Issue - meetings

Forward Plan Ref: 2017/078

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: (01865) 810028

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CMDE5).

The report considers objections received as a result of formal consultation on proposals to introduce new Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (DPPP) at various locations in Cherwell District and Oxford City. The report also considers proposed restoration of residents and visitors parking permits to Wingfield House, 2A Gathorne Road, Headington, Oxford, following a successful planning appeal.  

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed changes, as set out in the report CMDE5.

Not approve restoration of eligibility for parking permits for Wingfield House, 2A Gathorne Road, Oxford.

Approve disabled persons parking spaces at Gillett Close and Ruscote Avenue, both Banbury and Spindleberry Close, Oxford but not High Street, Hook Norton.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE5) objections received as a result of formal consultation on proposals to introduce new Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (DPPP) at various locations in Cherwell District and Oxford City and the proposed restoration of residents and visitors parking permits to Wingfield House, 2A Gathorne Road, Headington, Oxford, following a successful planning appeal.  

Julian Philcox referred to the independent Planning Inspector’s appeal in February 2017. Based on sound and robust evidence provided by JP Planning Ltd and, importantly, Oxfordshire County Council as Local Highway Authority as part of the ‘Access to Headington’ background work that evidence had assessed both the status quo (the position on the ground at the time of evidence collection) and the position should the Access to Headington proposals come forward. Both scenarios had shown more than adequate capacity on-street to cater for the provision of permits to residents of Wingfield House. Furthermore S288 of the Town & Country Planning Act allowed for a legal challenge via the High Court within 6 weeks of the Inspector’s decision. No such challenge had been made.  He added that the results of the Parking Stress survey evidence of the County Council showed significant underutilisation of on-street parking spaces in the vicinity as evidenced in a report by the then Deputy Director of Environment & Economy (Strategy) to the Cabinet Member for Environment meeting of 9 June 2016. He urged the Cabinet Member to have regard to the above and endorse the recommendation of county officers.

James Larminnie on behalf of Cyclox opposed restoration of permits. To do so would have severe environmental consequences, which he felt had not been fully considered and that any moves to increase traffic went against the Council’s own environmental policies. Increased traffic meant increased parking in cycle lanes. That made cycling less enjoyable and less safe. Approving restoration of permits set a dangerous precedent and needed to be resisted.

Frank Murray a local resident opposed restoration or permits. Regretting the need to make representations at all at this stage he felt the CPZ should have prevented this situation occurring and agreeing proposals to restore permits would have ramifications for other CPZs. He was appalled that this decision had been based on a 1 day investigation and poor photographic evidence.  Parking had become a very sensitive issue and to introduce additional vehicles into an already saturated area such as Gathorne Road and St Anne’s Road was difficult to contemplate. There was a lot of opposition to this which needed to be taken into account.

Valerie Seagrott a resident of Gathorne Road drew attention to the parking pressures locally which led to illegal parking on corners. Double yellow lines had been placed outside her house for safety reasons yet were ignored. That implied to her that there was not enough space now let alone if more traffic were introduced. Gathorne Road had a lot of families with children living there. They needed to park close to their homes and it was wrong to inconvenience  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26