Meeting documents

Return to Items for Decision

ITEM CMDT3

CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT - 6 OCTOBER 2006

OXFORD, MARSTON SOUTH CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE

Report by Head of Transport

1. This report outlines the statutory consultation process on the Draft Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) for the proposed Marston South Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and provides information on the policy context, development of the process to date, an outline of the consultation carried out, specific issues that have been raised by the residents and recommendations in light of responses received.

Policy Context

2. The policy context for the Marston South CPZ is contained in the County Council’s Local Transport Plan (LTP2) for 2006 - 2011. The LTP2 identifies five priorities for transport scheme development: tackling congestion, delivering accessibility, safer roads, better air quality and improving the street environment.
3. The plan also includes a parking strategy, which recognises that controlled parking zones (CPZs) have an important role to play in controlling the overall level of peak hour traffic within Oxford’s Ring Road and so helping tackle congestion in the city. It is also recognised that CPZs help to protect local streets from intrusive long-stay commuter parking.
4. 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 congestion associated with the large and expanding hospital and university establishments.
5. The introduction of CPZs in the areas close to the John Radcliffe Hospital was previously included in the Headington and Marston Area Transport Strategy (HAMATS) along with a number of other transport schemes. The County Executive endorsed this strategy on 12 November 2002.
6. The principles of HAMATS to tackle the traffic related problems in the area are consistent with the objectives of the LTP2, particularly given that the number of staff working at the John Radcliffe Hospital on the Headley Way site is due to increase by over 1200 in January 2007 following the closure of the Radcliffe Infirmary on Woodstock Road.
7. There are also specific commuter parking problems in the area close to the Oxford Brookes University School of Healthcare. These problems have been particularly acute in the roads immediately surrounding this site. Complaints from many local residents in Harberton Mead and Jack Straws Lane have been received where they are regularly inconvenienced by student and staff parking.

Initial Consultation Process - 6 February 2006 to 3 March 2006

8. An explanatory leaflet was prepared outlining the broad principles of a CPZ and how it might operate. It also included a questionnaire, the response to which was used as an aid in the creation of the overall scheme design in conjunction with policies contained within the LTP and HAMATS.
9. The questionnaire sought to ascertain the likely support for such a scheme, preference for the days during which parking restrictions would operate and the timing of those restrictions and the time limits of any nearby short term parking. It also provided a choice about the type of restriction residents would prefer across their driveway access; ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ or’ Community Management’.
10. Initial consultation packs including the explanatory leaflet were sent to every resident and organisation within the zone. An example of a pack can be seen in background Document C which is available in the Members’ Resource Centre.
11. This consultation received 463 responses out of 1404 sent out. The initial reaction to the proposed introduction of a CPZ was marginally favourable with 263 (57%) supporting the outline proposals and 200 (43%) not. Residents also seemed to prefer weekday restrictions only. A total of 222 (48%) responses opted for the restrictions to operate between Monday to Friday, 45 (10%) Monday to Saturday and 101 (22%) all week. The remaining 20% expressed no preference.
12. With regard to the timing of restrictions, shorter restrictions were preferred with 179 (39%) responses opting for 9.00am to 5.00pm, 106 (23%) for 8.00am to 6:30pm and 82 (18%) for 24 hours. The remaining 20% expressed no preference. Residents preference for nearby limited waiting was 178 (38%) responses for 1 hour, 138 (30%) preferred 2 hour and 76 (16%) preferred 3 hour. The remaining 16% expressed no preference.
13. Before the broad principles of the scheme design were agreed a meeting was held with the two local members, Councillor Gail Bones and Councillor Altaf Khan. After careful consideration and with reference to the policies contained within LTP2 and HAMATS it was decided to continue to progress the scheme to the formal stage based on the results of the initial consultation.
14. The chosen restrictions for permit holder only parking would be 9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday. Any limited waiting within the vicinity of shops would be one hour 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday, without exemption for permit holders. However any general short term parking would be for 2 or 3 hours from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday with permit holders exempt from time limit.
15. Prior to the initial detailed design of the scheme the accuracy of the base plan information was checked. All the streets within the zone were re-surveyed and locations of access ways, lamp columns and fire hydrants correctly identified. An outline detailed design was then prepared.

