Return to Items for DecisionDelegated Decisions by Cabinet Member for Transport – 4 September 2008Statement of Decision
Exclusion of Residential Properties from Headington Central Controlled Parking Zone Order, Oxford
Present:
Also in attendance:
Documentation considered:
A copy is attached to the signed copy of this decision. Summary of representations in person
Speaking as a City Councillor and resident of North Close Dee Sinclair supported the proposal to remove parking permit eligibility from a number of residential properties and visitor parking permits. She was concerned that at the moment there was some confusion among residents because some were getting permits while others were not. This had been largely due to a lack of communication between the City and County Councils but it was clear that a decision had been taken to exclude all residents.
Mr Ponting endorsed that view adding that these developments had been agreed as car free developments. He also referred to the lack of communication and the need to enforce the planning decision to restrict parking with a traffic regulation order. Residents were unhappy with the situation and the amendment should be made.
Mr Jarecky sympathised with the other speakers but was unhappy that his property would no longer be eligible for a parking permit. These proposals would result in a loss in any resale value and impact on his personal travel requirements for work. Many properties were losing parking spaces but some seemed to be gaining space and he referred to a recent decision at Lime walk. As a Council tax payer he was concerned at having his permit revoked through no fault of his own.
Mr Tole accepted a lack of communication between the two Councils but emphasised that this would be the last time that a decision would be needed to remove properties where permits had existed. The County Council appreciated that revocation represented a significant change in lifestyle which was why the recommendation in the report was to continue the status quo for the current year with an option for residents to reapply for a further year to allow time for residents to adjust to the change and if they wished to apply to have the planning condition removed. He advised that this was what had happened in Lime walk as referred to by Mr Jarecky.
Responding to Councillor Hudspeth he advised that although the system was now robust and that future property search enquiries would reveal the parking situation the County Council would need to look at the process where properties were rented.
Cabinet Member’s Comments
Councillor Hudspeth sympathised with residents who felt they were being penalised but this proposal responded to a planning condition imposed by the City Council which needed to be enforced and it was for residents to decide how they wished to take this forward.
Decision
Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before me, the representations made to me and the further considerations set out above, I confirm my decisions on this matter as follows:
to agree implementation of proposed revisions to the Headington Central Traffic Regulation Order as advertised.
Signed ...................................................................... Cabinet Member for Transport
Date …………………………………. |
||||||||||