COUNCILLORS need to show a “level of honesty” to constituents over what road schemes Bradford Council can afford, as it emerged some projects have been on the “to do” list for over two decades.

While reviewing a list of road safety projects in the Bradford South constituency, councillors pointed out that some schemes yet to be allocated funding were first proposed as long ago as 2002.

One councillor called the backlog “laughable” while another said it was important that they did not promise residents schemes that they could not afford.

Each of Bradford Council’s five Area Committees is allocated £170,000 a year to spend on road safety schemes, which could include zebra crossings, traffic calming or double yellow lines.

At its latest meeting, the Bradford South Area Committee was considering how to spend the coming year’s budget.

Proposals that got the green light included a £45,000 plan for traffic calming on Farfield Avenue/Wibsey Park Avenue and £40,000 for a zebra crossing on Reevy Road West.

However, they were told that there were dozens more schemes that had been suggested to improve road safety in the constituency that would not make the cut due to the limited budget.

Some of these schemes date back to 2002.

Members of the committee pointed out that even if no new schemes were added to the list, it would take years to complete every requested work.

Councillor Matt Edwards (Green, Tong) said: “We’ve had some schemes on here for almost 20 years.

"It is depressing that in a Council the size of Bradford we’re only able to spend £175,000 on road safety schemes in each constituency a year.

“It’s exasperating.”

Work would swallow almost all of budget for whole area, report says

Schemes that have been awaiting funding since 2002 include plans for traffic calming on a stretch of Scholemoor Road (expected to cost £40,000), traffic calming on Bilsdale Grange/Reevy Crescent (£40,000), and a £100,000 traffic calming scheme for Burnham Avenue.

Other schemes that have been on the waiting list for years include installing a motorcycle barrier on the Sourheads Footpath (dating back to 2007) and a toucan crossing at Halifax Road/Windy Bank Lane (2010).

Chair of the Committee, Councillor Dave Green (Lab, Wibsey), said the £170,000 budget was not enough to fund anywhere near the number of schemes that had been proposed. He said: “Of the people we represent I would say a significant chunk believe me when I tell them we don’t have the money, but some people just think we’re making it up.

“A lot of people don’t understand the difference between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure, and why should they?”

He was referring to the two different ways Councils can fund work.

Revenue expenditure is money used for ongoing costs, like paying staff wages or maintaining roads.

Capital expenditure is for one off projects, such as developments like the new Darley Street Market. These are often funded through grants or borrowing.

Councils are not able to use these grants or loans to prop up day to day spending.

The two different spending streams often lead to public confusion and anger over why Councils claim they are too short of cash for some work when they are able to carry out multi million pound developments.

Cllr Green added: “Even if we trebled the money this committee can spend we’d still be 10 years behind.”

He questioned whether some items should be removed from the list, saying: “I’m not saying some things aren’t needed, but if it has been 20 years and it still hasn’t reached the priority list, then maybe we have to make a decision.”

Councillor Hazel Parshan (Lab, Queensbury) said: “Almost every conversation I have with residents, traffic issues are raised. This list will never stop growing. It is laughable that we have a list of jobs that will never get done.”

Cllr Green said: “We are all politicians, we think that if we don’t support Mrs Miggins' request for a parking space she’ll never vote for us again, even if deep down we know she’ll never get it because of our budget.

“It is beholden on us to have a level of honesty. We can’t drop officers in it, we can’t say ‘I agree with you Mrs Miggins, but the officers won’t let us do it.’”

The committee asked officers to review the list with the view of removing any scheme over five years old that was unlikely to ever progress.