Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/109

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by Director for Community Operations (Interim) (CMDE4).

Following approval by the Cabinet Member for Environment on 30 April 2020 of new CPZs in the Cowley Marsh and Hollow Way North areas of Oxford, this report presents responses to a formal consultation on amendments as approved in principle at the above meeting following representations by the local member and other groups.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve proposals as advertised for amendments to the above Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) in  the Cowley Marsh  and Hollow Way North Area, but with regard to the proposals for Cricket Road and Bhandari Close to authorise officers to review and agree those proposals in consultation with the local member taking account of the consultation responses as detailed in paragraphs 10-12 of the report CMDE4 and, if required, a further report be submitted to the Cabinet Member for Environment.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) responses received to a formal consultation on amendments to new CPZs in the Cowley Marsh and Hollow Way North areas of Oxford approved by the Cabinet Member on 30 April 2020.

Responding to Councillor Sanders Mr Kirkwood confirmed that as CPZs related only to public highway residents in Reliance Way, which was not public highway and where there numbered parking bays would not require permits.

Due to connectivity problems the following prepared statement from Mr Nicholas Fell regarding the legality of the consultation process was read out:

“I think my central points are that Cowley Marsh does not comply with TSRGD and that Cowley Marsh TRO does not meet the Richard Bentley RMB Consulting test. That I wish to say I back up the legal case of Attfield versus Barnet council, and that I support the case of Cran & Ors, and the famous Gunning Principles on consultation are not being met in this case.

Any decision is therefore inappropriate given that the council has refused to explore alternative options, which I have offered the council, in writing, and they have not taken those reasonable alternatives, therefore any decision taken at this meeting is irrational and Wednesbury unreasonable, and the meeting should on that basis be deferred and shelved.

Any decision to proceed with this proposal is inappropriate and a misuse of a TRO, given that the council have not looked at cheaper, better and more targeted alternatives. It is therefore a violation of use of taxpayer money to rubber stamp an inappropriate CPZ and on that basis I wish to lay an information with the council auditor.”

Responding to questions from the Cabinet Member with regard to the statement from Mr Fell Mr Kirkwood confirmed that procedures for traffic regulation order consultations were clearly defined in Statutory Instrument Local Authority Traffic Orders Regulations 96 which specified in detail what local authorities were required to do. This consultation had complied in full with those regulations. In fact the County Council had gone over and above what was required in the regulations as it did with all consultations by writing individually to all premises affected as well as posting street notices and providing an online facility to comment. 

Mr Potter confirmed that the County Council’s legal team had also looked at the process and the legal points which had been raised regarding that process and  confirmed that as all procedures had been followed correctly the Cabinet Member could proceed with a decision.

Following resolution of connectivity problems the Cabinet Member heard from the following speakers.

Ms Georgina Gibbs advised that as she had friends and family living in the area she had been working with them and Mr Nicholas Fell to make a case against the proposals.  Prior to the lockdown and during it they had spoken while observing rules of social distancing to 200 residents and the general consensus had been that a parking scheme as proposed was not needed.  She pointed out that signing put up during the consultation had not complied with regulations. It had not been in the correct format or font size.  Consequently, some residents had been unable to read it and so she had taken one down to enlarge it.  Secondly letters had been sent out addressed to occupiers on the 6^th but had only been received by some residents on the 11^th or 12^th therefore impacting on the length of the consultation period which had as a result been  less than the required 4 weeks because they had been sent out to late.  Also there was precedent that addressing letters to “occupiers” renedered the consultation process flawed.  Many residents were of the view that parking problems were not a result of commuter parking but due to houses of multi occupation such as in Ridgefield Road and parts of Cricket Road.  Other residents in Morris Close, Milton Road, Bhandari Close, Cricket Road and Shelley Road had also said that they were unaware of parking problems other than at school times and more local issues.  The consensus was the TRO is Wednesbury unreasonable and the intention was to challeng the proposals.

Nicholas Fell reiterated concerns regarding signing. The process had been fundamentally flawed by not complying with regulations regarding requisite spacing and therefore illegal.  Failure to consult properly or listen to the objections made and merely serving notice was not enough. Officers should not blight the process by sticking to their own views in the face of local opposition.  Any failure by the Highway Authority to consult or listen to the results of the consultation would make a decision void or voidable in law.  The views received needed to be given meaningful consideration and a decision based on an exchange of views.  This has not been a balanced debate and it seemed that the proposals would be agreed and signed off regardless of views received.  Consultation had to be based on a genuine interchange of views and that had not been the case here as some residents had not received letters. 

Officers confirmed that the concerns raised by Ms Gibbs and Mr Fell related to a decision taken on 30 April to approve the CPZ and did not relate to the matters for consideration today.  Letters had been sent to all residents at that time.  The County Council under the traffic signs regulations had been given special authorisation from the Department for Transport for both the type of sign used and spacing. They also confirmed that the standard process was to address letters to the occupier and there had been no instruction to review that.

Referring to the comment from Ms Gibbs regarding need the Cabinet Member suggested that even those areas who did not support or want want a CPZ often changed that view due to displaced parking when a neighbouring area was subject to such restriction.

Officers confirmed that in April the CPZ proposal had been supported by a majority of respondents. Also ed that Cricket Road and Bhandari Close were to be reviewed following a local consultation to consider a reduced length or restriction and if that could not be agreed then that back for consideration.  Reagarding Bhandari Close there would be consideration given to addressing local concerns.

Turning to the Hollow Way proposals she noted there had been few objections.

Councillor Sanders confirmed the support of the local member for that area which would be required to address the issue of students in new accommodation.

Confirming the overall policy in Oxford was to introduce CPZs to limit parking to residents and address issues of commuter parking and congestion she was satisfied that all processes had been carried out correctly in line with regulations. Noting that a further report if required would be brought to her on the Cricket Road and Bhandari Close review and that it was open to complainants to progress their complaint if they so wished and 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:

to approve proposals as advertised for amendments to the above Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) in  the Cowley Marsh  and Hollow Way North Area, but with regard to the proposals for Cricket Road and Bhandari Close to authorise officers to review and agree those proposals in consultation with the local member taking account of the consultation responses as detailed in paragraphs 10-12 of the report CMDE4 and, if required, a further report be submitted to the Cabinet Member for Environment.

Signed………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing…………………………….