Decision Session – Executive Member for Transport


17 January 2023

Report of the Director of Environment, Transport and Planning


Stadium Parking Impact – Huntington Area TRO Consultation




1.        The report considers the representations received to the Consultation to introduce parking restrictions in the Huntington area due to obstructive parking that has been occurring on stadium match days.  The Executive Member will be asked to make a decision on the implementation of the proposal.  


2.        This report will also provide information on the future of the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO), which was put in place for the Residents Parking Area on Forge Close and Saddlers Close.  The Executive Member will be asked to decide on the future operation of the scheme and if future charges are to be brought into operation should the scheme continue to operate.



3.        The Executive is asked to:

1)   Approve the proposal for ‘No Waiting at any time’ restrictions in the Priory Wood Way area as proposed.

Reason: The introduction of junction protection at these locations will increase safety at these locations subject to obstructive parking on match days and allow York Council Civil Enforcement Officers to enforce the restrictions against obstructive parking.

2)   Approve the Advertisement of further restrictions on the streets mentioned within this report and to delegate authority to the Director of Environment, Transport and Planning to approve where to propose restrictions, with any objections received to the Statutory Consultation to be reported back to a future Executive Member for Transport Decision Session.


Reason: To respect the views of the residents on those streets about their requests for additional restrictions to help with issues related to match day parking.


3)   Approve the removal of the Experimental Residents Parking Scheme from Forge Close and Saddlers Close.


Reason: To respect the views of the residents who objected to the making of the Experimental  Order permanent in response to the consultation.




4.        As part of the development of the new sport stadium in the Huntington area, there was an experimental introduction of parking restrictions in the area to try and reduce the impact on residential streets.  It was not clear how spectators would choose to travel to the stadium and to what extent the on-street parking levels would be affected.  The initial roll out of restrictions comprised of the introduction of single and Double yellow lines on New Lane and the introduction of the ETRO for the residents Parking Scheme on Forge Close and Saddlers Close, which were the nearest residential streets to the stadium.


5.        The Council received complaints from residents and Ward Cllrs about an increase in parking on some streets in the Huntington area on match days.  The reports were not restricted to one street and the Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers had reported an increase in parking but not in contradiction of the current restrictions in the area.


6.        A consultation was undertaken with resident about the impact of stadium parking on street, the results of the consultation were reported to the Executive Member and a decision was made to propose the introduction of ‘No Waiting’ Restrictions on some streets in the Huntington Area.  A proposal (Annex A) was created to introduce restrictions at junctions to remove the obstructive parking away from the junctions, which was affecting vehicle access/egress into/out of the streets.  We posted the Statutory consultation documents (Annex B) to all affected properties on the 21st October 2022, to make residents aware of the proposal and provide them with an opportunity to comment on the proposal.


7.        The ETRO came into operation on the 31st July 2021 for a period of 18 months, this was the second ETRO as the first one had to be revoked, when works to complete the stadium development were stopped due to the Coronavirus Pandemic.  The charges for the permits which were required to park on the street during the Experimental period were initially waived, although residents were made aware that this would need to be re-evaluated if the scheme was to be made permanent.


8.        A letter (Annex C) was sent to all properties within the area of the residents parking scheme on 21st November 2022 to enquire about their views on the scheme and the potential introduction of charges for the residents parking area.




‘No Waiting’ Restrictions Consultation


9.        The proposal for the ‘No Waiting at any time’ consultation received 13 representations to the proposal, two of which were in favour (Annex D), 6 in objection (Annex E) and 5 to provide information on other areas of concern (Annex F). 


10.    One of the representations received in favour was initially against the proposal for No waiting restrictions at the junctions, as it was wrongly believed that the proposed restrictions would apply to in the whole area.  When the reasoning for the proposal and confirmation of the extent of the proposal was explained to the resident, they felt it was a sensible proposal and withdrew their objection and were in favour of the proposal.  The other representation in favour did also have some queries about how it would affect the parking of their vehicles, once the proposal was explained in more detail, they were happy with the proposal.


11.    Three of the six objections to the proposal were in relation to residents concerned that the restrictions would remove available parking for visitors or trades people, which would be to the detriment of the residents.  The response also queried why the area needs a restriction that is in place all the time when the parking activity associated with events at the stadium is only an issue every couple of weeks and only for 3-4 hours at a time.


12.    There was concern that the introduction of restrictions at the junctions will encourage more vehicles to park on nearby narrow side streets like Oak Glade.


13.    The responses also questioned why the stadium management are not doing more to encourage public transport or working with Vangarde management to allow parking and provide more information about when it is allowed, as there appears to be a misunderstanding about the eligibility for stadium parking at night-time matches. 


14.    One resident did also question the wording on the stadium website, as it stated that parking nearby and walking to the stadium may be a good option.  On further investigation the statement was not on the stadium website - it was on another website, which was providing information about the stadium for visiting fans during the Rugby World Cup.  The company responsible for the website have since been contacted and requested to amend the website which has now happened.


