BARNEHURST/BLACKFEN &
LAMORBEY/BLENDON &
PENHILL/COLYERS/ CRAY
MEADOWS/LONGLANDS/
NORTH END/NORTHUMBERLAND
HEATH/SIDCUP/ST. MARY’S/
ST. MICHAEL’S
REPORT TO COUNCILLOR DON MASSEY, CABINET MEMBER FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC REALM – 20 MARCH 2015
WAITING RESTRICTIONS – OBJECTIONS TO ADVERTISED PROPOSALS –
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
Decision ref. ENV 32/14-15
ISSUES
A number of concerns raised by local residents and Ward Members were
investigated during a biannual review of parking issues undertaken in November
2014.
Where it was felt that the safety and/or efficient movement of traffic was being
compromised by on-street parking activity, it was agreed that new waiting and
loading restrictions at some of the locations be promoted.
Subsequently the directly affected residents and businesses at a number of sites
were informed of the proposals being promoted.
The statutory consultation exercise associated with the Traffic Management Order
needed for the proposed waiting and loading restrictions was also undertaken over a
three week period during January / February 2015. The proposals for the following
locations, which are shown on Plans 1 – 17, attracted representations during this
consultation exercise:

















Blackfen Road, Sidcup (Plan 1)
Brendon Close, Erith (Plan 2)
Clarence Crescent, Sidcup (Plan 3)
Dorchester Avenue, Bexley (Plan 4)
Erith Road, Bexleyheath (Plan 5)
Haddon Grove, Sidcup (Plan 6)
Harland Avenue, Sidcup (Plan 7)
Harman Drive, Sidcup (Plan 8)
Huntington Close, Bexley (Plan 9)
Little Heath Road, Bexleyheath (Plan 10)
Mill Road, Northumberland Heath (Plan 11)
Northall Road, Bexleyheath (Plan 12)
Plantation Road junction with Slade Green Road, Slade Green (Plan 13)
Rackham Close, Welling (Plan 14)
Ravenswood, Bexley (Plan 15)
St James Way, Bexley (Plan 16)
Telford Road junction with Dulverton Road, New Eltham (Plan 17)
This report gives details of the comments and objections together with Officers’
comments in Appendix 3, and the options available. It also provides a
recommendation on the way forward, in the light of the comments and objections
received.
OPTIONS
(a)
(b)
(c)
To introduce the proposals as advertised.
To amend some or all of the proposals.
To abandon some or all of the proposals
DECISIONS
i.
proceed with option b where the waiting restrictions and loading restrictions at
the locations shown on Plans 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17 be
implemented as proposed;
ii.
the waiting restrictions at the locations shown on Plans 5, 6 & 15 be amended
as shown on Plans 5b, 6b & 15b and implemented;
iii.
the Deputy Director of Regeneration, Communities and Customer Services
(Services and Programmes) be authorised to make the necessary Traffic
Management Orders; and
iv.
the objectors and affected residents be notified of the Cabinet Member’s
decision.
REASONS
Plans 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17
The proposed waiting and loading restrictions would ensure that adequate sightlines
and visibility at the locations are retained, a key requirement in improving road
safety. The proposals would also help ensure the safety and efficient movement of
traffic on the road network by ensuring that parked vehicles do not restrict traffic
movements particularly, for larger vehicles such as emergency service operators and
buses. Therefore, it is proposed to implement the proposals as advertised.
Plans 5b, 6b & 15b
The amended proposals would still enable adequate sightlines and visibility at the
locations to be retained whilst helping to ensure the safety and efficient movement of
traffic on the road network by removing parked vehicles which could restrict traffic
movements. However, the amended proposals would address some of the concerns
raised by local residents and businesses regarding the loss of on street parking at
locations where parking is at a premium. Therefore, it is proposed to implement the
proposals as per amended plans 5b, 6b & 15b.
