Return to Agenda

ITEM TIC6

TRANSPORT IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE –
6 MAY 2004

OXFORD, HEADINGTON CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE

Report by Head of Transport

1. On 29 April 2003 the Executive resolved:
   
   

1. not to proceed with the original proposals advertised between 15 October 2001 and 5 November 2001.
2. to authorise the consultation with residents on Community Management Parking as described in the report; and
3. to authorise publication of the draft order for the Headington Residents Parking Zone as described in the report and shown on Plan No HM 721/AO/0021 Rev A and HM 721/AO/0022 Rev A, subject to such modifications as might appear to the Director for Environment and Economy to be appropriate in the light of responses to the consultation referred to in 1(a) above.
   
   
2. This report now considers the current position following publication of the draft order and makes recommendations in the light of comments received.
   
   (Annex 1 - Plan - download as .pdf file)
   

Review and Changes to Proposals Prior to Formal Consultation

3. In order to confirm the accuracy of the information on the base plan from Oxford City Council, additional checks were made. The whole area was re-surveyed and locations of access ways, lamp columns and fire hydrants correctly identified.
4. The proposals were then examined in detail, street by street to confirm that the parking locations were safe and in overall terms that the scheme complied with Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
5. Amendments included the protection of fire hydrants within parking spaces by small sections of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions. Community Management parking proposals still formed a very important part of the scheme where parking space is at a premium.
6. In order to determine the amount of support for this measure, letters were posted to every resident who had an access way within a proposed permit holder’s space. This did not apply to residents who planned to install crossings at a later date or were subsequently offered crossings by Oxford City Council as part of their maintenance schemes after the initial consultation date.
7. The letters were posted on 15 May 2003 and the consultation period ended on 14 July 2003. Residents were given two options the first being if they preferred a ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restriction across their access ways, the second being if they preferred Community Management parking.
8. The choice did not apply to access ways in areas where ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions were required on road safety or traffic flow grounds or where time limited parking was proposed. The letter also stated that if the Council did not receive a reply it would assume that the Community Management option was acceptable.
9. Approximately 160 letters were hand delivered by officers. Of that total 112 replied, 57 preferred Community Management and 55 opted for ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions. The plans were then amended to take into account resident’s wishes.
10. Many other alterations were made as a result of the further examination of the scheme. In Bateman Street the length of the Permit Holder bay was reduced alongside No 39 New High Street in order to accommodate turning of heavy vehicles.
11. In Cecil Sharpe Place the shared use parking was also reduced to accommodate turning vehicles in the hammerhead junction. Permit Holder only footway parking was added outside Nos 18 to 20.
12. The ‘No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri’ restriction in Dunstan Road was lengthened opposite Dunstan Cottage to give visitors to Ruskin College and St Andrews Church more alternative parking at evenings and weekends.
13. The rejection by residents of Community Management outside Nos 7 and 9 Gardiner Street exacerbated the shortage of parking in the road. The Permit Holder Only footway parking bay was extended outside No 9 Gathorne Road in response to residents concerns about lack of parking.
14. The Permit Holder Only footway parking was removed outside Nos 27 and 29 Holyoake Road but was extended outside No 37. In Kennet Road Community Management was removed from outside five properties but was added outside four.
15. Considerable changes were made to the parking arrangements in Langley Close following a meeting with residents on 10 October 2003. The 2 hour shared use parking near the Windmill Road junction was converted to 1 hour parking and lengthened. The Permit Holder Only parking outside Langley Court and the side of No 1 was removed and replaced alongside No 75.
16. Permit Holder Only parking was introduced between the frontage of No 75 and 65 Langley Close, removed outside the access of No 15 and extended outside No 1. It was also introduced on the northwest corner of the inner circle. ‘No Waiting 10am to 11am Mon to Fri’ restrictions were also added to the northeast and southeast corners.
17. In Larkins Lane a 2 hour shared use space outside No 1 was considered following consultation with the Friends of Old Headington. However the road was found to be too narrow.
