Issue - items at meetings - Richmond Heights and Canning Street resident parking schemes - formal TRO consultation results.

skip navigation and tools

navigation and tools

Find it

Issue - meetings

Richmond Heights and Canning Street resident parking schemes - formal TRO consultation results.

Meeting: 10/07/2012 - Transport Committee (Item 9)

9 Richmond Heights and Canning Street resident parking schemes - formal TRO consultation results PDF 98 KB

Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached).

Additional documents:

Decision:

1. That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Committee approves as advertised the following orders;

(a) Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2008 Amendment Order No.* 20** (Areas C and H extensions) TRO-13a-2012

(b) Brighton & Hove (Waiting & Loading/Unloading Restrictions and Parking Places) Consolidation Order 2008 Amendment Order No.* 20** TRO-13b-2012

2. That any subsequent requests deemed appropriate by officers are added to the proposed scheme during implementation and advertised as an amendment Traffic Regulation Order.

Minutes:

9.1 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that addressed comments and objections to the draft traffic regulation orders in relation to the proposed inclusion of Canning Street into the Area H resident parking scheme and the inclusion of Richmond Heights into the Area C resident parking scheme.

9.2 Councillor Theobald asked for the views of the relevant ward councillors for the areas as these were not contained within the agenda.

9.3 The Parking Infrastructure Manager confirmed that he had met with the relevant ward councillors and they had expressed their support for the proposals.

9.4 Councillor Theobald asked if ward councillors for Hanover & Elm Grove had also been contacted.

9.5 The Parking Infrastructure Manager stated that he had and they had also supported the proposals. Councillor Follett supplemented that he was one of the Councillors for Hanover & Elm Grove ward and he and the others, supported the proposals.

9.6 Councillor Mitchell expressed her support for the proposals and asked that officers monitor any displacement arising from the changes.

9.7 Councillor Janio enquired as to what was meant by ‘subsequent requests’ in recommendation 2.2.

9.8 The Parking Infrastructure Manager clarified that this would include, for example, requests for motorcycle bays and other types of support for residents.

9.9 RESOLVED-