abc
Cabinet Member (Public Services)
Public report
Cabinet Member Report
17th March 2015
Name of Cabinet Member:
Cabinet Member (Public Services) – Councillor Lancaster
Director Approving Submission of the report:
Executive Director, Place
Ward(s) affected:
Cheylesmore
Title:
Petitions requesting a residents parking scheme in Cheylesmore East and consideration of
Objections to the Cheylesmore East Traffic Regulation Order 2015
Is this a key decision?
No
Executive Summary:
There has been significant work undertaken to develop a residents parking scheme for the
Cheylesmore East area following a number of requests from Councillors and residents for such a
scheme over a number of years. A draft scheme was consulted on in July 2014 but produced a
low response and at the Ward Forum in September residents were informed that it was unlikely
that the scheme would be proceeding as a consequence. Following this announcement being
made known in the area there was as a consequence seven petitions submitted to the Council
asking that the Council reconsider.
In response to the petitions on 22nd January 2015 a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) proposing a
revised residents’ parking scheme for some of the area was advertised and in response seven
objections were received and one letter of support.
In accordance with the City Council's procedure for dealing with:•
Petitions, those relating to requests for parking restrictions are heard by the Cabinet
Member (Public Services).
•
Objections to TROs these are reported to the Cabinet Member (Public Services) for a
decision as to how to proceed.
Recommendations:
Cabinet Member (Public Services) is recommended to:
i)
Note the petitioners requests;
ii) Endorse the acceding to the requests in the various petitions from The Martyrs’ Close,
Hockett Street, Thomas Landsdail Street, Wrigsham Street, Joan Ward Street, Quinton
Road, Franciscan Road and Carthusian Road; to be included in a residents’ parking
scheme for Cheylesmore East.
iii) Endorse the decision to decline to accede to the request in the various petitions for a
residents’ parking scheme in Mile Lane, Glover Street, Lichfield Road, Queen Isabel’s
Avenue, and Purefoy Road due to the lack of a majority of properties in the street
supporting such a scheme;
iv) Consider the seven objections and letter of support to the proposed traffic regulation
order;
v) Subject to recommendation iv), approve that the residents parking scheme shown on the
plan in appendix B be implemented but include the retention of the existing double yellow
lines in Benedictine Road; and that the hours of operation of the residents parking
scheme be from 08:00 to 18:00 hours Monday to Saturday.
vi) That parking permits within the area be charged for at the Council’s published scale of
charges.
List of Appendices included:
Appendix A –
Appendix B Appendix C –
Consultation plan of residents’ parking scheme July 2014
Advertised TRO plan January 2015
Summary of objections and responses
Other useful background papers:
None
Has it been or will it be considered by Scrutiny?
No
Has it been or will it be considered by any other Council Committee, Advisory Panel or
other body?
No
Will this report go to Council?
No
2
Report title:
Petitions requesting a residents parking scheme in Cheylesmore East and consideration of
Objections to the Cheylesmore East Traffic Regulation Order 2015
1.
Context (or background)
1.1
Introduction
1.1.1 As part of the Transportation and Highways Maintenance Capital Programme for 2014/15
funding was included to commence implementation of a residents’ parking scheme around
the city centre to deal with the problems of persistent commuter parking preventing
residents and businesses being able to park near to their property. The first phase of this
project was in the areas referred to under this project as Cheylesmore East, Cheylesmore
West and Earlsdon.
1.1.2 Consultation was undertaken in July and August 2014 on draft proposals. The original
scheme for Cheylesmore East that was consulted on is shown in appendix A.
1.1.3 As this would be the first residents’ parking scheme for a number of years that the Council
has introduced where the permits are not being funded by a developer through a S106
contribution it was decided that a different approach to evaluating the results was required.
It was therefore decided that a strong indication of support for the scheme was required
from the majority of properties in a street for it to proceed. Without the support of the
majority of properties in a street experience has shown that when residents are asked to
pay for the permits there is a frequent tendency for the scheme not to proceed.