18. Community Management was rejected outside thirteen access ways in Lime Walk but introduced outside only one property. The section of 2 hour shared use parking was reduced outside No 100 at the request of a disabled resident so that there was enough clearance for an ambulance. Some Permit Holder Only parking was added outside No 88 but reduced outside No 31.
19. In London Road a short section of 1 hour parking was removed between Nos. 142 and 146 and the No Waiting restriction outside Nos. 127 to 133 reinstated to reflect the existing Traffic Regulation Order.
20. Several changes were made in Margaret Road. The 3 hour shared use parking was reduced to allow greater visibility from the garages at the rear of Nos. 109 and 111 Windmill Road. The Permit Holder Only bay alongside No 1 St Anne’s Road was extended.
21. The short section of No Waiting 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri restriction outside No 12 Margaret Road was removed to allow easier access to the school entrance opposite, but replaced with a similar length outside the rear of No 2 St Anne’s Road. On the other side of the road a similar No Waiting restriction was introduced to reflect existing measures under the SCHOOL KEEP CLEAR markings from No 5, eastwards to the zone boundary at the Corpus Christi RC Church access.
22. Community Management parking was rejected outside accesses to eleven properties in New High Street which reduced the overall amount of parking along the road. The 1 hour parking near the London Road junction was reduced slightly to allow for access outside No 2a.
23. In North Place the unlimited time restriction spaces were removed after further investigation found them to be on private land.
24. The Permit Holder Only parking in Norton Close was reduced outside No 4 in order to provide greater clearance for larger vehicles. The restriction was added across the access ways of Nos. 6 and 7 as Community Management.
25. In Nursery Close, a ‘No Waiting 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri’ restriction was added outside Nos. 15 and 16 following consultation with residents.
26. A few changes were made in Old High Street. The Permit Holder Only bays outside Nos. 40 and 92 were lengthened but shortened opposite No 69 in order to permit easier access and removed outside No 30. A section of 2 hour shared use parking was removed across the access to No 72a.
27. The Permit Holder Only bays outside Nos. 13 and 15 Osler Road were changed to No Waiting at Any Time in order to meet the recommendations for the Ackland Hospital access. Community Management was removed across the accesses to Nos. 51 and 53 and a section of 2 hour shared use was included opposite No 14.
28. Community Management parking was rejected outside three accesses in Perrin Street thus reducing further the scarce amount of on-street parking. Similarly in the adjacent Piper Street community management was rejected outside two accesses.
29. In Rock Edge the Permit Holder Only space was reduced opposite Nos. 5 and 6 to aid entry and exit into those properties. Community Management was introduced outside Nos. 19 and 20.
30. Following consultation with owners, Permit Holder Only parking was lengthened across the access ways to Nos. 8 and 10 St Andrews Lane. In St Andrews Road the section of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ was extended outside the White Hart Public House (No 12) to protect the fire hydrant and to allow greater passing space.
31. In order to improve visibility at its junction with Gathorne Road the Permit Holder Only footway parking in St Anne’s Road was reduced outside No 21. However following consultation with residents such parking was introduced outside Nos.1 and 3.
32. Community Management was rejected by residents at eight locations in St Leonard’s Road. Similarly in Stephen Road it was rejected outside three properties and in Stile Road, outside two properties.
33. A section of ‘No Waiting 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri’ was replaced outside The Court in The Croft (West) following consultation with the owner.
34. Parking problems were further exacerbated in Wilberforce Street with the loss of one community management space. In Windsor Street a Permit Holder Only bay was removed alongside No 4e Perrin Street because of the location of a fire hydrant and close proximity of the junction.
35. In Windmill Road, Community Management was removed outside three properties but introduced outside two properties. A ‘No Waiting 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Sat’ restriction outside the Garden Centre access has been introduced following consultation with the owner.
36. Finally in York Road the No Waiting 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri restriction outside No 97 was removed in order to reduce congestion at the Old Road junction and to aid turning movements. Community Management was removed outside two properties but introduced outside one property.
37. In order to make the Business Permit Scheme more user friendly to commercial organisations it was decided to make such permits business specific rather than vehicle specific. Businesses would still need to demonstrate operational need.
38. The Draft Traffic Regulation Order was then prepared and sent out to Formal Consultation.

