Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services regarding objections received to a consultation concerning changes to a traffic regulation order in Sedgefield (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Strategic Traffic Manager informed the Committee that several requests had been received from the local Councillors, Sedgefield Town Council, a local school and parents to address ongoing obstructive parking, visibility and safety issues within the Sedgefield area, specifically at the following locations:

·        Rectory Row

·        Spring Lane

·        The Square / High Street

·        North End / Whitehouse Drive

A presentation was shown to the Committee which detailed the various locations, together aerial and street view images superimposed with the proposed traffic regulations.

The Strategic Traffic Manager informed the Committee that the physical measures detailed in the report had attracted most comments and objections, as opposed to the traffic regulation order and summarised the proposals in respect of each area.

Rectory Row

The Strategic Traffic Manager informed the Committee that the TRO proposal for Rectory Row was to remove a section of ‘restricted waiting 8am-6pm’ restrictions (single yellow lines) and remove a section of ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions (double yellow lines) on Rectory Row to improve unrestricted parking availability in the area.

The non-TRO element of the proposal would see the introduction of two pedestrian buildouts to improve the safety of pedestrians during school pick up and drop off time. This would improve visibility and distance to cross Rectory Row for school children, parents and other pedestrians.

Two objections were received to the proposals, however, neither objector stated any reasons for their objections throughout the consultation process, both at the informal and formal stages.

Spring Lane

The TRO would include the introduction of double yellow lines to reduce obstructive parking around a junction which were deemed necessary in the interests of road safety to improve the visibility when exiting Spring Lane onto West End. There was alternative unrestricted parking available in the area.

One objection had been received in relation to Spring Lane from a local resident who claims that the obstructions caused by vehicles was not as frequent as the County Council believed.

The Square / High Street

The Strategic Traffic Manager informed the Committee that the proposed changes would include the amendment of the current ‘restricted waiting 8am-6pm’ restrictions (single yellow lines) and the introduction of ‘limited waiting 2hrs no return within 2hrs Mon-Sat 9am-6pm’ bays. The aim of the proposal was to try and free up more parking for local businesses and improve parking availability within the town. Existing ‘limited waiting 2hrs no return within 2hrs’ bays on the High Street would also be harmonised in line with other restrictions in the area. Therefore, the existing restriction would be amended to ‘limited waiting 2hrs no return within 2hrs Mon-Sat 9am-6pm’.

One objection had been received to the proposed limited waiting bays on the High Street and felt that the area should remain without restrictions.

The Strategic Highways Manager explained that if the location was occupied by vehicles commuting to work and left for the full duration of the day this would negatively impact on income to the local economy and effect the productivity of the local businesses.

North End / Whitehouse Drive

The Strategic Traffic Manager informed the Committee that the proposal was to improve road safety and reduce obstructive parking on the junction of North Road and White House Drive. The proposed amendments included the alteration of a current ‘no waiting at any time’ restriction (double yellow lines) and the introduction of a ‘no waiting and no loading at any time’ (double yellows with kerb ticks).

One objection had been received at both the informal and formal consultation stages which stated that the proposals would displace problematic parking in Sedgefield Town Centre further into residential areas causing problem for residents and in particular White House Drive. The objector also expressed concern that wagons would continue to load and unload in the area of the restrictions as they had no alternative point to do so.

At this point the Committee then heard from objections from those members of the public who had attended the meeting.

The first objector was speaking in relation to the proposals for the Rectory Row area. The resident had two concerns, one of which related to the consultation process. The objector felt that to extend the footway was simply money being wasted on a problem that did not exist. The resident suggested that the money ought to be used to repair potholes in the area instead. In response to the video footage referred to in the report the resident felt that precious resources should not be used because of one instance of bad driving.

Sedgefield was a conservation area with adequate provision for pedestrians and vehicles. Car parking was at a premium in Sedgefield whereby the loss of one car parking space created a problem.

Anti-social behaviour had seen a dramatic rise in the area over recent times and the proposals would encourage people to gather and create further anti-social behaviour.

The Strategic Traffic Manager, referring to the video footage explained that the junction encouraged people to drive in an inappropriate way. The proposal would result in pedestrians having to walk a shorter distance to cross the road safely, where at present any pedestrians had to walk the expanse of the carriageway which was very dangerous and was, in his view, an entirely appropriate proposal from a pedestrian safety point of view.

The Committee then heard from the objector to The Square/High Street proposals. The objector felt that the proposed limited waiting bays on the High Street should be left as they are, without restrictions.

The resident pointed out that Durham County Council planners had approved an application for offices in the area on the basis that staff would utilise on-street parking, however, the proposal detailed in the report would reduce the current on-street parking. The objector also felt that any restriction would cause current users, mainly people who worked locally, to park around access roads to The Square, which would affect residents and businesses causing even more problems experienced at present.

In response to the limited waiting bay, the two-hour limit would operate between 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. under the amended proposals. This would see two bays freed up and enable them to be used to access village facilities. The Strategic Highways Traffic Manager felt that on balance, the proposals would achieve what the Council had set out to do.

The Committee then heard from a local resident who supported the proposal for the Rectory Row area. The resident explained that vehicles undertaking and entering junction on the wrong side of the carriageway occurred on a regular basis. The resident recalled an incident where he had attempted to cross the road at The Golden Lion PH. A vehicle had undertaken a dangerous manoeuvre within the junction and the objector explained that the vehicle would have collided with him if he had any form of limited mobility. The resident also explained that it was not unusual for vehicle to be parked up for 20 minutes and the occupants eating take-aways. The flats were occupied by elderly residents and Anchor Housing had indicated their support for the proposals which would ensure that dangerous manoeuvres could not be carried out.

The Committee then heard from Councillor J Robinson. Councillor Robinson explained that he lived at Whitehouse Drive and urged the Committee to support the proposals. Spring Lane was located 20 yards from Sedgefield Scout Hut which catered for 500 children on a weekly basis and the improvements were noted.

Councillor Robinson had witnessed the problems of the resident who had come along and expressed support for the proposals and explained that officers and Councillors had tried to devise a solution which would be acceptable to all residents and this had been shown during the consultation.

Councillor Robinson explained that he supported the proposals for the remainder of Sedgefield which would hopefully alleviate some of the problems experienced in an ever growing Town.

Councillor O Milburn explained that she had experienced similar parking issues in her Electoral Division and difficulties with people being able to cross roads. Councillor Milburn expressed her support in favour of the recommendations detailed in the report.

Councillor I Jewell explained that many Councillors had similar issues across the County in towns and villages, often due to the historic road design. Councillor Jewell was not a fan of build-outs, however, he could see why one was being proposed in the area central to peoples concerns in Sedgefield. Councillor Jewell felt that some difficulties could arise but it was very difficult to solve problems for all concerned.

Moved by Councillor O Milburn, Seconded by Councillor I Jewell and

Resolved

That the Committee endorse the proposal to proceed with the implementation of the Sedgefield Waiting and Parking Restrictions Order to the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services.