1.1.4 The consultation produced a low response for this area with only 26% of properties
responding and of those who responded only 18% of residents was in favour. As this did
not give a strong enough mandate to proceed with a scheme in the area the initial decision
was to not proceed with the scheme shown in appendix A.
1.1.5 Residents were informed of this at the Cheylesmore Ward Forum in September 2014 and a
number of residents’ present expressed surprise at the results. The Council in response
offered to defer a final decision on whether to proceed so that local petitions could be
gathered to demonstrate that there was enough support for such a scheme. This produced
seven petitions which are described in section 1.2 of this report. After consideration of the
petitions in consultation with the Cabinet Member (Public Services) a revised plan for the
scheme was developed and residents were notified of this during December 2014 and
January 2015. The revised scheme is shown in appendix B.
1.1.6 On 22nd January 2015 a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) proposing a revised residents’
parking scheme as shown in appendix B was advertised and in response seven objections
and one letter of support were received.
3
1.2
Petitions Received
1.2.1 On the 6th October 2014 Councillor Bailey presented a petition containing 86 signatures on
behalf of residents, requesting that:We the undersigned ask that Coventry City Council reconsider the plans for a residents parking
scheme in the following roads: The Martyrs’ Close and Mile Lane, to help alleviate the effect of
parking by city-centre workers.
1.2.2 On the 6th October 2014 Councillor Bailey presented a petition containing 205 signatures
on behalf of residents, requesting that :We the undersigned, being residents of Joan Ward Street, Wrigsham Street, Thomas Landsdail
Street, Hockett Street submit this petition to have these named streets included into the proposed
Cheylesmore East residents parking scheme.
1.2.3 On the 22nd October 2014 Councillor Bailey presented a petition containing 47 signatures
on behalf of residents, requesting that :We the undersigned ask that Coventry City Council reconsider the plans for a residents parking
scheme in Quinton Road, to help alleviate the effect of parking by city-centre workers.
1.2.4 On the 28th October 2014 an e-petition sponsored by Councillor Bailey ended containing 31
signatures and requesting that :We the undersigned wish for Coventry City Council to reconsider introducing a residents’ parking
scheme for the area known as ‘Cheylesmore East’ including The Martyrs Close and Mile Lane.”
1.2.5 On the 10th November 2014 Councillor Bailey presented a petition containing 28 signatures
on behalf of residents, requesting that :We the undersigned residents of Franciscan Road, Cheylesmore, Coventry request that Coventry
City Council go ahead with the scheme to introduce residents parking permits in our road.
1.2.6 On the 22nd December 2014 Councillor Bailey presented a petition containing 22
signatures on behalf of residents, requesting that:We the undersigned wish the local council to implement the parking permit scheme on Carthusian
Road.
1.2.7 On the 30th December 2014 an e-petition sponsored by Councillor Bailey ended containing
20 signatures and requesting that :Recently the council sent out a consultation letter regarding a Cheylesmore resident’s car parking
scheme. We have now learned that the scheme may not go ahead due to insufficient number of
responses from the residents affected. We believe the main reason for lack of response is due to a
misunderstanding from residents who thought that the scheme would go ahead even if they didn’t
respond to the letter as long as they did not oppose it.
1.3
Analysis of the petitions
1.3.1 An analysis of the petitions has been undertaken whereby the data from the e petition,
written petitions, and original consultation have been combined to ensure that all residents
who responded have had the opportunity to have their ‘vote’ count. It should be noted that
where in the July consultation residents voted against the scheme their more recent
decision to sign the petition has been taken as an indication that they had changed their
minds and are now in favour of the scheme.
The analysis has been undertaken by property.