The Formal Consultation Process - 21 November 2003 to 19 December 2003

39. A total of 1777 consultation packs were sent to every resident and organisation within the zone. An example of this can be seen in Document C, which is available in the Members’ Resource Centre. A further 49 packs were sent to formal consultees. Each consultee was sent a Draft Order, Notice and Statement of Reasons and a copy of Plan Nos. 721/AO/0021 Rev B and 721/AO/0022 Rev B showing the zone. Examples are in Document C, also available in the Members’ Resource Centre.
40. Packs were also provided for public inspection at Bury Knowle Library, Central Library, County Hall and Speedwell House. Street notices were placed in every road within the zone for the duration of the consultation period. The notice was also advertised in the Oxford Times on Friday 21 November 2003.
41. At the commencement of the consultation process an error was found in the drawing keys which accompanied plans to residents. The error concerned proposed No Waiting times in Langley Close which were identified as 10am to 11pm. These restriction times were amended to 10am to 11am the restriction period only being one hour long. All Langley Close residents were subsequently informed of the change by letter three days after the start of the consultation period. Any plans showing the whole zone were also replaced before members of the public had inspected them.
42. In total the scheme provided 735 permit holder only spaces and 204 short term spaces, a total of 939 spaces. Permit holders will be able to use 163 of these short term spaces without time restriction. This provides permit holders with a capacity of 898 on-street parking places when compared with an estimated on-street demand of approximately 664.
43. The formal consultation process resulted in 331 responses. All the returned questionnaires and accompanying letters can be viewed in Document B, available in the Members’ Resource Centre.
44. A synopsis of each comment or objection together with the Head of Transport’s response and recommendation can be found in Document A, also in the Members’ Resource Centre. This includes a complete list of respondents and Pye charts showing the level of support for the proposals in each road.
45. For the scheme as a whole, 86 (5%) residents were satisfied with the proposals without comment, 95 (5%) residents were satisfied with the proposals but made comments and 150 (8%) were not satisfied with the proposals and made objections. The remaining 1446 (81%) did not reply. The overall conclusion from this is that there are some areas of local concern but overall the level of objection is low and much less than in the response to the earlier informal consultation in 2001.

