Report of the Executive Director, Place
Decision:
11.1 |
The Executive Director, Place submitted a report setting out responses by officers to objections received in relation to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for parking restrictions on Sheffield Road and Raby Street in Tinsley. It was anticipated that the proposed double yellow lines will address current parking problems and compliment the proposed shared cycle/footway in this location. |
|
|
|
|
11.2 |
RESOLVED: That:- |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
the Traffic Regulation Order be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the proposed waiting restrictions proposed for Sheffield Road and Raby Street; |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
those who made representations be made accordingly; and |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
the waiting restrictions be introduced as part of the cycle improvement scheme. |
|
|
|
11.3 |
Reasons for Decision |
|
|
|
|
11.3.1 |
the Traffic Regulation Order will deter inconsiderate parking on the footway which is to become a shared footway for cyclists and pedestrians. |
|
|
|
|
11.3.2 |
The Traffic Regulation Order will also prevent inconsiderate parking practices on Sheffield Road close to existing traffic islands. |
|
|
|
|
11.3.3 |
The road safety audit undertaken for the proposed cycle improvement scheme recommended that inconsiderate parking practices were addressed before the scheme was implemented. |
|
|
|
|
11.4 |
Alternatives Considered and Rejected |
|
|
|
|
11.4.1 |
Officers have considered the possible alternatives put forward by residents to address parking concerns. For the reasons outlined in paragraphs 4.8 to 4.13 of the report officers consider that these are unfeasible and do not address the current/future problems associated with parking on footways. |
|
|
|
|
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:
11.1 |
The Executive Director, Place submitted a report setting out responses by officers to objections received in relation to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for parking restrictions on Sheffield Road and Raby Street in Tinsley. It was anticipated that the proposed double yellow lines will address current parking problems and compliment the proposed shared cycle/footway in this location. |
|
|
|
|
11.2 |
RESOLVED: That:- |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
the Traffic Regulation Order be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the proposed waiting restrictions proposed for Sheffield Road and Raby Street; |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
those who made representations be made accordingly; and |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
the waiting restrictions be introduced as part of the cycle improvement scheme. |
|
|
|
11.3 |
Reasons for Decision |
|
|
|
|
11.3.1 |
the Traffic Regulation Order will deter inconsiderate parking on the footway which is to become a shared footway for cyclists and pedestrians. |
|
|
|
|
11.3.2 |
The Traffic Regulation Order will also prevent inconsiderate parking practices on Sheffield Road close to existing traffic islands. |
|
|
|
|
11.3.3 |
The road safety audit undertaken for the proposed cycle improvement scheme recommended that inconsiderate parking practices were addressed before the scheme was implemented. |
|
|
|
|
11.4 |
Alternatives Considered and Rejected |
|
|
|
|
11.4.1 |
Officers have considered the possible alternatives put forward by residents to address parking concerns. For the reasons outlined in paragraphs 4.8 to 4.13 of the report officers consider that these are unfeasible and do not address the current/future problems associated with parking on footways. |
|
|
|
Supporting documents: