Agenda item

To consider the representations received to the statutory consultation and Notice of Proposal for the amendment of the Traffic Regulation Order, advertised on 15 November 2024, which proposed to implement Resident Parking (ResPark) restrictions (advertised as R66: Wellington Street) to include properties on Heslington Road (part), Wellington Street, Willis Street, Gordon Street, Wolsley Street, Apollo Street, Apollo Court, Alne Terrace, Belle Vue Street, Belle Vue Terrace and Barbican Road (part) along with mixed use limited waiting parking bays on Heslington Road and determine what action is appropriate following the results.

Resolved:     To approve Option 2, extending the statutory consultation period by a further 21 days. Press notices, onsite notices and residents’ letters advising of the extended consultation end date will be issued.

Anyone who responded to the previous statutory consultation will not need to submit a new representation. Details of the updated fees associated with purchasing permits for residents parking schemes will be included so that residents can make an informed decision.

Reason:        While the statutory consultation process was followed, the Executive Member felt that the level of response to both the informal and formal consultations was insufficient to make a representative decision today.

The Director of Transport, Environment and Planning introduced the item, noting that in October 2024 the Executive Member determined, pursuant to a petition, that this item should progress to formal consultation. Consequently, this report updated on the statutory consultation which was the legal process of implementing restrictions.

He began by responding to questions and concerns raised in the Public Participation section:

·       He explained that a blue badge did provide free parking within a residents’ park area and that free attendance permits for carers were also offered in these areas. 

·       He noted that there was a charge for residents to park in a resident's parking zone and this price varied based on the number of cars per residence, but the standard price was £115 per year/32p per day.

·       The Badger Hill permit had been referenced by a speaker; he explained that this was a residents parking scheme funded through the University of York's campus development and there had been an obligation they would fund that through the planning process for several years. The agreement had now expired and was under review and officers would be consulting with residents around Badger Hill on the future of that scheme.

·       Regarding the decision and concerns over methodology, he clarified that the consultation process was not a referendum, and that once advertised it was the legal duty of the Traffic Authority and Executive Member to consider all objections. In order to put those objections into context it was important to also report support for the scheme, which officers had done, and they had been guided by response rates and the level of support in putting these comments into context.

·       Once an item has been advertised, a lesser restriction could always be decided upon, but the authority could not request a greater restriction; so there may be ways to accommodate – for example – the short stay parking requested by some residents, or the parking scheme could also be applied to part of the area and not the full extent.

The Traffic Projects Officer explained the additional responses to consultation published in a supplement to the meeting’s agenda (two residents in support and one in objection).

The Executive Member acknowledged having read these written responses from residents, as well as a written submission from Cllr Whitcroft on this item.

The Executive Member conceded that the consultation process had been confusing for residents, noting the very low response rate to both informal and formal consultation. Given the difference between the number of responses she concluded there had been a misunderstanding.

Through the informal consultation carried out in January 2024 there had been 116 responses of a possible 485 sent out (72 people in favour and 44 against). While this was less than the 50% officers would normally look for to feel like there was support in an area, this was a guideline rather than a rule so the Executive Member had made the decision to continue to statutory consultation.

She felt that perhaps the significance of also responding to the formal consultation in November 2024 had not been properly communicated to residents, since only 24 responses were received for this. She emphasised that the formal consultation is the important one for residents to respond to and she hoped by extending the consultation period this would allow those in the area to properly respond to this issue.

With that in mind the Executive Member

Resolved:   To approve Option 2, extending the statutory consultation period by a further 21 days. Press notices, onsite notices and residents’ letters advising of the extended consultation end date will be issued.

Anyone who responded to the previous statutory consultation will not need to submit a new representation. Details of the updated fees associated with purchasing permits for residents parking schemes will be included so that residents can make an informed decision.

Reason:      While the statutory consultation process was followed, the Executive Member felt that the level of response to both the informal and formal consultations was insufficient to make a representative decision today.