Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/088

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager – Traffic & Road Safety Tel: 07920 591545/Mike Wasley, Principal Officer – Traffic Schemes Tel: 07393 001045

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMHM7).

This report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce no waiting Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm on both sides of Water Eaton Lane south of the existing no waiting at any time restrictions in the vicinity of its junction with Bicester Road. Funding for consultation on the proposals was provided by Gosford and Water Eaton Parish Council and from the County Council’s Parish Support Budget. If approved the Parish Council will fund implementation. 

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed waiting restrictions on Water Eaton Lane as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management considered (CMDHM7)  responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce no waiting Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm on both sides of Water Eaton Lane south of the existing no waiting at any time restrictions in the vicinity of its junction with Bicester Road. Funding for consultation on the proposals had been provided by Gosford and Water Eaton Parish Council and from the County Council’s Parish Support Budget and if approved implementation would be funded by the Parish Council. 

Ruth French advised that there was overwhelming opposition from residents living on Water Eaton Lane to this proposal in its current form for reasons of safety, inconvenience and enjoyment of their property and also others in nearby roads, especially Beagles Close, who were extremely concerned at the prospect of increased parking in those roads. Commuter parking was not recognised as a problem and not one local agricultural or business had commented in support of the proposal.  The parish council had not sought the views of local residents before putting this proposal forward to the county council, either this year or in 2017 and on neither occasion did local agricultural businesses contribute to the consultation or voice any concerns with existing arrangements. The proposal had not been supported by evidence and recent, time-randomised, daily spot checks had shown very few incidents of problematic parking. The previous proposal in 2017/18 had been similarly rejected due to lack of evidence and the report currently before the Cabinet Member confirmed the lack of any perceived problem with regard to commuter parking There had been an increase in leisure visitors to the lane last year due to pandemic lockdowns, but those numbers had now substantially reduced. She had not seen a single vehicle obstructing the passage of traffic or reducing the visibility at the junction with Beagles Close and making decisions based on occasional individual complaints without putting them into the context of the ‘normal’ situation created an extremely biased picture that should not be used as a basis for such a drastic change. This proposal would not improve safety and if there was a genuine, evidence supported, problem with parking in this street, then a more balanced, proportionate solution needed to be found. She asked that the proposal be rejected as it currently stood as there was no evidence base for it and residents did not want it considering that it would worsen, not improve, safety and nuisance parking while adversely affecting the normal use and enjoyment of their properties. The parish council needed to look again at this issue, gather and analyse relevant data, and consult with their constituents, the local residents, before submitting another proposal to the County Council.

A written representation had been received from County Councillor Ian Middleton noting the predominantly negative response to the proposal which seemed to be based on the belief that the road was fairly wide and parked cars did not create a significant obstruction. There were also concerns about the lack of off street parking for visitors to local residents, although as far as he understood, the vast majority of properties along the road had off street parking for their own vehicles, although that did not mean that the concerns of those residents who did not have that facility should be ignored. Also the impact of imposing restrictions on Water Eaton Lane but not on Beagles Close could mean that cars would be forced to park there to avoid the restrictions. The local parish council fully supported this application and there had been previous applications for restrictions. The main argument for the restrictions had been that this road was frequently used by agricultural vehicles and large vehicles delivering to agricultural sites accessed by the lane.  One side of the road ran along a field that was in common use by local farmers and he had spoken at length to one of them who had recounted stories of where it had been almost impossible for these essential vehicles to access these areas due to parked cars along the road. He had understood that on many occasions vehicles had had to mount the pavement to get past which was hardly ideal and could result in damage to the pedestrian areas and even adjacent properties. The other argument for restrictions had been concerns that this road was often used by people parking before accessing the local bus services or Parkway rail station.  In the case of Parkway that was around a 20 minute walk but he understood that some people used folding cycles which was a situation that was likely to get worse if plans to substantially increase development in the area went ahead. As the local county councillor he represented the wishes of all local residents and users of this road in achieving a result that would accommodate the largest number of people.  Weight needed to be given to the concerns of the local farming community as agriculture was an important aspect in a rural setting and of course very important to the local and national economy.  Equally, the concerns of residents needed to be taken seriously as were the wishes of the parish council who represented the wishes of the wider local community. On balance he tentatively supported the proposals given that the waiting restrictions would only apply through the daytime, which would hopefully address the majority of the access problems for the local farmers without inconveniencing visitors and residents too much.  However, if there were other ways of addressing these problems it would seem prudent to consider them. Serious consideration needed to be given to the concerns of residents who either didn’t have off street parking or relied on parking in other areas that might become more congested if the restrictions were introduced on the Lane and indeed the impact of displaced parking on Bicester Road and Beagles Close.  Consideration should also be given, if possible, to the inclusion of some nearby Resident Only parking in areas that would not impede access on Water Eaton Lane but could address the concerns of residents who might need visitor or overflow parking.  This matter was finely balanced between the needs of different aspects of local community life and all those who will be affected

The Cabinet Member thanked everyone for their submissions which clearly highlighted the difficulties in reaching a decision to meet the concerns of all sides.  This was the second application by the Parish Council so it was obvious they had concerns but he also had to acknowledge the concerns expressed on behalf of local residents. It was clear that further evidence would be required including a parking survey to help make an informed decision and, therefore, having regard to the information set out in the report before him, the representations made to him at the meeting including confirmation from officers regarding the benefits of carrying out a parking survey he agreed that it would be appropriate to defer the proposal and so confirmed his decision as follows:

 to defer consideration of proposed waiting restrictions on Water Eaton Lane for further investigation to include parking surveys.

Signed………………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Highways Management

Date of signing………………………………...