Issue - meetings

Cabinet Member: Environment

Forward Plan Ref: 2018/006

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader, Area Operations Hub Tel: (01865) 810228

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CA6).

The report considers the proposed provision of residents and visitors parking permits to Wingfield House, 2A Gathorne Road, Headington, Oxford, following the rescission of the previous decision by the Cabinet Member for Environment on 8 February 2018.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED not to approve the proposed changes to the CPZ Order as set out in the report.

Recommendation agreed

Cabinet considered a report relating to the proposed provision of residents and visitors parking permits to Wingfield House, 2A Gathorne Road, Headington, Oxford, following the rescission of the previous decision by the Cabinet Member for Environment on 8 February 2018.

The Chairman referred to late representations Cabinet Members had received that morning. He invited Mr Philcox to address the points made to share them with the meeting and added that if necessary he would allow Mr Philcox additional time.

Julian Philcox, Director, JP Planning Ltd, spoke against the recommendation. He highlighted his email and attachments of 4^th May 2018 including a letter dated 4^th May), a parking stress survey (5^th February 2018) and the ‘Powergen’ Court of Appeal Case. He was concerned that no regard had been given to this material. The Powergen case was vital in considering whether it was possible to re-open a case determined by a planning inspector. The parking stress survey showed a significant underutilisation of parking. Mr Philcox referred to the decision of the planning inspector stating that the decision had been open to challenge but no such challenge had been made. There had been three opportunities to look at this decision during the planning decision process including the opportunity to appeal the inspector’s decision. Mr Philcox stressed the principle established by Powergen and the duty to co-operate. Nothing had materially changed since the decision and he called on Cabinet to make the difficult decision in the face of opposition to allow the changes to the CPZ order. He stated that there was capacity and that there would be no impact on parking stress or parking safety. He urged Cabinet not to ignore the Inspector’s decision and the principle of Powergen nor to rely on what he believed was flawed consultation.

Responding to questions from Councillor Constance, Mr Philcox clarified that the information had been submitted late as he and his client had not been notified of the consultation process, had only met with the case officer last week and had felt that they had to respond to the Cabinet report. On paragraph 34 of the report which was highlighted by Councillor Constance to illustrate that it was open to the cabinet member to make a separate decision Mr Philcox refuted this as he believed that the appeal inspector’s decision left no wriggle room.

Harold Grant, as the developer, builder and landlord of Wingfield House commented that he had sent fuller comments to Cabinet Members. He agreed with all that had been said by Mr Philcox and was of the view that the matter had not been dealt with for the best of all involved. No residents should have any concerns over the provision of basic needs for parking. The Council had a duty to be fair to all residents. This matter had already been determined by the Secretary of State through the planning process. The continuation of the consultation had been an attempt to justify the recommendation not to change  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47