Recommended Changes to the Proposals

46. Many residents in Bateman Street, Gardiner Street, Perrin Street, Piper Street, Wilberforce Street and Windsor Street are concerned about the general lack of parking the scheme offers. This is relatively densely populated area with terraced housing and narrow streets. It has very little off-street parking. A Public House and an IT business also form part of this enclave.
47. Residents maintain that that there are very few parking problems along these streets. However the current demand is only met by vehicles parking too close to junctions. On occasions this makes it extremely difficult to manoeuvre cars past these points and causes serious problems for larger emergency and service vehicles. Therefore junctions have to be protected with ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions.
48. The two businesses have objected to the proposed eight 3 hour shared use spaces. In response residents said that they would like all these spaces to be Permit Holder Only. However given the parking problems it is felt that this is a reasonable balance.
49. Some residents have requested to be left out of the zone. However it is too close to the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and it is likely to suffer from displaced parking if no controls were introduced. Available parking has been maximised but there would only be 74 spaces available leaving a shortfall of 17 spaces. There is a surplus capacity of 26 permit holder and shared use spaces in the adjoining Kennet Road and New High Street, a few minutes walk away.
50. Three residents have objected to Community Management parking. Residents were given this choice so although this reduces the available parking in the road it is recommended that the present Permit Holder Only Parking outside Nos.18 and 20 Bateman Street and outside the access way to No 5 Piper Street be changed to ‘No Waiting at Any Time’.
51. Following residents concerns about adequate visibility when turning out of Windsor Street into Gardiner Street, it is recommended that a 2 metre length of the Permit Holder Only restriction immediately north of the junction, adjacent to No 1 Windsor Street, be changed to No Waiting at Any Time.
52. No valid comments were received regarding the proposals in All Saints Road. Similarly no valid comments were received regarding Barton Lane.
53. The two residents in Cecil Sharpe Place who commented were concerned that additional parking spaces be provided. Having reconsidered the proposals, it is recommended that the ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restriction outside Nos. 5 to 8 be changed to a single Permit Holder Only bay. It is also recommended that a 5 metre length of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restriction alongside No 17 be changed to No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri.
54. In Dunstan Road the only comments received concerned displaced parking beyond the end of the zone. It is recognised that this may be a problem but would be addressed by the introduction of the Northway Controlled Parking Zone.
55. Parking proposals in Gathorne Road are constrained by its width, the presence of a disabled parking bay outside Nos.11 and 13 and to a lesser extent a fire hydrant outside No 7. The only way that parking demand in the road can be satisfied is by the formal introduction of pavement parking on both sides of this narrow road. The current proposals have a very small surplus parking capacity.
56. Residents themselves are concerned about the apparent lack of parking in Gathorne Road especially at its eastern end. This is because the presence of the disabled persons parking bay located within the road reduces the possible parking capacity by at least five spaces. This could be resolved at a later stage, before the next review, either by relocating the disabled persons parking bay or creating a new disabled persons lay by in the footway at its present location.
57. The protection of a fire hydrant outside No 7 Gathorne Road with a small section of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restriction has produced much adverse comment. The resident affected is elderly and disabled and wants the Fire Hydrant relocated so that she can continue to park outside her property. However Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service are not willing to do this. The current proposals mean that she could still park her car but at the most one metre away from its current position.
58. No valid comments were received regarding the proposals in Girdlestone Road.
59. The most significant objection about the proposals in Holyoake Road concerns footway parking and obstruction. This has been proposed between Nos. 25 to 37 due to the high parking demand. The pavement is sufficiently wide at this location with few access ways so normal pedestrian flow would not be obstructed. The proposal would have a traffic calming effect whilst allowing free passage for heavy vehicles.
60. No valid comments were received regarding the proposals in Laurel Farm Close.
61. Kennet Road residents expressed some concerns about the Community Management arrangements and apparent lack of residential parking. It is recommended that the restriction outside the access way to No 22 Kennet Road be changed from Permit Holder Only parking to No Waiting at Any Time. If this is approved there would still be a surplus of six spaces in the road. However, these could all be used by displaced parking from the Gathorne Road area.
62. A meeting with Langley Close residents immediately prior to the formal consultation process resolved most of their concerns. Two residents wanted short term limited parking for use by visitors. Use can be made of the 2 sections of restricted waiting at the east end of the Close and the I hour parking. A request for Community Management across the access to No 79 is not recommended as this section of road is needed as a passing space.
63. Residents in Larkin’s Lane have requested parking outside Nos. 1 and 2. Parking has been considered here in the past but the road is too narrow at this location. Residents maintain that larger vehicles are able to get past when vehicles are parked outside their property. However the fact remains that after allowing for a bay width of 1.8 metres, only 2.3 metres would remain for heavy vehicles to pass so this request is not recommended.
64. Local churches in Lime Walk have expressed concern about the effect the scheme would have upon their activities, particularly mid-week weddings, funerals and other social and community events on their premises. This would directly affect their finances. They also feel that public car parks are too far away for elderly and frail visitors and difficulty would be experienced in unloading and loading equipment near by. Time limited spaces have been provided in the area to meet this demand although there are objections to these from residents who want more Permit Holder Only spaces.
65. During the consultation period a meeting was held with local residents who were extremely concerned about the apparent lack of parking at the southern end of Lime Walk and the possible effect of displaced parking from adjacent roads. Although the parking survey showed that there would be a surplus of nine spaces this failed to satisfy residents concerns.