Signed: Councillor Don Massey
LAST DATE FOR CALL-IN:
07/04/2015
Date:
25/03/2015
REPORT TO COUNCILLOR DON MASSEY, CABINET MEMBER FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC REALM – 20 MARCH 2015
WAITING RESTRICTIONS – OBJECTIONS TO ADVERTISED PROPOSALS –
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
1.
Background
A number of concerns raised by local residents and Ward Members were
investigated during a biannual review of parking issues undertaken in November
2014, and where it was felt that the safety and/or efficient movement of traffic was
being compromised by on-street parking activity, it was agreed that new waiting and
loading restrictions at some of the locations be promoted.
The statutory consultation exercise associated with the Traffic Management Order
needed for the proposed waiting and loading restrictions was undertaken over a
three week period during January / February 2015. This included publishing notices
in the local press and displaying public notices on site. A letter and plan was also
sent to residents/business users directly affected by the proposals. Although no
representations were received to some of the proposals, those shown on Plans 1 –
17 inclusive in Appendix 1, attracted representations during this consultation
exercise.
The amended proposals for Plans 5, 6 & 15 are shown on Plans 5b, 6b & 15b in
Appendix 2.
The reasons for the proposals, together with a recommended course of action for
each proposal is given below, and a summary of the representations received,
together with Officers’ comments are given in Appendix 3.
Blackfen Road, Sidcup (Plan 1)
One letter of objection and one letter of support were received.
Following concerns raised by local residents regarding inconsiderate parking on
Blackfen Road close to the junctions with Hawthorn Terrace and Darnley Close, it
was agreed that “At any time” waiting restrictions would be of benefit to road safety.
The proposed waiting restrictions are considered to be the minimal amount required
to ensure that adequate sightlines and visibility at the junctions are retained, a key
requirement in improving road safety. It is therefore recommended that the
restrictions be installed as advertised in accordance with Plan 1.
Brendon Close, Erith (Plan 2)
Two letters of support and one offering comment were received.
Following concerns raised by local residents regarding inconsiderate parking
restricting use of the turning head and access to residential properties, it was agreed
that “At any time” waiting restrictions would be of benefit to road safety. The
proposed waiting restrictions would ensure that the turning head facility could be
properly used and improve sightlines and visibility for motorists at the location, a key
requirement in improving road safety. It is therefore recommended that the
restrictions be installed as advertised in accordance with Plan 2.
Clarence Crescent, Sidcup (Plan 3)
One letter of support was received.
Following concerns raised by local residents regarding inconsiderate parking
restricting residential access at the location, it was agreed that a short stretch of “At
any time” waiting restrictions would be of benefit to road safety. The proposed
restrictions would ensure that access is not impeded and that adequate sightlines
and visibility when exiting the access road are retained, a key requirement in
improving road safety. It is therefore recommended that the restrictions be installed
as advertised in accordance with Plan 3.
Dorchester Avenue, Bexley (Plan 4)
Support from a Ward Member was received for this proposal.
Following concerns raised by local residents regarding inconsiderate parking
opposite the junction with Murchison Avenue, it was agreed that a short stretch of “At
any time” waiting restrictions would be of benefit to road safety. The proposed
restrictions would ensure that access at the junction is not impeded and that
adequate sightlines and visibility are retained, a key requirement in improving road
safety. It is therefore recommended that the restrictions be installed as advertised in
accordance with Plan 4.
Erith Road, Bexleyheath (Plan 5)
Three letters of objection and two letters offering support were received. One letter
offering comment was received from a Ward Member.
Concerns were raised regarding commuter parked vehicles at the location causing
congestion and also forcing traffic to be wrongly positioned into the lane of oncoming
traffic. This location is both a bus route and distributor road and thus it was felt that
parking at the location at any time would be undesirable. Consequently “At any time”
waiting restrictions were recommended to resolve the problem.
