Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2013/136

Contact: Jim Daughton, Highways & Transport Service Manager Tel: (01865) 815083

At his meeting on 10 October 2013 the Cabinet Member for Environment considered objections which had been received to a formal consultation on a proposal to introduce a new parking restriction to remove a parking bay on Lime Walk in the Headington Central CPZ, which had been required as a result of an adjacent development site. A copy of the report to the 10 October meeting is attached.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in that report and the representations made to him at the October meeting the Cabinet Member deferred the proposal to introduce the restriction to enable further consideration to be given to the matter and if necessary to reconsider it at this meeting.

Officers will give an verbal update at the meeting.

On 10 October 2013 the Cabinet Member for Environment deferred a decision on a proposal to introduce a new parking restriction which had been received to a formal consultation on a proposal to introduce a new parking restriction to remove a parking bay on Lime Walk in the Headington Central CPZ and which had been required as a result of an adjacent development site to enable further consideration to be given to the matter and then reconsidered at this meeting.

Also before him were additional representations from the residents at 129B Lime Walk in support of retention of a double yellow line.

Robert Smith spoke in support of retention a restriction as to do other wise would effectively block one of the parking spaces outside his property.  He and his wife both needed a car and she needed access from the property at varying times.

Councillor Roz Smith  referred to the long and complicated history and lack of communication between the parties concerned.  She supported provision for off road parking which also served as useful traffic calming against cars speeding in Lime Walk itself and its junction with Old Road. She suggested a compromise of provision of one space and a yellow line to enable sufficient access for Mr and Mrs Smith. At the October meeting she had suggested provision of a white line, the need for visitor parking and allow the residents association to construct a build out.

Mr Tole advised that there was no one solution which would meet all concerns but he was now proposing the creation of a 5m long bay just south of the property boundary between 129B and 129 extending 2.5m long each side. The rest of the frontage of 129 would be double yellow lines and subject to funding availability from the Area Stewardship fund the kerb alongside the proposed bay would be raised and footway levels adjusted accordingly. Whereas the bay that was being removed was ‘permit holders only’ the revised proposal would have the single-vehicle bay as a 2-hour shared use bay with the same restrictions as apply to the existing bay on the opposite side of Lime Walk, thus making it useable by visitors to 128A/B/C.  White lining was only advisory and whilst they worked well in residential areas in that they helped avoid bits of yellow lining in this case he was concerned that it could send out mixed messages as it would cover the entire length of the bay. The community wanted to see a reduction in traffic speed and he had made it clear to the residents’ association that there was no objection to a traffic calming build out if done properly and at their cost.  He was not convinced that a parking bay would achieve that level of calming.  He commended the compromise scheme.

Having visited the site the Cabinet Member had not been convinced that the parking bay should be retained and he understood the concerns expressed by Mr Smith.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him and the further considerations set out above the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows:

The creation of a 5m long bay just south of the property boundary between 129B and 129 extending 2.5m long each side with the rest of the frontage of 129 marked with double yellow lines and subject to funding availability from the Area Stewardship fund to raise the kerb alongside the proposed bay and adjust footway levels accordingly. The single-vehicle bay would be a 2-hour shared use bay with the same restrictions as were applied to the existing bay on the opposite side of Lime Walk, thus making it useable by visitors to 128A/B/C.

Signed………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date…………………………………………