66. As more road space is available in Lime Walk for parking it is recommended that the restrictions outside Nos. 86, 89, 91, 98, 109a and 111 be changed from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only parking. It is also recommended that the 2 hour shared use bay outside Nos 124 and 126 be changed to Permit Holder Only. These measures should create an additional 8 spaces and could be used for displaced parking on nearby streets.
67. As a result of Community Management being unacceptable outside the access ways to Nos. 24 and 129, it is recommended that the ‘Permit Holder Only’ parking be changed to ‘No Waiting at Any Time’. The installation of a new access way by Oxford City Council outside No 51 has meant that the 3 hour shared use parking should be changed to ‘No waiting at Any Time’ in order to avoid any obstruction problems.
68. The main response from the London Road has been from businesses who are concerned about the effect the proposals would have upon their trading. Their main concern is that many parking spaces in adjacent roads are being converted to ‘Permit Holder Only’ bays, thus leaving little available short term parking for customers and clients. However the proposed 1 and 2 hour parking will keep sections of the road free from commuters and will therefore allow greater turnover of potential customers in this road and adjacent streets.
69. Businesses and individuals in London Road have also expressed concern that there would be no where for staff to park or that using public transport would add hours to their journey time. However London Road is well served by local bus services, the Park and Ride and other express services. Off-street car parking is also available.
70. Other requests by businesses in London Road have been for 1 hour time limited spaces to be reduced to 30 minutes. The Parking Enforcement Team is concerned that restrictions less than 1 hour can be difficult to enforce effectively without an unacceptable drain on resources. Therefore 1 hour seems to be the most effective short stay period.
71. Objections to the No Waiting 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Sat in London Road being perpetuated in some lay-bys have been received. It is suggested that the lay-bys would make good short term parking spaces. The current proposals would allow vehicles to stop for loading and unloading or to allow passengers to board or alight. It would also allow disabled badge holders to park close to businesses for up to three hours.
72. Allowing short-term parking in the London Road lay-bys especially in the vicinity of the Windmill Road junction would create a higher turnover of vehicles and cause congestion in this very busy road. Attention is drawn to the petition from the Iron Bed Company in Document A regarding short-term parking outside their premises. The objection raised has already been dealt with by the introduction of 1 hour parking outside the shop in the formal consultation proposals.
73. There were very few comments received from Margaret Road about the proposed restrictions other than no allowances had been made for the changes at the two schools. However, as the future of the old Windmill First School site is still uncertain, no allowance can be made and any changes necessary would be best handled by a future review once definite plans for the area have been approved.
74. Some concern has also been expressed about the ‘No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri’ on the northern side of Margaret Road because of the location of the two schools. This has been introduced to reflect existing restrictions and to provide overflow evening and weekend parking for residents’ visitors when the school is closed. The informal School Keep Clear markings would be retained.
75. The most repeated objections from residents in Mattock Close are that there would be insufficient parking for residents and visitors. Unfortunately the access ways to properties in the road are too close to allow parking spaces to be formed between them. However there is plentiful off-street parking. The Permit Holder Only bays near the Windmill Road junction could accommodate six vehicles which based on parking surveys should be sufficient for residents needs. Some nearby short-term parking is available in Windmill Road.
76. At present the section of New High Street north of Bateman Street lies within the existing Residents’ Parking Zone. The southern end does not. As there is often a surplus of spaces at the northern end, some residents have said that they would prefer more time limited spaces. However during past consultations this proposal has been resisted locally since residents have said they would be unable to find vacant parking spaces. More importantly these spaces would be needed by displaced vehicles from neighbouring roads.
77. Residents in the southern part of New High Street have objected to the loss of parking space. Many cars have to park in unsuitable locations or obstruct the footway. It is not possible to provide any more parking in this section of road. Enough spaces in the rest of New High Street will be available for displaced vehicles.
78. Concerns have been expressed by the local church about the effect the scheme would have upon its local church hall operations. A balance has to be struck between their needs and the needs of residents. In order to address this problem, time limited shared use spaces have been provided within the road itself and in neighbouring roads.
79. There has been a request for additional residents parking place between Nos. 27 and 27a New High Street. Following consultation with the resident of No 27a who has also opted for Community Management it is now possible to provide this space. A ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restriction in front of the access way to No 23a replacing the proposed ‘Permit Holder Only’ parking has also been requested. These restriction changes are therefore recommended.
80. No valid comments were received regarding the proposals in North Place.
81. The main concern in Norton Close seems to be the loss of parking at the southern end of the road and claims that there would be not enough parking spaces for residents. The reason for the proposed ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions is to protect the southernmost turning area along with the many access ways as residents did not want community management. There is insufficient space between the access ways for parking bays.
82. Concerns were also expressed about parking in Norton Close opposite the side wall of No 1 Bateman Street. Heavy vehicles have already struck this wall several times causing structural damage. Following further investigation using heavy vehicle swept paths it is recommended the proposals be amended to reduce the Permit Holder parking outside Nos. 3 and 4 Norton Close by 1 metre at its northern end and replace it with a ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restriction.
83. Residents in Nursery Close are concerned that the scheme will not provide enough parking for all the residents. Some of the garages are not used for parking and some have been sold off or rented to non-residents. Traffic surveys show there is a potential surplus of one space. It is recommended that the restriction outside Nos. 13 and 14 Nursery Close be changed from ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ to No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri. This would provide additional space for two vehicles in the evenings and weekends.
