The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth to advise Members of objections received to the consultation concerning changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in Framwellgate Moor, Pity Me, Brasside and Newton Hall and asked that members consider the objections made during the informal and formal consultation period (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Strategic Traffic Manager gave a detailed presentation which included site location plans, aerial photographs and photographs of the sites and details of the following restrictions:
· To introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions (double yellow lines) on both sides of the junction of Raby Road/Alnwick Road. Six objections were received in the informal and formal consultation phase.
· To introduce ‘3no. restricted bays (Monday-Saturday 8am-6pm, 1 hour no return 2 hours)’ on the northern edge of the turning head and ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions (double yellow lines) either side of these bays. Two objections were received in the informal and formal consultation phase.
· To introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions (double yellow lines) on both sides of the junction of Pit Lane/Hutton Way. Four objections were received in the informal consultation phase.
· To amend the existing ‘restricted waiting’ (Monday-Friday 8am-9am and 3pm-4.15pm) restrictions to ‘restricted waiting’ (Monday-Friday 8am-9am and 2.30pm-4pm) restrictions on Newton Drive. One objection was received in the formal consultation phase.
The Strategic Traffic Manager outlined the objections received along with the responses that had been provided.
Mr Roberts, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to location one, Raby Road/Alnwick Road (introduce no waiting at any time restrictions) and advised that he had lived on Raby Road since 1973. He explained that the proposal was mooted sometime ago and that it was rejected by Durham County Council due to most residents objecting to the scheme and noted that this was still the case.
In reference to the survey undertaken, he pointed out that he had only received one survey 18 months ago and advised that he only become aware of the new proposal when he read about it on a lamppost, with this he proceeded to inform residents who were also unaware of the proposal.
He explained that he had submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in relation to the junction which concluded that there were no reported accidents, no reported near misses, and no reported complaints. He added that the Police had not made any contact with him regarding parking problems at the junction.
Considering the results of the survey which indicated that six households objected with one in favour, and with the information obtained from the FOI request, he asked why the issue for restricted parking had been proposed again stating that it was not justified.
Furthermore, he explained that he parked his car 10 metres from the junction where roads intersect at right angles to road directions and confirmed that this was a recommendation from the Highway Code and from Police advice. He added that yellow lines would not solve the problem explaining that cars would park further down Alnwick Road which would further restrict the view.
He concluded that the issue with the road was not parking, and advised it was down to the speed of drivers. He added that delivery driver vehicles were also an issue and that their parked vehicles impaired the view of drivers but that the proposal would not solve this issue. He urged members to reject the proposal.
Mrs Kneale added that no reported complaints had been received and therefore could not understand the rationale for the proposal.
The Strategic Traffic Manager confirmed that ballot cards were sent to all directly affected frontages and this had resulted in six objections and one in favour. Mr Roberts rejected this and stated that ballot cards were only received for the first consultation along with detailed drawings indicating where the yellow lines would be. He insisted that ballot cards and drawing had not been received for this proposal and advised that the measurements of the yellow lines had changed from the original drawings received. He commented that the legal department had not conducted the survey correctly and confirmed that he was to raise a formal complaint.
The Solicitor (Planning and Development) confirmed that there was a formal complaints procedure that could be followed. Mrs Kneale confirmed she too would be submitting a complaint.
Councillor Tinsley believed that the proposal for Newton Drive would be beneficial due to the schools in the area however disagreed with the other proposals due the areas being residential adding that the residents were not in favour. He advised that it could create conflict between residents due to cars being displaced and questioned whether there was the resource for the restrictions to be enforced. He confirmed he did not support the proposal.
Councillor Boyes asked for clarification whether members were to vote collectively on all four parts. The Solicitor (Planning and Development) clarified that the order could be amended if it included more than one part and confirmed the proposal could be reduced to vote on the three residential areas separately if members felt this was necessary.
In relation to Raby Road/Alnwick Road, Councillor Sterling advised that she knew the area well and confirmed visibility on the road was poor due to cars being parked on the junction and on the path. She noted that all the houses on the road had a driveway and that there was ample parking. She moved the proposal in line with the officer’s recommendation.
In relation to Lund Avenue, Councillor Bell asked whether there would still be sufficient space for vehicles to turn around. It was confirmed that there was sufficient space. In terms of Raby Road/Alnwick Road, he questioned the proposal due to the objections received from residents.
Councillor Simpson confirmed that he knew the area well and agreed that driving in the estate was difficult and agreed that something needed to be put in place.
Councillor Jopling commented that the estate was busy especially around school drop off and pick up times which created a danger and confirmed that she supported the proposal.
Councillor Boyes sympathised with the residents but accepted that there were a lot of cars on the estate which had created a parking issue. He commented that public safety and traffic safety had to be considered and confirmed that he supported all four recommendations
In terms of location four, Newton Drive, Councillor Wood asked whether the yellow lines would be repainted. The Strategic Traffic Manager confirmed that they would.
Councillor Wood commented on the contentious issues that surrounded Raby Road/Alnwick Road referencing the confusion around the consultation, the results of FOI request and the objections from residents and asked if any more detail could be provided for the proposal.
The Major Project Team Leader confirmed that he was involved in 2019 and had been forwarded an email from the local member regarding problems with parking and that this had led to the initial proposal. He confirmed that several objections had been received at the time and that the matter was being monitored. He advised that the local member had recently brought the matter back to their attention and it was now being addressed.
The Strategic Traffic Manager clarified that the report included concerns raised by residents and the local member. It was established that the local member was not present at the meeting.
Councillor Sterling moved the proposal to endorse all four parts included in the recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Boyes.
Upon a vote being taken it was
That the proposal in principle, to amend the Framwellgate Moor, Pity Me, Brasside and Newton Hall Parking and Waiting Restrictions Amendment Order 2021 be endorsed. With the final decision to be made by the Corporate Director under delegated powers.