Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2009/223

Contact: Joy White, Senior Transport Planner (01865 815882)

10:05am

Report by Head of Transport (TDC4)

The Cabinet Member considered the results of a statutory consultation process on draft traffic regulation orders for the revised Magdalen Road area controlled parking zone.

Dennis Pratley referred to overwhelming opposition to this scheme which he considered an injustice to all concerned.  The County Council had recognised in its own report that the proposals were controversial and he warned that there would be difficulties for residents and local businesses, which would suffer in already difficult times. 

Barry Allday felt that the proposals if agreed would affect the fine balance of the area.  The recession meant that local businesses were under increased pressure and his business employed 8 people.  He referred to the injustice of the permit system and charging regime and appealed to the County Council to maintain a positive view and support the community spirit in the area.

Nicholas Fell challenged the legality of the process and the CPZ itself.  He considered the County Council had not followed best practice or correct procedures on consultation.

Sylvia Barker felt the scheme was bureaucratic and simply a measure to raise funds and a blight on the local environment.  The permit system gave an unfair advantage to multi-occupancy homes.

Tim Jones supported the proposals.  He accepted that the CPZ was not perfect but felt that it would generally benefit local residents.  The area could not cope with current levels of vehicles and therefore retention of the status quo was not a realistic option. Partial introduction could lead to problems of displaced traffic.

Paul Pemberton opposed the scheme. Highlighting the inadequacy of proposals for visitor permits he suggested that it could force some people in multi occupancy residences to leave the area.  The County Council needed to be more flexible in its approach but should in the meantime and in view of the high level of opposition to the scheme withdraw the current proposals.

Dominic Woodfield questioned the legality of the proposals and referred to the high levels of opposition.  He considered that a CPZ would not in reality change the current situation and only provided an opportunity to raise funds.  The County Council should have consulted residents first and designed a scheme based on their responses.

Paul Dummett supported the scheme but had some concerns if it was intended to operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week and that if that was the case then it could be detrimental to those residents it was intended to help and businesses at weekends, when commuter parking was less of a problem. He suggested a limited scheme to prevent commuter and student parking.

Anthony Cheke felt that problems had increased recently because of significant student occupation and other influences.  Because of that Hurst Street residents supported the proposed CPZ. He congratulated the County Council on its consultation but felt that 50 permits per annum would be too restrictive and that charges for small businesses were punitive.  However, opponents to the scheme had offered no alternative and quotes of “61% opposed to the scheme” were misleading as many respondents although expressing some slight concerns were not totally opposed to the scheme.

Liz Fisher advised that 78% of St Mary’s Road residents supported the CPZ and objections to the scheme varied considerably.  Highways legislation stated that passage of traffic must be maintained but that clearly was not happening in this area.  She considered CPZs worked for residents and businesses alike.

Ben Sheldon supported the scheme and expressed serious highway safety concerns, which he illustrated by describing 2 separate incidents where emergency vehicles had been seriously delayed because of access problems.  He felt introduction of a CPZ would help prevent such occurrences.

Alison Chisholm supported the scheme.  The area suffered from parked cars and blocked pavements with consequent highway safety issues for pedestrians who were forced into the road.  The cost of permits was miniscule in comparison to the costs of running a car.  The status quo was not a realistic option and something needed to be done to prevent the loss of the street environment and improve the quality of life and safety for residents.

HafwenKaill supported the scheme.  It was imperative to reduce levels of commuter parking and make streets safer for residents.  She had witnessed many stand offs and collisions between cars.  Access was affected and pavements in many places were non negotiable for buggies and wheelcahirs.  She would prefer no pavement parking but felt that some was inevitable.

City Councillor David Williams considered the CPZ to be based on a need to address problems which were more obvious in the west of the area. There had been two rounds of consultation, debate at the East Area Parliament and meetings with traders.  The County Council had amended its proposals in response to that consultation and debate.  Extra parking in Magdalen Road would help traders in these difficult times and suggested the County Council consider employee permits.

County Councillor John Tanner called for the County Council to withdraw the proposals,  save local taxpayers money and listen to the needs and opinions of local people.  To the west of Magdalen Road there was majority support for a CPZ but not to the east where opposition levels were 87%.  He welcomed the exclusion of Iffley Fields from the original scheme.

County Councillor John Sanders questioned the motivation behind the introduction of a CPZ which he considered to be a means of raising funds rather than a genuine attempt to address parking issues.  Any proposal needed to do more than maintain the status quo and this proposed solution, including proposals for permit parking, was not acceptable. 

County Councillor Turner asked officers to address the legal issues which had been raised regarding the legality of the CPZ and its processes.

Joy White stated that pressure from commuter parking would only increase and therefore something needed to be done to address that. She did not accept that there were 61% levels of opposition to the scheme as had been quoted as many respondents had raised specific areas of concern in their responses and these did not  represent an unconditional objection.

Mr Tole confirmed that the County Council had followed the required regulations for promotion of traffic regulation orders and allowed for proper consultation periods.  Responding to the suggestion that the CPZs were subject to limits in size, 12 streets had been quoted, his understanding was that this was not the case.

Mr Howell confirmed that amendments to the proposal such as a proposed east - west split would need further consultation and could not be made on the basis of the consultation which had been undertaken.

Councillor Rose also questioned the accuracy of statements which had referred to  levels of 61% opposed to the scheme.  He had some sympathy with suggestions for the area to be split but at the same time had concerns that any such division could result in problems of displaced traffic for those areas which had been excluded. Ultimately he felt that those speaking against the proposed CPZ would be doing a disservice to fellow residents. He accepted officer advice that a decision could not be taken on any revised proposals on the basis of the current round of consultation and that further consultation would be required.

(a)       not to authorise the making of the Oxfordshire County Council (Oxford – Magdalen Road area) (Controlled Parking Zone and waiting Restrictions) Order 20**;

(b)       authorise the Head of Transport to undertake further statutory consultation  for the Magdalen Road CPZ but on the basis of        the following separate areas:

(i)         Area 1 - all properties to the north west of Magdalen Road but excluding Magdalen Road;

(ii)        Area 2 - all properties to the south east of Magdalen Road but including Magdalen Road.