4
1.3.2 The results showed that for:a) The streets named in the table below the majority of properties were in favour of a
residents’ parking scheme, so have been included in the scheme in appendix B:Number of
properties
Properties
in support
Percentage
in favour
Carthusian Road
20
14
70%
Hockett Street
29
25
86%
Joan Ward Street
47
39
83%
The Martyrs’ Close
73
44
60%
Thomas Landsdail Street
70
52
74%
Quinton Road
77
45
67%
Wrigsham Street
38
30
79%
Franciscan Road
27
23
85%
Street
b) The streets shown in the table below are where there was a significant response to the
petitions but insufficient support for a residents’ parking scheme in the street:Street
Section
Number
Properties Percentage
of
in support
in favour
properties
Glover Street
All houses
77
24
36%
Mile Lane
All Houses
50
21
42%
Evens only
21
7
33%
Odds only
29
14
48%
All houses
69
15
18%
Section from
The Martyrs’ Cl
to
Joan Ward St
5
3
60%
Silksby Street
Further analysis was undertaken on Mile Lane as with the nature of the road it would not be
possible to install residents’ parking bays on the evens side of the road; however it still did
not show that a majority of residents on the odds side were in favour of such a scheme.
On Silksby Street it was identified that there was majority support for a scheme to be
introduced on a short section of the street between Joan Ward Street and The Martyrs’
Close. This short section would also be surrounded by streets within the area. As a result it
has been included and this is shown on the plan in appendix B.
5
1.4
Traffic Regulation Order
1.4.1 On 22nd January 2015 a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) proposing a revised residents’
parking scheme as shown in appendix B was advertised and in response seven objections
and one letter of support were received.
1.4.2 The letter of support is from the residents of 66 & 68 Silksby Street which are on the
section of the street between Joan Ward Street and the Martyrs’ Close, to support their
inclusion in the scheme.
1.4.3 The objections are considered in appendix C.
2.
Options considered and recommended proposal
2.1
In response to the seven petitions
2.1.1 Three options have been considered in response to the petitions:a)
b)
c)
To accept the results from the consultation and not proceed with a residents’
parking scheme in the area.
Implement the full scheme shown in appendix A.
Implement a residents’ parking scheme in those streets in the area where the
majority of properties support such a scheme as shown in appendix B.
2.1.2 Option (a) to accept the results from the consultation and not proceed with a residents’
parking scheme in the area, is not recommended. As a significant number of residents
have responded to the petition seeking the introduction of a residents’ parking scheme in
view of the problems that they are experiencing.
2.1.3 Option (b) to implement the full scheme shown in appendix A is not recommended. As
there is clearly a lack of support from residents in the eastern and southern parts of the
area so it would be wrong to impose a parking scheme on them, that, they do not at this
time consider necessary.
2.1.4 Option (c) to implement a residents’ parking scheme in those streets in the area where the
majority of properties support such a scheme as shown in appendix B is recommended.
As it reflects the wishes of the majority of the households in the streets who signed the
petitions. This was therefore taken forward in discussion with the Cabinet Member (Public
Services) and a TRO reflecting this advertised in January 2015.
2.2
In response to the TRO objections
2.2.1 Three options have been considered in response to the objections to the TRO:i)
ii)
iii)
Not to make the proposed TRO and take no further action.
To make the TRO as advertised
To make the proposed TRO modified in part
2.2.2 Option (i) not to make the proposed TRO and take no further action is not recommended.
As a significant number of residents had petitioned the Council seeking the introduction of
a residents parking scheme in view of the problems that they are experiencing. Also four of
the seven objections were from commuters.
2.2.3 Option (ii) to make the TRO as advertised is not recommended. As at least one objection
in appendix C reference CE7 (40) has merit in seeking a minor amendment to the TRO.
6
2.2.4 Option (iii) to make the proposed TRO modified in part is recommended. As at least one of
the objections in appendix C reference CE7 (40) has merit and the best course of action on
balance would be to maintain the existing double yellow lines as discussed in the response
to this objection in appendix C. It is not considered that this relatively minor modification is
“substantial” requiring the modification to be further advertised.
3.
Results of consultation undertaken
3.1
In July and August 2014 consultation was undertaken with residents of the Cheylesmore
East area utilising a Streetnews pack, which was hand delivered to all residents. The
information was also made available on the Councils website. The information included the
plan shown in appendix A; a ‘frequently asked questions’ sheet; and a questionnaire which
asked:i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Do you think there is a parking problem in your street?
I’m in favour of resident parking?
I’m in favour of the proposal for my street?
I think the scheme should operate (tick one)?
a. 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday
b. 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday
c. Other please detail
v) If you would like to see a different scheme implemented in your area please tell us
3.2
Drop in sessions were undertaken in the Cheylesmore and Earlsdon areas on the 8th, 9th
and 14th July 2014 at various locations and a helpline number was available.
3.3
With the significant public interest in the scheme the end of the consultation period was
extended from the 25th July to the end of August.
3.4
The consultation produced a low response for this area with only 26% of properties
responding. In response to the five questions:i)
Do you think there is a parking problem in your street?
Around two thirds (65%) of respondents believed that there was a parking problem in
their street. Analysis showed that this view within the area varied considerably.
With the vast majority of respondents in several streets (particularly those in the
Quinton Road side of the area) feeling that there was a parking problem - including
The Martyrs’ Close (where 30 of the 31 respondents consider their street to have a
parking problem), Joan Ward Street (where 20 of the 22 respondents consider their
street to have a parking problem), Thomas Landsdail Street (25/27 respondents),
Lichfield Road (12/13 respondents), Mile Lane (15/16 respondents), Quinton Road
(12/13 respondents), Wrigsham Street (11/11 respondents) and Hockett Street (5/5
respondents).
However, one-third (34%) of respondents did not consider there to be a parking
problem in their street. This is a view held in particular by a number of respondents
from Benedictine Road (26 of the 34 respondents do not consider there to be parking
difficulties), Purefoy Road (9/10 respondents), The Mount (22/29 respondents) and
Carthusian Road (5/6 respondents).
It should be noted that response rates were too low in some streets to discern any
notable findings.
7
ii) I’m in favour of resident parking?
The proportion of respondents in favour of some form of residents’ parking controls
66% was similar to the proportion that considered there to be parking difficulties in their
street 65%. However, overall in the consultation, across the area, just 17% of
properties supported the notion of residents’ parking while 9% did not.
Analysis by street showed that support for a residents’ parking scheme was greatest in
those streets where respondents consider there to be a parking problem, including The
Martyrs' Close (30 out of 31 respondents were in favour of residents’ parking), Thomas
Landsdail Street (25/27 were in favour), Quinton Road (12/13 respondents), Glover
Street (10/12 respondents), Joan Ward Street (18/22 respondents), Mile Lane (13/16
respondents) and Wrigsham Street (11/11 respondents).
Respondents from The Mount were far less supportive of the principle of residents’
parking (21/29 respondents were not in favour), as are those from Benedictine Road
(21/34 respondents were not in favour) and Purefoy Road (6/10 did not support the
notion).
When considering the responses received in relation to the total number of properties
in each street, it was apparent that there was not particularly strong support for
residents’ parking in any of the streets consulted. The Martyrs’ Close, Joan Ward
Street and Thomas Landsdail Street had the largest overall response in favour of
residents’ parking (e.g. 36%- 40% of all properties are in favour).
iii) I’m in favour of the proposal for my street?
Please note that responses to this question related to the plan in appendix A.
Respondents demonstrated a similar level of support for the actual scheme proposed
for their street. Of those who responded just over 60% (62%; 200 individuals) were in
favour of the scheme proposed, while a third (35%) of respondents (114 individuals)
were not in favour of the proposed scheme, and 3% (11 respondents) did not express
a view.
When considering the responses received in relation to the total number of properties
in each street, overall, across the area, just 17% of properties supported the proposed
scheme for their street, while 9% did not. This suggested that there was either a lack
of desire within the area for a scheme or a degree of indifference amongst local
residents as the majority did not express an opinion or residents wholeheartedly
supported the idea and did not think they needed to respond.