However,
representations were received during the consultation exercise relating to the loss of
on street parking provision for residents and their visitors. As such, the proposal has
been revised to allow for limited parking at the location during off peak hours when
traffic flows are likely to be less and the impact of limited on street parking on moving
traffic will be minimal. It is therefore recommended that the revised restrictions be
installed as in accordance with Plan 5b.
Haddon Grove, Sidcup (Plan 6)
39 letters of objection were received including a petition with 96 signatures. One
letter of support was received. Three letters offering comment were received. A
letter from the local MP was also received.
Following concerns raised by local residents regarding inconsiderate parking on the
bend, restricted access to the turning head and congestion at the location caused by
double parking, it was agreed that “At any time” waiting restrictions would be of
benefit to road safety. As part of the consultation, strong objections were received
regarding the impact the loss of parking would have on both local residents and local
businesses in the vicinity. Following these objections, a site visit was carried out by
officers and the Cabinet Member where a revised proposal was agreed that would
address the concerns raised through the consultation process whilst still allowing
access to the turning head and easing congestion being experienced at the location.
This is permitted as part of the statutory legal process for the introduction of waiting
restrictions which must be followed by the Council.
Following this meeting, three of the local businesses were informed of the revised
proposal giving them the opportunity to pass further comment. Of these three
businesses one responded with two individual responses from the organisation.
These comments have been included in appendix 3 to this report. However, the
revised proposal was also circulated to other residents and businesses users who
subsequently then submitted objections to the revised proposal. These objections
received have not been considered as part of this report as the consultation period
allowing members of the public the opportunity to object had expired and, the revised
proposal sent to the three local businesses whilst giving them the opportunity to pass
comment, was for information and not as part of a re-consultation exercise.
In addition, communication was sought with the residents of No. 163 Willersley
Avenue regarding the revised proposal as their property has a rear access point
located in Haddon Grove which would have been impacted by the revision. As part
of the original proposal ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions would have covered the
access to the rear of their property however, following the decision to revise the
proposal communication was sought to determine whether they would prefer the
revised proposal of ‘Mon – Sat 8.00am – 5.30pm’ waiting restrictions to cover the
access to the rear of their property or not. Following attempts made by officers in
person to contact the residents to discuss this issue no contact could be made
however, having been informed of the proposal by way of the circulation of the
revised proposal as mentioned above, the residents submitted in writing their
objections to the revised proposals indicating that they would only support the
introduction of double yellow lines on the bend with a single yellow line outside of
No. 2 Haddon Grove. Therefore, the revised proposal does not include restrictions
across the rear access point of No. 163 Willersley Avenue.
In light of the above, given that the revised proposal would ease the current
congestion being experienced at the location and allow easier access / egress from
the turning head area whilst still addressing the concerns raised by local residents
and businesses regarding the loss of on street parking, it is recommended that the
revised restrictions be installed in accordance with the revised Plan 6b.
Harland Avenue, Sidcup (Plan 7)
Seven letters of support have been received including one with 15 signatures of
support and five signatures against the proposal. Four letters of objection have been
received. One letter offering comment has been received.
Following concerns raised by local residents through Ward Members regarding
inconsiderate commuter parking, it was agreed that “At any time” and “Mon – Fri
1.00pm – 3.00pm” waiting restrictions would be of benefit to road safety. The
proposed waiting restrictions would ensure that adequate sightlines and visibility are
retained, a key requirement in improving road safety. It is therefore recommended
that the restrictions be installed in accordance with Plan 7.
Harman Drive, Sidcup (Plan 8)
One letter of support was received.
Concerns were raised through a resident about inconsiderately parked vehicles on
the bend restricting visibility and sightlines for road users at the location.
Subsequently a proposal to extend the existing “At any time” restrictions at the
location was promoted. The proposed extension to the existing waiting restrictions
would remove the inconsiderately parked vehicles on the bend ensuring that
adequate sightlines and visibility at the location are retained, a key requirement in
improving road safety. It is therefore recommended that the restrictions be installed
in accordance with Plan 8.