15.    The consultations also encouraged other residents in the Huntington area to contact the Council about issues with parking in the area, with two responses highlighting the issue on the link road between Anthea Drive and Whenby Grove.  The residents are highlighting issues with vehicles parking close to the junctions, which is causing issues with vehicles accessing and exiting the street.  A resident did provide information about a dangerous manoeuvre, which nearly resulted in a cyclist been knocked off their bike, a contributing factor was the line of parked vehicles which the cyclist had to overtake.


16.    The consultation also resulted in receipt of concerns from a resident about parking on New Lane (between Jockey Lane and Priory Wood Way), which is seeing an increase in long term parking along that section of the road, which cannot be associated with the stadium.  The resident in question did actually suggest that the area should have a 4 hour limit, to enable the area to be available for parking for church goers and parking for the stadium.


17.    The other areas that have been asked to be reviewed were Brockfield Park Drive area and Straylands Grove (between Malton Road and Elmfield Terrace).   In Brockfield Park Drive area it has been reported that the situation has got gradually worse over time and obstructing vehicles from leaving their streets.   The issue raised on Straylands Grove has been associated to the stadium and Dog walkers utilising the Monk Stray, which is obstructing the view of vehicles accessing Straylands Grove from Elmfield Terrace.




Residents’ Parking ETRO Consultation


18.    The proposal for the Residents Parking ETRO received only one representation to the experimental Order, which was against the permanent introduction, this was received within the first couple of weeks of operation.   As no further information was received from residents of the Residents Parking Area, it was decided to write to residents again to discover if their views had changed and to enquiry about their views on pricing plan for the permits should it be made permanent.


19.    The additional consultation letter received 14 responses: 2 in favour (Annex G) of making the Order permanent and 12 against (Annex H) the continuation of the Residents’ Parking Zone.


20.    The two comments in favour of the scheme would like to see it made permanent due to the positive impact the scheme has had, when the stadium was initially opened there was an issues until enforcement began and the street is no longer seeing a parking issue.  One resident would like the permanent Order to be made due to the issues that other streets in Huntington are having and thy fear that those issues will be seen on their street if the Residents Parking Scheme is removed.


21.    Only one resident in favour of the scheme would be willing to pay the charges to ensure that the street is protected, the other resident does not have off street parking and is concerned about the cost, as they have 2 vehicles (one is a works vehicle), that need to be parked on street and require a permit.


22.    The representation against the making permanent of the Residents’ Parking Scheme for Forge Close and Saddler Close are in the main to do with residents not feeling that the scheme is required and concerns about the cost that residents would pay for the scheme.  They do not feel the charge for a full year would be justified when the scheme would only be in operation on match days. 


23.    There were some representations stating that the scheme has not been helpful for residents and the enforcement of the restrictions have only been against residents and their visitors, who were not aware of when match days are, this has led to confusion as information on the match days is not made available to the residents.  There were also representations that stated that the streets did not receive enough enforcement to justify the scheme operation. 


24.    The residents do not feel that the street layout lends itself to high levels of additional parking and there is not currently a problem with parking on the streets.  The majority of the residents have off-street parking and therefore do not require permits.  The scheme would therefore be to the detriment of the properties without off-street parking who would be required to purchase permits for their vehicles.


25.    The restrictions for the experimental order only allow for enforcement on match days at the nearby stadium but the street does see parking for people attending the nearby church and this does not create any problem for the street.  It has been stated that the parking of vehicles during matches would be limited and for a short duration of time on each occasion.


26.    Some of the representations have questioned how the experimental Order has been evaluated and how can it be judged as the stadium was not operational when the experimental restrictions came into force.




‘No Waiting’ Restrictions Consultation


27.    Option 1: Implement the restrictions as proposed.

This is the recommended option as it will protect the junctions and remove obstructive parking that has been reported within the area.


28.    Option 2: No further action

This is not the recommended option as it will leave the area open to obstructive parking and not address the safety concerns raised by residents and Ward Cllrs.


29.    Option 3: Advertise Additional restrictions

This is the recommended option as it will help to address the safety concerns raised by residents in the areas mentioned within the report.


Residents’ Parking ETRO Consultation


30.    Option 4: Make the Residents Parking Permanent with charges

This is not the recommended option as the residents are not in favour of the continuation of the scheme and do not feel that they should have to pay for the stadium having a lack of parking.


31.    Option 5: Make the Residents Parking Permanent without charges

This is not the recommended option as the residents are not in favour of the continuation of the scheme as they do not feel that there is a benefit to making the order permanent.


32.    Option 6: Remove the Residents Parking Scheme

This is the recommended option, as resident parking schemes have always been resident led and the residents are not in favour of the continuation of the scheme.





‘No Waiting’ Restrictions Consultation


33.    The restrictions proposed in the consultation were to introduce waiting restrictions at the junctions for 10m in each direction, to help increase safety at the junctions, to help vehicles access/egress the streets safely.  The proposal will still provide the Council Civil Enforcement Officers an opportunity to enforcement obstructive parking close to the junctions, this has not been proposed to restrict the parking activities of residents/visitors.


