Issue - meetings

This report sets out the response to statutory consultation for the locations included in the 2013/14 review. The Committee is asked to consider the objections, support and other comments received and agree how to proceed in each location.

Resolved to agree:

(i)        The proposals and recommendations in Annexes A and C, as amended following statutory consultation and further by this Committee (as set out below).

(ii)       That if necessary the Parking Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member make minor adjustments to the proposals following the meeting.

(iii)      That the County Council make an Order under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on- street parking restrictions as shown in Annex B and as amended by Annexes A and C and by this Committee (and as subsequently modified by (ii)).

(iv)     That the Committee allocate up to £20,000 towards the cost of implementing these proposals.

Reason

Changes to the highway network, the built environment and society mean that parking behaviour changes and consequently it is necessary for a Highway Authority to carry out regular reviews of waiting and parking restrictions on the highway network.

Following consideration of the comments and objections the waiting restrictions agreed by the Committee will help to:

•       Improve road safety

•       Increase access for emergency vehicles

•       Improve access to shops, facilities and businesses

•       Increase access for refuse vehicles and service vehicles

•       Ease traffic congestion

•       Better regulate parking

Adjustments agreed at the meeting to the published recommendations in Annexes A and C:

The following locations were discussed (plan reference in brackets):

Waverley Eastern Villages

The Street, Wonersh (24134)

The local County Councillor, Mrs V Young, had asked the Committee to note her support for the proposed limited time waiting bays outside of the village shop as she felt that this would contribute to its viability.  It was agreed to proceed with the recommended scheme.

Farnham Central

Stoke Hills, St James Avenue, St James Terrace (24015, 24128)

The Committee noted the problems presented by the layout of Stoke Hills, but, in view of the lack of support for a permit-holder scheme and the officers’ view that all options had been explored, agreed with the recommendation not proceed with the advertised scheme for the estate.

Guildford Road, Farnham (24015, 24016)

It was proposed from the chair and agreed that this scheme be deferred to allow further discussion of alternative solutions.  It had been noted that the advertised scheme would have impacted on adjacent minor roads.  Two relevant public questions had been presented (Annex 2: 2 and 3) and the residents concerned indicated that they were content with this approach.

Hale Road, Farnham (24015)

Ms V Bolton, who had presented a public question (Annex 2: 1), was content with the recommendation not to proceed with the advertised scheme.

Station Hill, Farnham (24025)

The Committee recognised that parking can be one of several factors in generating congestion at this location, but members were concerned at the potential adverse impact of the proposed restrictions on the businesses in Station Hill.  It was suggested, for example, that there is some lack of clarity in the arrangement of lanes, such that vehicles leaving the station with the intention of turning east onto the A31 often move so far across the carriageway as to restrict the passage of southbound traffic in Station Hill.  It was proposed from the chair and agreed that the scheme would be deferred to allow further discussion on alternative options for changing driver behaviour to improve the flow of traffic and maintain safety.

Morley Road, Farnham (24034)

Mr D. Munro expressed his opposition to the proposed scheme as he felt that parking would be displaced further into southern Farnham.  However, there was support for the scheme and, when put to the vote, it was approved;

In favour:         9

Against:           1

Abstained:       2

York Road, Farnham (24034, 24111)

Mr D. Munro reiterated his concerns about displacement.  The proposed scheme was agreed on a vote as follows:

In favour:         9

Against:           1

Abstained:       2

Lancaster Avenue, Farnham (24121)

The Committee noted Mr D. Munro’s continued opposition on the grounds of displacement.  It was felt that the volume of commuter parking could be addressed by extending the parking facilities at Farnham Station.  The proposed scheme was agreed on a vote as follows:

In favour:         10

Against:           1

Abstained:       1

Little Austins Road and Mavins Road, Farnham (24121, 24130)

Members reflected a variety of concerns: the area experiences short-term parking pressures at either end of the school day as well  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19