Issue - meetings

Forward Plan Ref: 2018/182

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by Director for Infrastructure Operations (CMDE5).

The report presents responses received in the course of a statutory consultation on a proposal to exclude from eligibility for residents and visitor permits for numbers 4a and 4c North Parade Avenue Oxford and restore eligibility for such permits for number 84 Marlborough Road Oxford, but with a restriction of one permit each for the Garden Flat and Upper Flat. The report also presents responses received in the course of a statutory consultation on a proposal to exclude from eligibility for residents and visitor parking permits for numbers 4a and 4c North Parade Avenue Oxford and to restore eligibility for such permits for number 84 Marlborough Road Oxford, but with a restriction of one permit each for the Garden Flat and Upper Flat.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed exclusion of eligibility for 4a and 4c North Parade Avenue Oxford and eligibility for permits for the Garden Flat and Upper Flat at 84 Marlborough Road Oxford as advertised.

Defer a decision with regard to the proposed exclusion of eligibility for 4a and 4c North Parade Avenue, Oxford but uphold the restoration of eligibility for the garden Flat and Upper Flat at 84 Marlborough Road but with a restriction of one permit for each flat.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE5) responses received to a statutory consultation on a proposal to exclude from eligibility for residents and visitor permits for numbers 4a and 4c North Parade Avenue Oxford and restore eligibility for such permits for number 84 Marlborough Road Oxford, but with a restriction of one permit each for the Garden Flat and Upper Flat.

Adele Stockdale speaking on behalf of her daughter who lived at North Parade Avenue understood the concerns regarding setting a precedent but pointed out that there was a lot of parking available locally.  Reinstatement for 4 (a) and 4(c) was supported by both City and County Councillors. There was some confusion why 4(b) had a permit and that had created some tension.  Her daughter was very happy living where she was but as a teacher needed her car for work reasons and public transport did not sadly offer enough flexibility and she hoped a compromise could be reached to allow 1 permit per household.

Phoebe O’Donnell also resident at North Parade Avenue and born and bred in Oxford appreciated the issues in the City regarding traffic and parking.  However, she had objected to the ineligibility status attached to her property because of the area and availability of parking in the area.  It was not a highly residential area and because of that specific availability there was room for compromise. She agreed that public transport was not a viable option for her to get to work.

Adam Bates advised that the Garden Flat at 84 Marlborough Road having two permits had had a significant bearing on his and his partner’s decision to purchase the property in 2015. However, the decision to grant the Upper Flat a permit had meant they had lost one of those permits which had had a huge effect on their lives as they needed 2 cars and it would have been unlikely that they would have bought the property if it only had one permit attached to it. He was seeking an amendment to the proposals to revert back to the original 2 permits and suggested that could be attached to their tenancy and not to future owners of the Flat.

Responding to questions from the Cabinet Member Mr Kirkwood confirmed that parking pressures in the Walton Manor residential area were not as severe as South Oxford and regarding the suggestion by Mr Bates that would be difficult in practice as it was specifically excluded by a Marlborough Road TRO and in that case he considered the proposed allocation to be equitable.

In response to submissions from Mr Bates legal advisers the County Council’s legal team had expressed the following view that quite apart from the fact that the City Council were not empowered to provide assurances on entitlement to parking permits because it is not a City function  and thus overrode the provisions of the CPZ order,  it would have been unlawful (ultra vires) for the County to give any assurance that there would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6