ITEM CMDT3
CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT - 4 SEPTEMBER 2008
EXCLUSION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM HEADINGTON CENTRAL CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE ORDER, OXFORD
Report by Head of Transport
Introduction
1. The purpose of this report is to consider comments and objections received to a formal advertisement and statutory consultation on varying the Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) for the Headington Central Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in Oxford to exclude a number of residential properties from eligibility for resident and visitor parking permits. These proposals arise out of various planning permissions that have been granted by Oxford City Council where consent was conditional upon removal of permit eligibility.
Background
2. Oxford City Council, as the local planning authority, seeks to remove entitlement to resident parking permits for certain properties within CPZs in connection with the granting of planning permission. Such permissions may be for the conversion of single dwellings into multiple residential units, extensions or for infill developments. The reason for the planning conditions is generally to ensure that the new developments do not generate a level of vehicular parking which would be prejudicial to highway safety or contribute towards parking problems in the immediate locality. In some cases the exclusion is contained within an agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. At this meeting on 3 January 2008
I presented a report on the outcome of consultation on proposals to exclude a
number of properties within the various CPZs, including Headington Central.
Since then a number of additional developments where planning consent has been
granted conditional upon permit exclusion have been identified in this zone,
and these have been the subject of public consultation. There has also been a
clarification of the naming/numbering of the dwellings within the development
originally described as 138-140 London Road (which was excluded in the January
report), which are now included for the avoidance of doubt. In addition, the
owner of one property that was excluded following the January report has
subsequently had a revised planning consent granted by the City Council such that
the property’s entitlement to permits has been reinstated, and this has been
included within the consultation. Public Consultation
4. Consultation was carried out between 20 June and 18 July 2008 on proposals to implement planning conditions for 7 developments covering 44 dwellings. For each site, notices were placed outside all affected properties and letters sent to all the respective households, informing them of the proposed changes to the existing TROs. In addition, the proposals were advertised in the local newspaper and information sent to local Councillors and other consultees. A copy of the public notice is attached at Annex 1 (download as .doc file)
5. In total, 12 letters or e-mails were received in response to the advertised proposals. These are summarised together with the observations of the Head of Transport at Annex 2 (download as .doc file). Copies of all these communications are on deposit in the Members’ Resource Centre.
6. The majority of responses are from residents who currently have parking permits which they would lose if the proposal is agreed. They argue that they were not informed of any restriction on permit eligibility when they moved to the property; that property of this type is expected to have parking and that they have had permits for several years without causing any problems in the area. Several explain that they need a car to reach workplaces which are inaccessible by other means; others comment on the reduction in property value that would result from the implementation of the proposal. Another comment involved the loss of visitor permits in an area with limited evening/weekend space available for non-permit holders which would remove the capability for residents to have visitors.
7. Two responses have been received from residents living in properties not proposed for exclusion, who welcome the proposals as this is what was agreed as part of the granting of planning consent for the developments.
Conclusion
8. Whilst it is acknowledged that the removal of permit eligibility may cause difficulties for those residents directly affected, it is also important to recognise the undertakings given to the local community by the local planning authority during consideration of planning applications. As a result, and in line with previous cases, it is recommended that the objections be over-ruled and that the exclusions take place. This will mean that once existing permits expire, the residents at these properties will no longer be eligible for resident or visitor permits. However, to allow existing residents time to adjust to their exclusion, it is therefore proposed that residents with current permits be allowed to apply for renewal for one more year before the exclusion is implemented. This will also give sufficient time for those residents who wish to to apply to the City Council for planning permission to amend the current consent and allow permit eligibility. If successful the TRO can be amended accordingly.
How the Project Supports LTP2 Objectives
9. The reduction in parking described in this report complies with the LTP2 objectives of Tackling Congestion (encouraging development that minimises congestion) and improving the Street Environment (better management of parking).
Financial Implications (including Revenue)
10. Funding for the costs of advertising the TROs is available from Section 106 and other agreements held by the County Council.
RECOMMENDATION
11. The Cabinet Member for Transport is RECOMMENDED to agree implementation of proposed revisions to the Headington Central Traffic Regulation Order as advertised.
STEVE HOWELL Head of Transport Environment & Economy
Background papers: Planning consents issued by Oxford City Council Copies of all the letters are available in the Members’ Resource room.
Contact Officer: David Tole Tel 01865 815942
August 2008 |