Agenda item

Consideration was given to the report of the Corporate Director, Regeneration and Economic Development which advised of representations received following the formal advert of a Traffic Regulation Order for North End Area, the effect of which would be to introduce a Controlled Parking Area (for copy, see file of Minutes).

Concerns had been raised by residents, via local Members regarding parking issues associated with long stay parking by staff and visitors to nearby workplaces such as the hospital, college in the Dryburn Area and commuters to further afield such as Newcastle, resulting in residents experiencing great difficulty parking in their street.

The parking restrictions would apply between 8.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Saturday and a maximum of three resident’s permits would be issued per household.  The streets affected by the order were detailed in the report.

Following drop in sessions held at County Hall, proposals were forwarded to residents and a ballot undertaken.  The results of the ballot were explained to Members.  Although a substantial proportion of residents within the North End area were in favour of the scheme, some streets were not, which included Boste Crescent and Old Dryburn Way.  As a result of the ballot, those streets were not included in the final scheme.

Following the advertisement of the Regulation Order, letters of objection were received from 12 residents.  A summary of which were outlined in the report.

An email had been received from Mr Hagan, an objector to the scheme stating the following points:

• He was surprised and annoyed that his reasons for objection, and that of the other commuter objections, had been effectively dismissed in the report because the concerns of the residents and local Councillors were about the commuters. 

• He felt that the real reason for the proposal was not made clear to him when he was in contact with the Council.  He was not aware of the scheme and when asked for the reason for the proposal the information came back that it was for "safety" and "flow of traffic".   He was not aware that the whole scheme was because of concerns of Councillors and residents. 

• If he had known about the reason for the scheme he would have been interested in the following:

- Had a study been conduced to highlight the extent of the problem? At least one Objector did not believe there was a problem. The report seemed to indicate that only a ballot had been made.

- Had any consideration been made to what would happen to the commuters? Although there were concerns by the residents surely the Council should take a responsible approach and identify the impact the scheme would have on those trying to get to work?

- Would, for example, those commuters currently taking the train start driving to their destination - adding to the carbon footprint the Council was trying to reduce?

• He had raised his objections by raising concerns about the impact of affordable parking in the area and the fact that the Park and Ride scheme was limited to 7am - 7pm with a hefty penalty if returning late. The comments received back gave no indication that any changes were being considered to the Park and Ride scheme or to help commuters.  

• Why, when the residents raised their concerns, did the Council not look into a balanced solution? One that would help both the residents and commuters who were, just trying to get to work to earn a living.  The Council seemed to have looked at the problem from the point of view of the residents and not addressing the problem the commuters were facing, such as the lack of affordable parking close to the train station. 

In response to the email, Mr Wilcox explained that the Council had looked at a balanced solution and parking was available for staff at the hospital and County Hall, although staff having to pay for parking at the hospital was out of the Council’s control.  He added that there was a park and ride in operation and parking was available at the railway station.

An objection had been received from Ms Forster who objected to the scheme in its current form.  Her concerns related to the belief that residents would have to pave the gardens to provide more parking space to avoid having to purchase permits.  It was felt that there could be environmental issues in relation to water not draining away where gardens were paved.

Mr Wilcox explained that legislation was in place and paving could not be installed without drainage being provided.

Mr Timmins, an objector explained that it was the responsibility of drivers to park legally and safely on the public highway.  Residents should accept that they did not have the right to park outside their house and it was selfish and unreasonable to exclude other road users.

He had lived in Fieldhouse Terrace since 1995 and owned two cars which he usually parked on the road.  He did have a drive and a garage that was full of garden equipment and rarely had a problem parking outside his house, day or night.

St Leonards entrance was close to his home and there was an element of cars parked from 6^th form students, people parking to go shopping in the city as well as commuters using the railway station and cars could be left for a number of days.  None of which stopped him from parking his car near to his house.

The area where he lived was a community and he liked to see people walking around.  Gates may as well be erected to stop people using the estate.  He added that road safety would suffer as reducing the parked cars would increase speeds.  The number of cars parked that morning on his way to the meeting were minimal.

Residents would be expected to pay £30 per year per car to park outside their houses and he did not believe that they should be forced to do it.  The local Councillor had suggested that the permit fee was a tax or means of funding the park and ride scheme.  If residents were asked to fund the park and ride then all taxpayers should.  The residents who voted for permit parking had plenty of spaces to park their cars so would not be affected.  His neighbour was in a nursing home and her son had voted for the scheme on her behalf.  He therefore felt that the ballot was flawed.

North End was one of the most sought after areas and prospective buyers were not put off by the parking situation.  He urged Members to reject the application.

Mr Wilcox explained that he had been requested by local Members to support a scheme in the area following complaints from residents.  Traffic levels were much lower at present because of the school holidays.  With regard to the increase in speeds, there were traffic calming measures installed on the estate.  There were two other areas using parking control measures and the fee was to cover the administration costs incurred.

Mrs McKay, an objector requested that Mr McKay speak on her behalf.  Mr McKay explained that himself and Mrs McKay were objectors 10 and 11 and had been monitoring parking since the scheme was proposed.  The average number of cars on a Monday to Friday was approximately three and there was no parking problem on The Grove at present.  There were problems elsewhere which when solved would transfer to other areas.  He queried if there had been any survey undertaken of the numbers of cars parking in the area and where they had come from for example, Durham County Council, Land Registry or the hospital.

On walking across to the meeting that morning, he had witnessed the average spacing of approximately 10 parked car lengths which was supposedly a problem day.  He felt Members should visit the site and view the parking situation on a Monday to Friday.  He accepted that there was some problem but thought it needed to be correctly identified and solved in the areas where it arose.

It was felt that there was no problem with parking at weekends and if the scheme was to go ahead he suggested that it should be only Monday to Friday and monitor if there was a problem on a Saturday.  Residents had visitors over the weekend who would not be able to park without a permit.  He had taken quotes to pave his garden for extra parking space but he did not want to see all the gardens paved.

Mr Wilcox commented that if areas were excluded then other areas would become a target for parking.  There was less traffic on the road due to school holidays which could account for the number of cars parked that day.  The suggestion of the scheme operating from Monday to Friday was not a consistent approach and would attract shoppers on a Saturday.

Mr Wafer commented that parking was long stay and not attributable to residents.  Some parking was from staff in County Hall but no in depth survey had been carried out.  He added that the majority of the problem was Monday to Friday but Saturday’s attracted people using the rail station as well as shoppers.

RESOLVED that

(i)                 the Traffic Regulation Order as advertised and the introduction of parking controls in the area as detailed in the report be approved. 

(ii)               the parking supply and demand would continue to be monitored and any remedial action taken as appropriate.