Decision Session – Executive Member for Transport	11 May 2021
Report of the Director of Transport, Environment and Planning

Consideration of results from the consultation with residents of 5-11 Main Street, Fulford following a request for a Residents’ Priority Parking Scheme

1. 2.	Summary To report the consultation results for 5-11 Main Street, Fulford and to determine what action is appropriate. Recommendation It is recommended that approval be given for Option two (paragraph 16) Option 2: (Recommended Option) (a) Taking forward a proposal for resident priority parking on the length of carriageway adjacent to 5-11 Main Street for the use of these properties only. 7 day a week, 24 hour restriction with 60 minutes for non-permit holders (b) Additional lengths of no waiting at any time (double yellow lines) to protect entrances to properties and improve sight lines.  (plan included as Annex E(2)) Reason: To provide residents priority for the limited carriageway space whilst trying to mitigate some of the concerns raised by St Oswald’s Church. Although this is a small length of carriageway and a zone of 5 properties the expansion of Fulford secondary School has created discussions about consulting about a larger zone over a wide area. This small zone can be annexed into a larger zone at a later date.
	Background
3. 4.	In October 2018 we received a request from the residents of 5 to 11 Main Street Fulford for a resident’s priority parking zone outside their properties.  A copy of the request is included as Annex A. Officers initially were of the opinion that the size of area and number of properties involved is very much smaller than would normally be considered for a residents parking scheme and were unable to support the request.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.	Councillor Aspden and Councillor D’Agorne met with the petition leader and consequently requested officers to add the area to the waiting list.  This area duly reached the top of the list and officers initiated the consultation procedure. Because of the small number of properties who were potentially to be given priority use of the unrestricted carriageway, we consulted nearby properties to inform them of the consultation (including St Oswald’s Church) requesting they let us know if they wanted to comment or raise concerns. Copies of the consultation documentation is included as Annex B (5-11 Fulford Road), Annex C (nearby properties) and Annex D (letter to St Oswald’s Church). There are no obstruction issues at this location to be addressed by a Resident Priority Parking scheme. If taken forward a scheme at this location is solely about providing a better parking amenity for a small number of residents, some of which do not have any off street parking amenity. Sight lines from St Aidan’s Court and the Church car park can be compromised by parked cars and we have tried to address this within the recommended option. This area can be subject to parking by commuters and it has been noted that during Covid 19 where many employees are working from home the situation for residents has eased. Alternative unrestricted carriageway space nearby is available but additionally under pressure: e.g. St Oswald’s Road, Heslington Lane and further south on Main Street closer to the business outlets. Some residents at this location park on the verge by choice even when carriageway space is available. Residents will be asked to desist from doing so if a scheme is taken forward and implemented.
11. 12. 13.	Consultation Results From the 5 properties (No’s 5, 7, 9, 9A and 11) we received 5 replies (100%).  Of these 3 were in favour and 2 did not support introducing a resident parking scheme. We consulted 8 nearby properties and received only two comments from residents, neither of which raised any objections or requested inclusion.  One resident requested the entrance to St Aidan’s Court be improved and clearly marked.  If a scheme is approved it is intended that the entrance will be protected with double yellow lines of a wider width than the current H bar marking currently in place. St Oswald’s Church have raised concerns and their letter is included within the report as Annex F. They accept that the existing use of this space is very limited, but have raised concerns about the visibility splays for vehicles exiting the church car park.  Additionally, they have requested a 90 minute time period for non- permit holders. Officers Comments to Church comments We do not condone the continual parking of vehicles on the grass verge at this location and would request vehicles use the carriageway if a scheme is implemented.  There would be no benefit to using the verge; a permit would still be required adjacent to the parking bays, and yellow line restrictions would equally apply to the verge as the carriageway. Vehicles parked on the verge can block sight lines, especially for cycles using the shared path and prevent the driver’s view behind the parked cars on the carriageway towards Broadway. We have removed a parking area and included a yellow line extension as part of option two to give slightly better sight lines on exiting the car park, this will reduce the amount of parking availability for residents by one space which leaves 6 to 7 spaces for 5 properties.  Two properties have indicated they regularly park 2 vehicles on street. Any attendee at the Church who has a disabled blue badge will be able to park in a resident parking area for as long as required.   The church has asked for a 90 minute time limit for non-permit holders. There are some other areas which has this restriction.  Dalton Terrace has some bays with 90 minute time limit and others with 10 minutes or 60 minutes.  Similarly R60 on Holgate Road has one bay with a 90 minute allowance. Neither of these areas have any close areas of non- restricted street parking nor have any other alternative parking.  In this instance, there is a parking bay for 8-9 vehicles opposite the church restricted parking to 3 hours. We consider a 60 minute restriction for non-permit holders will remove commuter parking, be easier to enforce and encourage non permit holders to use the 3 hour bay in preference.
14.	Times of Operation
15. 16. 17. 18. 19.	All three residents in support requested a 24 hour, 7 day a week restriction. 2 of the residents were in favour of a 30 minute time limit for non-permit holders and one favoured a 10 minute restriction. The church has requested a 90 minute time limit for non-permit holders. The residents who did not support introducing a scheme would both prefer a Mon-Fri restriction, 9am to 5pm with one hour time limit for non-permit holders during the times of operation. Options Option 1: (a) Take forward a proposal for resident priority parking on the length of carriageway adjacent to 5-11 Main Street for the use of these properties only.  7 day a week, 24 hour restriction with 30 minutes for non-permit holders. (b) Additional no waiting at any time (double yellow lines) to protect entrances to properties. (plan included as Annex E(1)) Reason: To provide residents, without any parking amenity, priority for limited carriageway space over non-residents. Although this is a small length of carriageway and a zone of 5 properties the expansion of Fulford secondary School has created discussions about consulting about a larger zone over a wide area. This small zone can be annexed into a larger zone at a later date. It is not the recommended option because it does not mitigate any of the concerns raised by St Oswalds Church.  When designing a scheme we try and take in the needs of the wider community, such as churches. Option 2: (Recommended Option) (a) Taking forward a proposal for resident priority parking on the length of carriageway adjacent to 5-11 Main Street for the use of these properties only. 7 day a week, 24 hour restriction with 60 minutes for non-permit holders (b) Additional lengths of no waiting at any time (double yellow lines)   to protect entrances to properties and improve sight lines. (plan included as Annex G) Reason: To provide residents priority for the limited carriageway space whilst trying to mitigate some of the concerns raised by St Oswald’s Church regarding sight lines on exiting car park. Although this is a small length of carriageway and a zone of 5 properties the expansion of Fulford secondary School has created discussions about consulting about a larger zone over a wide area. This small zone can be annexed into a larger zone at a later date. Option 3:  Take no further action at this time Reason: There is no traffic management reasons for introducing a resident priority parking at this location. There is no statutory duty on the Local Highway Authority (City of York Council) to provide on street parking for residents. This is a small length of carriageway and would involve a zone of 5 properties which many would consider too small a zone to take forward. Expansion of Fulford secondary school has created discussions about consulting with a wide area re the introduction of resident priority parking.  If we do not introduce a scheme at this time, this area could be included within any future consultation programmes. Consultation The consultation documentation is reproduced as Annex B, C and D. If a scheme is taken forward further consultation takes place as part of the legal process with all emergency services and haulier associations as well as residents, ward councillors and any other interested party. At that time notices are placed on street and published in The Press. Council Plan The Council Plan has Eight Key Outcomes: · Well-paid jobs and an inclusive economy · A greener and cleaner city · Getting around sustainably · Good health and wellbeing · Safe communities and culture for all · Creating homes and world-class infrastructure · A better start for children and young people · An open and effective council The recommended proposal contributes to the Council being open and effective as it responds to the request of the residents and the wider community to solve the problems they are experiencing.
20.	Implications This report has the following implications: Financial –The cost of implementation will be covered by the budget allocation to the department for introducing new restrictions. Human Resources – If implemented, enforcement will fall to the Civil Enforcement Officers necessitating an extra area onto their work load. Equalities – None identified within the consultation process. Legal – The proposals require amendments to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order 2014: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 & the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 apply Crime and Disorder – None Information Technology – None Land – None Other – None Risk Management - There is an acceptable level of risk associated with the recommended option.

Contact Details

Author:	Chief Officer Responsible for the report:
Sue Gill Traffic Project Officer Transport Tel: (01904) 551497	James Gilchrist Director for Environment, Transport and Planning
	Date:	23.04.21   Report Approved √
Wards Affected: Fulford and Heslington
For further information please contact the author of the report.

Annexes:

Annex A: Covering letter with request for action

Annex B: Consultation documentation delivered to petition area

Annex C: Consultation documentation delivered to nearby properties

Annex D: Consultation letter sent to St Oswald’s Church

Annex E (1): Option One

Annex E (2): Option 2 (Recommended Option)

Annex F: Comments/concerns raised by St Oswald’s Church