been submitted.
Motion A – Submitted by Councillor R Shipman
This Council notes that:
Derbyshire County Council and North East Derbyshire District
Council have consulted on proposals to introduce traffic lights at
the junction of the A61 and Mill Lane in Wingerworth.
The published consultation results show a clear majority of respondents opposed to the scheme, with approximately 65% stating they do not support the proposals, compared with fewer than 30% in support.
Local residents have raised significant concerns about increased congestion, road safety, and traffic being displaced onto surrounding residential streets.
This Council believes that:
Local communities must have a meaningful voice in decisions that
directly affect their daily lives.
Proceeding with a scheme that lacks public support risks undermining trust in the consultation process.
There is a need to properly consider alternative solutions that reflect local knowledge and community priorities.
This Council resolves to:
Formally oppose the proposed traffic light scheme at the end of
Mill Lane, Wingerworth.
Write to Derbyshire County Council, as the Highway Authority, urging them not to proceed with the traffic light scheme.
Request that Derbyshire County Council works with local residents and ward councillors to explore alternative, community-supported options to address traffic and safety concerns at this junction.
Councillor R Shipman moved the Motion. He expressed concern that the consultants responsible for the proposals did not fully understand the local area, particularly the role of the A61 as a diversion route when issues occur on the M1. He stated that the preferred traffic lights scheme lacked public support and argued that the Council should listen to residents. He stated that the Motion did not oppose all intervention at the junction but specifically rejected the traffic light proposal, which he considered a waste of money and unsupported by the community.
Councillor D Hancock seconded the Motion. He stated that the traffic light option had been presented as a fait accompli, and residents of Nottingham Drive feared it would trap them in congestion. He criticised the lack of alternative options during consultation.
Cllr
N Barker stated that the consultation responses had been analysed
and acknowledged that although 65% of respondents had not supported
the original signalised option, they had expressed support for some
form of intervention.
He highlighted ongoing issues at Nottingham Drive, including
difficulties for right?turning traffic and the need for a safe
pedestrian crossing and noted that revised proposals had attempted
to address resident concerns.
Cllr H Liggett warned that the addition of further traffic signal junctions could significantly increase journey times. She believed that developer funding could support a roundabout solution and expressed strong opposition to installing additional traffic lights along the A61.
Cllr C Cupit stated she was sympathetic to the Motion but had concerns regarding how it was worded. She raised concerns that the consultation was narrowly framed and had not offered residents the ability to express wider preferences. She noted the potential risk of worsening congestion on the A61. She highlighted that the Motion no longer reflected the updated design proposals and that responsibility ultimately lay with Derbyshire County Council as the Highways Authority. She indicated she would likely abstain and suggested that the motion might be better withdrawn and redrafted.
Cllr A Dale agreed that circumstances had moved on, but not necessarily favourably. He stated that a roundabout remained the best overall solution and suggested developer funding could be explored. He urged the Council to ensure a full consultation on future options.
Cllr N Baker also noted that although proposals had progressed, and ward members should be involved in developing the updated scheme. He stated that a well?designed roundabout slightly further along the road could work, but current land constraints made this difficult.
Cllr K Gillott noted that the choice appeared to be between accepting £1m for a deliverable scheme or attempting to secure funding for an alternative solution that could cost much more. He argued that ruling out the current option entirely would fail the community.
Cllr J Barry acknowledged that many residents preferred a roundabout but emphasised that the required land for such as scheme was privately owned. Even if funding was available, the scheme might require a compulsory purchase order (CPO), which would fall to Derbyshire County Council. It was confirmed that a CPO would be difficult to justify where a viable alternative design existed.
Cllr Shipman reiterated that the consultation was misleading and that residents had firmly rejected any form of traffic?light?based scheme.
The Motion was put to the vote and lost.