|
Meeting: |
Executive Member for Transport Decision Session |
|
Meeting date: |
28/04/2026 |
|
Report of: |
Garry Taylor |
|
Portfolio of: |
Kate Ravilious, Executive Member for Transport |
Decision Report: Review of
Statutory Consultation for ‘No Waiting’ Restrictions on
Dennings Mews
Subject of
Report
1. The report reviews the representation received in response to the statutory consultation for a proposed amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The proposed amendment to the TRO was to introduce ‘No Waiting’ at any time restrictions on Dennings Mews following the redevelopment of the area.
2. The report contains a recommendation for future actions.
Benefits and Challenges
3. The benefit of the recommendation is to remove the on-street parking that had previously been occurring, which did lead to complaints of obstruction to the access for the cycle path.
4. The challenge is that the representation received is that the proposal does not go far enough and the resident would like to see the introduction of a loading ban as well as the proposed ‘No Waiting at any time’ restriction. This would remove any loading activities that may occur along the stretch of highway.
Policy Basis for Decision
5. If the recommendation within the report is approved and the proposed restrictions are implemented, then there will be a positive impact on the local environment, through the reduction in vehicles parking along the section of highway creating an improvement within the local area for residents.
6. The proposed removal of the on-street parking will help remove the previous reports of obstructive parking, which was affecting access to the cycle. This will help to create a safer area and better access to pedestrian and cycling routes.
Financial Strategy Implications
7. A requirement of the planning approval for the development of the site was that the developers entered into an agreement under Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The S106 agreement had a requirement for the developer to make a TRO contribution towards the Council to cover the costs of parking management measures. The contribution has already been deposited with the Council, and this money will be used for the introduction of the restrictions.
Recommendation and Reasons
8. Option 1 – Implement as advertised (recommended)
The proposed restrictions would help remove the obstructive parking that has been reported through the consultation process. The installation of the proposed restriction will also stop the redeveloped street from becoming used by commuters, which will remove danger and allow waste services collection and access to the cycle path unhindered, which will facilitate the passage on the road for all classes of traffic including pedestrians. .
Background
9. The proposal has been brough forward following a planning application for the redevelopment of the area to erect 9 dwellings with associated highways, landscaping and boundary improvements to facilitate car and cycle parking with open space. The planning approval was granted with a requirement for a S106 agreement which required the developer to make a TRO contribution to the Council towards the cost of parking management measures considered by the highways officer of the local authority to be appropriate because of the development.
10. The development introduces a turning area on the street prior to the properties; this is required to ensure that waste services vehicles can access the properties and provide collections. If parking were to occur in the area it would be difficult for waste services vehicles to access the street safely.
11. As the development is providing private parking for the residents and introducing dedicated parking for the nearby allotment, it was considered appropriate to propose ‘No Waiting at any time’ restriction to the highway, to remove any obstructive parking that may occur. A proposal was created (ANNEX A) for the proposed introduction of the ‘No Waiting’ restrictions.
12. The plan also shows that the area is within a 20mph speed limit, this area was already included within the restricted area, so there was no requirement for an amendment to the TRO for the speed limit.
13. The proposed introduction of the ‘No Waiting at any time’ restrictions were advertised on 19th September 2025. The Notice of Proposal (Annex B) was advertised in the Press, and a copy of the Notice of Proposal was posted on street to make regular users of the route aware of the proposal.
Consultation Analysis
14. The Notice of Proposal provided a consultation period of 3 weeks to allow for any representations to be received by the Council. The proposal received one representation in objection (Annex C) to the proposal.
15. The original correspondence from the resident was submitted to enquire about the extent of the proposal. The resident enquired if the proposed double yellow lines will be like those at Deangate end of Minster Yard. Will they mean not stopping by any vehicle for any reason? A response was sent to the resident to clarify that the proposal was for ‘No Waiting at any time’ and advise that the restriction was not a restriction on loading, so the proposal is different to the area on Deangate. In the officer’s response, it was asked if the resident could confirm that they would like their representation to be received as an objection.
16. The resident responded to confirm that they would like their representation to be received as an objection. The resident felt that the proposal does not go far enough. They raised concerns that the restrictions will not keep active travellers safe from motor vehicles movements.
17. The objection advised that they had witnessed vehicles stopping on Denning’s Mews, which creates an issue for users of the cycle path either exiting or entering the route.
