Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2018/042

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CMDE4).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce waiting restrictions comprising double yellow lines - ‘no waiting at any time’ – at Pioneer Way, Hexham Road and Whitelands Way in the Kingsmere development at Bicester.The proposals have been put forward at the request of the developers of Kingsmere residential and commercial development to address concerns over parked vehicles obstructing the spine roads and, in particular, restricting visibility at junctions and bends. The roads are due to be adopted as public highway following the completion of the development.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed double yellow lines (no waiting at any time) restrictions as advertised excepting the two lengths on Whitelands Way as shown in red in Annex 2 to the report, with a further review of waiting provision to be carried out on completion of the development to include an assessment of whether waiting can be permitted on the length of Pioneer Way shown in blue also in Annex 2.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce no waiting at any time restrictions at Pioneer Way, Hexham Road and Whiteleands way in the Kingsmere development t at Bicester put forward by the developers of that residential and commercial development to address concerns over parked vehicles obstructing the spine roads and restricting visibility at junctions and bends.

Speaking in support Councillor Sibley also confirmed that there was a great deal of local support for the proposals.  Whitelands Way was becoming more and more difficult to navigate and the current on-street parking situation was becoming dangerous as the development was built out.  As a main route for buses it was difficult for them and emergency vehicles to manoeuvre when the route was obstructed with parked vehicles.  Proper and safe access needed to be provided and with a lot of side roads off the main spine road it was becoming more difficult for residents. It was important to manage this now as the development was only ¾ completed with 1900 houses with possibly more again planned.  He accepted the 2 sections for limited parking could address concerns regarding speeding but safe access was the priority.  He also asked the Cabinet Member to consider calling for a 6-month review after the restriction had been implemented and for confirmation regarding responsibility for monitoring and enforcement.

Officers confirmed that unlimited parking would not be allowed on both sides and would form part of any review if carried out.  With regard to enforcement the police response had indicated that they saw this low priority but had urged that the county, district and town councils continue further discussions with a view to progressing de-criminalisation orders and restrictions that could be enforced by those authorities as part of a special parking area and given higher priority.  It also seemed that the local constable had indicated he could offer some level of enforcement but again that would need to be a low priority.

Mr Levis a resident of Kingsmere supported the no parking proposals on Whitelands and pointing out that the problem lay with the development itself in that not enough parking had been provided and as many houses as possible had been crammed in by the developers. Consequently residents were not parking off-road with parking very much an off-peak problem. He felt every street should be residents parking with two permits for each household. There were dead areas which could be utilised to install parking bays while leaving room to manoeuvre on Whitelands.  He also pointed out that overflow parking was available at the community/sports centre and street lights were not working.

Officers confirmed that as the roads had not been adopted street lighting was a developer responsibility but it was understood that they were due to be fixed the following week.  Regarding to the dead areas referred to by Mr Levis these were general landscaping areas put in at the request of the district council to soften the look of the road.

The Cabinet Member noted assurances given that if parking allowed on the east and west sides of Whitelands Way sufficient width would be retained to enable access for buses and emergency vehicles and that although monitoring and enforcement responsibility would be a low police priority local officers had been informed. She also noted that resident parking schemes were only viable where civil enforcement arrangements had been agreed. With regard to other issues raised regarding alternative parking at the community centre and street lighting she asked officers to take those forward with the developers.  Therefore having regard to the information set out in the report before her and the representations made to her at the meeting the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed her decision as follows:

(a)          to approve the proposed double yellow lines (no waiting at any time) restrictions as advertised excepting the two lengths on Whitelands Way as shown in red in Annex 2 to the report CMDE4, with a further review of waiting provision to be carried out on completion of the development to include an assessment of whether waiting can be permitted on the length of Pioneer Way shown in blue also in Annex 2 to CMDE4;

(b)          the proposals to be reviewed 6 months after restrictions had been put in place.

Signed………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing…………………………