Agenda item

7.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report outlining representations received following the advertisement of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) proposing waiting restriction adjustments for streets inside and outside the Hillsborough Permit Parking Scheme. The report set out the Council’s responses and recommendations.

7.2

RESOLVED: That:-

(a)

the Traffic Regulation Order be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the small scale changes inside and outside the scheme with the exception of Burrowlee Road;

(b)

the Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services be requested to investigate the introduction of limited waiting restrictions on Burrowlee Road in the first two parking bays adjacent to Penistone Road for half an hour or an hour with an exemption for permit holders through consultation with local residents and businesses;

(c)

any proposed extensions to the existing permit scheme not be progressed;

(d)

those who made representations be informed accordingly; and

(e)

the proposed parking restrictions be introduced.

7.3

Reasons for Decision

7.3.1

The recommendations reflect the views of local people on changes inside and outside the Permit Parking Scheme, as requested by residents. They are an attempt to provide a suitable balance of parking restrictions in the Hillsborough area. The changes would conclude the review process.

7.3.2

Officers have worked with residents/businesses of the area through two consultations to develop the final scheme proposals.

7.3.3

Having considered the comments made through the review and TRO consultation and made adjustments in line with resident suggestions it was considered that the reasons set out in the report for making parts of the TRO outweigh any unresolved objections.

7.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

7.4.1

Officers have considered the content of each individual comment received. Requests to alter the proposals have been investigated and where feasible adjustments have been made. In particular some sections of double yellow lines have been reduced so that a balance between road safety benefits and parking demands can be achieved.

7.4.2

From the survey data provided in February and March it is clear that some of the streets adjacent to the existing scheme still suffer from long stay parking problems with few spaces turning over to assist residents and local businesses. Based on these results and comments received during the review officers could have implemented an extension to the permit scheme. It has however always been the intention of the Council to implement a permit parking scheme in Hillsborough where a majority of residents responding to the consultation have been in favour of such measures. On that basis it is considered that implementing the measures would go against the wishes of many residents who expressed their opposition to the changes.

7.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

7.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

7.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

7.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

7.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report outlining representations received following the advertisement of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) proposing waiting restriction adjustments for streets inside and outside the Hillsborough Permit Parking Scheme. The report set out the Council’s responses and recommendations.

7.2

Ashley Field, a resident of Winster Road, commented that he welcomed the report. However, he had concerns over the consultation process. He did not believe that 2-3 surveys in February/March was sufficient and should be split between the summer and the winter. He was aware that in London there was a system of permit parking for one hour and he believed that that system could operate in Hillsborough. He also questioned the rise in the price of permits which were above the rate of inflation.

7.3

Kathleen and David Crapper, residents of Clarence Road, stated that local residents did not wish to see a permit parking scheme on Clarence Road. A petition had been collated, containing 22 signatures in opposition to permit parking on Clarence Road. Residents were also concerned about the price of permits which they did not believe represented best value.

7.4

Mr Mayor and Alan Young, owners of a business on Winster Road welcomed the report as local residents and businesses did not wish to see a permit parking scheme on the road.

7.5

John Bann, Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services responded that there was real demand for a permit parking scheme in the Hillsborough area. Where a scheme was introduced, people then often found other roads to park on which often caused problems for other residents and led to further demands for a permit parking scheme. In relation to surveys, there was a cost implication for undertaking more of them. The suggestion of a single hour permit parking scheme was sound when the problems were caused by commuters but that was not always the case in the Hillsborough area. In respect of the costs of permits, £36 was the cost when schemes were first introduced and there was a need to restore them to that price because of budget pressures. This cost did not cover the cost of enforcing the schemes.

7.6

Councillor Leigh Bramall added that there were no plans to increase the cost of permits further. It was a difficult balancing act to meet the needs of all residents when deciding whether to introduce a permit parking scheme.

7.7

Pam Cooper and Yvonne Glover, representing Lily’s Sandwich Shop at the junction of Burrowlee Road and Penistone Road, then made representations to the Cabinet Member. They commented that staff at the shop had been experiencing unnecessary aggravation from customers frustrated at parking issues near the shop. Lily’s had displayed notices to try and persuade people to park in the car park towards the back of the shop. The core hours for the shop were 9.00am to 2.00pm so they did not believe that customers impinged on residents’ parking.

7.8

The shop had not taken any permits and had freed up 4 spaces for parking. They had requested that they be allowed to display an A Frame informing customers of the location of the car park but this had been refused by the Council. The sign at the rear of the shop alerting customers to the car park had been obscured by trees. They believed that allowing parking for 2 hours would encourage those attending the football matches to park there and half an hour was a suitable compromise.

7.9

In response, Andrew Marwood, Highways Engineer, reported that local residents had requested more limited waiting spaces in the area and that changing the parking bay was a step to far.

7.10

Councillor Leigh Bramall commented that he accepted the argument that half an hour parking would be more appropriate than 2 hours. He requested that officers look at trialling half an hour parking and investigate what else could be done to better sign the car park.

7.11

RESOLVED: That:-

(a)

the Traffic Regulation Order be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the small scale changes inside and outside the scheme with the exception of Burrowlee Road;

(b)

the Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services be requested to investigate the introduction of limited waiting restrictions on Burrowlee Road in the first two parking bays adjacent to Penistone Road for half an hour or an hour with an exemption for permit holders through consultation with local residents and businesses;

(c)

any proposed extensions to the existing permit scheme not be progressed;

(d)

those who made representations be informed accordingly; and

(e)

the proposed parking restrictions be introduced.

7.12

Reasons for Decision

7.12.1

The recommendations reflect the views of local people on changes inside and outside the Permit Parking Scheme, as requested by residents. They are an attempt to provide a suitable balance of parking restrictions in the Hillsborough area. The changes would conclude the review process.

7.12.2

Officers have worked with residents/businesses of the area through two consultations to develop the final scheme proposals.

7.12.3

Having considered the comments made through the review and TRO consultation and made adjustments in line with resident suggestions it was considered that the reasons set out in the report for making parts of the TRO outweigh any unresolved objections.

7.13

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

7.13.1

Officers have considered the content of each individual comment received. Requests to alter the proposals have been investigated and where feasible adjustments have been made. In particular some sections of double yellow lines have been reduced so that a balance between road safety benefits and parking demands can be achieved.

7.13.2

From the survey data provided in February and March it is clear that some of the streets adjacent to the existing scheme still suffer from long stay parking problems with few spaces turning over to assist residents and local businesses. Based on these results and comments received during the review officers could have implemented an extension to the permit scheme. It has however always been the intention of the Council to implement a permit parking scheme in Hillsborough where a majority of residents responding to the consultation have been in favour of such measures. On that basis it is considered that implementing the measures would go against the wishes of many residents who expressed their opposition to the changes.