84. Objections have been received from residents in Old High Street that there is not enough parking in the road, along with requests for more parking at unsuitable locations. Other residents from surrounding roads suggest that the existing proposals would be obstructive or that visibility would be obscured. However it is felt that these proposals represent a fair balance between different user groups.
85. At the southern end of Old High Street, demands for additional shopper spaces should be resisted as these would cause a great deal of congestion at the already busy London Road junction and therefore are not recommended.
86. No valid comments were received regarding the proposals in Old Road.
87. Residents in Osler Road have requested parking places at various locations but these have been rejected for various reasons. The section of road outside Nos. 13 and 15 along which Permit Holder Only parking was requested needs to be kept clear to allow visibility form the Ackland Hospital entrance. Similarly a proposal for an extended 2 hour shared use parking space outside the Bowls Club would also obscure visibility from the Hospital entrance and remove an essential passing place.
88. Parking places on the verge just north of the John Radcliffe Hospital have been restricted as parking is not normally permitted in such locations. The provision of a Permit Holder Only space outside No 131 Osler Road would obstruct visibility from the Ivy Lane junction.
89. One Hour parking outside Nos. 3 to 7 Osler Road has been objected to as it is felt that it would encourage illegal parking. This restriction would be enforced by Control Plus. It is also believed that the new 2 hour parking outside the Bowls Club would cause problems to the new bus service. However the size and location of this bay allows for adequate passing space to the south thus minimising the risk of congestion.
90. Two residents objected to any parking outside their properties. However, it is difficult to justify the loss of such space and a compromise is to simply remove a Community Management space. Therefore it is recommended that the restriction outside the access way to No 11 Osler Road be changed from ‘Permit Holder Only’ parking to ‘No Waiting at Any Time’. With this change a surplus of ten spaces would remain.
91. Nearly all the residents of Rock Edge currently enjoy off-street parking so on-street parking would not appear to be a problem. However they would still like to retain the ability to park between their access ways and would like more parking for visitors. Parking between access ways would obscure visibility in this road. As there are records of residents complaining about the speed of through traffic along Rock Edge it would be unwise to agree to this request.
92. There have also been objections to the parking in Rock Edge on its southern and eastern sides and at the St Ann’s Road junction on safety and aesthetic grounds. These locations have been checked and the effect on visibility would be minimal. They would also have a traffic calming effect. From the aesthetic point of view cars parked adjacent to the Nature Reserve would be more noticeable. However to lose these spaces would fuel residents concerns about the apparent loss of parking space. The proposals should provide a surplus of sixteen spaces.
93. No valid comments were received regarding the proposals in St Andrews Lane.
94. Comments received from St Andrews Road suggest residents feel that insufficient parking is being proposed. However there is little scope to provide any more parking spaces along the road and the parking survey indicates a surplus of seven cars.
95. It may have been possible to gain extra space by concentrating parking on the same side of the road as the White Hart Public House. However residents are also concerned about the speed of traffic along this section of road. The provision of the parking chicane at this point calms traffic but still allows sufficient clearance for larger vehicles.
96. The owners of the White Hart claim that there will not be enough parking for customers. In order to help resolve this problem some 2 hour shared use parking has been provided in neighbouring streets. Similarly concern has been expressed by local churches on the effects of the scheme, particularly on mid week weddings and funerals. Funeral and wedding cars are exempt from most restrictions, private cars for mourners and guests are not. Again the 2 hour shared use parking would assist in this respect.
97. Following objections from a resident about the access way having inadequate protection width outside No 27 St Andrews Road, it is recommended that a 2 metre length of ‘No Waiting 8.00 to 6.30 Mon to Fri’ be changed to ‘No Waiting at Any Time’. Requests have also been received from Nos. 39, 41 and 43 St Andrews Road to be included in the zone. It is recommended that Schedule 4 Part A be amended to make all residents in St Andrews Road eligible to apply for permits.
98. Many residents in St. Anne’s Road believe that their needs would be better met by providing additional footway parking spaces as the current proposals are insufficient. However such spaces would greatly reduce visibility when exiting from Gathorne Road and from vehicle access ways. Existing trees, street furniture and other access ways prevent spaces being provided outside the visibility envelopes. The current proposals would provide parking surplus of eight spaces.
99. The main concerns in St. Leonard’s Road were that insufficient parking space was being provided and that displaced parking would mean the introduction of more Controlled Parking Zones to the east. The former should not be an issue as surveys suggest there should be a surplus of 27 spaces in the road.
100. Following an objection from a resident regarding community management it is proposed that the restriction outside the access-ways to No 46 St. Leonard’s Road be changed from ‘Permit Holder Only’ parking to ‘No Waiting at Any Time’.
101. There were also concerns from residents in St Leonard’s Road and in the immediate area that they would still be able to use their permits in the St Leonard’s Car Park. As this car park is owned and operated by Oxford City Council, who use their powers to regulate it, the County Council has no control over this matter. However the permit designation letters will remain as HE which allows vehicles to use the car park.
102. A resident in Stephen Road has objected to a new development being allowed 50 visitor permits per resident. The original planning permission excluded residents’ permits but not visitor permits. Approximately four additional vehicles would be generated by this change. Surveys indicate that there would be a surplus of eleven spaces, three of which would be 2 hour shared use.
103. Following another objection by a resident in Stephen Road it is recommended that the restriction outside No 19 Stephen Road be changed from ‘Permit Holder Only’ parking to ‘No Waiting at Any Time’. Conversely residents in Nos. 24, 26 and 28 requested a relaxation of the ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions outside their properties. Unfortunately this is not possible in order to maintain access and to protect turning at the end of the cul-de-sac.
104. The only relevant comment received from Stile Road requested making all parking places Permit Holders Only. However surveys indicate that there would be a surplus of four ‘Permit Holder Only’ spaces if the scheme were introduced as well as a further ten short term parking spaces, four of which are permit holder exempt.