Huntington Close, Bexley (Plan 9)
One letter of objection was received.
including one from a Ward Member.
Three letters of support were received
Following concerns raised by local residents regarding parking on the bend within
the estate, the Council investigated and found that parked vehicles at the location
could restrict visibility and sightlines for motorists trying to access / egress from the
new housing development. As such a proposal to introduce “At any time” restrictions
was promoted. The proposed restrictions would remove the obstruction caused by
parked vehicles and ensure that adequate sightlines and visibility are retained, a key
requirement in improving road safety. It is therefore recommended that the
restrictions be installed in accordance with Plan 9.
Little Heath Road, Bexleyheath (Plan 10)
One letter of objection was received. Two letters of support and one letter offering
comment were received.
Following concerns raised by an officer regarding inconsiderate parking on Little
Heath Road, it was agreed that “At any time” waiting restrictions would be of benefit
to road safety. The proposed waiting restrictions are considered to be the minimal
amount required to ensure that adequate sightlines and visibility at the junction are
retained, a key requirement in improving road safety. It is therefore recommended
that the restrictions be installed as advertised in accordance with Plan 10.
Mill Road, Northumberland Heath (Plan 11)
One letter of objection was received.
Following concerns raised through Ward Members and Councillors regarding
inconsiderate parking on Mill Road at its junction with Bexley Road, it was agreed
that “At any time” loading restrictions would be of benefit to road safety. The
proposed loading restrictions would prevent loading taking place at the junction
which currently restricts visibility and sightlines for motorists posing a risk to road
safety. There are currently loading facilities in Bexley Road in close proximity to this
location which can be utilised. The proposed restrictions are considered to be the
minimal amount required to ensure that adequate sightlines and visibility at the
junction are retained, a key requirement in improving road safety. It is therefore
recommended that the restrictions be installed as advertised in accordance with Plan
11.
Northall Road, Bexleyheath (Plan 12)
Two letters of support were received. One letter offering comment was received.
Concerns were raised with the Council by residents about inconsiderately parked
vehicles on the bend restricting visibility and sightlines for road users at the location.
Subsequently a proposal to extend the existing “At any time” restrictions at the
location was promoted. The proposed extension to the existing waiting restrictions
would remove the inconsiderately parked vehicles on the bend ensuring that
adequate sightlines and visibility at the location are retained, a key requirement in
improving road safety. It is therefore recommended that the restrictions be installed
in accordance with Plan 12.
Plantation Road jw Slade Green Road, Slade Green (Plan 13)
Two letters offering comment were received.
Following concerns raised by a Ward Member regarding inconsiderate parking close
to the junction, it was agreed that “At any time” waiting restrictions would be of
benefit to road safety. The proposed waiting restrictions are considered to be the
minimal amount required to ensure that adequate sightlines and visibility at the
junction are retained, a key requirement in improving road safety. It is therefore
recommended that the restrictions be installed as advertised in accordance with Plan
13.
Rackham Close, Welling (Plan 14)
One letter offering comment was received.
Following concerns raised by local residents regarding inconsiderate commuter
parking, the Council investigated and found that nature of parking at the location
could restrict visibility and sightlines whilst also causing congestion. As such a
proposal to introduce “Mon – Sat 8.00am – 6.30pm” restrictions was promoted. The
proposed restrictions would ease the congestion caused by commuter vehicles and
ensure that adequate sightlines and visibility are retained, a key requirement in
improving road safety. It is therefore recommended that the restrictions be installed
in accordance with Plan 14.
Ravenswood, Bexley (Plan 15)
Five letters of objection were received including a petition with 24 signatures. One
letter offering comment was received. Support for the proposal was received from a
Ward Member.
