Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2016/032

Contact: Owen Jenkins, Service Manager for Highways, Transport and Waste Tel: (01865) 323304

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial) (CMDE6).

This report presents objections received in the course of the statutory consultation on proposals to introduce no waiting at any time parking restrictions along the majority of Elms Road in Thame which are being proposed as part of a planning approval for residential development on the northern side of Elms Road, which will also include the construction of a new junction entry close to the corner of Elms Road & Broadwaters Avenue.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approveimplementation of the proposals as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE6) objections received to a statutory consultation on proposals to introduce no waiting at any time parking restrictions along the majority of Elms Road, Thame proposed as part of a planning approval for residential development on the northern side which would include construction of a new junction entry close to the corner of Elms Road and Broadwaters Avenue.

Michael Moore speaking on behalf of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses advised that the proposed changes would have a considerable impact on their services with an average attendance of between 60 – 70 on Sunday mornings and Thursday evening.many of whom were elderly with some disabled and children under 5.  He tabled pictures of their current car park which was small and loss of parking as proposed would leave little option other than for visitors to park on High Street which had its own dangers. He asked that the proposals for double yellow lines be reviewed with single yellow lines as an alternative.

Rachel Fisher a resident spoke against the proposals. Paragraph 11 meant a reduction in real terms of 50% in real terms. Proposals to narrow footway width in Elms Road (paragraph 12) were not justified as it connected manyareas for youth and elderly. She queried that there had only been one accident (paragraph 13) in Elms Road and that statement inferred that it was safe.  She disputed that and felt the situation would deteriorate. She called for further consultation with all residents.

Mary Stiles of Thame Town Council objected to the proposals. The Cabinet Member had heard personal representations from one resident objecting with many more holding similar views. It was widely considered in Thame that a  scheme for the whole of the town was required rather than specific areas in isolation. With regard to paragraph 14 the proposals for Elms Road did not conform with the Thame Neighbourhood Plan and as local representatives were not transport professionals the County Council needed to take the lead with regard to these issues.

Councillor Nick Carter advised that contrary to paragraph 6 he did object to these proposals and was dismayed that the recommendation was for approval.  Implementation would remove up to a dozen spaces unnecessarily in his view and ir was down to residents who had genuine concerns regard displacement to organise themselves rather than introduce such a formal scheme. He endorsed everything that Rachel Fisher and Mary stiles had said and felt that Thames valley police had also effectively objected. Paragraph 14 was not acceptable and parking issues in market towns needed an holistic approach rather than a piecemeal approach. It had been expected that construction traffic would create a nightmare situation for residents and should only approach from the High Street end and that where development like this was proposed the developer should make provision for alternative parking for local residents affected by it.

Responding to the Cabinet Member regarding the need to reract to condition attached to a permission already granted he considered that the situation had changed materially as the developer had submitted a second application and the matter should be deferred to allow further consultation with them.

Mr Tole confirmed that the proposals had been in response to an extant consent for development on site. There were clearly  issues locally regarding loss of parking and as a compromise he suggested the Cabinet Member could in the interim approve double yellow line restrictions at the two junctions but not along  the whole length of Elms Road with officers monitoring the situation and if that showed a restriction was not required then not to proceed. He expressed some concerns regarding proposals to introduce a single yellow line restriction which could mean problems for 24 hour access by emergency vehicles to the development.

The cabinet Member agreed there were some grounds for such a compromise approach in the short term and therefore having regard to the information set out in the report and the representations made to him at the meeting confirmed his decision as follows:

that no waiting at any time restrictions be imposed at the new junction entry close to the corner of Elms Road and Broadwaters Avenue and the Elms Road /Windmill Road junction for as short a length as was safely possible and that the situation be monitored during and once the new development had been completed.

Signed……………………………….

Cabinet Member for Environment

Dates of signing……………………