Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/202

Contact: David Tole, Principal Engineer, Traffic & Safety Improvements Tel: (01865) 815942/Craig Rossington, Principal Transport Planner Tel: (01865 815575)

10.35 am

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport (CMDT5).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered (CMDT5) responses to a formal consultation on draft traffic regulation orders for proposed controlled parking zones for the Magdalen Road (North) and Magdalen Road (South) areas.

Liz Fisher speaking on behalf of St Mary’s Road residents association referred to a legal requirement placing a duty on the highway authority to ensure safe movement of traffic.  This was not happening and the area was gridlocked.  There had been thorough consultation over 5 years and paragraph 19 of the officer report set out an extremely strong case for the North area with 73% of respondents in support and it would be irrational not to introduce the proposals for the North area especially now that a decision had been taken to introduce proposals for the Divinity Road area.

Craig Simmons advised that he had chaired 3 meetings on these proposals with a good cross section of views expressed and the responses reflected accurately the views of the people supporting introduction in Divinity Road and Magdalen Road North but not Magdalen Road South.

Dominic Woodfield considered the proposals should be rejected.  Despite a considerable lapse of time since they were first mooted there was still a huge body of objection. The scheme had been mis-sold to residents regarding minimum carriageway widths and measurements quoted in the report were wrong.  Significant material changes which were required left the proposals  open to legal challenge.

Nick Allen opposed the proposals. He considered the proposals had been badly researched and that the County Council could have come up with something more innovative, such as utilising existing resources such as alternative parking areas.  The East Oxford area was a vibrant community  and these proposals would only serve to stifle the local economy.  He was also unaware of any work having been undertaken to estimate costs of implementation or likely revenue.

David Maw, a resident of Silver Street was not a car owner but still had concerns regarding the effect of the proposals.  Suggesting that cars should park on pavements with limits placed on the number of permits for visitors would reduce the quality of life for many residents. Revised proposals should be developed which complemented the area.

Sylvia Barker a resident of Percy Street referred to a similar level of opposition to a development some 30 years previously which had seen the same level of community spirit that was being seen now in opposition to the Magdalen Road South proposals which she considered regressive and flying in the face of local opinion and the democratic process.  Limiting visitor permits was anti social, particularly for the elderly who would feel even more isolated.  It was also wrong to expect residents to pave over front gardens in order to provide additional parking and to promote footway parking.

Dennis Pratley considered that the proposals would destroy the character of East Oxford.  There was 100% opposition from local businesses none of whom had been invited to discuss the proposals with the County Council who seemed to be sending out a message to the public to stay away.  The proposals would not enrich the area and the level set for visitor permits was inadequate.

Monika Jaenicke, a resident of Howard Street was firmly opposed to the CPZ proposals.  As the 2008 study had been carried out before the current economic crisis and unemployment levels it called into question the accuracy of the results.  It was important to do everything possible to support the local economy.  She questioned the accuracy of the measurements undertaken regarding pavement width and the effect that might have on pedestrians and wheelchair users. To agree the proposals now with a view to reviewing in 12 months time would not help those local businesses which had, in the meantime, been forced to close. Any closures could lead to further problems if those vacant premises were then redeveloped for housing, creating even more pressure.  Also limiting permits to one car per household would not work.

David Barton on behalf of the Iffley Road Residents Association spoke in favour of both schemes which would raise the quality of life for Iffley Road residents.  Stanley Road was a particularly heavily congested pressure point, particularly on Fridays due to the mosque.  Both schemes were urgently needed and one without the other would limit the benefits. They should be implemented immediately and not deferred.

Samantha Goethels, a resident of Bullingdon Road was not against the CPZs in principle but had concerns regarding displacement of traffic on surrounding areas and requested that her property be included the East Oxford CPZ in order to benefit from the parking permit scheme.

City Councillor David Williams referred to the huge level of opposition to the Magdalen Road South proposals and any decision taken now should reflect that.  He did not consider any proposals were necessary but if schemes were implemented in Divinity Road and Magdalen Road North then proposals for Magdalen Road South should be deferred in order to reflect local concerns and allow for the effect of proposals elsewhere to be guaged.

County Councillor John Tanner did not see this as a party political matter but one which should reflect what local people wanted and they should be listened to.  He supported the proposals for Divinity Road and Magdalen Road North but, like the great majority of south residents, opposed the proposals for the Magdalen Road South area.

Responding Mr Tole accepted that some measurements had been inaccurate and that errors had been made.  However, they were localised and could be dealt with as local amendments if the schemes were approved.  It had been difficult to estimate costs and income as it was difficult to predict how many permits would be required. With regard to the level set for visitor permits this was a standardised scheme, which had proved successful in other areas.  Business permits were only intended for those vehicles considered to be connected with the business concerned.  With regard to exclusion of properties it was not uncommon to exclude multi-occupancy properties through the planning process.

Mr Rossington advised that Annex 6 included an updated Equality Impact Assessment – now termed a Service and Community Impact Assessment.  A 3 metre carriageway width was not an arbitrary figure.  There was no requirement on residents to pave over front gardens and it was expected that there would be adequate space for parking.  He accepted that there had been economic changes since 2008 but the area appeared to be thriving and not in economic decline. However, recent development in the area meant that parking and traffic problems needed to be addressed to protect that position.  In support of local businesses a number of short stay spaces had been provided.  CPZs made it possible to protect areas from the effects of future development but it was difficult to do that without them.

The Cabinet Member for Transport thanked those members of the public and local councillors for their submissions and also county officers for their work in producing a comprehensive report.  Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him and the further considerations set out above he confirmed his decision as follows:

(a)               to authorise the making of the Oxfordshire County Council (Oxford Magdalen Road (North) area) (Controlled Parking Zone and Waiting Restrictions) Order 20**;

(b)       to defer the making of the Oxfordshire County Council (Oxford Magdalen Road (South) area) (Controlled Parking Zone and Waiting Restrictions) Order 20** for a period of around 6 months after the introduction of the Magdalen Road (North) and Divinity Road area CPZ schemes but soon enough so that if the scheme were to be approved it could be introduced within 2 years of the latest consultation;

(c)               to authorise the making of relevant sections ofthe consequential TROs being the Oxfordshire County Council (East Oxford) (Controlled Parking Zone Waiting Restrictions and Traffic Management) (Variation No 6*) Order 20**, the Oxfordshire County Council (Various Streets East Oxford) (Traffic Regulation) (Variation No.9*) Order 20**, the Oxfordshire County Council (Headington West) (Controlled Parking Zone) (Variation No. 12*) Order 20**, and the Oxfordshire County Council (Cowley Road, Oxford) (Traffic Regulation) (Variation No. 1*) Order 20** ;

(d)               to authorise the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Highways & Transport) to reconsult locally on amendments to the Magdalen Road North scheme, as set out in Annex 6 to the report CMDT5 ; and

(e)               to authorise the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Highways & Transport) in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport to carry out further minor amendments to the schemes and the Traffic Regulation Ordersthat may be required when implementing the proposed parking zones.