Additional Consultations

16. In order to refine the design process further and to discuss specific issues in certain streets, a workshop was held with representatives of various residents groups on 16 March 2006 at St Michaels School, Marston Road. As well as Oxfordshire Highways officers, Councillors Gail Bones and Altaf Khan also attend.
17. The main points of contention were the proposals for William Street and Ferry Road. The New Marston representatives were particularly concerned about the proposals which only allowed parking on one side of both roads and so would not provide sufficient space for all residents to park their cars. Residents wanted parking similar to the existing situation to provide more space.
18. Local representatives were also concerned about some of the proposed parking in Harberton Mead which was deemed obstructive. Other residents from Feilden Grove and Jack Straws Lane were mainly information gathering.
19. Following the workshop, local residents’ meetings were held to discuss the proposals. The resulting feedback was sent onto the design team who then were able to prepare the detailed proposals. Scheme amendments included revised proposals for William Street, Ferry Road and Harberton Mead.
20. A further public meeting in the form of a drop in session was held on 16 May 2006 at St Michaels’ School. All residents were invited to attend and review the more detailed proposals which them to ask questions and discuss any concerns. Some 83 comments were received requesting changes to the zone, 24 of which came from William Street along with another 14 general comments. Specific concern was still expressed about the revised proposals for William Street, in particular where parking was still deemed inadequate.
21. Further revisions to the proposals were made following this meeting to Crotch Crescent, Edgeway Road, Feilden Grove, Ferry Road, Hadow Road, Hayes Close, Hugh Allen Crescent, Marston Road and William Street.
22. The proposals were then examined in detail, street by street, to confirm that the parking locations were safe and that in overall terms the scheme complied with Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  Ferry Road and William Street

23. These two roads have proved to be the most difficult in creating a design which satisfies local residents. Both roads have little off-street parking and residential on-street parking demand is high. The problem is compounded as both roads are narrow and it is not possible to provide parking on both sides of the road on the carriageway.
24. Currently, when parking, vehicles straddle the footway at times causing it to be obstructed. The initial proposals for both roads provided parking on the carriageway on one side of the road only, to ensure that the footways were kept clear for all users at all times. However these proposals would have resulted in the displacement of a large number of vehicles into adjacent roads.
25. Local residents found these proposals unacceptable. A series of designs were then developed which gradually increased the parking capacity in both streets. Ferry Road representatives appeared to be satisfied with the final scheme which catered for the residential parking demand by incorporating footway parking on both sides of the road and also protected a minimum footway width of 1.2 metres.
26. The final design for William Street was similar but as the street is narrower, the minimum footway width has been reduced to 1.0 metre. However this minimum is exceeded in many locations. Again this solution provides for the on-street parking demand but at the same time keeps the footway much clearer for pedestrians, parents with children and disabled users.

Minimum Impact Scheme Request

27. Soon after the initial consultation process commenced the New Marston South Residents Association (RA) requested that local people within the area be consulted on a Minimum Impact Scheme (MIS) but especially in William Street. The RA wanted to keep the present parking arrangements but without the associated sign clutter and formality of a CPZ which it felt an MIS would provide. A survey of local residents conducted by the RA suggested that there was a wish to be consulted on an MIS in their area.
28. It is the officers view that both Ferry Road and William Street are not suitable for the introduction of an MIS. The issue of differing views between local residents and the County Council has generated a considerable amount of correspondence which has involved local Members and the Cabinet Member for Transport.
29. A letter sent to residents on 5 July 2006. Annex B (download as .doc file) to this report provides a summary of why the council supports its existing proposals. It also sets out how these proposals address concerns raised by residents in relation to the amount of parking space and the signing and lining of the proposals.

  Formal Consultation Process – 10 July 2006 to 11 August 2006

30. A total of 1404 consultation packs were delivered to every resident and organisation within the zone (background Document D, which is available in the Members’ Resource Centre). A further 51 packs were sent to formal consultees. Each consultee was sent a Draft Order, Notice and Statement of Reasons and a copy of Plan No. BPN20697/A3001 showing the zone. Examples are also in Document D.
31. Packs were also provided for public inspection at Old Marston Library, Headington Library, Oxford 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 advertised in the Oxford Times on 7 July 2006.
32. Given the amount of interest in the proposals for William Street and Ferry Road, residents of these streets were sent an additional covering letter and explanatory note respectively. These are also included in Document D.
33. In total the proposed scheme provided approximately 992 permit holder only spaces, 10 three hour shared use parking spaces, 186 two hour shared use parking spaces and 18 one hour short stay parking. This amounts to a total of 1206 parking spaces. Permit holders will be able to use 196 of the short term spaces without time restriction. This provides permit holders with a capacity of 1188 on-street parking places when compared with an estimated on-street demand of approximately 583 (established in a parking survey conducted on 23 November 2005. It should be noted that this estimate includes ‘Community Management’ spaces.
34. Since the formal consultation further amendments have been recommended as detailed in this report which result in the addition of 10 three hour shared use spaces and the removal of 15 Permit Holder Only spaces. Therefore this would provide permit holders with a capacity of 1183 on-street parking places.
35. The formal consultation process resulted in 309 (22%) responses. All the returned questionnaires and accompanying letters can be viewed in Document B, (available in the Members’ Resource Centre).
36. For the scheme as a whole, 118 residents (8.5% of all zone consultees; 38% of replies received) either supported or strongly supported the scheme, 148 residents (10.5% of all zone consultees; 48% of replies received) objected or strongly objected to the scheme. A further 43 residents (3% of all zone consultees; 14% of all replies received) neither supported nor objected to the scheme. The remaining 1104 (78%) did not reply.
37. However, of those residents that objected to the scheme, 65 residents (44% of those who objected; 21% of replies received) said they would support the scheme if all the changes they requested were made.
38. A synopsis of each comment or objection together with the officers’ response and recommendation can be found in Document A, (available 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 by road of these comments is set out at Annex A (download as .doc file).

Proposed Permit Parking Charges

39. This latest consultation (10 July 2006 to 11 August 2006) on the Draft TRO for Marston South overlapped with another formal consultation related to parking in Oxford. That consultation, on the introduction of charges for residents and visitor permits in Oxford took place between 9 June 2006 to 20 July 2006.
40. An analysis of the parking charges consultation revealed that some 373 residents responded from within the Marston South CPZ area. Similar examination of the Marston South CPZ consultation shows that 67 residents made comments or objected to the introduction of the CPZ which related to the proposed charges.
41. When considering the Marston South CPZ consultation alone, 22 residents cited charging as an objection but did not respond to the charging consultation. Of those, 11 objected to the CPZ consultation stating charging as an objection, 5 supported the CPZ but objected to being charged and 5 neither supported nor objected to the CPZ scheme but objected to charging. One resident supported the scheme and suggested alternative charges.
42. A further 44 residents responded to the Marston South CPZ consultation but also replied to the charging consultation. Of these 8 residents supported the CPZ scheme but objected to charging, 16 opposed the CPZ scheme stating charging as their only objection and 20 opposed the scheme stating charging as one of their objections. One person responded to the CPZ consultation and objected to charging but did not provide their address and therefore cannot be referenced against the parking charges consultation.
43. Because some residents responded to both consultations and for completeness and to ensure that all information regarding attitudes of residents to the proposed permit charges is available, both consultation results have been combined. These have been included in Part 2 of Document A. In total the response of some 390 residents (28%) can be considered from within the zone.
44. Some 250 (64%) residents thought that the proposed charges for residents permits were too high, 83 (21%) thought they were about right and 15 (4%) thought they were too low; 45 (11%) did not answer.
45. With regard to visitor permits 229 (59%) residents thought that the proposed charges were too high, 99 (25%) thought they were about right and 6 (2%) thought they were too low; 56 (14%) did not answer.
46. When asked if residents agreed that there is a case for introducing permit charges 250 (64%) residents replied No; 106 (27%) residents replied Yes and the remaining 31(8%) did not answer.

