Report of the Executive Director- City Futures.
Decision:
10.1 |
The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, City futures describing the measures to restrict inappropriate parking at three locations across the city through the introduction of double yellow lines (no waiting at any time) parking restrictions. |
|
|
10.2 |
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-
a) Notes the representations received; b) Concludes that the reasons to support the proposals outweigh any unresolved objections; c) Approves the making of the Traffic Regulation Order, in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; d) Approves the introduction of the associated double yellow lines as shown on the plans in Appendix B (Hoyland Road and Bawtry Road) and one plan from Appendix A (Southey Hill); e) Requests that officers inform the objectors accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
10.3 |
Reasons for Decision |
|
|
10.3.1 |
The proposed measures would address obstructive parking. This would improve access and visibility and thereby safety for all road users. It would also achieve the removal of parking that obstructs footways and thereby improve pedestrian safety, accessibility and assist traffic flow. Having considered the response from the public and other consultees it is recommended that the Traffic Regulation Order to introduce the double yellow line restrictions be implemented as, on balance, the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the concerns raised.
|
|
|
10.4 |
Alternatives Considered and Rejected |
|
|
10.4.1 |
The only alternative was to not introduce any parking restrictions at these locations. This was not considered to be an acceptable option. The measures proposed would contribute to pedestrian safety by improving visibility at crossing points and prevent parking that blocks footways. The improvement of sight lines at junctions also contributes to vehicle safety. The removal of obstructive parking ensures accessibility for all vehicles, including emergency service vehicles |
|
|
10.4.2 |
Without the introduction of the parking restrictions, outlined in the report, all road safety and accessibility issues, for both pedestrians and vehicles, would remain. |
|
|
10.4.3 |
The beneficial effects of the proposed measures do not incur the penalty of having adverse effects on either the climate or the economy as there are none. No other alternatives to parking restrictions have been considered. |
|
|
Minutes:
10.1 |
The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, City futures describing the measures to restrict inappropriate parking at three locations across the city through the introduction of double yellow lines (no waiting at any time) parking restrictions.
The committee were advised that additional funding was not available through the scheme for any additional capacity to enforce the double yellow lines. |
|
|
10.2 |
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-
a) Notes the representations received; b) Concludes that the reasons to support the proposals outweigh any unresolved objections; c) Approves the making of the Traffic Regulation Order, in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; d) Approves the introduction of the associated double yellow lines as shown on the plans in Appendix B (Hoyland Road and Bawtry Road) and one plan from Appendix A (Southey Hill); e) Requests that officers inform the objectors accordingly.
|
|
|
10.3 |
Reasons for Decision |
|
|
10.3.1 |
The proposed measures would address obstructive parking. This would improve access and visibility and thereby safety for all road users. It would also achieve the removal of parking that obstructs footways and thereby improve pedestrian safety, accessibility and assist traffic flow. Having considered the response from the public and other consultees it is recommended that the Traffic Regulation Order to introduce the double yellow line restrictions be implemented as, on balance, the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the concerns raised.
|
|
|
10.4 |
Alternatives Considered and Rejected |
|
|
10.4.1 |
The only alternative was to not introduce any parking restrictions at these locations. This was not considered to be an acceptable option. The measures proposed would contribute to pedestrian safety by improving visibility at crossing points and prevent parking that blocks footways. The improvement of sight lines at junctions also contributes to vehicle safety. The removal of obstructive parking ensures accessibility for all vehicles, including emergency service vehicles |
|
|
10.4.2 |
Without the introduction of the parking restrictions, outlined in the report, all road safety and accessibility issues, for both pedestrians and vehicles, would remain. |
|
|
10.4.3 |
The beneficial effects of the proposed measures do not incur the penalty of having adverse effects on either the climate or the economy as there are none. No other alternatives to parking restrictions have been considered. |
|
|
Supporting documents: