Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services which proposed the introduction of permit parking at Gilesgate and St.Giles Close in a bid to address obstructive parking and improve parking availability for residents. Following this, a request had also been received from the Fowlers Yard working group to address obstructive parking and improve the loading and unloading facilities. There was support from both local County Councillors and Durham Constabulary in relation to both proposals (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Strategic Traffic Manager informed the Committee that there were no objections received relating to the proposal at Fowlers Yard, however, there had been several objections to the Gilesgate/St.Giles Close permit parking proposal.

The proposed restrictions relating to the introduction of a permit parking scheme would improve the parking availability for residents of Gilesgate and St Giles Close. The area was at present, unrestricted, meaning that vehicles could be parked at the location without time limit. Some vehicles were believed to be staff commuting to work or students who parked their vehicles in this location for the full duration of the day. Within the proposals there were times that only residents with permits would be able to park their vehicles, reducing the amount of all-day parking in this location. The majority of residents had replied in favour of the scheme with 26 responses in favour and a total of 7 against. The request was received, by way of the introduction of ‘permit parking’ from local residents in a bid to address long stay commuter parking in the area. A survey was conducted, in line with Council policy to determine if the area was suitable for permit parking and the relevant criteria was met. Six objections were submitted at the informal stage of consultation and one objection was submitted at the formal stage. The objections received at both stages were summarised to the Committee and were detailed in the report.

Councillor Freeman informed the Committee that Gilesgate was the only area outside of the parking zone which created a problem for residents. 26 people supported the proposals from a limited number of properties which demonstrated clear support for the proposals to go ahead. The scheme was much needed and would be most welcomed. The objection came from someone who was not a resident and operated a business of holiday lettings. Councillor Freeman also queried why three parking permits were offered to households and felt that two permits would be sufficient.

The Committee then heard from a local resident. The resident lived at 147 Gilesgate, who explained that one of the objections detailed in the report related to his representations but was not an objection. The resident gave examples of vehicles that had been parked in the area for 3 weeks, without ever moving once. Other spaces were taken up by commuters and students. The resident was delighted that the overall majority.

The Strategic Traffic Manager informed the Committee that that three permits were offered for areas further outside the City Centre, two permits were offered within the City Centre itself and didn’t see the reduction in permits as being an issue. However, the expectation for residents, was that three was a maximum of three but they didn’t have to accept three.

Councillor R Ormerod expressed his support for the proposals relating to Fowlers Yard and was happy that a solution had been found with the Peoples Theatre which was run entirely by volunteers

In relation to Gilesgate, Councillor Ormerod had sympathy with the residents, given that there were no restrictions currently. There was no perfect solution but felt that permit parking was the best option.

Councillor Dunn applauded officers for the scheme but felt that permits should be limited to two permits per household in the area. There was a clear need for people to get to St. Giles and deposit for a certain length of time. There were HMO’s in the area, some with around six students. Durham University encouraged students not to bring cars, however, it could not prevent them from doing so. The scheme would restrict the impact of people living in the location.

Moved by Councillor R Ormerod, Seconded by Councillor A Simpson and

Resolved

That the Committee endorse the proposal, as amended and recommend the implementation of the Durham City North East: Waiting and Parking Restrictions Order to the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services.