Issues Arising from the Formal CPZ Consultation

47. There was continued pressure from the residents of Edgeway Road, Ferry Road and William Street for the introduction of a Minimum Impact Zone in these roads. From Edgeway Road, 6 residents from the 96 consulted requested an MIS. A further 6 requests for an MIS came from Ferry Road where 128 residents were consulted.
48. The highest number of MIS requests came from William Street where 10 residents requested such a zone from a possible 82 in the whole street. Across the whole zone a further 10 requests came from residents in Hayes Close, Peacock Road, Pritchard Road and Purcell Road making 32 requests in all. However an MIS does not form part of the formal proposals as their success still needs to be demonstrated, (the Northway and Lakes areas will have a MIS CPZ introduced in November 2006).
49. Representations have been received from the shop owners of Nos. 402 and 404 Marston Road. They have requested that all the 8 two hour shared use spaces in the Service Road be re-designated solely for customer use.
50. The designated parking places in the Service Road need to be available to residents and visitors of the adjoining 6 residential properties as well as shop customers as at present. Therefore the proposed two hour shared use designation is to remain.
51. However in order to make more parking spaces available, additional two hour shared use parking is proposed outside Nos. 382 to 392 Marston Road. Four of the spaces in the Service Road need to be altered to be positioned partly on the pavement to allow the safe and convenient movement of larger vehicles along there.
52. A number of comments were received about the lack of parking restrictions in Ferry Lane. This road is not a highway maintainable at public expense. Legal advice has recommended that the parking restrictions should not be applied to the road. However, residents would still be able to apply for residents and visitor permits. The impact of the introduction of a CPZ in the area surrounding Ferry Lane would be monitored in the first few months of the scheme’s operation.
53. Further investigations into the status of Doris Field Close and Lynn Close have revealed that sections of both streets are not adopted highway and fall within a Private Street Agreement. The sections of road affected are outside Nos. 4 to 10 Doris Field Close and 33 to 38 Lynn Close. Therefore parking restrictions should not be applied to these sections of road but residents should still be allowed to apply for residents and visitor permits. A letter was sent out to all residents concerned on 31 August 2006 advising them of the situation. Any responses will be reported at the meeting.
54. It was brought to the attention of officers that properties in Oxford Road, (Nos.148-154 and 143-147) were included within the zone in error as they were outside the original zone boundary. In view of this, it is necessary to remove these properties from the scheme. A letter was sent to all the residents concerned on 31 August 2006, advising them of the anomaly. Any responses will be reported at the meeting.
55. A request has been received to include Goodson Walk for resident and visitor permit eligibility. Goodson Walk is in fact a footway leading to 11 properties and residents or their visitors would be able to park in adjacent local roads. The scheme design capacity in these roads could absorb any additional parking.
56. 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 at Annex A (download as .doc file) and in the recommendations at the end of this report. The Annex summarises the main points emanating from the consultation, full details of which can be found in Document A.

Representations Received Following Formal Consultation

57. A local resident’s survey carried out on 18 August 2006 by the New Marston South Residents’ Association (RA) was presented to the Council. A copy of this survey has been included in Document A Part 1 and reflect the views of 71 residents within 10 local streets which include Edgeway Road, Ferry Road, Ferry Lane, Hugh Allen Crescent, Peacock Road, Pritchard Road, Purcell Road, Marston Road, Moody Road and William Street.
58. It is difficult to ascertain if those residents also responded to the Marston South formal consultation. The total number of residences in all these roads was 673 giving a response rate of 11% for this RA survey.
59. The majority of respondents (60) to this RA survey stated that they wanted a ‘Residents Parking Scheme’. The same number (60) preferred to see the introduction of a Minimum Impact Scheme (MIS) instead of the County Council’s proposal. A total of 47 residents preferred the zone restriction times to be reduced to 10.00am to 4.00pm and a total 53 residents wanted 2 hour short term parking within their street.
60. In response, an MIS would require special authorisation from the Department for Transport and the new zones within Oxford are as yet untried and untested. As such the zones need to be properly evaluated and any lessons learned can then be applied to any future zones where they are deemed suitable. In the case of William Street in particular, the letter at Annex B (download as .doc file) explains why an MIS would not be suitable for the road, even if it could be shown that the MIS approach to CPZs is a good one in general (see para 48).

Environmental Implications

61. As far as possible, the impact of signs and lines required for the zone would be minimised through careful design whilst balancing this against the need for enforceability of the zone. Existing poles and lamp columns will be used for signs when practical and any new posts will be sited as sensitively as possible.

How the Project Supports LTP2 Objectives

62. Together with other CPZs in the Headington area, the Marston South CPZ will prevent commuters from parking and continuing their journey to the John Radcliffe Hospital. It will also prevent commuters parking in local streets in the vicinity of the Oxford Brookes University School of Healthcare.
63. The introduction of the Marston South CPZ 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.
64. Such a change in travel behaviour will reduce the overall level of traffic, having a 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 and Staff Implications

65. The total cost of the proposed zone is estimated at £135,000, with implementation costs in the region of £45,000. The scheme is part of the 2006/07 Capital Programme outlined in the Local Transport Plan approved by Cabinet on 22 February 2006. Part of the scheme would be funded from S106 developer contributions.
    