105. Residents in The Croft (East) have expressed two main concerns. The first was the possible risk of obstruction from non permit holders when legally parked on the ‘No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri’ restrictions. The second is the perceived lack of parking.
106. in order to overcome the initial objection, it is recommended that the ‘No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri’ restriction outside No 9 The Croft (East) be changed to ‘No Waiting at Any Time’. With regard to the latter objection, parking surveys suggest that there would be a deficit of two parking spaces. It is recommended that an additional space be created alongside the northern half of No 11a The Croft by changing the restriction from ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ to ‘Permit Holder Only’. There is no more space to create any more bays.
107. Residents in The Croft (West) have expressed concerns about the parking arrangements. However with the potential surplus of five spaces they should find their fears unfounded.
108. No valid comments were received regarding the proposals in Weyland Road.
109. The only request in William Orchard Close was for three parking places on its south side. Unfortunately there is not quite enough room for these bays and cannot be recommended. Two errors in Schedule 4 Part C, which describes the location of the Permit Holder Only Parking, have come to light. Descriptions for the northern and southern side should be transposed. Therefore it is recommended that these errors are corrected.
110. Heavy traffic flows are the main reason why parking bays in Windmill Road have been restricted. The temporary access into the road from the Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital has also reduced the possible number of spaces. Consequently residents are concerned about the lack of parking. Additional parking has been suggested by residents but has been discounted on the grounds that it would create congestion or obstruction. Surveys show that there would be a surplus of fourteen spaces overall. Vehicles could also be accommodated in side streets.
111. Local businesses in Windmill Road are concerned over the effect the scheme will have upon trade. They will be able to load and unload as they do at present. A Business Permit Parking Scheme will also allow businesses with an essential operational need to park in ‘Permit Holder Only’ bays. The proposed sections of time limited bays will remove commuter parking whilst allowing a greater turnover of customers or clients.
112. It is recommended following an objection to Community Management in the road that the restriction outside the joint access ways to Nos. 129 and 131 Windmill Road be changed from ‘Permit Holder Only’ parking to ‘No Waiting at Any Time’.
113. Almost every response in York Road seems to differ except that the restrictions are not required. ‘It should be noted that the number of those making the latter comment have reduced since the building work at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital has removed spaces for their staff who now park in the street. ‘A request to change the restriction outside the joint access way to Nos. 25 and 27 York Road from Permit Holder Parking to No Waiting at Any Time is recommended.
114. A number of residents throughout the zone have suggested that their particular road be made into a "Residents Zone" allowing permit holders to park wherever they liked. Unfortunately this type of restriction is not legally possible at the present time and informal discussion with GOSE has also confirmed that authorisation would not be granted. In addition the Council has a duty to ensure that emergency vehicles are not obstructed by indiscriminate parking.
115. Concerns about Community Management access ways being blocked by vehicles have been raised. However access way owners were given the choice of either No Waiting at Any Time restrictions or community management with white access protection markings, where Permit Holder Only bays cross their driveways. The various recommended changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) reflect the preference of such residents.
116. Various comments about past planning decisions or other Traffic Regulation Orders, for example the Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital Development or the Headington West Residents’ Parking Scheme have been put forward as objections to the Draft Traffic Regulation Order. Residents were informed that these views could not be considered as an objection to the proposals in "Notes on Making Comments" sent out in the information packs. The only comments that can be considered are those which specifically relate to the advertised Order.
117. Some residents would also like to see the proposed shared use spaces to be Permit Holder Only spaces. The provision of some time limited spaces are required in order to prevent short stay visitors from using up all the residents allocation of visitor permits, especially as some residents claim that the issue of 50 such permits each year is insufficient.
118. Some residents also want the restrictions to be Monday to Friday only. Local hospitals are in constant use and as a result permit holder restrictions are required for the whole week.
119. The main comments made by external consultees are that vehicles would be displaced into adjoining roads at the zone boundary thus causing parking problems. Many have asked for the zone to be extended which is impractical. Such roads will be protected when future Controlled Parking Zones are implemented.
120. Other commuters have complained that using public transport will add considerably to their journey time. Clearer arterial roads into the City Centre will contribute towards faster public transport journey times.
121. Oxford City Council North East Area Committee would like the County Council to consider implementing schemes to control parking in areas adjacent to the proposed Headington Controlled Parking Zone as soon as possible. Although not part of the consultation process, the Committee also objected to permit parking charges.
122. Comments were also received from Friends of Old Headington, the Coordinating Committee of Headington Residents Associations and CTC Right to Ride many of which are already covered in this report. A comment made by CTC Right to Ride was that parking spaces in Windmill Road should be grouped together so that cycles do not have to weave in and out. Given the constraints on where parking can be placed this is not possible.
123. Comments received from ROX – Rescue Oxford expressed concerns about the growth and access needs for the four hospitals, especially the John Radcliffe Hospital being insufficiently recognised, that the measures would not stop unnecessary traffic being drawn into Oxford and the subsequent problems in finding parking and that the A40 which serves a large segment of Oxford cannot cope with traffic demand. However nearly all these points do not directly relate to the Traffic Regulation Order.
124. All the recommendations were consulted upon with the legal representative from Buckinghamshire County Council. Officers are satisfied that the recommended changes either in whole or in part constitute minor amendments. The total number of spaces which would change their designation if approved would be 36. Based on the number of spaces in the zone of 939, this represents a total change of 3.8%.