With the nature of the results the only realistic conclusion that could be reached was
that there was insufficient support from residents for a residents parking scheme.
iv) I think the scheme should operate
When asked when the scheme should operate, similar proportions of the 200
respondents were in favour of the proposed scheme preferring a scheme which
operated 8am-6pm Monday to Saturday (48%); 8am-6pm Monday to Friday (41%),
and a further 10% suggested alternative hours of operation.
v) If you would like to see a different scheme implemented in your area
Further analysis, looking at the detailed responses given in relation to previous section
3.4(iii), suggested that very few (7%, or 8 individuals) of the 114 respondents who did
not support the scheme proposed for their street would have supported alternate
proposals. Of the other responses to this question there were no significant numbers
of respondents on any particular issue.
8
3.5
After consideration of the petitions received and analysis of them (see previous section 1.2)
a revised plan for the scheme was developed in consultation with the Cabinet Member
(Public Services) and residents were notified of this by letter during December 2014 and
January 2015. The letter also informed residents that the Traffic Regulation Order would be
advertised in January 2015 and notices would be put up on street inviting written objections
to the scheme.
3.6
The proposed TROs for the waiting restrictions were advertised in the Coventry Telegraph
on 22nd January 2015, and notices were also placed on street in the vicinity of the
proposals. The responses received were seven objections and one letter of support.
Appendix C details a summary of each of the objections and a response to the issues
raised. Copies of the full content of the objections can be made available on request.
3.7
The letter of support is from the residents of 66 & 68 Silksby Street which are on the
section of the street between Joan Ward Street and the Martyrs’ Close, to support their
inclusion in the scheme.
3.8
The proposed scheme was also discussed at the Cheylesmore Ward Forum on 16th
September 2014, 16th December 2014 and 10th March 2015.
4.
Timetable for implementing this decision
4.1
If the recommendation is approved to make the TRO it is proposed that the residents
parking scheme will come into operation in summer 2015.
5.
Comments from Executive Director, Resources
5.1
Financial implications
The cost of introducing the proposed TROs, if approved, will be funded from the Highways
Maintenance and Investment Capital Programme budget through the Local Transport Plan.
5.2
Legal implications
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows the Council to make a Traffic Order on
various grounds e.g. improving safety, improving traffic flow and preserving or improving
the amenities of an area provided it has given due consideration to the effect of such an
order.
In accordance with Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, when considering
whether it would be expedient to make a traffic order the Council is under a duty to have
regard to and balance various potentially conflicting factors e.g. the convenient and safe
movement of traffic (including pedestrians), adequate parking, improving or preserving
local amenity, air quality and/or public transport provision.
There is an obligation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to advertise our intention
to make Traffic Orders and to inform various stakeholders, including the Police and the
public. The Authority is obliged to consider any representations received. If representations
are received these are considered by the Cabinet Member (Public Services). Regulations
allow for an advertised order to be modified (in response to objections or otherwise) before
a final version of the order is made.
The 1984 Act provides that once a Traffic Order has been made it may only be challenged
further via the High Court on a point of law (i.e. that the Order does not comply with the Act
for some reason).
The Council has the power to impose charges for parking permits under the Local
Authorities (Transport Charges) Regulations 1998.
9
6.
Other implications
6.1
How will this contribute to achievement of the Council's key objectives / corporate
priorities (corporate plan/scorecard) / organisational blueprint / Local Area
Agreement (or Coventry Sustainable Community Strategy)?
The proposed changes to the waiting restrictions, as recommended will contribute to the
City Council’s aims of ensuring that citizens, especially children and young people, are safe
and the objective of working for better pavements, streets and roads.
6.2
How is risk being managed?
None
6.3
What is the impact on the organisation?
None
6.4
Equalities / EIA
The introduction of waiting restrictions will reduce obstruction of the carriageway, therefore
increasing safety for all road users
6.5
Implications for (or impact on) the environment
None
6.6
Implications for partner organisations?
