Skip to content

Agenda item

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

Report of the Executive Director, Place

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

 

Minutes:

8.1

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.

 

 

8.2

FenellaTratt, a local resident and business owner, attended the meeting to make representations to the Committee. She had been involved in collecting signatures for the petition submitted objecting to the proposal for pay and display parking at a previous meeting of the Committee. She commented that people had not been intimidated into signing the petition, as had been claimed at the previous meeting, and had signed because they objected to the proposal.

 

 

8.3

Ms. Tratt added that a number of people did not believe pay and display was the right solution for parking problems in the area. The parking demand survey which had been undertaken prior to the last meeting was flawed as it had been undertaken before the Sainsbury’s supermarket had opened and this had caused a shift in the balance of parking in the local area.

 

 

8.4

Ms. Tratt further commented that pay and display parking may deter people from using the local shops in the area. 15 minutes free parking was not the answer as this often did not give people to the opportunity to do all the shopping they wanted.

 

 

8.5

The current proposals presented more pressure on parking for local residents who lived in family houses nearby. Ms. Tratt believed a more appropriate solution was to allow people to park for an hour. This allowed people to park for free for an hour and meant a greater turnover of cars. When this had been suggested to officers, officers had said that these restrictions could not be enforced but she stated there were examples across the City which showed that this could be enforced.

 

 

8.6

If the proposals were introduced on an experimental basis, it was important to know how it would be evaluated and how people would know if it had been a success.

 

 

8.7

Viv Lockwood, Secretary of the Banner Cross Neighbourhood Action  Group (BCNAG), also attended the meeting to make representations to the Committee. He commented that when the proposals were first suggested the Group took a neutral position, although they were aware that the traders had been asking for a solution to the parking problems in the area for a long time.

 

 

8.8

He circulated a recent survey of local traders which showed that they were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals. The trading environment was very fragile and many were having to cope with high rents. Since Sainsbury’s had opened and the local pharmacy moved, there had been a shift in footfall towards these shops resulting in a slow but significant seepage away from the area of small independent shops.

 

 

8.9

Mr Lockwood stated that traders were seeing motorists use the outside of the shops like a park and ride, parking their cars up outside the shops once the restrictions ended and travelling to work on public transport, leaving little room for potential shoppers. 9 people had said they were against the scheme. 2 of those parked their vehicles outside their shop and another had a parking area around the back of their shop.

 

 

8.10

From their original neutral position, the Neighbourhood Action Group now recognised the severe problems in the area. Following the last meeting of the Committee the Group had met with local residents who had opposed the proposals and had reached a compromise position. Following discussions with Nat Porter, Senior Transport Planner, this position had been slightly amended and the Group was now largely supportive of the proposals submitted to the Committee at this meeting.

 

 

8.11

Nat Porter reported that at the meeting held on 13 November 2014 it had been agreed to go out to further consultation on the proposals in an attempt to try and reach a compromise position. Following the submission of the Neighbourhood Action Group’s proposal, this had been amended slightly following discussions with the Group, resulting in the proposals now submitted in the report.

 

 

8.12

The report recommended that a permanent scheme be advertised, not the experimental order recommended at the last meeting, as a result of budget pressures and any objections would be reported back to the Committee.

 

 

8.13

Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, commented that this was now the third time that he had been involved with considering the proposals. It was difficult to please everyone but the fact that the Neighbourhood Action Group had met with some of the objectors from the last meeting and had agreed on a compromise showed that the latest proposals now represented the most acceptable solution that could be achieved.

 

 

8.14

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

 

(a)

the proposal to introduce a 29-space 2 hour pay & display scheme on an experimental basis (including two spaces in the lay-by outside Sainsbury’s on Eccelsall 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.

 

 

 

8.15

Reasons for Decision

 

 

8.15.1

A 29 space 2 hour pay & display scheme would appear, based on feedback to 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.

 

 

8.15.2

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.

 

 

8.15.3

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.

 

 

8.16

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

8.16.1

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.

 

 

8.16.2

Progressing BCNG’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.

 

 

8.16.3

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.

 

 

8.16.4

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.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: