Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth which advised of the proposed changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in Chester-le-Street and Birtley and requested that they considered 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 photos and photographs of the sites and details for the following restrictions;

·      To introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on South Approach leading into Bullion Lane on both sides, to prevent obstructive parking and reduce congestion. One objection was received in the informal consultation period from a local resident who felt they were being penalised. A further objection was received from Councillor Fantarrow following the closure of the consultation period.

·      To extend the existing restrictions either side of Edward Street to prevent obstructive parking and improve visibility and traffic flow for approaching road users. One objection was received in both the informal and formal consultation period from the same resident who felt the proposal would isolate tenants and further limit parking space.

·      To formalise the existing markings at Elmway as ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions to further prevent obstructive parking and improve traffic flow. Three objections were received in the informal and formal consultation period from local residents who felt the proposals would move the problem elsewhere and felt the double yellow lines were longer than necessary.

·      To amend the current ‘no waiting’ element of the existing restriction at Front Street to ‘no stopping except taxis, 6pm-6am’. Two objections were received in the informal consultation period from local businesses who stressed that parking outside their businesses was necessary for quick pick ups and drop offs.

·      To formalise the advisory markings as ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions, which will allow enforcement to prevent obstructive parking and improve access/egress within Tuart Street. The informal consultation initially included proposals to extend existing permit restrictions into Tuart Street, however, a satisfactory in-favour majority was not achieved and these proposals were withdrawn. Six objections were received in the informal and formal consultation period from local residents, only one directly objected to proposed ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions.

Mr Rennie addressed the Committee on behalf of himself and the residents of Elmway. He clarified that they did not object to double yellow lines being put in place but felt the length of the lines was far longer than required. He noted the site meeting that took place in May 2021 and advised that Councillor Tracie Smith had planned for additional parking at the rear of the garages and had a plan for how this would be financed but stated no information regarding this had been received since. He noted some residents had mobility issues and explained that one resident was housebound and required family to visit daily and access to parking was important. He noted he had lived at Elmway for 17 years and was aware of only one incident during this time indicating the area was not dangerous. He explained the community currently got along well but expressed his concern that the implications of the lines could create ill feeling due to vehicles being forced to park in other areas of the street. Mr Rennie concluded that he understood the rationale for the ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions but requested a further inspection to discuss the length of the lines and to discuss the additional parking suggested at the rear of the garages, along with a timeline for when the work could be implemented.  

Councillor Sterling sympathised with the residents of Elmway and noted the challenges when restrictions were in a location that included flats. She asked if there was anything members could do to support the residents with regards to the additional parking at the rear of the garages. The Strategic Traffic Manager advised that this was not within his remit, however he was aware that there would need to be an understanding of the public utility costs and if the work could fit into the Highways timeline. The Traffic Engineer informed the Committee that he had spoken with the relevant Highways officer and preliminary designs had been drawn up but further discussion was necessary to identify if there was a reasonable budget to cover the work.

With regards to the proposals at Bullion Lane, Councillor Sterling asked if the residents of Lumley Close had parking outside of their homes. The Strategic Traffic Manager advised that they appeared to have driveways and expected any new development to include sufficient parking.

Councillor Wood understood the frustration of the residents of Elmway but acknowledged that the process for Highways was time consuming however noted it was reassuring to hear that Councillor Tracie Smith had been involved. With regards to the proposals at Bullion Lane, Councillor Wood asked if there had been an objection from the local member. The Strategic Traffic Manager explained Councillor Fantarrow had submitted an objection on behalf of the residents, and although this had been received outside of the objection period, it had been accepted. The Traffic Engineer explained that the report stated that local members were in favour of the proposals as there had not been sufficient time to amend the report following receipt of the objection from Councillor Fantarrow. It was established that Councillor Fantarrow was not present at the meeting.

Councillor Mavin asked if a further site meeting for Elmway was possible as requested by Mr Rennie. The Strategic Traffic Manager agreed this could be arranged if Members felt it was necessary and the location of Elmway could be removed from the Traffic Regulation Amendment Order 2022. 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) asked Members to clarify if the site meeting was in relation to the proposal that was in front of Committee or if it was to consider the area at the rear of the garages where additional parking had been suggested. The Strategic Traffic Manager confirmed the site meeting would be in relation to the double yellow lines and Mr Rennie agreed. 

Councillor Sterling acknowledged five residents from Elmway had attended the meeting which indicated their care and proposed a further site meeting be arranged. She suggested the location of Elmway be removed from the Traffic Regulation Amendment Order 2022 and moved the remaining four locations to be endorsed. This was seconded by Councillor Howey. Councillor Boyes felt that proceeding with the proposal for Elmway could create ill feeling amongst residents and he confirmed that he supported a further site meeting.

Councillor Kay asked if AAP funding had been secured for the additional parking at the rear of the garages. The Traffic Engineer advised that the budget for this was still undecided. Councillor Wood commented that he was uncomfortable with how funding had been described.

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) confirmed that the location of Elmway would be removed from the Traffic Regulation Amendment Order 2022 as agreed by members and that a further site meeting with representatives from Durham Constabulary, the local member and residents be arranged to find a compromise in the extent of the restrictions.

Resolved

That the location of Elmway be removed from the Traffic Regulation Amendment Order 2022.

That the proposal in principle, to amend the Chester-le-Street & Birtley Parking and Waiting Restrictions, Traffic Regulation Order, excluding the location of Elmway, with the final decision to be made by the Corporate Director under delegated powers be endorsed.