None
Report author
Name and job title: Andrew Jackman, Deputy Head of Traffic and Transportation
Directorate: Place
Tel and email contact: 024 7683 1221
Enquiries should be directed to the above person.
Contributor/approver
name
Contributors:
Colin Knight
Paul Boulton
Caron Archer
Matthew Rossi
Names of approvers:
Finance: Graham Clark
Legal: Mark Smith
Cllr Rachel Lancaster
Title
Directorate or
organisation
Date doc
sent out
Assistant Director
(Planning, Transport
and Highways)
Head of Traffic and
Transportation
Team Leader
Governance Services
Officer
Place
02/03/15
03/03/15
Place
02/03/15
03/03/15
Place
Resources
02/03/15
02/03/15
05/03/15
03/03/15
Lead Accountant
Resources
Senior Solicitor
Resources
Cabinet Member (Public Services)
02/03/15
02/03/15
02/03/15
03/03/15
03/03/15
02/03/15
This report is published on the council's website:
moderngov.coventry.gov.uk
10
Date response
received or
approved
Appendix A – Consultation plan of residents parking scheme July 2014
11
Appendix B – Advertised TRO plan January 2015
12
Appendix C – Summary of objections and officers response
Objection No.
CE 1 (4)
CE 2 (5)
CE3(6)
CE4(33)
Summary of objection and officers response
Commuter - I am a 19 year old Quantity Surveying apprentice, and I leave my car on Joan
Ward Street on a daily basis. It is the cheapest and most efficient way of getting to the train
station, and furthermore to my job in Birmingham every day. To park my car in the train
station car park every day is something I simply cannot afford, and I am sure this is also the
case for many others. Furthermore, the position in which my car is actually parked on Joan
Ward Street every day does not in any way obstruct residents and where their cars are
parked. I feel that this decision will cause just as big an inconvenience to people like me, as
has been caused to the people of Cheylesmore by the parked cars.
Response
The residents parking scheme is being introduced to remove the significant working
day parking problems caused in the residential streets in this area by commuters
parking all day. As an alternative there is sufficient parking within the city centre for
commuter parking or alternatively cars can be left at home and commuters can walk,
cycle or use public transport from their homes to get to their place of work. The
Council has no responsibly to provide free parking, as a driver parking is part of the
cost of using a car just as is putting fuel/energy in the car to make it move.
Commuter - Although I can understand the frustration some of the residents may feel at
having a large number of city centre workers parking on and around their streets, it is not
affordable for someone like myself, and most others, to pay for parking in the city centre.
Cheylesmore is the closest place we can park for free that is both safe and within a 10minute
walking distance. I park on Hockett street, Thomas Landsdail Street and The Martyrs Close.
Whichever has space when I get there, but more often than not it is Hockett Street. Until
parking is made more affordable in the city centre people will continue to park in around the
surrounding areas of the centre.
Response
Please see CE1 (4) above
Commuter - I work just inside the city centre by the train station and this the best place for
me to park during the day as the prices of car parks are too high for me to pay. When I
arrive in the morning, the street is empty with plenty of spaces for the families that live there.
Also when I go to collect the car there is the same spaces available as the families haven't
returned from work themselves. When I do park there I never park in front of anyone's drive..
Response
Please see CE1 (4) above
Commuter - Objection to the proposed changes to car parking arrangements in Quinton
Road. The length of road that runs alongside the billboards and the bus stop currently allows
parking, with double yellow lines on the opposite side of the road; this causes no traffic
hazard, no hold ups and there is plenty of room for traffic to continually pass in both
directions. No houses face onto this part of the road and residents don’t use it for parking so
I don’t feel that double yellow lines are justified along that stretch. I can understand the area
further down Quinton Road where parking is allowed on both sides of the road, and there are
houses facing directly onto the road, and absolutely agree that should be residents only
parking, as should all the side roads detailed in the plan.
