NORWICH CITY COUNCIL. Report for Resolution

Transcription

1 NORWICH CITY COUNCIL Report for Resolution Report To Report of Subject Norwich Highways Agency Committee 11 November 2004 Director of Development Lakenham TAP Responses to the advertisement of waiting restrictions to Ingram Court, Stratford Drive, Southgate Lane and Southwell Road Purpose The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the responses received to the advertisement of waiting restriction Traffic Regulation Orders associated with the Lakenham Transport Action Plan and agree what action to take. Recommendations The Committee is recommended to: 1. authorise the implementation of the following Traffic Regulation Orders, and note the changes from those proposals that were originally advertised On Ingram Court, the implementation of no waiting at any time in the entrance to the close (as shown on Plan No. PL/TR/3584/309) but not to proceed with expanding the residents permit parking into the area On Southgate Lane, to proceed with the permit parking scheme as shown on Plan No. PL/TR/3584/318. On Stratford Drive, not to implement the advertised scheme shown on plan no. PL/TR/3584/310/A On Southwell Road, implement the changes as advertised and shown on Plan 02 HN Financial Consequences The funding of these changes is to be met from the 2004/2005 allocation for the Lakenham Area Transport Action Plan from the LTP Corporate Objective / Service Plan Priority The report helps to achieve the corporate objectives to manage the environment in a sustainable manner. Contact Officer

2 Bruce Bentley Rosemary Thomas Background Documents Representations received in response to Advertisement of the Traffic Regulation Orders. NHAC report and Minutes 10 th July 2003 Page 2 of 14

3 Background 1. Members will be aware that, following the Planning for Real consultation in February 2002, a series of proposals were put forward for traffic management and pedestrian improvements in the Lakenham area, in response to suggestions and concerns raised by local people. 2. Following requests from local residents during this consultation process draft Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) were advertised to extend the Southeastern Controlled Parking Zone into Ingram Court, and Southgate Lane and to extend Double Yellow Lines in Stratford Drive (also requested by the County Councillor). On Southwell Road, traffic calming has been installed as part of the project, and the double yellow lines on Southwell Road are associated with these works. Responses to the Traffic Regulation Orders 3. Appendix A lists the letters received and provides officer comment. There were three individual responses, and a petition of 48 signatures in response to the proposals for Ingram Court, mostly supporting the extension of Double Yellow Lines, but opposed to the permit parking (one letter supported this). The proposals for Stratford Drive were subject to 5 letters of objection (including one from a local member), whilst the proposals for Southgate Lane were mostly supported, with minor amendments suggested. Ingram Court 4. The issue of commuter and shopper parking was raised by a number of people during the Planning for Real Consultation, and the advertisement of proposals to extend the controlled Parking Zone into Ingram Court was agreed by this Committee in July The advertised proposal is shown on Plan Number PLTR/3584/309 In Appendix B, and is in accordance with normal practice for the extension of Controlled Parking Zones in Residential streets. 5. The petition received acknowledges that commuter and shopper parking is an issue. However over 50% of residents have signed the petition against the implementation of the scheme. It is therefore suggested that the CPZ element of the restrictions should not be taken forward at this time although the Committee should note that it is unlikely that there will be another review of the CPZ for some time. It is recommended that the double yellow line proposals be implemented. Southgate Lane 6. The waiting arrangements on Southgate Lane have been an anomaly for some time, completely surrounded by the City Centre and the Southeastern Controlled Parking Zone. This has resulted in problems both of access and parking in Southgate Lane for local residents Page 3 of 14

