City of York Council (Logo)

Meeting:

Executive Member for Transport

Meeting date:

11/06/2024

Report of:

Director of Environment, Transport & Planning

Portfolio of:

Cllr Ravilious, Executive Member for Transport


Decision Report: Tadcaster Road Parking Bays


Subject of Report

 

1.           The report reviews the initial consultation responses received from the residents/businesses on the potential changes to parking bays on Tadcaster Road between its junctions Royal Chase and Slingsby Grove.   The responses from a previous consultation suggested that the residents/businesses felt that the loading bay in front of the shops was not required and would like to see the removal of the bay.

 

2.           The report considers the response and provides a recommendation for a future proposal for the parking bays.

 

Benefits and Challenges

 

3.           The proposed changes to the Traffic Regulation Order are recommended to help provide a more appropriate parking amenity in the area to help benefit the businesses.  The consultation has been brought forward following representations received by local residents and businesses to improve the facility and remove the all-day parking and loading bay which is removing available parking amenity for use when accessing the businesses.

 

4.           A challenge with this area is the resident and businesses do not feel that over the years their views on how the parking bays should be used, as there has been a number of different road layouts over the years as the bus stop has moved locations.

 

 

 

Policy Basis for Decision

 

5.           The Council Plan has seven priorities and the amendment of the parking bays on Tadcaster Road aims to comply with the following priorities:

                i.              Economy: the scheme looks to support the local economy by providing a more suitable parking area removing all-day parking and the loading bay.  The proposal is not looking to create any parking charges on the bays near the local amenities to help to continue to encourage residents to shop local.

               ii.              Transport; through proposing a duration on the length of stay on the parking area, the Council is looking to remove the all-day parking from the bay, to encourage commuters to use a more sustainable form of traffic.

 

6.           The proposed changes to the traffic restrictions which were consulted on do not propose the introduction of any Pay and display parking bays.  This helps to create affordable parking near the local amenities for use by customers.

 

Financial Strategy Implications

 

7.           The recommendation within the report request approval for the statutory consultation. The costs associated with the advertisement will be covered by the associated budget.

 

Recommendation and Reasons

 

8.           Advertise a proposal to amend the Traffic Regulation Order to remove the Loading Bay in the parking bay on the north west side and change the duration of parking on the bays on Tadcaster Road between Royal Chase and Slingsby Grove so the restrictions on the use of the bays are as follows:

·        North west side of Tadcaster Road - 1-hour limit Monday-Saturday 9am-5pm

·        South east side of Tadcaster Road - 3-hour limit Monday-Saturday 9am-5pm

This is the recommended option, as it allows for the views of the residents and businesses to be taken into consideration to help provide a more suitable parking arrangement in the vicinity for the residents and businesses.

 

Background

 

9.           The recent highway amendments to Tadcaster Road, required changes to the road layout and introduction of ‘No Waiting at any time’ restrictions, in the vicinity of the parking bays.  As part of the statutory consultation that was undertaken for the amendment to the traffic regulation order to propose the introduction the ‘No Waiting at any time’ restrictions resulted in response from the residents and businesses to question how the proposal would affect the parking bays and why no consideration was given to an amendment to the bays.

 

10.        The residents/businesses provided representation requesting that the bays be reviewed, with several requests for the area of loading bay to removed to offer greater parking amenity in the area.  The representation received offered a number of differing viewpoints on how the bays should be used.  The representations received were included within the report to the Executive Member for Economy and Transport at the decision session on 14 November 2023.  The report recommended further consultation was undertaken with the resident/businesses to better understand the preferences on the use of the bays.

 

11.        The restrictions in place currently for the bays on Tadcaster Road are as follows:

·        northwest side (outside the shops) is a combination of a Loading Bay, which is in operation all the time and a Monday to Saturday 9am-5pm, 1 hour parking bay with no return in 1 hour.

·        Southeast side (adjacent to the racecourse) is an unrestricted parking bay.

 

Consultation Analysis

 

12.        The consultation letter (Annex A) was posted to the residents on 26th January 2024, with responses requested by 16th February 2024.  The consultation letter asked for the residents/businesses views on if the loading bay should be removed or not and for their preference on the duration of stay that would be eligible within the bays.  The response to the consultation are shown in the below table:

 

 

Loading Bay Removal

Unrestricted Parking

3hour parking bay

3hour Mon-Sat, 9am-5pm

1 hour parking bay

1hour Mon-Sat, 9am-5pm

Comments

Yes

No

North west

South east

North west

South east

North west

South east

North west

South east

North west

South east

 

1

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

1

 

13.        The Council received 8 responses to the consultation from the residents and business, of the 8 responses 7 stated they would like the area of loading bay to removed, with the remaining respondent requesting the loading bay only stays if their requested duration of stay cannot be accommodated.  There is clear desire for the removal of the loading bay from the parking area on the north western side of the road.  The removal of the section of loading bay, will provide a greater parking amenity for the businesses.

 

14.        The request for proposed duration of stay for the parking areas on each side of the road was not as clear.  The responses for the parking area north west side were split with 3 respondents in favour of unrestricted parking and 3 respondents requesting the bay have a one-hour restriction Monday to Saturday between 9am and 5pm.  The other respondents want a three-hour restriction Monday to Saturday between 9am and 5pm and the final response requested a 30-minute restriction to be put in place on the north west side.

 

15.        4 of the response received for the parking area on the south east side of the road requested that the area stays as unrestricted parking area.  There was 2 responses requesting a 3-hour Monday-Saturday, 9am to 5pm restriction and the two remaining responses requesting a 1-hour Monday-Saturday 9am to 5pm restriction and a 2 hour restriction to be put in place.

 

16.        The representations that were received as part of the original consultation raised concerns about the bays being used all day for commuter parking, this would be against Council policy on sustainable transport.  One of the comments received within this consultation raised a concern about all day commuter parking happening in the area, which is having a negative impact on the parking amenity in the area. 

 

17.        The approval for an unrestricted parking bay on either side of the road is likely to create an increase in long term parking in that location, which would be to the detriment of the businesses.  The bays would be better utilised and offer a better amenity for the businesses if the bays were restricted to a duration of stay, allowing for more customer parking in the vicinity of the businesses.

 

18.        There was a consultation response which questioned that the current parking arrangement does not allow any consideration for staff parking for the businesses.  The council would not look to provide staff parking on the highway for any business in the city and this would set an unwanted precedent for the Council.  It is therefore not considered appropriate to put in place unrestricted lengths of parking within the lengths of bays.

 

19.        The original consultation raised concerns about access to the hairdressers been affected by the current layout, as some appointments need require longer than 1 hour and there is limited space available due to the all-day parking that is occurring.  The current parking situation is having a negative impact on the businesses, with concerns raised about the potential to lose customers due to the access issue.

 

20.        The responses provided indicated that the 1-hour limit on the north west side was sufficient but there is not sufficient space for parking due to the Loading bay, which is taking up space and not utilised for the majority of time.


Options Analysis and Evidential Basis

 

21.        Option 1 – Advertise a proposal to amend the Traffic Regulation Order to remove the Loading Bay in the parking bay on the north west side and change the duration of parking on the bays on Tadcaster Road between Royal Chase and Slingsby Grove so the restrictions on the use of the bays are as follows:

·        North west side of Tadcaster Road - 1-hour limit Monday-Saturday 9am-5pm

·        South east side of Tadcaster Road - 3-hour limit Monday-Saturday 9am-5pm

This is the recommended option, as it allows for the views of the residents and businesses to be taken into consideration to help provide a more suitable parking arrangement in the vicinity for the residents and businesses.

 

22.        Option 2 – Take no further action, this option is not recommended as it will leave area of parking bays as they are, which will not create an improvement in the parking amenity in the area.


Organisational Impact and Implications

 

23.        The report has the following impacts and implications:

·                    Financial. The recommended option is to advertise a proposal to amend the TRO to remove the Loading Bays on Tadcaster Road. The costs associated with the advertisement will be covered from Revenue Transport budget.

·                    Human Resources (HR), If the proposed recommendation is approved and the restrictions do come into effect then enforcement of the proposed traffic restrictions would fall to the Councils Civil Enforcement Officers, this would not constitute an extra demand on their workload, as they are already enforcing the restriction.

·                    Legal, The proposals require amendments to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Order 2014: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 & the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 apply. 

 

         The statutory consultation process for Traffic Regulation Orders requires public advertisement through the placing of public notices within the local press and on-street. It is a requirement for the Council to consider any formal objections received within the statutory advertisement period of 21 days. Formal notification of the public advertisement is given to key stakeholders including local Ward Members, Town and Parish Councils, Police and other affected parties.
 

         The Council, as Highway Authority, is required to consider any objections received after formal statutory consultation. The Council has discretion to amend its original proposals if considered desirable, whether or not, in the light of any objections or comments received, as a result of such statutory consultation. If any objections received are accepted, in part or whole, and/or a decision is made to modify the original proposals, if such a modification is considered to be substantial, then steps must be taken for those affected by the proposed modifications to be further consulted.

·                    Procurement, Any public works contracts required at the location as a result of a change to the TRO (e.g. signage, road markings, etc.) must be commissioned in accordance with a robust procurement strategy that complies with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and (where applicable) the Public Contract Regulations 2015. Advice should be sought from both the Procurement and Legal Services Teams where appropriate.).

·                    Health and Wellbeing, There are no Health and Wellbeing implications.

·                    Environment and Climate action, There are no Environment and Climate Action implications.

·                    Affordability, There are 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 – Positive, as blue badge holders would be able to park longer than the restricted time on the north west side of the road;

·                    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 :

o        Carer - Neutral;

o        Low income groups – Neutral;

·                    Veterans, Armed Forces Community– Neutral

The report requests the approval for the advertisement of an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order, it is recognised that Traffic Regulation Order requests may impact protected characteristics in different ways.  The process of consulting on the recommendation in this report will identify any equalities implications, which may lead to an individual Equalities Impact Assessment being carried out in due course.

·                    Data Protection and Privacy, the responses received to the initial consultation by residents and businesses does not contain any personable information.

·                    Communications, there are no communications implications.

·                    Economy, there are no economy implications.


Risks and Mitigations

 

24.        The report reviews the responses to an initial consultation undertaken with the residents and businesses in the area and proposes a potential option to amend the traffic restrictions for the parking bays.  If the proposed option is approved, this will require a further consultation to be undertaken for the amendment to the TRO.

 

Wards Impacted

 

25.        Dringhouses & Woodthorpe Ward.

 

Contact details

 

For further information please contact the authors of this Decision Report.

 

Author

 

Name:

James Gilchrist

Job Title:

Director of Environment, Transport & Planning

Service Area:

Place

Telephone:

01904 552547

Report approved:

Yes

Date:

09/07/2024


Co-author

 

Name:

Darren Hobson

Job Title:

Traffic Management Team Leader

Service Area:

Place

Telephone:

01904 551367

Report approved:

Yes

Date:

02/07/2024


Background papers

 

https://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s171082/Tadcaster%20Road%20TRO%20Consultation%20Report.pdf


Annexes

 

·        Annex A: Consultation Letter