Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2018/051

Contact: Martin Kraftl, Locality Manager, Oxford Tel: 07920 084336

Report by Director for Planning & Place (CMDE4).

The report sets out a programme for the implementation of controlled parking zones (CPZs) in Oxford to be jointly funded by Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council and overseen through the joint parking management arrangements now established between the two councils.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the programme of new controlled parking zones at Annex 1 and instruct officers to progress the priority 1 and 2 schemes.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) a programme for implementation of controlled parking zones (CPZs) in Oxford to be jointly funded by Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council and overseen through the joint parking management arrangements now established between the two councils.

Councillor Howson referred to Elizabeth Jennings Way which he considered a case for category 1 priority. It suffered from problems of aggressive drivers who used the area to park for access to the city centre and the station via the towpath. Entrances to properties were often partially blocked from indiscriminate parking, which even occurred on mini roundabouts. He suggested introduction of a workplace levy. Access for emergency vehicles to Frenchay Road needed to be maintained and he raised an issue regarding the types of vehicles covered under CPZ rules such as wheeled vehicles with no propulsion and cited a horse trailer which had been parked in the area for some time.

Mr Kraftl undertook to speak with enforcement colleagues regarding terms of definition and responding to the Cabinet Member he confirmed that although  Elizabeth Jennings Way was a small area its Priority 2 status was unlikely to cause displacement problems as it was the only remaining area left in that part of the city. Also double yellow lines could be introduced as part of the order.

Referring to Headington & Quarry Councillor Smith pointed out a number of circumstances peculiar to that area including an urgent need to review the current situation in London Road and the high expansion of employment sites in the area – 6 hospitals and the University of Oxford moving onto the Churchill site. That represented a 20% increase in employment levels and more than supported the introduction of a workplace levy. She referred to an anomaly in the rules governing size of vehicles, income from permits needed to cover maintenance and policing costs and concerns regarding sale of permits.  Consultation was key for residents and the City Council needed to enforce and promote car free developments

Mr Kraftl confirmed that London Road would be reviewed as part of the work of the Joint County & District Parking Reference Group and that the 20% increase in employment sites would be a factor. He would speak with enforcement team colleagues concerning issues over the sale of business permits.

City Councillor Alex Hollingsworth confirmed that S106 and CIL funding would be specifically tied to new schemes. He was aware that a review was needed for Headington and the Joint Parking Group would look at that and take it forward.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that proposals from the Parking Group would, where necessary, come back to her for agreement.

With regard to her division Councillor Phillips raised the issue of inconsiderate parking and her support for a strategic approach.  Regarding Barton specifically it was imperative that the new Barton development, which would be subject to a developer CPZ was tied in with county and city proposals for the remainder of Barton with an integrated sequence of work and Risinghurst and Sandhills given the same priority as Barton. Currently there was a lot of external parking and whilst she had some sympathy for workers who parked and cycled to work she had less for people going on holiday who parked locally and then travelled by coach to London in order to avoid charges at Thornhill.  Thornhill charges needed to be more attractive.

Mr Kraftl confirmed that in deciding on priority categories officers had taken into account proximity to employment sites, planning pressures and knock-on effects and that if an area had not initially secured a priority 1 or 2 status now it would not be precluded from doing so at a later stage.

City Councillor Hollingsworth was aware of the pressures on all areas but the crucial criteria had to be deliverability.  A lot of time and expense would be used in getting schemes through the various stages so simplicity as also a key ingredient. This was a finely balanced judgement and the current priorities had been based on sound criteria and in his view represented a reasonable conclusion. South Oxford extension was a problem and Barton could be treated in a similar was to the Lye Valley scheme.  At the end of the day there was a need to deliver something on the ground.

The Cabinet Member recognised that there seemed to be a reasonable case to consider reprioritising Risinghurst & Sandhills to a Priority 2.

Councillor Sanders highlighted that the grey areas shown in the map on page 5 had been in existence for a considerable time with no changes made although conditions in the City had changed considerably. He suggested a 3 year timetable be drawn up to review maintenance for new and old areas. That could cover minor issues such as timings, spaces etc under the auspices of the Parking Reference Group.  He also suggested a timetable for implementation for the 4 priorities together with an investigation into the sale of visitor permits to include clearer rules regarding non-transferability and easier ways to identify who owned permits.

Mr Kraftl pointed out that even minor reviews had the potential to spotlight issues and care would be needed to avoid those becoming costly operations. Regarding timing consultation would vary from zone to zone but he would be discussing next steps with city colleagues with a view to publishing a programme for Priority 1 and 2 but that would be unlikely to include areas marked as Priority 3 and 4.

The Cabinet Member was sceptical as to how sale of visitor permits might be controlled but the issue could be raised with the Joint Parking Group. She reported email comments submitted by Councillor Presell which had included her hope that some expenditure could be saved by not having more than one consultation per area. Regarding her own area a review of the CPZ in the Botley Road area was now long overdue with pressure on parking so acute that more spaces needed to be found with a further restriction on the number of permits issued to new people moving into the area to one per household, with none for HMOs, as in the city centre.

Therefore, noting that there had been no specific objections raised by Councillors at the meeting and having regard to the information set out in the report before her the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve the programmes of new controlled parking zones set out at Annex 1 to the report CMDE4 and instruct officers to progress the priority 1 and 2 schemes with a request that the programme be amended to include the Risinghurst & Sandhills zones as a Stage 2 priority.

Signed……………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing…………………………….