ITEM TDC8
TRANSPORT DECISIONS COMMITTEE – 2 JULY 2009
EXCLUSION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM HEADINGTON CENTRAL AND HEADINGTON NORTH-EAST CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE ORDERS, OXFORD
Report by Head of Transport
Introduction
1. This report considers comments and objections received to a formal advertisement and statutory consultation on varying the Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) for the Headington Central and Headington North-East Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) in Oxford to exclude a number of residential properties from eligibility for resident and visitor parking permits. These proposals arise out of various planning permissions granted by Oxford City Council where consent was conditional upon removal of permit eligibility.
Background
2. Oxford City Council, as the local planning authority, seeks to remove entitlement to resident parking permits for certain properties within CPZs in connection with the granting of planning permission. Such permissions may be for the conversion of single dwellings into multiple residential units, extensions or for infill developments. The reason for the planning conditions is generally to ensure that the new developments do not generate a level of vehicular parking which would be prejudicial to highway safety or contribute towards parking problems in the immediate locality. In some cases the exclusion is contained within an agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Public Consultation
3. Consultation was carried out between 19 March and 10 April 2009 on proposals to implement planning conditions for 2 developments covering 11 dwellings. For both sites, notices were placed outside the affected properties and letters sent to all the respective dwellings, informing them of the proposed changes to the existing TROs. In addition, the proposals were advertised in the local newspaper and information sent to local Councillors and other consultees. A copy of the public notice is attached at Annex 1 (download as .doc file). This notice also included proposals to implement planning conditions in 3 other CPZs for which there have been no objections.
4. In total, 3 letters and 1 e-mail were received in response to the advertised proposals. Copies of all these communications are available for inspection in the Members’ Resource Centre.
5. One response is from two residents at 9 Gathorne Road, Headington, who currently have 1 parking permit which they would lose if the proposal is agreed. They explain that they have lived at the property for over 30 years and for part of this time it has been spread over 2 plots. No 9A is currently being converted into a separate dwelling. They believe that No 9 should remain eligible for a residents permit and visitor permits, and they should be eligible to apply for further permits. They also contend that No 9A should also be eligible for resident and visitor permits and state that “the Council” had already written to them to advise that due to the “potential change of ownership”, both properties would only be entitled to I permit each. However, they believe that both properties should be entitled to the usual permit allocation.
6. Another response has come from the new owners of 2 Richmond Court, 249 London Road, Headington. They contend that the developer did not advise them of the planning consent condition excluding all properties in the development from eligibility for residents and visitors permits.
7. Two responses have been received from residents living in properties not proposed for exclusion. One responder felt that one property of either 9 or 9A Gathorne Road should remain eligible for permits. The other responder welcomed the proposals to exclude both 9 and 9A Gathorne Road as this is a condition of the planning consent for the development.
Conclusion
8. Whilst it is acknowledged that the removal of permit eligibility may cause difficulties for those residents directly affected, it is also important to recognise the undertakings given to the local community by the local planning authority during consideration of planning applications. As a result, and in line with previous cases, it is recommended that the objections be over-ruled and that the exclusions take place. This will mean that once any existing permits expire, the residents at these properties will no longer be eligible for resident or visitor permits.
9. However, to allow existing residents time to adjust to their exclusion, it is proposed that those residents with current permits be allowed to apply for renewal for one more year before the exclusion is implemented. This is in line with previous practice and will also give sufficient time for those residents who wish to apply to the City Council for planning permission to amend the current consent and allow permit eligibility. If successful the TRO can be amended accordingly.
How the Project Supports LTP2 Objectives
10. The reduction in parking described in this report complies with the LTP2 objectives of Tackling Congestion (encouraging development that minimises congestion) and improving the Street Environment (better management of parking).
Financial Implications (including Revenue)
11. Funding for the costs of advertising the TROs is available from Section 106 and other agreements held by the County Council.
RECOMMENDATION
12. The Committee is RECOMMENDED to agree implementation of proposed revisions to the Headington Central and Headington North-East Traffic Regulation Order as advertised.
STEVE HOWELL Head of Transport Environment & Economy
Background papers: Planning consents issued by Oxford City Council Copies of all the correspondence are available in the Members’ Resource room.
Contact Officer: Mike Ruse Tel 01865 815978
June 2009
|