Response
• Please see CE1(4) above
• There is no proposal to amend the double yellow lines on Quinton Road on the
section referred to in the objection, so they will stay unchanged. Also the only
change in this section of Quinton Road that is included in the TRO is that on the
railway side of the road between Joan Ward Street and Glover Street which
currently has no parking restrictions on it will become a 2 hours limited waiting
bay to provide some uncontrolled short stay parking in the area for residents
and businesses but deter all day parking by commuters.
13
CE5 (34)
CE6 (37)
Quinton Road Resident - I appreciate and understand there are parking problems and these
will become greater problems with the Friargate Development on the horizon and therefore I
am in favour of parking restrictions in the surrounding neighbourhood.
However I object on the following grounds that:1. Along with nearly every other resident in the City I want to be allowed to park outside or
near my home, without what could be termed as a "annual residents parking fee".
2. That my property will be devalued because of an introduction of resident and visitor
parking fees. Literally 50 metres from my home there will not be any restrictions and this
could make their home more attractive to prospective purchasers
3. The local authority has the responsibility for controlling traffic problems and if parking
restrictions are necessary the financial burden of providing residents with permits should
not be passed on to the residents
4. The consultation was flawed and extremely poor. At no point have local residents
affected by the scheme been asked these simply question a) do you want a resident
parking scheme and if so would you be willing to pay for resident and visitor permits?
Response
1. The Council is only seeking to recoup its administrative costs for issuing the
permits hence the permits have been done for a period of three years not as an
annual fee. The city council has to charge for this activity as with the current cut
backs in government grant it cannot afford to provide these for free. Equally as
the objector has off street parking and is close to areas without parking
restrictions they have the option of not purchasing a permit and parking
elsewhere during the hours of operation of the scheme.
2. It is unlikely that the value of the house will be de-valued as a consequence of
the scheme as in many areas commuter parking problems have had a
detrimental impact on house values as people have no desire to purchase a
property with parking issues.
3. Please see response 1 to this objection above
4. There has been significant effort made with the consultation and engagement
with residents over this scheme which is explained in section 3 of this report. It
was made very clear in the original consultation that permits would not be free
and at no time has the Council deviated from this. At the drop in sessions the
opinion of many of the people who called to discuss the scheme was that they
thought that the price was on balance a bit of a bargain.
Quinton Road Resident 1) I am in support of the TRO.
2) With the Council looking to increase new businesses with the Friargate development and
schemes to improve the city centre that they take a serious look now as how they will
manage the parking of this increasing traffic and not expect the residential areas that
surround the City to deal with this additional parking.
3) May I finally draw to the attention a small area that I think the Council should look at
on Quinton Road which I believe should not be marked as residential parking but be
marked with double yellow lines! The area is the junction of Benedictine Road with
Quinton Road. Although this junction has been closed with kerb stones and concrete
bollards on Quinton Road, with car(s) parking at this point with other parked on the
other side of the road is making this area a “pinch point” causing the buses and
vehicles who use this road to go single file in this area, thus causing tail backs..
Response
1) The support for the scheme is noted.
2) The scheme contained in the TRO is a response to these issues.
3) The area in question currently has no parking restrictions on it and some parking
does on occasion occur. As the road width of Quinton Road is uniform within
the scheme area and does not vary at this point it is unlikely to create a pinch
point particularly if parking is limited to residents only. The other aspect of an
informal pinch point occurring is that it creates an element of traffic calming to
reduce vehicle speeds.
14
CE7 (40)
Benedictine Road resident
The proposal to reduce the double yellow lines in the road would only give commuters more
space to move into the road. The section of road near to Quinton Road is dead end, and
large vehicles would have difficulty in turning without these lines.
Response
There are five properties affected by this change in Benedictine Road and the reason
for including this change in the TRO was following comments from another property
at the drop in sessions. It is accepted that there is a risk that commuters might as
the objector suggests relocate to this location, it is therefore suggested that this
amendment to the existing TRO not be implemented at this time.
15