PAPER B
Purpose
: for Decision
REPORT
TO THE EXECUTIVE
Date : 2nd JULY 2003
Title : OBJECTIONS TO THE
RE-ADVERTISED RESIDENTS’ PARKING PLACES ORDER 2003
REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR
ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT
IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 11TH
JULY 2003
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
1.
To approve the Residents’ Parking Places Order
following re-advertisement.
BACKGROUND
2.
On 3rd December the Executive approved a revised
policy for Residents’ Parking schemes. In order to bring existing schemes into
line with that policy and to introduce pilot zone schemes in certain areas of
Ryde and Cowes a draft traffic regulation order was advertised.
3.
Objections to that Order were considered by Executive
on 9th April, however it subsequently transpired that insufficient
detail had been included in the official notices and the advice of the Head of
Legal and Democratic Services was that the Order should be re-advertised giving
full details of the lengths of road concerned. The opportunity was also taken
to include a part length of Dover Street, Ryde into Zone R2, which had
previously been omitted.
4.
The main provisions of the draft Order, as advertised
are as follows:
(a)
Rationalise permit charges to £40 p.a. for cars and
£10 p.a. for motorcycles.
(b)
Introduce zone based rather than street based schemes
in certain areas of Ryde and Cowes.
(c)
Remove restrictions on the total number of permits
issued relative to the spaces available.
(d)
Allocate 25% of available spaces for the exclusive use
of residents all days all hours.
(e)
Allowing 2 hour limited waiting for non permit holders
in the remainder of spaces between 8am and 6pm Mondays to Saturdays. Permit
holders would be exempt from the time limit. Outside those hours unlimited
parking for all.
(f)
Enforcement will be carried out by the Council’s own
attendants.
(g)
New, less onerous eligibility criteria for new schemes
have been introduced based on parking demand and usage.
(h)
Introduce pilot Zone Schemes in certain areas of Ryde
and Cowes.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
5.
Residents’ parking schemes are consistent with the
demand strategy set out in the Council’s Local Transport Plan and the corporate
objective of developing the Island’s transport network for the benefit of local
people.
CONSULTATION
6.
The revised policy has been developed from the
considerations of the Car Park Task Group, written and verbal representations
from existing permit holders, and those who wish to have schemes introduced in
their areas.
7.
Representations received during the first statutory
consultation period are summarised in Appendix A to this report.
Representations received as a result of the re-advertised Order are contained
in Appendix B. Consultations carried out on previous Residents’ Parking Orders
have also been taken into account.
8.
The Traffic & Transportation Manager and the then
Chairman of the Environment & Transport Select Committee have attended a
public meeting of Yarmouth Town Council to discuss how the new policy affects
the scheme currently in operation there.
9.
The Portfolio Holder has also attended a meeting of
residents of The Strand / Simeon Street / Monkton Street and surrounding roads
in Ryde.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
10.
Overall, the schemes should be self financing. The
proposed charges have been aimed at a level considered to be affordable and it
is anticipated that this is sufficient to meet the relevant administration and
enforcement costs. However, there will need to be a review of these at an early
stage. Any initial shortfall will have to be contained within the overall car
parking budget.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
11.
The relevant powers are contained in the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984, as amended. The procedure for introducing Traffic
Regulation Orders is set out in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996. There is a six week period
after the making of the final Order when it may be challenged in the High
Court, but only on procedural grounds.
12.
The wording of the original public notices omitted to
identify the individual roads affected by the Order and whilst households in
roads with existing schemes received individual letters, those in other areas
did not and may not have realised the implications of the proposals. For that
reason the Head of Legal Services recommended the Order should be
re-advertised.
13.
Traffic Regulation Orders are best seen as affecting
general rather than individual rights. The right to pass and repass along the
highway is exercisable by the public at large. Any on-road parking restricts
the freedom of other road users and Traffic Regulation Orders aim to balance
the sometimes competing rights of individual road users and those who own
property adjacent to the highway. This analysis is supported by the Allocation
of Functions Order 2000 that invests
the Executive with the power to determine whether to make Orders. Nevertheless,
it is possible that individual human rights , particularly the right to respect
for private and family life and the right to quiet enjoyment of property may be
marginally restricted by the making of an Order. Members must be clear that the
negative effect on the rights of individuals is a restriction proportionate to
the legitimate objective of securing safer and more efficient traffic flows.
OPTIONS
(a)
To introduce the Order as advertised.
(b)
To introduce a modified Order
EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT
14.
There is dissatisfaction amongst a number of subscribers
to existing schemes whilst demand for new schemes continues as pressure on
street parking increases. To continue with existing policies or discontinue the
existing schemes would not satisfactorily address either of these issues.
15.
A large number of representations to this Order are
from permit holders within existing schemes who see the benefits they currently
enjoy being diluted. The revisions seek to make schemes more equitable and
inclusive and make better use of the available road space. Residents’ schemes
will not solve problems that arise where there is insufficient space to
accommodate all the vehicles owned by residents.
16.
The revised policy is intended to provide a more
flexible approach to parking distribution by providing residents in areas of
high demand with priority, without sterilising the area for other short-term
uses.
17.
The risks associated with preferential parking are
primarily those of displacement. To mitigate this, schemes should only be
introduced where sufficient alternative facilities are available to accommodate
any displaced parking.
18.
The experience of other authorities has been drawn
upon and post scheme monitoring will take place to resolve any unforeseen
issues. A number of the objectors cite schemes elsewhere where more
advantageous terms and conditions apply. Every parking authority will have its
own special circumstances and priorities to consider, but in determining an
Islandwide policy members have selected those features which are considered to
best suit the Island’s problems in
terms of parking.
19.
In placing this paper before the Executive
consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (right to
respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (right
to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
20.
The possible impacts of this Order have been carefully
considered. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of third
parties it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of the community as a whole. It is also considered that such an action
is disproportional to the legitimate aim and is in the public interest.
RECOMMENDATIONS 21.
That Option a) above is approved. |
BACKGROUND PAPERS
22.
Letters of objection addressed to Legal Services.
23.
Agenda and Minutes of the Executive meetings held on 3rd
December 2002 and 9th April 2003.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
24.
Appendix A tabulates the responses received during the
first consultation period whilst Appendix B
contains the responses to the re-advertised Order.
Contact
Point : Peter Taylor ,
Engineering Services, [email protected]
|
Strategic
Director M
Fisher |
Portfolio
Holder E Fox |