Executive Member Decision Session

 

13th April 2021

Report of the Director Environment, Transport and Planning

Portfolio of the Executive Member for Transport

 

Consideration of results from the consultation with residents of 140-154 Boroughbridge Road

 

 

1.

 

 

 

 

 

2.

Summary

 

1.             To report the consultation results for 140-154 Boroughbridge Road and to determine what action is appropriate.

 

Recommendation

 

2.      It is recommended that approval be given to  implement the advertised restriction for double yellow lines on one side of the carriageway only advertise additional restrictions in the turning head area adjacent to 152/154 Boroughbridge Road (plan included as Annex B)

 

        Reason: To progress the majority views of the residents consulted

 

 

 

Background

 

 

 

3.

 

 

 

4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.          Following a request from Ward Councillors, officers advertised a proposal for waiting restrictions on one side of the carriageway as part of the review process.  This was advertised on 7th February 2020.

4.           Objections were received to the proposal and these were considered by the Executive Member for Transport on 21 July 2020.  The Executive Member resolved to:

5.           Defer the decision and undertake further consultation with residents about their preferred option, to include introducing a Residents’ priority Parking Area; the results of which are to be referred back to the Executive Member for a decision on the way forward.

 

        Reason: to further involve residents in the decision making process and allow us to implement a scheme with confidence that it has a majority of residents in approval. The request for additional restrictions in the turning head could be included within the same consultation process. 

 

 

 

 

5.

 

 

 

6.          We hand delivered consultation documentation to all properties on 16th December 2020 requesting residents return their questionnaire sheets or email their preferences by the 15th January 2021.

 

7.           4 Options were given – the consultation documentation and option maps are included in the report as Annex A.

 

 

 

Consultation Results

 

8.          We received a reply from 8 of the 12 residents.

 

 

6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Option

 

No.

1

No Further Action – carriageway to remain unrestricted

3*

2

Implement as advertised

3*

3

Implement as advertised but with additional restrictions  in the turning head adjacent to 152/154

4

4

Further consideration is given to Resident Permit parking

0

 

(*2 residents indicated they had no preference over option one or two)

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.

Resident Comments – comments received from 3 residents

 

 

 

9.          Never had a problem with parking in 27 years (in support of option 1)

        Main issue is when vehicles park opposite (in support of option 2)

 

10.        Two of the options I deem as completely unreasonable.  The initial issue that was raised was due to a van parking on the pavement side opposite the houses with a ‘for sale’ sign in, approximately eighteen months ago. This was resolved when one of us asked the owner kindly to move it. Since then there has been zero issues down the street.

 

11.    I come back to the options you sent to us dated 16/12/2020.

        Option 3 I find unsatisfactory as I have the ‘turning head’ as you called it outside my front window. If you look down the street to the other block of houses, there is again a ‘turning head’ with vehicles parked in all day every day, with no proposal to apply restrictions to. When I purchased the house I was told this was on street parking for visitors, which I utilise occasionally and considerately.

 

12.       The remainder of the street regularly have visitors as they are all elderly, this causes slight frustration as they park on the paths outside the associated houses, but make it difficult for myself working full time, and my neighbour to get through as we are right at the end of the street.

 

13.        I feel that by putting waiting restrictions outside my property it is restricting my ability to have guests as the rest of the street can so freely do. It would only be fair if the restrictions followed the length of the street on both sides, but that would be ridiculous. 

 

14.       I therefore object to option 3, option 4 is also unreasonable in my opinion. We are not close to the city centre and find it unfair to have to pay to have vehicles parked on street.

 

15.       I would be more than happy for it to remain as is and not have the expenditure on yourselves as it isn’t really to anyone’s benefit. However I would also be content with the original proposal to go ahead.

 

 

 

 

 

Options (as given to residents) with Analysis

 

 

8.

16.  Option 1: No Further Action

 

 

        This is not the recommended option because of the returns we received only three were in favour of this option, with two of these indicating they had no objection to Option 2 (implement advertised restriction).

 

 

9.

17.  Option 2:  Implement the restriction as advertised in February 2020.

 

 

18.  This is not the recommended option for implementation without further proposals.  We are proposing we implement the restriction as advertised at this time – see Option 3 (recommended option) for further analysis.

 

10.

19.  Option 3: Implement the restriction as advertised in February 2020 and once implemented advertise a proposal for additional restrictions in the turning head area.

 

 

 

20.  This is the recommended option for the following reasons:

 

(a)        7 out of the 8 residents had no objection to implementation of restrictions in this area and in particular the implementation of the previously advertised restriction.  Consequently, we consider it beneficial to implement the restriction at this time.

(b)        4 Residents expressed a preference for additional restrictions in the turning head area outside 52/54 Boroughbridge Road

(c)        Implementation of the advertised restrictions prior to advertising additional restrictions would allow residents and officers to monitor and assess the impact and judge whether additional restrictions would be beneficial or necessary.

(d)        Residents will have an additional opportunity to object to the proposal for additional restrictions in the turning head area.  Objections would be brought back to the Executive Member for consideration and resolution.

 

 

11.

21.  Option 4: Consideration of a Resident Parking priority parking scheme with no on street waiting restrictions

 

 

 

22.  This is not the recommended option as no resident expressed a preference for this option during the consultation.

 

 

 

 

Consultation

 

 

12.

23. The consultation documentation is reproduced within this report as Annex A.

 

Council Plan

 

 

13.

24.   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 to solve the problems they are experiencing.

 

 

Implications

 

14.

.

25.       Financial –The cost of implementation will be covered by the budget allocation to the department for introducing new restrictions.

 

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

 

27.   Equalities – None identified within the consultation process.

 

28.     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

 

29.   Crime and Disorder – None

 

30.   Information Technology – None

 

31.   Land – None

 

32.   Other – None

 

33.     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 Environment, Transport and Planning

 

Date:  25.03.21

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wards Affected: Acomb

 

 

 

 

 

For further information please contact the author of the report.

 

 

 

Annexes:

Annex A: Consultation documentation

 

Annex B: Recommended Option