|
Division(s): Headington and Marston ITEM TIC12 - ANNEX ATRANSPORT IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE – 20 JULY 2006OXFORD, NORTHWAY PARKING ZONESummary of Comments Received Officer Comment and Recommended Changes. Alesworth Grove. Residents consulted (13), Comments / Objections Received (2) One resident stated that parking should be provided for local people to park near the shops in Westlands Drive and that permits should be sent through the post. They also opposed fixed penalty fines and wondered what his relatives would do when they came to visit. Committee Recommendation – None Borrowmead Road. Residents consulted (58), Comments / Objections Received (4) Two residents expressed concerns or objections to paying for their permits. One of which felt that the Hospitals should pay. Committee Recommendation – None Broadhead Place. Residents consulted (12), Comments / Objections Received (2) Two residents objected to the new bus access to the Hospital in Saxon Way which does not form part of these proposals as it was subject to a previously approved planning application. One resident claimed that the scheme could not be designed as council officers did not know of proposed bus routes. Another wanted a direct bus link from a new park & ride at the A40/Marsh Lane Junction. Committee Recommendation – None Dora Carr Close. Residents consulted (34), Comments / Objections Received (3) One resident expressed concerns or objections to paying for their permits. Others made comments or requests concerning Disabled Persons Parking Places. Unfortunately research into these matters revealed that Dora Carr Close had not been adopted as Highway Maintainable at Public Expense. Committee Recommendation – paragraph 40 (a) (i). Dunstan Road. Residents consulted (20), Comments / Objections Received (3) One resided requested that the location of the 2 hour parking places near their property be changed. One resident was concerned about parking problems in Copse Lane (covered by the proposed Lakes Zone) Committee Recommendation – None Ethelred Court. Residents consulted (8), Comments / Objections Received (8) Most of those that replied wanted the road to be in Headington Central and not Northway. Their reasoning was that they have more of a connection with Old Headington and wish to have permits to visit shops and other services in Central Headington. However, they generally accept need for controls although some requested short-term parking. In most cases they supported minimum impact. One resident felt that there should have been more parking at hospital. Another was concerned about obstructive parking by parents dropping off children at the Nursery School. Committee Recommendation – None Foxwell Drive. Residents consulted (54), Comments / Objections Received (2) One resident requested short term parking (2 hours) scattered around the estate for short term visitors to relieve pressure on visitor permits. Another felt that problems were caused by residents not using their off street parking and that we should make them use it. Committee Recommendation – None Gorse Leas. Residents consulted (17), Comments / Objections Received (0) No comments received. Committee Recommendation – None Gouldland Gardens. Residents consulted (18), Comments / Objections Received (1) One resident objected but gave no reasons. Committee Recommendation – None Grunsell Close. Residents consulted (22), Comments / Objections Received (1) The resident objected to paying for permits, stating that it would effect social interaction and sense of community. There was also concern that 50 permits was not enough for the large number of daytime visitors they have and requested 2 hour parking places for short term visitors. Committee Recommendation – None Halliday Hill. Residents consulted (46), Comments / Objections Received (2) One resident objected to the size/weight limit as his vehicle would exceed it and that he had nowhere else to park it. Another resident wanted visitor permits to be valid overnight and they objected to paying for their permits and felt that the scheme "excluded their rights". Committee Recommendation – None Ingle Close. Residents consulted (25), Comments / Objections Received (2) Two Residents were concerned that the scheme would not solve existing obstructive parking in the turning area at the end of the close. Additional no waiting at any time, within the Permit Holders Only area would protect the more vulnerable locations. Site observations suggest that in practice this could displace up to 4 vehicles. These would have to park in more appropriate locations. These would be in either Ingle Close or Dunstan Road a short distance away. Committee Recommendation – paragraph 40 (a) (ii). John Buchan Road. Residents consulted (36), Comments / Objections Received (5) Three residents objected to or had concerns about the size/weight limit as their vehicles would exceed it and that he had nowhere else to park it. Concerns or objections were also expressed about paying for their permits and that the scheme would not prevent obstructive parking including access ways. There were also concerns that 50 permits was not enough for the large number of daytime visitors they have and requested 2 hour parking places for short term visitors. Committee Recommendation – None Maltfield Road. Residents consulted (32), Comments / Objections Received (0) No comments received. Committee Recommendation – None Meaden Hill. Residents consulted (29), Comments / Objections Received (0) No comments received. Committee Recommendation – None Milne Place. Residents consulted (11), Comments / Objections Received (0) No comments received. Committee Recommendation – None TIC_JUL2006R10.doc TIC12 - page 8 Saxon Way. Residents consulted (28), Comments / Objections Received (6) Three residents expressed concerns or objections to paying for their permits. Concerns were raised about access ways being obstructed, while another resident said that there was no parking problem. Another wanted the scheme to be resident parking as introduced in Old Headington. There was also an objection to the proposed new bus route (which does not form part of this order). However the resident also drew our attention to the difficulties staff, from a residential care home, currently have when pushing wheelchairs. Committee Recommendation – None Stainfield Road. Residents consulted (20), Comments / Objections Received (2) One resident objected to the lack of short term parking (1 and 2 hours) scattered throughout the zone. Also objected to "one permit per household" (not proposed). Committee Recommendation – None Steep Rise. Residents consulted (8), Comments / Objections Received (0) No comments received. Committee Recommendation – None Stockleys Road. Residents consulted (58), Comments / Objections Received (6) One resident requested 3 hour parking places for their visitors. A resident expressed concerns or objections to paying for their permits. Concerns were also expressed about access ways being obstructed and work vans taking up additional space. Committee Recommendation – None Sutton Road. Residents consulted (31), Comments / Objections Received (4) Local Church wants exemptions from restrictions for pastoral visitors and large events as well as funerals. One resident made comments concerning off–street parking issues outside the control of the County Council and objected to the introduction of charges for resident permits. A resident was also concerned that the scheme does not provide enough parking for residents. They were also concerned that 50 permits were not enough for all their daytime visitors. A resident of Broadhead Place queried the no waiting at any time in Sutton Road and around its junction with Westlands Drive. Committee Recommendation – None Upway Road. Residents consulted (27), Comments / Objections Received (2) A resident expressed concern about paying for their permits. Another mentioned that their access ways were being obstructed and objected to vehicles having to be registered in their name as they either hire or borrow vehicles when they need them. Committee Recommendation – None Westlands Drive. Residents consulted (107), Comments / Objections Received (3) One resident objected to "one permit per household" (not proposed), Also 50 permits would not be enough for their mother who baby–sits three times a week. A resident objects to paying for their permits and felt that the Hospitals should pay. One resident made comments concerning provision of additional off–street parking on land outside the control of the County Council. Another resident objects to not being able to park in exactly the same place as they do at the moment and mentions problems with youths and damage to vehicles around the shops. Another resident requests exemptions for her disabled daughter. Committee Recommendation – None Formal Consultees. One suggestion was returned concerning the requirement to enter the time of day in the visitors parking permits. It was felt that this was superfluous as these permits were not 24 hour but only valid for a calendar day. Committee Recommendation – paragraph 40 (a) (iii). |