|
Return
to Agenda
Division(s): Headington
and Marston
ITEM TIC11
TRANSPORT
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE – 20 JULY 2006
OXFORD,
THE LAKES PARKING ZONE
Report by
Head of Transport
Introduction
1. This is a report
on the statutory consultation process on the Traffic Regulation Orders
(TRO) for the proposed Lakes Parking Zone (PZ) providing information
on the policy context, development of the process to date, an outline
of the consultation carried out and recommendations in the light of
this consultation.
Policy Context
2. The policy context
for the Lakes PZ is contained in the County Council’s Local Transport
Plan for 2006 – 2011. The LTP identifies a number of priorities for
transport scheme development: tackling congestion, delivering accessibility,
safer roads, better air quality and improving the street environment.
The plan includes a parking strategy, which recognises that Controlled
Parking Zones (CPZ’s) have an important role to play in controlling
the overall level of peak hour traffic within Oxford’s Ring Road and
so helping to tackle congestion in the city.
3. It is also recognised
that CPZs help to protect local streets from intrusive long-stay commuter
parking. The LTP therefore notes that the introduction of CPZs is particularly
important in the Headington and Marston area where there is a growing
problem of parking and traffic with the large and expanding hospital
and university establishments.
4. Indeed, the
introduction of CPZ’s in the areas close to the John Radcliffe Hospital
were also included in the Headington and Marston Area Transport Strategy
(HAMATS) along with a number of other many transport schemes. Recognising
the local planned employment growth over the subsequent few years the
County Executive endorsed this strategy on 12 November 2002.
5. The principles
of HAMATS are consistent with the objectives of LTP2 and are still as
relevant now as when it was first endorsed, particularly given that
the number of staff working at the John Radcliffe Hospital Headley Way
site is due to increase by over 1200 in January 2007 following the closure
of the Radcliffe Infirmary on Woodstock Road. As well as CPZs, HAMATS
includes public transport improvements and travel plan measures for
the main employment sites in the area.
Development of Proposals
6. The area which
forms the proposed zone is nearest to the main entrance of the John
Radcliffe Hospital. Currently the residential roads in the vicinity
of the hospital are heavily congested with commuter parking. When the
hospital expansion on the John Radcliffe site has been completed, new
or transferred staff will need to travel there potentially exacerbating
the problem
significantly.
7. A survey of
the zone showed that most of the residential roads were of a similar
environment. Most housing was semi detached with off-street parking.
On-street parking could be accommodated on both sides of the road and
footway parking was minimal. When commuters were not present there was
plenty of on-street space for residents and their visitors’ vehicles.
8. After further
evaluation, the area was deemed suitable to trial a "Minimum Impact
Controlled Parking Zone" termed a "Restricted Parking Zone" in the draft
TRO. Such a scheme would restrict commuter parking but with minimal
environmental impact and causing least disruption to existing residential
parking patterns.
9. Unlike a conventional
"Controlled Parking Zone" permit holders and their visitors would be
able to park as they do now without the need for formal marked parking
spaces. The scheme would rely on zone boundary signs to deter non residents
from parking and repeater signs would
only be placed on lamp columns within the zone.
10. The only exception
would be heavily trafficked bus routes and areas around shops or general
amenities where parking bays or restrictions need to be introduced in
a conventional way.
Disabled persons
parking bays would also still be marked within the zone.
11. In February
2006 the consultant Faber Maunsell was employed to develop the scheme.
The company had already introduced Restricted Parking Events Zones around
the Kassam Stadium, Oxford and the Sports City Stadium in Manchester
as well as Minimum Impact schemes in Loughton, Milton Keynes and Ellesmere
Port in Cheshire.
Initial Consultation - 24
February 2006 to 24 March 2006
12. An explanatory
leaflet, which included a questionnaire, was prepared to determine the
level of support for the scheme, the preferred times and days during
which parking place restrictions should
apply and the time limit of any nearby limited waiting.
13. Initial consultation
packs including an explanatory leaflet were sent to every resident and
organisation within the zone and an example of a pack can be seen in
background Document C
which is available in the Members’ Resource Centre.
14. This consultation
process resulted in 113 responses. Of these 94 (83%) supported the proposal
with 19 (17%) against. A total of 43 (38%) residents opted for the restrictions
to operate between Monday to Friday, 32 (28%) opted for Monday to Saturday
and 31 (27%) opted for all week and 7 (7%) expressed no preference.
15. When the hours
of operation were considered 31 (27%) opted for 9.00am to 5.00pm, 31
(27%) opted 8.00am to 6.30pm, 27(24%) opted for 24 hour and 24 (22%)
expressed no preference. With regards nearby limited waiting 39 (35%)
preferred 1 hour parking, 38 (34%) preferred 2 hour parking, 9 (8%)
preferred 3 hour parking and 27 (23%) expressed no preference.
16. Based on this
information and in consultation with local County Councillors Gail Bones
and M M. Altaf Khan and with input from Faber Maunsell the chosen restrictions
for the zone for Permit Holder Only parking was 9.00am to 5.00pm Monday
to Friday. Any limited waiting within the zone would be 2 hours 8.00am
to 6.30pm Monday to Friday but with permit holders exempt
from the time limit.
17. The scheme
was then further refined. The boundary between Northway and the proposed
adjacent ‘The Lakes’ Minimum Impact Controlled Parking Zone in Westlands
Drive was amended so as to simplify permit use. Headley Way, Copse Lane
and Cholesbury Grange were treated conventionally with designated parking
places and restrictions as they were unsuitable for inclusion within
a Minimum Impact Restricted Parking Zone due either to very frequent
bus movements or narrow road width.
18. As the signs
necessary for the Minimum Impact Controlled Parking Zone boundary do
not form part of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
2002, special authorisation has been sought from the Department for
Transport (DfT). A site visit by representatives from the DfT on 21
April 2006 confirmed that there should be no reason why authorisation
should not
be given.
The Formal Consultation
Process – 5 May 2006 to 2 June 2006
19. A total of
626 formal consultation packs were delivered to every resident and organisation
within the zone and an example of a pack can be seen in background Document
D, which is available in the Members’ Resource Centre. A further 41
packs were sent to formal consultees. Each consultee was sent a Draft
Order, Notice and Statement of Reasons with a copy of Plan No H16650/A1/1000
Revision D showing the zone. Examples are also to be found in Document
D.
20. Packs were
also provided for public inspection at Old Marston Library, Headington
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 placed in the Oxford Times on Friday 5 May
2006.
21. There are 12
roads within the overall scheme area. The Minimum Impact Controlled
Parking Zone itself contains 8 roads. As none of these particular roads
would be designated with formal parking places, the potential amount
of parking in each street would remain much the same. The exception
is Eden Drive where some 9 spaces had been removed at the Headley Way
junction for access and safety reasons.
22. In the remaining
4 roads the scheme provided for 96 permit holder only spaces and 24
short term spaces. All these spaces lie within Copse Lane and Headley
Way and permit holders would be able to use all of the short term facilities
without time restriction. This provided permit holders with a capacity
of 120 on-street parking places when compared with an estimated
on-street demand of approximately 76 in the two streets.
23. Overall traffic
surveys indicate that residential on street parking demand is around
301 and suggests that approximately 128 non residential vehicles would
be displaced from the zone if the scheme was implemented. However the
true impact of the scheme would be in the displacement of many more
predicted commuters working at the John Radcliffe from January 2007.
24. During the
consultation period a meeting was held on 22 May 2006 with The Lakes
and Headley Way Residents Association and Councillor Altaf Khan at St
Anthony of Padua Church Hall. The main issues raised were the apparent
lack of sufficient visitor permits and the effect this would have upon
the needs of the elderly and infirm, concerns about the two hour parking
at the southeast end of Headley Way and insufficient parking provision
for Copse Lane residents.
25. In response
officers explained that experience in other zones had shown that the
current allocation of 50 visitor permits per adult resident is sufficient.
Long term visitor permits may also be available where residents need
support from family carers. The two hour parking in Headley Way is meant
for visitors to St Anthony of Padua Church and is to remain. Additional
parking in
Copse Way forms part of the recommendations to this report.
26. The formal
consultation process resulted in 78 responses, 7 of which were from
formal consultees and 2 from residents living outside the zone. All
the returned questionnaires and accompanying letters can be viewed in
Document B, available in the Members’ Resource Centre.
27. A synopsis
of each comment or objection together with an officer response and recommendation
can be found in Document A, also in the Members’ Resource Centre. This
includes a complete list of respondents and Pie charts showing the level
of support for the proposals in each road. A summary of these comments
is also included for reference at Annex
A to this report.
28. For the scheme
as a whole 20 (3% of all zone consultees; 26% of replies received) were
satisfied with the proposals without comment, 35 (5% of all consultees;
45% of replies received) were satisfied with the proposals but made
comments and 17 (3% of all zone consultees; 23% of replies received)
were not satisfied with the proposals and made objections and 6 (1%
of all zone consultees; 6% of replies received) responded but did not
give a preference. The remaining 589 (88%) did not reply.
Recommended Changes to the
Proposals
29. As a result
of the formal consultation on the whole zone, further amendments have
been recommended which result in the net addition of 10 two hour parking
(Permit Holders Exempt from time limit) spaces and the net removal of
3 Permit Holder Only spaces. Therefore this would provide permit holders
with a zone capacity of 127 on street parking places when they are
conventionally marked.
30. In the light
of comments received as part of the statutory consultation a number
of changes are proposed to the scheme. These are set out on a road by
road basis in Annex B and in the recommendations at the end of this
report. The Annex summarises the main points emanating form the consultation,
full details of which can be found in Document A.
31. During the
consultation, and following legal advice, it became apparent that the
wording of the Draft TRO needed amendment to ensure that contractors
did not have an automatic exemption to park in no waiting areas and
designated parking places in connection with works to adjoining properties.
This would be in accordance with the new charging regime for contractor
permits. The amendment affects Articles 6(10) (a) and 17(10) (a). The
requirement to include the time of day a vehicle is left in a parking
space on a Visitors Permit is not required.
This amendment affects Article 35(3).
Environmental Implications
32. The aim of
this scheme is to be as environmentally friendly as possible with the
absolute minimum of signing and road markings. Within the restricted
road zone itself only a few road markings
will be visible. On most residential roads there will be none at all.
33. Restricted
zone boundary signs would be erected at the start of the zone but any
repeater signs would be placed on lamp columns along each road. Parking
places and restrictions in Headley
Way, Copse Lane and Cholesbury Grange will be marked in the conventional
way.
How the project supports
LTP2 objectives
34. Together with
the proposed Northway PZ and other PZs already introduced in Headington
and Marston, the Lakes PZ will prevent commuters from parking in this
area close to the John Radcliffe Hospital. The introduction of the Lakes
PZ will therefore encourage commuters to use alternative means of travel
to get to their place of work, for example by Park & Ride, other
bus services,
or cycling and walking.
35. Such a change
in travel behaviour will reduce the overall level of traffic having
the direct benefit of helping to reduce congestion in the area. Other
potential indirect benefits associated with reduced traffic would be
improved road safety, improved accessibility (through the increased
attractiveness of existing or potential bus services), improved air
quality and an improved street environment in areas where car traffic
used to travel through or park.
Financial Implications (including
Revenue)
36. The total cost
of the proposed zone is estimated at £40,000, of which implementation
costs are
£20,500. The scheme is part of the 2006/7 Capital Programme outlined
in the Local Transport
Plan approved by Cabinet on 22 February 2006.
RECOMMENDATION
37. The Committee
is RECOMMENDED to:
(a) approve "The
Lakes" Restricted Parking Zone for implementation subject to incorporating
the following amendments to the advertised draft Traffic Regulation
Order as shown on Plan No. H16650/A1/1001:
(i) Ambleside
Drive: Change the restrictions along the frontage and side of No 1 Ambleside
Drive within the Permit Holders Only Parking Area from Permit Holder Only
Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time.
(ii) Copse Lane:
Change the restrictions outside Nos. 105 to 107 Copse Lane and opposite
Nos. 152 to 156 Copse Lane from No Waiting at Any Time
to 2 Hour Parking (8.00am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders
Exempt from time limit.
(iii) Eden Drive
: Change the restrictions along the frontage and side of No 24 Eden Drive
and outside Nos. 25 to 27 Eden Drive within the Permit Holders Only Parking
Area from Permit Holder Only Parking (9.00am to 5.pm Monday to Friday)
to No Waiting at Any Time.
(iv) Eden Drive:
Change the restrictions outside Rayson House either side of the pedestrian
access for an approximate distance of 5 metres northwards and 10m metres
southwards from No Waiting at Any Time to 2 Hour Parking (8.00am to 6.30
pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt
from time limit.
(v) Headley Way:
Change the parking restriction outside No 60 and No 62 Headley Way from
Permit Holder Only Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday
to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time.
(vi) Headley Way:
Change the parking restriction outside No 124 and 103 Headley Way from
2 Hour Parking (8.00am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday) Permit
Holders Exempt from time limit to No Waiting at Any Time.
(vii) Snowdon
Mede: Change the restriction on the west side of Snowdon Mede from its
junction with Headley Way up to and including the turning area opposite
No 6 Snowdon Mede within the Permit Holder Only Parking area from Permit
Holder Only Parking (9.00am to 5.pm Monday to Friday) to
No Waiting at Any Time.
(viii) Draft TRO
– Exemption from Waiting Restrictions: Amend Article 6(10)(a) by removing
the words and brackets "[or adjacent to]" (ix)
Draft TRO – Exemptions – General Permitted Use: Amend Article
17(10)(a) by removing
the words and brackets "[or adjacent to]" (x) Draft TRO – Marking of Permit
Parking Places: Confirmation of Article 24. This Article should read:
"The limits of each Permit Parking Place, identified in Section 1 of Part
B of Schedule 4 and the limits of any Access Way in a Permit Parking Place
will be indicated by the Council on the
carriageway and in the vicinity by appropriate Traffic Signs/Markings.
(xi) Draft TRO
- Permit Formalities: Amend Article 35(3) to remove the requirement for
the time of day a vehicle is left in a parking space when validating
a Visitors Permit.
(b) authorise
the Head of Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport
to carry out further minor amendments to the scheme and the Traffic Regulation
Order that may be required when implementing the proposed parking zone.
STEVE HOWELL
Head of Transport
Background papers:
Document A: Pie Chart Analysis of Responses;
Consultation Contributors;
C omments and Recommendations.
Document B: Questionnaire Responses
Document C: Initial Consultation Details
Document D: Formal Consultation Details
Plan No H16650/A1/1001
Contact Officer:
Richard Kingshott Tel 01865 815716
July 2006
Return to TOP
|