Following concerns raised by the Council’s refuse and recycling waste team and
local residents regarding inconsiderate parking restricting access to Ravenswood,
the Council investigated and found that parked vehicles at the location could restrict
access for larger vehicles including emergency service vehicles. As such a proposal
for “At any time” waiting restrictions was promoted. The proposed restrictions would
remove the obstruction caused by parked vehicles and ensure that access to the
location is maintained at all times. However, following objections received by local
residents regarding the loss of on street parking for themselves and their visitors a
revised proposal was agreed at site meeting which took place between officers and
residents. The revised proposal would ensure that access to the location is
maintained whilst still allowing for limited on street parking for residents and their
visitors. It is therefore recommended that the revised restrictions be installed in
accordance with Plan 15b.
St James Way, Sidcup (Plan 16)
One letter offering comment was received.
Following concerns raised by local residents regarding inconsiderate parking
restricting access to the turning head, it was agreed that “At any time” waiting
restrictions would be of benefit to road safety. The proposed restrictions would
improve road safety by ensuring the turning head is kept clear of parked vehicles
thus enabling larger vehicles to use the facility to turn around and leave St James
Way in forward facing motion. It is therefore recommended that the restrictions be
installed in accordance with Plan 16.
Telford Road jw Dulverton Road, New Eltham (Plan 17)
One letter of support was received.
Following concerns raised by a Ward Member regarding inconsiderate parking close
to the junction, it was agreed that “At any time” waiting restrictions would be of
benefit to road safety. The location is in close proximity of a local primary school and
the proposal would help ensure that school children walking to and from the school
site can be easily seen by motorists by removing vehicles parked close ot the
junction. The proposed waiting restrictions are considered to be the minimal amount
required to ensure that adequate sightlines and visibility at the junction are retained,
a key requirement in improving road safety. It is therefore recommended that the
restrictions be installed as advertised in accordance with Plan 17.
2.
Recommendations
In light of the comments and objections received, it is recommended that:
i.
the waiting restrictions and loading restrictions at the locations shown on
Plans 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17 be implemented as
proposed;
ii.
the waiting restrictions at the locations shown on Plans 5, 6 & 15 be amended
as shown on Plans 5b, 6b & 15b and implemented;
iii.
the Deputy Director of Regeneration, Communities and Customer Services
(Services and Programmes) be authorised to make the necessary Traffic
Management Orders; and
iv.
the objectors and affected residents be notified of the Cabinet Member’s
decision.
3.
Summary of Financial Implications
The cost of implementing these schemes is estimated to be £5,000 and can be met
from the 2015/16 Traffic and Road Safety Revenue Budget.
4.
Summary of Legal Implications
The statutory consultation exercise associated with the draft Traffic Management
Order for the proposals was undertaken in accordance with the Local Authorities’
Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The result of the
consultation is now required to be considered by the Cabinet Member before a final
decision is taken.
Some of the recommendations involve the making of minor modifications to the
advertised order following the consideration of objections to the order. This is
permissible under Regulation 14 of the 1996 Regulations provided that the
modification is not a substantial change to the order.
5.
Summary of other implications
Equal Opportunities
There are no equal opportunity aspects to this report.
Community Safety
The proposals will help to improve road safety by removing obstructive on-street
parking.
Environmental Impact
The proposals will reduce the amount of available parking on-street. As a result,
some residents / businesses may find it difficult to park as close to their property as
had previously been possible.
Human Rights
The proposals have been subject to formal consultations, with comments and
objections reported to the Cabinet Member in this report. Subject to approval being
given, the residents and businesses affected by these proposals will be notified.
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Plans showing proposals to which objections were received
Appendix 2 – Amended Plans showing amended proposals
Appendix 3 - Summary of objections to proposals and Officers’ comments
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
List of background documents
Objections, comments and letters of support received in response to proposals for
locations listed in this report.
Contact officer:
Vinny Rey, Traffic Engineer
Tel:
020 3045 5935
Traffic Services, Engineering Services
Reporting to:
Graham Ward, Deputy Director of Regeneration, Communities and
Customer Services (Services and Programmes)