4 7. The scheme as advertised was supported by local residents, subject to minor adjustments to ease egress from private driveways, and the retention of an existing short length of single yellow line to ease egress from adjacent property, and to provide additional turning facility. These minor adjustments to the scheme are included on Plan No. PL/TR/3584/318 in Appendix B. The amendments do not require re-advertising. Stratford Drive 8. There are existing double yellow lines extending into Stratford Drive on the South side, although on the north side the lines stop at the back of highway line of City Road. The turn into Stratford Drive is relatively gentle, and the current arrangement is certainly not consistent with the normal approach at junctions within Controlled Parking Zones. Usually around 10m of double yellow line is installed at junctions in the interests of highway safety, and in accordance with advice in the Highway Code, which advises against parking within 10m of a junction. The proposal advertised actually extended further than this, partially because of the gentle curve, and partially to avoid conflict with private driveways. 9. Users of the junction raised some concerns during the Planning for Real consultation. These were discussed with County Councillor Sue Whitaker who is of the opinion that there is a safety issue at this junction. She would prefer to see the proposals implemented. Although members of the public have raised these safety issues, and the proposed scheme is consistent with normal practice on junctions with more major routes within Controlled Parking Zones it is recommended not to implement the proposals as there is no proven safety issue, and there has been a high level of objection. 10. Due to the nature of the bend, and the locations of private driveways on each side of the road, the proposals either need to be implemented as advertised or not implemented at all. Southwell Road 11. The proposed lines are necessary to ensure the correct use of a trafficcalming feature. No objections have been received Page 4 of 14

5 Ingram Court Appendix A Correspondent Response Officer Comment and Action Occupier response Appreciates proposal, but would prefer existing spaces to be allocated to individual flats 41, Ingram Court Supports double yellow lines, but thinks existing on-street parking arrangements should remain 1, Ingram Court Supports Double Yellow lines, but thinks rest of the street should have single yellow lines to prevent commuter and shopper parking Ingram Court Residents Association 48-signature petition Pleased to see that the double yellow lines are to be extended and acknowledge that there is an issue with commuter parking, but fear that introducing residents parking would encourage people from nearby streets to park in Ingram Court. There is also concern (confirmed by the director on the phone) that ex-residents selling their permits will abuse the system. These spaces are privately owned, and it would be up to the management of Ingram Court flats to introduce such a scheme Support for double yellow lines noted It was for this reason that permit parking was originally suggested, as this would prevent commuter and shopper parking, but allow some flexibility for residents Residents parking would help with the commuter parking issue. Local residents will be able to park in Ingram Court, whether permit parking is introduced or not. Support for extended Double Yellow Lines is noted.

6 Southgate Lane Correspondent Response Officer Comment and Action Southgate House ( phone Very much supports scheme Noted call). 6, Southgate Lane No observations Noted 4, Southgate Lane Supports scheme in principle. Suggests retention of existing lines opposite entrance to 9, Bracondale, and slight adjustment to length of Double Yellow Line adjacent to the entrances to Nos. 5&6 5, Southgate Lane Supports proposal in principle suggest similar amendments to those proposed by No. 4 9, Bracondale Supports scheme in principle. Requests retention of lines opposite entrance 7a Bracondale Supports scheme in principle. Suggests retention of lines opposite gate to 9, Bracondale Minor amendments have been made to proposal and are shown on Plan No PL/TR/3584/318. (As above) (As above) (As above) Page 6 of 14

7 Stratford Drive Correspondent Response Officer Comment and Action 11, Stratford Drive (phone call) Parking arrangements should stay as they are, or the double yellow lines should be extended along all of Stratford Drive 9, Stratford Drive Extending the lines will have a knock-on effect, and cause problems for residents immediately beyond the lines. The existing situation is not hazardous 3, Stratford Drive Proposal would cause congestion further down the street. It would encourage higher speeds round the bend. It would devalue property. It would inconvenience visitors. It would be illegal to wash car outside house. Currently has parking permit to park there. 1, Stratford Drive Would have to leave car outside someone else s property, and would be unable to see it, which is a security issue and there would be a knock-on effect. Drive is too narrow to allow egress from a vehicle, or pedestrian access to the house, and is difficult to manoeuvre into. Currently has parking permit to park there. Users of nearby phone box currently park there Cllr Hereward Cooke Location is not dangerous. Existing parking would be pushed further into Stratford Drive. Parking is already restricted. Issue was previously considered 12 years ago It would be inappropriate, and not in accordance with policy to extend Double Yellow Lines along entire cul-de-sac See report paragraphs 8,9,and 10. See report paragraphs 8,9,and 10. See report paragraphs 8,9,and 10. See report paragraphs 8,9,and 10. Page 7 of 14

8

9

10 Page 10 of 14

11

12 Page 12 of 14

13

14