Comment Number

Location

Summary of Objection or Comment

Observations of Director of Environmental Services

1

Alexandra Road

In conjunction with some of the other residents in the street, who have also signed the letter, this letter seeks the removal of the single yellow line part-time waiting restriction between nos. 28 – 34 and for it to be replaced by permit holders only parking spaces. Additionally, the letter further requests that the proposal to introduce a cycle parking rack outside no. 27 to be abandoned and replaced by one more permit holders space.

Noted and agreed as an amendment.

2

Alexandra Road

Similar comment to Letter no. 1 above with the additional comment of objection to extending the permit holders bay on both sides at the southern end of the road. The concern is that this will encroach onto the turning area and exacerbate turning movements, particularly for larger vehicles.

Noted.

3

Mill Street

Proposals conform to discussions held with residents at the beginning of the review process. Would like a mechanism in place that would slow vehicles and prevent extraneous traffic from entering Mill Street just in order to turn around, especially larger servicing vehicles. Suggests a 20mph ‘Home Zone’ with additional signing to inform motorists that the street has a dead-end and is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles.

Legislation for a 20mph home zone requires the installation of physical traffic calming measures to be first introduced and that the cost of this would be beyond the scope of the parking review. Standard traffic signs will be erected at the entrance to Mill Street at its junction with Botley Road to say that it is a no through road and is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles.

4

Mill Street

Pleased with the proposals.
Same general comments as letter no. 3 above.

Noted.

5

Mill Street

Admits that finding a parking space can be difficult and this leads to illegal parking taking place.
However, concern is expressed with regard to the proposal to limit the no. of permits per property and the effect that this will have on him and four other co-habitants at this address.

Most of those that attended the public exhibition expressed their support for introducing an upper limit on the number of permits issued per property with 88% voting in favour when asked and only 6% said no.
Where a property is made up of several self-contained flats, each separate flat would be entitled to an allocation of permits.

6

Riverside Road

Objects to the proposals on the grounds that the row of houses of which this property forms one, is excluded from any entitlement to parking permits.
There must be the same right to park in the street as other properties in Riverside Road because the property attracts the same level of Council Tax.

This property, along with the others that form part of the same development, were all removed from the residents’ parking scheme in West Oxford as part of conditions set by the Planning authority at the planning application stage. No aspect of Council Tax includes any contribution for parking provision for vehicles on the public highway. This development included providing all the properties with an integral garage and a hard stand for the parking of one vehicle

7

Riverside Road

Same as No. 6 above.

Same as No. 6 above.

8

South Street

Osney Island

Objects to the provision of a Doctor’s parking space in South Street.
Replace a Disabled person’s parking bay in South Street, which is no longer being used, with an extra Resident’s permit holders’ space.
Provide an additional secure cycle parking stand in South Street.

Noted.
Records show these disabled person’s parking spaces are still required, having been specifically requested by individual residents of South Street. A secure cycle parking stand would require an amendment to be re-advertised. It might be more appropriate to consider this request for extra cycle parking when the Parking Places for Pedal Cycles order is next reviewed.

9

West Street

Osney Island

Would prefer to see an upper limit of two permits per property introduced right from the beginning as opposed to being phased in after a year. Houses in the area are being purchased as investment properties and turned into multi-occupancy properties drawing a greater concentration of vehicle owners into the area.

The reason behind phasing in permit restraint over a two year period starting with 3 permits per property in the first instance, then down to 2 per property after 12 months, was to allow those residing at houses in multiple occupation time to adjust to the new system of permit restraint.

10

Oxford Consumers Group

The proposals seem very reasonable.

Noted.

11

Thames Valley Police

No objection to the proposals.

Noted.

12

University Surveyor’s Office

The proposal to limit parking permits to two per dwelling is not unreasonable.

Noted.

13

Duke Street

Questions the need for having two disabled person’s parking places in such a street where, predominantly, there is insufficient spaces for all the residents to park. The two disabled parking spaces are seldom used and never both at the same time.

These spaces were first introduced at the last parking review for West Oxford when it was identified by the surveys that such spaces would be utilized by a local firm specialising in the recruitment and employment of disabled persons in providing other companies with admin. and management support services. It is not unreasonable to alter the parking control to allow ‘permit holder only’ parking outside normal working hours whilst retaining the ‘Disabled’ parking provision during the day, if still required by Able Types.