Decision Session –

Executive Member for Transport

                   14 February 2022




Report of the Director of Transport, Environment and Planning



Consideration of Objections to the draft Order to bring Broadway West into the Residents’ Priority Parking Scheme for Danesmead Summary




1.        The Report considers the objections raised to the Residents’ Parking proposal for Broadway West and offer an Officer Recommendation for the outcome.



2.        The Executive Member is asked to:


             i.          Confirm the decision to make the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) needed to introduce the Residents Parking scheme set out in the report and annexes. The proposed restrictions affect Broadway West and include 296 Fulford Road.  They would be added to an extended Residents’ Priority Parking Zone R63.


Reason: To positively respond to original petitions and further comments received, supporting Residents Parking controls in Broadway West, which the Executive Member considered in 2021 and to implement a scheme that reflects the majority view gained from more recent consultation in the area.


            ii.          It is recommended that the Executive Member approves the removal of the section of street being the initial length Westfield Drive from the scheme.


Reason: To respond to the views expressed on the configuration preferred by some residents.




          iii.          Additionally, it is recommended that the Executive Member approves the extension of the zone as drafted to include those properties on the west side of Fulford Road (even numbers) 298 to 314.


Reason: To respond to the views expressed on the configuration preferred by a local resident whose property fronts a section of Fulford Road that is subject to no waiting at any time.




3.        The decisions in 2021 included an undertaking to make a draft Order to take forward a scheme to introduce ResPark controls in Broadway West, Fulford.


4.        The streets were identified as a result of an earlier consultation with residents, in the area, not currently covered by existing ResPark zones.


5.        The draft Order was published in April 2021.


6.        We have received five objections. The nature and approximate locations of the objectors is set out in Annex B of this report and discussed below.


Proposals and Responses


7.        These restrictions primarily affect Broadway West which it is proposed would be included in Residents’ Priority Parking Zone R63. This street will be included in a ResPark Area. The draft area includes a section of that is adjacent to the sides of numbers 22 and 24 Westfield Drive.


8.        At ANNEX B you will see two objections (A and B) to this section of Westfield Drive being included in a scheme for Broadway West. It is considered that this change would not be significant and would reflect the views expressed on the configuration by some local residents.


9.        Objection C in the ANNEX discusses Fulford Road properties that front a section of Fulford Road subject to no waiting at any time, within the approach to the traffic lights. These properties are (even numbers) 298 to 314. A number of those residents appear to be currently parking on Broadway West although they do have a rear service road (from St Oswald’s Road) of which some have garages, but is not wide enough to park on. It is considered that this change would not be significant and would reflect the views expressed on the configuration by some local residents

10.    Objection D in the ANNEX discusses the loss of the street as a resource for the surrounding area, specifically those who enjoy the access it affords to the parkland, riverside and woodland at the end of Broadway West.


11.    Objection E is addressed at a number of principles behind the introduction and operation of ResPark. It is a long document and concludes that  ‘once the statutory and public law requirements are taken into account and the matter is objectively analysed, I do not believe that it is reasonable, rational or proportionate to implement the Scheme, and that it clearly leads to far worse issues than it solves. I also believe that a proper consideration of the matters required by the Road Traffic Regulation Act would lead to the Scheme not proceeding.’


12.    The Executive Member is asked to note the Objection at E.


Council Plan


13.    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.




14.    The following are the identified implications.


·               Financial – An estimated £5K (excluding officer costs) will be required to fund the implementation of the amended Traffic Regulation Order which will be funded from existing budgets.


·             Human Resources– The extended parking zone will require staff resources (shortly utilising an online self-service system and virtual permits) by the back office and CEO staff.  The management and monitoring will be a Traffic Management function.


·               Equalities – A communications plan has been put in for the wider Residents’ Parking Service to help those that either do not have access to the internet or the skills to use it to access the parking system as they do with other similar ICT access requirements. Blue Badge holders can park in controlled parking areas by displaying a valid Blue Badge so the proposals do not have a differential impact on Blue Badge holders.


·               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.


Risk Management


15.    The proposed extension to the existing Residents’ parking provision will be something that most residents/customers will welcome but may disadvantaged some people who may have objected to the draft proposal. These objections have been reviewed and reported herein.


Contact Details:




Chief Officer Responsible for the report:


Ken Hay

Traffic Projects Officer


Tel No. 2474


James Gilchrist

Director Environment, Transport & Planning


Report Approved










Wards Affected:  Fishergate






For further information please contact the author of the report






Annex A   R63: Extension Area for Broadway West

Annex B   Text of Objections