Skip to content

Decision details

Petition - Request for Further Consultation with Respect to a Proposed Pay and Display Parking Scheme on Ecclesall Road at Banner Cross

Decision Maker: Cabinet Highways Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Decision:

10.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report providing an update subsequent to the decisions of the Highway Cabinet Member Decision Session on 12th June and 13th November 2014 regarding a petition received concerning the proposed pay & display parking scheme on Ecclesall Road at Banner Cross district centre, and seeks a decision on the petition and the scheme.

 

 

10.2

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

 

(a)

the proposal to introduce a 29-space 2 hour pay & display scheme (including two spaces in the lay-by outside Sainsbury’s on Ecclesall Road at Banner Cross) be brought forward through the capital approval process for consideration;

 

 

 

 

(b)

a peak hour loading only restriction be introduced in the lay-by at Sainsbury’s as part of the scheme;

 

 

 

 

(c)

any objections or comments received in response to the advertisement of the Traffic Regulation Order be brought to a subsequent Highway Cabinet Member Decision Session meeting; and,

 

 

 

 

(d)

the petitioners and affected frontagers be informed accordingly

 

 

 

10.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

10.3.1

A 29 space 2 hour pay & display scheme would appear, based on feedback from the Banner Cross Neighbourhood Group, to offer the  best balance between competing local interests, whilst providing adequate capacity having regard for the purposes it is permitted to introduce parking place schemes.

 

 

10.3.2

Because loading and waiting is permitted outside of peak hours, it is considered that providing pay-and-display parking in the lay-by outside Sainsbury is acceptable between the peak hours, as vehicles stopped to service the new development can do so from the kerbside legally and without unacceptable consequence. However, in the interests of maintaining the flow of traffic during peak hours, it is necessary to reserve the lay-by so it is available for servicing at these times.

 

 

10.3.3

Advertising a proposed scheme offers an opportunity to comment on and/or object to the proposals, prior to a final decision being taken as to whether or not to progress the scheme at a subsequent Highway Cabinet Member decision session.

 

 

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

10.4.1

Leaving waiting and parking restrictions as existing was considered. This would not address the original concerns regarding availability of parking for visitors of local shops.

 

 

10.4.2

Progressing BCNAG’s suggestion of introducing a 20- or 22-space scheme initially, and extending the scheme if necessary thereafter was considered, but was ruled out as a second Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) would be required in the event the additional parking was desired. An experimental TRO allows the Council to reduce the extents of restrictions during or after the experiment without a new TRO; this means it is more cost-effective to introduce a greater length of restriction with a view to contraction if necessary.

 

 

10.4.3

Similarly, if it were to prove possible and necessary, it would be more cost effective to relax the experimental order to provide areas of 4 hour parking than it would to introduce a new Order to reduce a time limit.

 

 

10.4.4

In making parking place Orders, the Council must exercise its powers to provide suitable and adequate parking facilities. The observed demand suggests a scheme of reduced capacity or with areas of 4 hour parking provided could be expected to be full to capacity throughout weekdays. If the Council were to propose a scheme which did not offer adequate capacity and was not effective in improving the availability of kerbside parking, it may be open to the accusation it has used its powers to provide parking places with charges improperly.

 

 

11.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

 

 

 

None

 

 

11.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

 

 

 

None

 

 

11.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

 

 

 

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

 

 

11.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

 

 

 

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

 

Report author: Nat Porter

Publication date: 13/10/2015

Date of decision: 08/10/2015

Decided at meeting: 08/10/2015 - Cabinet Highways Committee

Effective from: 17/10/2015

Accompanying Documents: