Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2013/015

Contact: Jim Daughton, Highways & Transport Service Manager Tel: (01865) 815083

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Commercial & Delivery (CMDDL4).

The Deputy Leader of the Council considered proposals to introduce new parking restrictions in the Cutteslowe and Five Mile Drive areas of north Oxford in the light of objections received to a public consultation.

Hossein Moghaddan was a resident of Linkside Avenue. Roads in this area were already congested and staff from the BMW garage frequently parked in this area blocking the entrance and exit to Linkside Avenue and sight lines.  If the scheme went ahead it would exacerbate this situation and as a council tax payer he expected to enjoy freedom to move in and out of the area unhindered by parked cars. He supported that element of the scheme which would allow resident parking with permits available.

Debbie Spencer had submitted a petition on behalf of residents of Pennywell Drive who supported provision for permit holders but who felt that 10 am to 4 pm was insufficient.  The area was busy in the evenings and if paying for permits then residents felt these should be available for a longer period. Not all residents had driveways but those that did quite often found them blocked and she requested extra long white lines to protect accesses.

Don Manley resided in Harbord Road and considered that a 2 hour maximum period for non-permit holders would cause problems. Supporting the original proposals as set out in the Director for Environment & Economy’s letter of 5 February he felt the amended proposals were draconian and should be abandoned and the original 1 hour scheme taken forward.

Mark Golding speaking on behalf of the Summertown Stars AFC a voluntary club run by parents was aware that his views would be unpopular with residents but with up to 12 teams attending at the Park at weekends with a 100 or so cars it was inevitable that they would contribute to parking problems in the area.  This was largely unavoidable because the Cutteslowe Park car park itself could only accommodate 80 vehicles and it was unavoidable that some cars would park in adjoining streets.  For their members it was impractical to limit parking on Harbord Road to 2 hours and it was inevitable that cars would cruise to find alternative space. The club also felt that advice given in the report was unlawful due to the improper consultation undertaken on Annex 4.  This was not a practical solution.

Huw Edmunds resided near Cutteslowe Park and currently had no real issue with parking but that could change if the scheme was introduced.  He advised that none of the residents in Bourne Close were in favour of the proposals.

Councillor Fooks referred to problems at Cutteslowe Park car park which had not been helped by parking charges.  Tthe limited parking available created problems for users at the park and consequently for residents in adjoining streets.  The west side of the area experienced considerable problems during the week from commuter parking and safeguards such as a 1 hour time limit period would need to be put in place to protect the east side from displaced parking.  Residents near Cutteslowe park experienced problems hence the calls for extended periods beyond 10am to 4 pm.  She suggested white line protection measures and possibly 1 hour bays nearest the park.  The east side would benefit from improved parking in the Park itself and the City Council should be pressed to improve levels for overflow parking.

The Deputy Leader of the Council supported calls for the City Council to improve parking levels in the Park.

Mr Tole explained that the scheme had started as a means of dealing with very local and specific issues but because of problems elsewhere it was recognised that something more comprehensive was required.  Initially officers had looked at a minimum impact zone and in February had consulted on such a scheme. That had worked elsewhere but it became clear that that scheme had missed a number of issues and so an alternative option had been drawn up.  That option had prompted 250 responses from 1200 properties.

He then addressed issues raised by the speakers.  With regard to Pennywell Drive he did not consider that an extension to the permit period would make any difference if residents had permits but agreed that access protection markings would help.

With regard to Harbord Road he did not consider that a 1 hour scheme as opposed to the proposed 2 hour would deal with the concerns of residents. A lot of Park users parked in this area to avoid the 50p charge at the car park. He did not agree that the proposals were unfair as democratically there was an obligation to try and help everyone.

Option C would mean that visitors to the Park would need to use the Park’s car park.  He accepted there would be a great deal of pressure on space but if the overflow car park could be improved so that it could be used in poor weather and available at all times that would help satisfy needs although the charge element would remain.  If the proposals did not apply on Saturdays or extended to 3 hours then there would be no benefit to residents in Harbord Road.

With regard to concerns regarding the appropriateness of dealing with this issue today he accepted that there had not been a 21 day consultation period but responses received up until the date of the meeting were being considered and could stand.

He confirmed Bourne Close was not proposed for inclusion.

It was proposed to include Linkside Avenue in the controlled parking zone 10 am to 4 pm as on the west side of Banbury Road.

Responding to questions from the Deputy Leader of the Council he confirmed that access protection white lines would not be legally enforceable and therefore purely advisable,. However, they were generally well observed and could be provided within the costs of the scheme.

With regard to the legality of considering the proposal now the County Council’s legal advisers had confirmed that it was appropriate to do so.

The Deputy Leader of the Council highlighted the principles behind the localism intiative and the need to take into the account the views of the local councillor.  He was also happy to request the City Council to consider the issues of surfacing the overflow car park at Cutteslowe Car Park.

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 the Deputy Leader of the Council then confirmed his decisions on this matter as follows:

(a)       to approve the parking restrictions advertised as the Oxfordshire County Council (Oxford-Cutteslowe & Five Mile Drive Area)(Controlled parking Zone and Waiting |Restrictions) Order 201* and amended as set out in the report CMDDL4;

 (b)      request the City Council to consider the issue of improvements to the surface of the overflow car park at Cutteslowe Park in order to increase parking capacity.