Agenda item - Area E parking scheme - Preston Park Station North Traffic Order consultation

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

Area E parking scheme - Preston Park Station North Traffic Order consultation

Report of the Executive Director of Environment, Development & Housing (copy attached).

 

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 2008 No.* 201*

 

(b)   Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201*

 

2.                   That the Committee notes that any amendments included in the report and subsequent requests deemed appropriate by officers will be added to the proposed scheme during implementation subject to advertisement and approval as an amendment Traffic Regulation Order.

 

Minutes:

91.1         The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Environment, Development & Housing. The Parking Infrastructure Manager provided an extensive introduction to the report, a summary of which follows:

 

·        In 2007, during a parking scheme consultation in the Preston Park station area, the specific area now under discussion voted to be excluded from any scheme.

·        Since 2007 and the subsequent inclusion of Tivoli Crescent in the scheme, requests had been made by local residents to re-consider the area for possible inclusion in the scheme. This was agreed by the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting held in November 2011

·        In September 2013, a leaflet and questionnaire was circulated providing details of the proposals for a scheme. The response rate was 57% and resulted in a 50/50 vote for and against.

·        Although the council’s parking policy states that schemes are progressed where there is a majority in favour, following discussions with lead and ward councillors, analysis took place of the data and particularly the comments received to the questionnaire. Analysis revealed key themes and strong messages regarding concerns about restrictions on visitor parking and that commuter parking was an issue.

·        On the basis of the analysis of those comments and support from ward members, officers refined the scheme proposals recommending a flexible approach of 5-day a week restrictions.

·        It was not unusual to make changes to parking scheme proposals following the first stage of consultation as the responses to it enable officers and members to analyse suggestions and comments from local people, and to revise proposals accordingly. 

·        Agreement to proceed to the next stage of consultation on the revised proposals was granted at the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee

·        As well as advertisement of the traffic order, a letter was sent to every household in the affected area to make them aware of how to make comments during the next phase of consultation although that differed from the previous consultation in that a questionnaire was not supplied for return.

·        203 items of correspondence to the Order were received. 165 were from the proposed area and 38 were from outside that area.

·        62 items of correspondence were of support, 60 of those from within the proposed area.

·        141 items of correspondence were against, 105 of which were from inside the area.

·        Officer experience was that the formal TRO process was used as a period to outline concerns rather than demonstrate support. The report author highlighted that only twice in the period from 2009-2014 had there been more support than objections to the advertising of a formal TRO.

·        102 of the representations commented that there were no parking problems in the area and that a scheme was not needed, that it was not a busy area of the city, was an indirect tax on residents, that the area was in the majority a family area with visitors who needed easy/unrestricted parking and that congestion was due to displacement problems in schemes being implemented in the surrounding area.

·        The Parking Infrastructure Manager noted that the purpose of proposing unrestricted parking at weekends was due to the many observations in the previous consultation of the impact on visitor parking.

·        Furthermore, 92 representations stated that the consultation process was undemocratic or inadequate. The Parking Infrastructure Manager observed that the consultation process had been extensive and had been outlined in all the reports presented to the Committee on the matter.

·        The Parking Infrastructure Manager noted that there had been several submissions to Members and Officers since publication of the report. Of the 59 received, 29 were against the scheme proceeding and 30 were in support of the scheme.

 

91.2         Councillor Shanks made a representation to the Committee. Councillor Shanks stated that she believed the proposals represented a compromise and had been agreed by all ward members. Councillor Shanks added that she had received much correspondence on the issue both in support and against although more recently the correspondence had been from those in favour of the scheme. Councillor Shanks stated that as ward members for the area, she was very aware of the problems associated with parking in the area and that it was used extensively for commuter parking. Councillor Shanks also believed that the introduction of a controlled parking scheme would have other benefits such as increasing road safety for the high number of children who lived in the area. Councillor Shanks requested that the Committee Members accept the proposals in the report.

 

91.3         Councillor Janio asked if any consideration had been given to short-term parking.

 

91.4         The Parking Infrastructure Manager clarified that short-term parking provision would be introduced in the area near shops (specifically Matlock Road).

 

91.5         Councillor Mitchell stated that she acknowledged the huge public involvement in this issue and that she was in support of the proposals. Councillor Mitchell stated that she believed the proposed scheme represented resident’s views and that its location so close to Preston Park station meant the need for a scheme had become increasingly pressing. Councillor Mitchell added that she was glad Hazeldene Meads would be monitored and that she would welcome a wider assessment of parking tariffs in the city.

 

91.6         The Head of Transport clarified that tariffs were reviewed annually in the fees & charges report presented to Committee and would be considered again for 2015-16.

 

91.7         Councillor Hawtree stated that scheme displacement was a common problem particularly in those areas close to railway stations and in the circumstances he believed a compromise had been reached with the proposals.

 

91.8         Councillor Davey stated that parking was always a difficult topic more so with an increasing amount of cars in the city as the 2001-2011 census demonstrated. Councillor Davey observed that much of the increase in car ownership was located in suburban areas like Preston Park. Councillor Davey added that as Lead Member for Transport, he had been asked many times to resolve the problem of indiscriminate parking in the area which included occupation of disabled parking bays by those not permitted to do so. Councillor Davey supplemented that he had received much correspondence on the matter from those for and against and he was convinced that concerns residents concerns had been addressed and compromise reached in the proposals.

 

91.9         RESOLVED-

 

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 2008 No.* 201*

 

(b)   Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201*

 

2.                   That the Committee notes that any amendments included in the report and subsequent requests deemed appropriate by officers will be added to the proposed scheme during implementation subject to advertisement and approval as an amendment Traffic Regulation Order.

 

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints