Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2016/043

Contact: Owen Jenkins, Service Manager – Highways, Transport & Waste Tel: (01865) 323304

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Commercial & Delivery (CMDE5).

The report presents objections and comments received in the course of a statutory consultation to (a) introduce no waiting at any time parking restrictions along Sir Frank Williams Avenue (the main spine road through the development) and partly into the adjoining side streets, (b) to implement a 20mph speed limit within the Northern and the District Neighbourhoods, and (c) to introduce a 1 hour with no return for 1 hour provision for loading in the vicinity of the proposed commercial/retail premises along the University Technical College access road, all within the Great Western Park residential development, Didcot. 

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to:-

(a)          approve implementation of no waiting at any time parking restrictions and 20mph speed limit zone proposals as advertised;

(b)          approve implementation of loading bay restrictions as advertised and amended as described in the report CMDE5

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE5) objections and comments received in the course of a statutory consultation on proposals to introduce and implement the following within the Great Western Park residential development, Didcot. 

:

·                    no waiting at any time parking restrictions along Sir Frank Williams Avenue (the main spine road through the development) and partly into the adjoining side streets;

·                    a 20mph speed limit within the Northern and the District Neighbourhoods, and

·                    a 1 hour with no return for 1 hour provision for loading in the vicinity of the proposed commercial/retail premises along the University Technical College access road, all within the

The various proposals are being put forward in response to the ongoing works within the Northern and District Neighbourhoods of the GWP development, in preparation for the adoption of the roads.

David Slingo, Chair of the Great Western Park Residents Association explained why the report had not in their view adequately reflected the response which they had submitted.  They had 3 areas of concern namely the causes of the perceived need for parking restrictions; impact on residents and alternatives to be considered. The scheme clearly had not met the County Council’s objectives which stated previously were to prevent obstruction to through traffic, make the area safe for pedestrians and other road users, provision of convenient and safe movement of vehicles and other traffic and provision of parking places.  Clearly the County Council had failed in its aims by allowing planning permission for a major development with a spine road which had a width in places 10% less than roads in other similar developments; bus stops which were on the road carriageway and near road junctions rather than recessed off the carriageway and insufficient parking and inadequate room for parking on the highway.  Arbitrary introduction of 24 hour restrictions would have a huge impact on residents limiting immediate access to their properties, preventing appropriate use of resident parking where spaces were already restricted, inconvenience to visitors outside work hours or weekends, inconvenience to delivery vehicles and impact on resale value of houses. Possible alternatives were:

o    Use of traffic calming ‘directional flows’ at intervals along the spine road, particularly as some are already in use in the vicinity of Boundary Park.

o    Creation of safe pedestrian controlled crossing points at appropriate intervals

o    Increasing the number of dropped kerbs to reflect key crossing points.

o    Re-positioning bus stops to allow the parked bus to halt off the main carriageway.

o    Enforcing the use by contractor vehicles (including vans and cars) of the temporary contractor access road rather than the main spine road.

o    Installation of ‘speed advisory’ signs to record the speed of the approaching vehicle.

o    Introduction of residents parking systems with controlled hours or times in specific locations.

Additionally some form of parking should be permitted in order to give easy access to houses from a parked vehicle in those areas where there is housing directly fronting the road and acknowledge that residents working unsocial hours should be able to safely park vehicles on returning home, especially during the hours of darkness.  The Association believed that these alternative proposals would meet the stated aims of OCC while providing a safe environment for the residents of and visitors to GWP and they would be willing to participate further with OCC in progressing these changes.

Councillor Nick Hards outlined one of his reservations concerned provision of safe walking routes for children walking to through the development to school and the last thing that was needed was to restrict visibility in an estate with limited parking available for residents.  With regard to Dan Reed Parade and Greenfinch Road was an area which already had different parking structures and shops and community centre.  His view was that the restrictions proposed were the minimum required during the day but he did not have a final view on what was required at night.  Parking close to a junction decreased visbility.  On balance he accepted the comments made regarding design but felt restrictions were needed during the daytime.  He had concerns regarding the size of some vision splays but on balance he felt it right to go with the scheme as proposed but further thought might be needed regarding night provision.

The Cabinet Member advised that he had visited the area and accepted there were design shortcomings.

Mr Tole explained that the planning process had produced the current development and these proposals did not represent the end of the things for the development. The 20 mph limit had been introduced as this was not intended to be a fast through route. Additionally it was not a high frequency bus route so problems of buses obstructing would be minimal.  It was important to keep the route clear during the day and he was happy to work with the residents to see if and where restrictions could be relaxed at night.

The Cabinet Member agreed there were some grounds for further discussion regarding the level of restriction at night and therefore having regard to the information set out in the report and the representations made to him at the meeting confirmed his decision as follows:

(a)          approve implementation of no waiting at any time parking restrictions and 20mph speed limit zone proposals as advertised;

(b)          approve implementation of loading bay restrictions as advertised and amended as described in the report CMDE5

(c)       approve the general principle of double yellow lines during the day as advertised but instruct officers to undertake further consultation with the Residents Association and Local Members to see if those restrictions could be relaxed to allow some evening parking.

Signed………………………………..

Cabinet member for Environment

Date of signing………………………