    (Statement for Decision)
    

RECOMMENDATIONS

66. The Cabinet Member for Transport is RECOMMENDED to:

1. approve the "Marston South" Controlled Parking Zone for implementation subject to incorporating the following amendments to the advertised draft Traffic Regulation Order as shown on Plan No. BPN20697/A3002:

1. Croft Close: Add Croft Close – The whole Road – to Schedule 4 Part A, Postal Addresses for Eligibility to Apply for Permits;
2. Crotch Crescent: Change the restriction outside No 38 Crotch Crescent from No Waiting at Any Time, to Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday);
3. Crotch Crescent: Change the restriction outside the access to Nos. 24 & 26 Crotch Crescent from Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at any Time;
4. Doris Field Close: Remove the No Waiting at Any Time restriction within the Private Street outside the frontages of Nos. 8 to 10 Doris Field Close;
5. Doris Field Close: Remove the No Waiting (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday restriction within the Private Street outside the frontages of Nos. 4 to 7 Doris Field Close;
6. Feilden Grove: Change the restriction, (with the exception of a 10 metre length) outside Nos. 2 & 4 Feilden Grove from Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
7. Feilden Grove: Change the restriction from a point 7.5 metres south east of the Harberton Mead southern junction kerbline, on the south west side for a distance of 10 metres south eastwards from No Waiting at Any Time, to Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday);
8. Feilden Grove: Change the restriction east of the common property boundary of Nos. 3 and 5 Feilden Grove from Two Hour parking (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit to No Waiting at Any Time;
9. Ferry Road: Change the restriction outside No 2 Ferry Road from No Waiting at Any Time, to Permit Holder Only (Footway) Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) for a distance of 5 metres;
10. Ferry Road: Change the restriction across the driveway of No 9 and 11 Ferry Road from Permit Holder Only (Footway) Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at any Time;
11. Ferry Road: Change the restriction outside No 19 Ferry Road from No Waiting at any Time, to Permit Holder Only (Footway) Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) over a 10 metre length;
12. Ferry Road: Change the restriction outside No 21 Ferry Road from Permit Holder Only (Footway) Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
13. Ferry Road: Change the restriction outside Nos. 24 and 26 Ferry Road from Three Hour (Footway) Parking (8.00am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders exempt from Time Limit, to Permit Holder Only (Footway) Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday);
14. Ferry Road: Change the easterly restriction outside the frontage of No 119 Ferry Road from Permit Holder Only (Footway) Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at any Time;
15. Goodson Walk: Add Goodson Walk – The whole Road – to Schedule 4 Part A, Postal Addresses for Eligibility to Apply for Permits;
16. Hadow Road: Change the restriction between the accesses of No 2 Hadow Road and 77 Crotch Crescent from Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to Two Hour parking (8.00am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit;
17. Hadow Road: Change the restriction across the access of No. 4 Hadow Road from Permit Holders Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
18. Hadow Road: Change the restriction outside No. 7 Hadow Road from Two Hour parking (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit, to Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday);
19. Hadow Road: Change the restrictions outside the accesses to Nos. 7 and 9 Hadow Road from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday);
20. Hadow Road: Change the restriction outside Nos. 9 and 11 Hadow Road from Two Hour parking (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit, to Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday);
21. Hadow Road: Change the restrictions outside the accesses to Nos. 11 and 13 Hadow Road from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday);
22. Hayes Close: Change the restrictions in front of No. 34 Hayes Close from Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday), to No Waiting at Any Time;
23. Jack Straws Lane: Change the restriction outside the eastern frontage of 29 Jack Straws Lane and outside Nos. 2 and 4 Milham Place from No Waiting at Any Time to Permit Holder Only Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) over a 9 metre length;
24. John Garne Way: Amend John Garne Way in Schedule 4 Part A, Postal Addresses for Eligibility to Apply for Permits by deleting ‘The whole road’ and inserting ‘Odd numbers 1 to 29’;
25. Lynn Close: Remove the No Waiting at Any Time restrictions within the Private Street south of the northern property boundary of No 37 Lynn Close on both sides of the road;
26. Change the restriction across the accesses of Nos. 283 and 285 Marston Road from Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
27. Marston Road: Change the restrictions outside (except the access ways) Nos. 382, 386/388 and 390/392 Marston Road from No Waiting at Any Time, to Two Hour parking (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit;
28. Marston Road: Change the parking restrictions outside Nos 394/396 and 406/408 Marston Road from Two Hour parking (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit to Two Hour Footway parking (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit;
29. Old Marston Road / Oxford Road: Delete Section 18 Old Marston Road / Oxford Road from Schedule Part B Permit Holder Parking Places (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday);
30. Old Marston Road / Oxford Road: Amend Section 20 in Schedule 2 Part A No Waiting at Any Time to read "Old Marston Road – Both sides : From the western kerb line of the Marston Road junction to the Peasmoor Brook boundary except for any length described in Part B of Schedule 2";
31. Oxford Road: Remove Oxford Road from Schedule 4 Part A Postal Addresses for Eligibility to Apply for Permits. (Even numbers 148 to 154, Odd numbers 141 to 147);
32. Ouseley Close: Change restrictions across the accesses to Nos. 18 and 20 Ouseley Close from Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday), to No Waiting at Any Time;
33. Staunton Road: Amend Staunton Road in Schedule 4 Part A, Postal Addresses for Eligibility to Apply for Permits by deleting ‘The whole road’ and inserting ‘Even numbers 104 to 116’ and ‘Odd numbers 119 to 133’;
34. Taverner Place: Change the restrictions immediately north of the junction bellmouth with Croft Road on the northwest side  from No Waiting at Any Time, to Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) for a distance of 5 metres northeastwards;
35. Taverner Place: Change the restrictions outside No 5 Taverner Close from No Waiting (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time from the start of the turning bay north-westwards for a distance of 8 metres;
36. Taverner Place: Change the restrictions outside Nos. 7 and 9 Taverner Place from No Waiting (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) to Permit Holder Only Parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) from the southwest corner of the turning bay, 4.5 metres south-eastwards and 2.5metres north eastwards;
37. Taverner Place: Change the restrictions outside No 6 and 8 Taverner Place from No Waiting (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
38. Taverner Place: Change the restrictions outside No 10 Taverner Place from No Waiting (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) to Permit Holder only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) from the northeast corner of the turning bay, 4.5 metres eastwards and 2.5metres south-eastwards;
39. Weldon Road: Change the restrictions across the accesses of Nos. 4 and 6 Weldon Road from Permit Holders Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
40. Weldon Road: Change the restrictions across the accesses to Nos. 48 and 50 Weldon Road from Permit Holder Only parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
41. Weldon Road: Change the restrictions outside the frontages of Nos. 54 to 58 Weldon Road from No Waiting (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
42. William Street: Change the restrictions alongside No 238 Marston Road from Two Hour Footway Parking (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit to No Waiting at Any Time over a length of 5 metres nearest the Marston Road junction;
43. William Street: Change the restrictions outside the access to No. 31a William Street from Permit Holders Only Footway parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to No Waiting at Any Time;
44. William Street: Change the restrictions outside Nos. 49 to 61 William Street from Permit Holder Only Footway parking (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) to Two Hour Footway Parking (8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday) Permit Holders Exempt from Time Limit;
45. Draft TRO Amendment: Schedule 1 - Stated Area