18. The restrictions in the area were extended as part of the traffic signal refurbishment project, at the junction, with the existing ‘No Waiting at any time’ restrictions, extended 18 metres south west of the existing access/egress on to the cycle route. The changes were put in place, as traffic signal head and stop line was introduced on Dennings Mews, to help move vehicles waiting to exit away from the access to the cycle path.
19. There have been issues with the existing restrictions as there have been reports that the lines are not very visible, as the verge is overgrown, making it hard to see the restrictions. The development does provide the introduction of a footpath on the south side which will help to provide better visibility of the restrictions, which will improve the compliance with the restrictions, which will help improve the visibility of users of the cycle path.
Options Analysis and
Evidential Basis
20. Option 1 – Implement as advertised (recommended)
The proposed restrictions would help remove the obstructive parking that has been reported through the consultation process. The installation of the proposed restriction will also stop the redeveloped street from becoming used by commuters, which will remove danger and allow waste services collection and access to the cycle path unhindered, which will facilitate the passage on the road for all classes of traffic including pedestrians.
21. Option 2 – Take no further action (not recommended)
If no additional restrictions are introduced, the street will likely become used by commuter parking and obstructive parking occurring in the turning head on the street. This will create unsafe manoeuvres been undertaken on the street by waster services vehicles and any delivery vehicles delivering to the properties.
Organisational Impact and Implications
22. The report has the following implications:
· Financial: A requirement of the planning approval for the development of the site was that the developers entered into an agreement under Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The S106 agreement had a requirement for the developer to make a TRO contribution towards the Council to cover the costs of parking management measures. The contribution has already been deposited with the Council, and this money will be used for the introduction of the restrictions.
· Human Resources (HR): If the proposed restrictions are implemented on street, enforcement will fall to the Civil Enforcement Officers.
· Legal: The Council must follow the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the 1996 Regulations when making or amending a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). All valid objections must be considered before an order can be made.
A TRO can only be introduced where it is necessary for reasons such as: improving safety, protecting the road or nearby property, improving traffic flow (including pedestrians), restricting unsuitable vehicles, protecting the character or amenity of an area, or supporting air‑quality objectives.
In making a TRO, the Council must also meet its duty to ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic and provide suitable parking where practicable. It must consider access to premises, local amenity impacts (including heavy goods vehicles), national air‑quality strategy, public transport needs, and any other relevant factors.
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, the Council also has a statutory duty to manage the road network to keep traffic moving and reduce congestion as far as reasonably possible.
· Procurement: No procurement implications, if the proposal is approved the lines will be installed by the developer.
· Health and Wellbeing: No Health and wellbeing implications.
· Environment and Climate action: No Environment and climate implications.
· Affordability: No Affordability implications.
· Equalities and Human Rights: The Council recognises its Public Sector Equality Duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct; advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it in the exercise of a public authority’s functions). The impact of the recommendation on protected characteristics has been considered as follows:
· Age- Neutral
· Disability- Neutral, as Blue Badge holders can park on yellow lines for up to three hours as long as they do not cause an obstruction.
· Gender- Neutral
· Gender reassignment- Neutral
· Marriage and civil partnership– Neutral
· Pregnancy and maternity – Neutral
· Race – Neutral
· Religion and belief – Neutral
· Sexual orientation – Neutral
· Other socio-economic groups including :
· Carer-Neutral
· Low income groups- Neutral
· Veterans, Armed Forces Community- Neutral
It is recognised that individual traffic regulation order
requests may impact protected characteristics in different
ways according to the specific nature of the traffic regulation
order being considered. The process of consulting on the
recommendations in this report will identify any equalities
implications on a case-by-case basis which may lead to an individual Equalities Impact Assessment being carried out in due course.
· Data Protection and Privacy: No data protection and privacy implications.
· Communications: No communications implications.
· Economy: No economy implications.
Risks and
Mitigations
23. In compliance with the Council’s risk management strategy there is an acceptable level of risk associated with the options listed for consideration.
Wards Impacted
24. Guildhall Ward
Contact details
For further information please contact the authors of this Decision Report.
Author
|
Name: |
Garry Taylor |
|
Job Title: |
Director of City Development |
|
Service Area: |
City Development |
|
Telephone: |
01904 551263 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes/No |
|
Date: |
DD/MM/YYYY |
Co-author
|
Name: |
Darren Hobson |
|
Job Title: |
Highway Regulation Manager |
|
Service Area: |
Transport |
|
Telephone: |
01904 551367 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes/No |
|
Date: |
DD/MM/YYYY |
Background
papers
Annexes
Annex A – Proposed Restriction
Annex B – Notice of Proposals
Annex C – Representations in Objection