Return to Agenda

Return to TIC11

Division(s): Headington and Marston

ITEM TIC11 - ANNEX A

TRANSPORT IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE – 20 JULY 2006

OXFORD, THE LAKES PARKING ZONE

‘The Lakes’

Summary of Comments Received, and Recommended Changes, Resulting From:

1. Responses From Residents Within The Proposed Zone;

Ambleside Drive – Residents consulted (47), Comments / Objections Received (9)

Of the 11 residents who responded, only 3 opposed the scheme. Comments were made regarding:parking at junctions causing problems for buses, applicable days of restriction, ‘encouraging residents to park in the streets’, general permit issues, ‘permit restraint’, enforcement issues, hours of restriction, ‘contractor’ parking, permit eligibility and JR parking issues. One resident commented to confirm that they were ‘strongly in favour of the scheme, to protect our roads from being clogged with parking from the expanded JR’.

Committee Recommendation – paragraph 37 (a) (i) & (iii)

Scheme Design Capacity (Not Restricted) – Residential Demand (10)

Bowness Avenue – Residents consulted (48), Comments/Objections Received (1)

One resident confirmed that they had ‘no objections to the proposals’.

Committee Recommendation – None

Scheme Design Capacity (Not Restricted) – Residential Demand (33)

Brookfield Crescent – Residents consulted (27), Comments/Objections Received (3)

Of the 4 residents who responded, 2 supported and 2 opposed the scheme. Comments were made regarding: Possible ‘displaced’ parking from Copse Lane, permits addressing the problem of ‘commuter parking’, The ‘traditional’ lining and signing treatment of Copse Lane, access protection issues and ‘Permit restraint’.

Committee Recommendation – paragraph 37 (a) (ii)

Scheme Design Capacity (Not Restricted) – Residential Demand (15)

Colterne Close – Residents consulted (24), Comments / Objections Received (1)

One resident linked their decision not to support the scheme to the ‘permit charging proposals’.

Committee Recommendation – None

Scheme Design Capacity (Not Restricted) – Residential Demand (15)

Coniston Avenue – Residents consulted (77), Comments / Objections Received (10)

Of the 11 residents who responded, 5 opposed and 6 supported the scheme. Comments were made regarding: Enforcement issues, JR parking issues, the ‘permit charging proposals’, the ‘planning ecision’ to allow expansion of the JR, the ‘need’ for a scheme, the number of visitors permits, difficulty understanding the proposals, general permit issues, the ‘effect’ on property values in Copse Lane and parking in Headley Way.

Committee Recommendation – paragraph 37 (a)(ii)

Scheme Design Capacity (Not Restricted) – Residential Demand (71)

Copse Lane – Residents consulted (97), Comments/Objections Received (10)

Of the 11 residents who responded, 8 supported the scheme and 3 opposed it. Comments were made regarding: unused ‘disabled bays’, the ‘permit charging proposals’, enforcement issues, illegal footpath parking, the number of visitor permits and general permit issues. One resident commented ‘I agree with whatever.’

Committee Recommendation – paragraph 37 (a) (ii)

Scheme Design Capacity (62) – Residential Demand (53)

Derwent Avenue – Residents consulted (93), Comments / Objections Received (4)

Of the 11 residents who responded, only 1 opposed the scheme. Comments were made regarding: parking issues associated with the JR, the ‘permit charging proposals’, visitor permit issues, enforcement and general permit issues. One resident commented to confirm that they had ‘no objections to the parking proposals’ but enquired about ‘permit restraint’ to improve bus access.

Committee Recommendation - None

Scheme Design Capacity (Not Restricted) – Residential Demand (54)

Eden Drive – Residents consulted (57), Comments / Objections Received (3)

All residents who responded supported the scheme. Comments were made regarding: ‘permit restraint’, access protection lines and the ‘permit charging proposals’.

Committee Recommendation - – paragraph 37 (a) (i)

Scheme Design Capacity (Not Restricted) – Residential Demand (22)

Headley Way – Residents consulted (146), Comments / Objections Received (5)

All residents who responded supported the scheme. Comments were made regarding: the need for the scheme, visitor permit issues, parking problems linked to the JR and the ‘charging proposals’. One resident commented to confirm that they were ‘satisfied with the proposals’.

Committee Recommendation – None

Scheme Design Capacity (60) – Residential Demand (23)

Snowden Mede – Residents consulted (8), Comments/Objections Received (2)

Of the 2 residents that responded, 1 supported and 1 opposed the scheme. Comments were made regarding: permit eligibility, parents ‘dropping off children’ causing a problem, the ‘end’ time of the restrictions and the need for extended No Waiting At Any Time restrictions.

Committee Recommendation – paragraph 37 (a) (vii)

Scheme Design Capacity (Not restricted) – Residential Demand (5)

Westlands Drive – Residents consulted (2), Comments / Objections Received (0)

Only one resident responded, and they supported the scheme without comment.

Committee Recommendation - None

Scheme Design Capacity (0) – Residential Demand (2)

2. Responses From ‘Formal’ Consultees;

Oxford Bus Company

Emphasized that ‘enforcement’ would be a key part of the scheme for them and that they ‘look forward to the benefits that’ they ‘hope these schemes will bring’.

Committee Recommendation – None

Oxford City Council

To ensure uniformity with the rest of the City they recommend that we remove the requirement for ‘the time of arrival’ to be entered on visitors permits.

Committee Recommendation - paragraph 37 (a) (xi)

Oxfordshire Association For The Blind

Expressed concern that partially sighted people may ‘miss signs’ in a ‘Minimum Impact Zone’.

Committee Recommendation - None

Oxfordshire County Council, Public Transport Section

Generally support the scheme, but expressed ‘concerns that the minimum impact approach’ could lead to obstructive parking on sections of bus route in Ambleside Drive and Derwent Avenue.

Committee Recommendation - paragraph 37 (a) (i) (iii) (iv) (v) & (vi)

Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue

Confirmed ‘no adverse comments to make’.

Committee Recommendation - None

Thames Valley Police

Confirmed that they have ‘no objection to the Order.’

Committee Recommendation - None

Oxford Radcliffe Hospital

Support the proposed parking zone.

Committee Recommendation - None

3. Responses From Others Outside The Proposed Zone

With reference to the ‘permit charging proposals’ a resident of Horseman Close commented that we have already accepted a five figure sum of money from the Hospital to set up a free Residents Parking Scheme.’ Shopkeepers in Cherwell Drive, adjacent to the proposed zone, are concerned about potential ‘displaced parking’.

Committee Recommendation – paragraph 37 (a) (ii)

In addition to the above Oxfordshire County Council, Legal Services commented that for correctness slight technical amendments are needed to the articles of the TRO.

Committee Recommendation - paragraph 37 (a) (viii) (ix) & (x)

Return to TOP