Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2023/054

Contact: James Whiting, Principal Officer, james.whiting@oxfordshire.gov.uk 

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM6).

To consider any objections arising from the formal Statutory consultation.

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the following proposals in respect of eligibility for parking permits as advertised:

a)    Cowley Central East – exclude the car free development at No.242a Barns Road from eligibility to apply for resident's parking permits & residents' visitors parking permits,

b)    Summertown – allow Grove House, St James Row, No.3 Grove Street to be eligible for one resident's parking permit and residents' visitors' parking permits,

c)     Jericho – allow No.1 Canal Street to apply for resident's parking permits & residents' visitors parking permits,

d)    Cutteslowe - exclude No.37 Templar Road from eligibility for resident's parking permits and residents' visitors' parking permits

e)    North Summertown – exclude the five new dwellings at No.4 Bladon Close from eligibility for resident's parking permits and residents' visitors' parking permits

The report presented the consultation responses to the proposed parking permit eligibility amendments in Oxford Barns Road and other locations.

The Chair invited the speaker to address the meeting and responded to points raised.

The Chair discussed with officers the history of parking permit eligibility in Barns Road. Officers explained that as part of the planning requirements for the flats at 242a Barns Road, the dwellings should not have been included in properties eligible to apply for parking permits in the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

The Chair highlighted consultation responders’ comments on bus services that had been degraded and cycle storage that was not secure.

The Chair confirmed with officers that residents’ parking allocations were not restricted if they had a driveway.

The Chair commented that these flats were the lowest cost accommodation in Oxford and houses in the area, owned by wealthier residents, were allocated two car parking permit spaces, regardless of having a driveway. Owners of apartments were not eligible for any parking space.

The Chair also commented that although understanding the need to reduce car usage, there was a need for a just transition and that the proposal was not just on the grounds of wealth, income and age: young, less wealthy people had no car parking; those who could afford a house have 2 + parking spaces. This cemented and even reinforced the strong association of increased wealth and increased access to a car. It would not be fair to exclude the residents and visitors of 242a Barns Road from having parking permits.  There needed to be a review of all parking permits available and they should be distributed in an equitable way. It was essential for keyworkers to have access to a car.

Officers explained that the Councils policy was to promote car free development. With this development an essential part of obtaining planning permission was that it was car free.

Officers also explained that traffic order changes were not pre-determined, and the Chair had the right to decide to approve or not approve any proposition put forward. In terms of planning, the Council had the right to promote a traffic order to make a development car free, but planning could not mandate it.

Officers recommended that items 6b) – e) were deferred to obtain more background information and to include in the report, the over-arching policy around new developments which would provide key information as to why permits were rescinded and the over-arching reason for doing so. The over-arching policy ultimately sets planning policy and planning decisions as well.

The Chair rejected the officer’s recommendation to exclude the car free development at No.242a Barns Road from eligibility to apply for resident's parking permits & residents' visitors parking permits, on the grounds:

·       that the residents had bought their homes on the basis that there would be parking available,

·       that recent changes included the introduction of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ),

·       of the degradation of the bus service, which was no longer 24 hours,

·       that visitors parking and disabled parking had been sold off,

·       that the cycle storage was not secure and bicycles had been stolen,

·       that local car parks did not have 24-hour access and were a significant distance away for those with levels of disability not meriting a Blue Badge: this meant that some (especially elderly) residents did not get visitors,

·       The “Car Club” had a single vehicle available, often booked weeks in advance,

·       The EV charging point had been allocated to a ground floor business and was not available to residents using the car club,

·       Car Clubs are ideal for replacing second cars, or for occasional car users, not for regular users,

·       that there was social injustice in houses being eligible for 2 parking permits, even with a driveway, and smaller dwellings not eligible for any parking permits,

·       younger people and those on low incomes would suffer disproportionately from climate change; they should not also be de facto bearing the burden of traffic reduction measures,

·        that there was a long-term trend to making health and care workers mobile and they should not be effectively deprived of the possibility ofliving in low-cost housing around Oxford?. It may force workers to relocate further away, worsening both traffic and carbon emissions in other areas,’

·       that in discussion, it was noted that a house, allocated 2 parking spaces when converted to flats, loses access even to those spaces, thus perversely making more parking spaces for those who could afford to buy houses.

The wider recommendation of the Chair was that eligibility of parking permits be reviewed when new developments came forward, and that car parking spaces be progressively and equitably restricted for all types of dwelling so that there was no preferential victimisation of any generation or social group, including those with disabilities not sufficient to obtain a Blue Badge.

The following proposal in respect of eligibility for parking permits as advertised was NOT APPROVED by the Cabinet Member for Climate Change Delivery and Environment:

a)    Cowley Central East – exclude the car free development at No.242a Barns Road from eligibility to apply for resident's parking permits & residents' visitors parking permits.

The Cabinet Member for Climate Change Delivery and Environment DEFERRED the following proposals:

b)    Summertown – allow Grove House, St James Row, No.3 Grove Street to be eligible for one resident's parking permit and residents' visitors' parking permits,

c)     Jericho – allow No.1 Canal Street to apply for resident's parking permits & residents' visitors parking permits,

d)    Cutteslowe - exclude No.37 Templar Road from eligibility for resident's parking permits and residents' visitors' parking permits

e)    North Summertown – exclude the five new dwellings at No.4 Bladon Close from eligibility for resident's parking permits and residents' visitors' parking permits