Delete lines 13 to 18 and insert "Road until it meets Peasmoor Brook, then approximately north eastwards following the line of the brook along the southeast boundaries of Nos. 154 and 147 Oxford Road, the southern boundaries of Nos. 2 to 42 Beechey Avenue until it meets the rear";

46. Draft TRO Amendment: Change all references to South Marston to Marston South. All designation letters to read MS;
47. Draft TRO Amendment: Part 1 General Article 3 Definitions - Registered Owner / Keeper "(d) a person who has established to the satisfaction of the council that he has the permanent use of a specified vehicle, that his employer for whom he works full-time has an arrangement with a vehicle leasing business for the lease of that vehicle and that the person whose name appears in the vehicle registration document of the vehicle and in whose name the vehicle is registered at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is that vehicle leasing business provided always that where such circumstances apply save that the person works part-time only then at the absolute discretion of the council such person may be treated as a Registered Owner/Keeper for the purposes of this Order."

2. postpone consideration of the introduction of Permit Parking Charges within the zone as advertised pending the outcome of a final Cabinet decision on the introduction of charges for parking permits in Oxford;
3. authorise the Head of Transport in liaison with the Cabinet Member for Transport to carry out any further minor amendments that may be required when implementing the proposed parking zone;
4. instruct the Head of Transport to review the scheme in 18 months time, subject to staff resources being available to carry out this work.

September 2006

Return to TOP