34.    The proposal will not remove vehicles from parking on the streets whilst visiting the stadium for sporting fixtures, this could only be managed with more extensive restrictions or a Residents Parking scheme but previous consultations with residents indicate that they would not be in favour of such a proposal.  A residents parking scheme or more extensive parking restrictions are likely to be more restrictive for the residents than the impact of vehicles parking whilst visiting the stadium during sporting fixtures.


35.    The information provided on the additional areas has highlighted a safety issue on the Link Road between Anthea Drive and Whenby Grove and Brockfield Park Drive area, as they do seem to be a popular streets to park during sporting fixtures but the vehicles are causing an obstruction to other road users.  Theses streets were subject to the original consultation and the residents were not in favour of extensive restrictions or Residents Parking, so any proposal for the streets are likely to be in line with the current proposal and provide junction protection to make it easier to access/egress from the Link Road and the roads off Brockfield Park Drive.


36.    The issues reported on New Lane and Straylands Grove is not solely a result of the stadium and relates to other contributing factors.  The area on New Lane has previously been proposed for restrictions prior to the stadium opening and the local community requested that restrictions should not be placed along this stretch to allow for some visitor parking for residents and the Church.  The stretch of Straylands Grove that has been highlighted as an issue does have ‘No Waiting at any time’ restrictions at is junction with Malton Road, these were introduced to remove vehicles from parking too close to the junction whilst visiting Monk Stray.  The issue of vehicles parking in this area predates the stadium but this has provided another contributing factor for the area and as there are no restrictions at the Elmfield Terrace Junction, it is creating a large problem which needs to be reviewed.


Residents’ Parking ETRO Consultation



37.    The responses from the recent consultation do indicate that the residents of Forge Close and Saddlers Close are not in favour of making the Resident’s Parking area permanent.  The council has always stated that residents’ parking schemes will be resident led so the resident’s response to this consultation should be listened to.


38.    The residents enquiring about how the experimental Order will be evaluated are correct that there was not a base line as the stadium was not operational when the restrictions came into operation.  The impact on the other areas of Huntington would indicate that the Residents’ parking area is required, and the area will see an increase in parking levels on match days if the restrictions is not made permanent.


39.    It was reported by one objector that they do not see an issue on the street due to the signage at the entrance, it should be noted that if the residents’ parking scheme is removed so will the signage that has deterred people from parking on the street.


Council Plan


40.   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 an open and effective Council as it responds to the request from the residents in a positive way.





41.    This report has the following implications:


Financial – The implementation of any approved restriction or further consultation of any proposed restrictions will be funded from funds deposited by the Stadium Management group under a Section 106 Agreement to fund any required amendments to the Traffic Regulation Order.


Human Resources If implemented, enforcement will fall to the Civil Enforcement Officers necessitating an extra area onto their work load.


Equalities 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 – Positive, the introduction of parking restrictions at the junctions will remove obstructive parking near the junctions and improve visibility for residents crossing at the crossing points for all age of resident;

·        Disability – Positive, the introduction of parking restrictions at junctions will remove obstructive parking blocking the dropped crossing points at the junctions and to help provide a safe crossing point;

·        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;

o   Veterans, Armed Forces Community– Neutral.



Legal The Traffic Management Act 2004 places a duty on local traffic authorities to manage the road network with a view to securing, as far as reasonably practicable, the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of all types of traffic. The Council regulates traffic by means of traffic regulation orders (TROs) made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which can prohibit, restrict, or regulate the use of a road, or any part of the width of a road, by vehicular traffic. After the public notice of proposals for a TRO has been advertised, any person can object to the making of the TRO. The recommendation in this report requires the decision maker to consider all objections received during the statutory consultation period before deciding whether to make the TRO unchanged/without modifications or to make it with modifications that reduce the restrictions or not to proceed with it. This will enable the Council to comply with the requirements of both the Road Traffic Act 1984 and  the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.


Crime and Disorder – None


Information Technology – None


Land – None


Other –  No other implications identified.


Risk Management - There is an acceptable level of risk associated with the recommended option.


Contact Details




Chief Officer Responsible for the report:

Darren Hobson

Traffic Management Team Leader


Tel No. (01904) 551367


James Gilchrist

Director for Transport, Highways and Environment


Report Approved









Specialist Implications Officer(s)  List information for all


Financial:                                        Legal:

Name         Jayne Close                 Name Gerard Allen

Title            Accountant                   Title Senior Lawyer

Tel No.       Tel No. 01904554175  Tel No. 01904 552004


Wards Affected:  Huntington







For further information please contact the author of the report



Background Papers:




Annex A – Huntington Proposed Restrictions

Annex B – Residents Letter Huntington

Annex C – Experimental Residents Parking Letter

Annex D – Representation in Favour to Parking Restrictions

Annex E – Objections to Parking Restrictions

Annex F – Issues in the Stadium Area

Annex G – Representation in favour of Permanent Residents Parking Restrictions

Annex H – Objections to the Residents Parking Scheme