Environmental Implications

125. The scheme will make a direct contribution in reducing traffic congestion in the vicinity of Headington. Many commuters are expected to change their parking patterns and mode of travel from car to the Thornhill Park and Ride, and in some cases change their mode of travel altogether.
126. The most obvious benefit will be the reduction in parking congestion in the zone itself which should improve the quality of life for residents. There would also be a reduction in vehicle emissions and the scheme would contribute towards the County Council’s sustainability agenda.
127. There would be environmental impact in residential streets due to the erection of necessary signing. Road markings would be required to define parking areas and the extent of waiting restrictions. The changes in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 mean that ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ markings no longer require supplementary signing to be enforceable.

Financial and Staff Implications

128. The estimated cost of the scheme is £90,000 which is included in the Capital Programme. Operation of the scheme would be funded from the within the on-street parking account.
129. Business parking permits would generate an estimated income in the region of £15,000 pa based on previous experience in other zones. Income from enforcement of Penalty Charge Notices is estimated to be around £73,000. After allowing for expenditure on additional Control Plus staff required for enforcement, the net cost to the parking account is estimated to be about £51,000.

RECOMMENDATIONS

130. The Committee is RECOMMENDED to:

1. approve the overall scheme as shown on plan no HM721/A0/0021 Rev B and HM721/A0/0022 Rev B, but incorporate the following amendments to the advertised draft Traffic Regulation Order as shown on HM721/AO/0021 AND 0022 Rev C:

1. Bateman Street: Change the restriction outside Nos. 18 and 20 Bateman Street from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0009 Rev B;
2. Cecil Sharpe Place: Change the restriction outside Nos. 5 to 8 Cecil Sharpe Place from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only Parking. See HM721/A3/0005 Rev B;
3. Cecil Sharpe Place: Change a 5 metre length of restriction alongside No. 17 Cecil Sharpe Place from No Waiting at Any Time to No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri. See HM721/A3/0005 Rev B;
4. Gardiner Street: Change a 2 metre length of restriction alongside No 1 Windsor Street, immediately north of the Windsor Street junction from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0009 Rev B;
5. Kennett Road: Change the restriction outside the access-way to No. 22 Kennett Road from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0011;
6. Lime Walk: Change the restriction outside the access way to No 24 Lime Walk from Permit Holders Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0011 Rev B;
7. Lime Walk: Change the restriction outside the access-way to Nos. 51 Lime Walk from 3 Hour Parking 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri, Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0009 Rev B;
8. Lime Walk: Change the restriction outside No 86 Lime Walk not fronting an access way, from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only Parking. See HM721/A3/0009 Rev B;
9. Lime Walk: Change the restriction from outside the access-way to No 89 Lime Walk to a point 16 metres south, outside No 91 Lime Walk, from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only Parking. See HM721/A3/0005;
10. Lime Walk: Change the restriction outside No 98 Lime Walk, not fronting an access way, from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holders Parking. See HM721/A3/0005;
11. Lime Walk: Change the restriction outside Nos. 109a and 111 Lime Walk from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only Parking. See HM721/A3/0005;
12. Lime Walk: Change the restriction outside Nos. 124 and 126 Lime Walk from 2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri, Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit to Permit Holder Only Parking. See HM721/A3/0005;
13. Lime Walk: Change the restriction outside the access way to No 129 Lime Walk from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0005;
14. New High Street: Change the restriction outside the access-way to No 23a New High Street from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0011 Rev B;
15. New High Street: Change the restriction outside the access-way to Nos. 27 and 27a New High Street from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only Parking. See HM721/A3/0011 Rev B;
16. Norton Close: Change the restriction outside Nos. 3 and 4 Norton Close over a 1 metre length at its northern end from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0009 Rev B;
17. Nursery Close: Change the restriction outside Nos. 13 and 14 Nursery Close from No Waiting at Any Time to No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri. See HM721/A3/0005 Rev B;
18. Osler Road: Change the restriction outside the access-ways to No 11 Osler Road from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0013 Rev B;
19. Piper Street: Change the restriction outside the access-ways to No 5 Piper Street from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0009 Rev B;
20. St Andrews Road: Change a 2 metre restriction length outside the access to No 27 St Andrews Road from No Waiting 8.00am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0015 Rev B;
21. St. Leonard’s Road: Change the restriction outside the access way to No 46 St. Leonard’s Road from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0012 Rev B;
22. Stephen Road: Change the restriction outside No 19 Stephen Road from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0013 Rev B;
23. The Croft (East): Change the restriction outside Nos. 9 The Croft from No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0015 Rev B;
24. The Croft (East): Change the restriction outside No 11a The Croft from No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Mon to Fri to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0015 Rev B;
25. The Croft (East): Change the restriction outside the northern half of No 11a The Croft from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only Parking. See HM721/A3/0015 Rev B;
26. Windmill Road: Change the restriction outside the joint access way to Nos. 129 and 131 Windmill Road from Permit Holders Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0008;
27. York Road: Change the restriction outside the joint access way to Nos. 25 and 27 York Road from Permit Holder Only Parking to No Waiting at Any Time. See HM721/A3/0007;
28. Schedule 4 Part A – Residents Parking – Postal Addresses from which Residents are Eligible to Apply for Permits with the Exception of Those Listed in Part B. Amend St Andrews Road by deleting "Between its junction with Old High Street and No 35" and inserting "The whole road";
29. Schedule 4 Part C – Permit Holder Places – William Orchard Close.

Paragraph (a) – Delete "South side;" and insert "North side;"

Paragraph (b) – Delete "North side;" and insert "South side;"

2. instruct the Head of Transport to carry out a review of the scheme when construction work for the Nuffield, Ackland and John Radcliff Hospitals has been completed.

DAVID Mc KIBBIN
Head of Transport

Background papers: Document A, B and C

Contact Officers
Richard Kingshott; Tel: Oxford 815716
Stephen Axtell; Tel: Oxford 815967

April 2004

Return to TOP