Agenda item

EPSOM AND EWELL PARKING REVIEW (PHASE 9) [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION]

Meeting of Epsom and Ewell Local Committee, Monday, 7 December 2015 2.00 pm (Item 53/15)
Share this item

To consider requests that have been received for either the introduction of new parking restrictions or changes to existing restrictions at various sites in Epsom and Ewell.

Decision:

That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell] agreed:

(i) Subject to the following amendments and additions, the recommendations detailed in Annex 1 and 4 as set out in the report;

Statement of Reasons: Map 3 “The Avenue” should read “Grafton Road” Map 9 – make reference to the extension of the current restrictions in Ravensfield Gardens;

Map 27 – Hours of operation to be amended to Mon-Fri 8.30am-4.30pm;

Map 28 – officers to check whether Tayles Hill Drive is a private road;

Map 29 – Hours of operation for The Mount should be 8-9.30 and 2-3.30;

Map 33 – Mon-Sat 08.30-18.30 to be amended to Mon-Sat 10.00-12.00;

Map 41 – Add to pay and display restrictions. Max stay 2 hours, hourly rate £1;

Map 57 – all kiss and ride bays in Station Approach to be subject to the same restrictions;

(ii) That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 be advertised and, if no objections are maintained, the order be made;

(iii) That if objections are received the Parking Strategy and Implementation Group Manager is authorised to try and resolve them, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman of this committee and the county councillor for the division, and decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.

(iv) That in the next Phase of Waiting Restrictions (Phase 10), the Local Committee considers recommending the introduction of an RPZ in the roads listed below in the light of representations received after the publication of the Atkins Report:

Albert Road

Andrew’s Close

College Road

Nearby roads in the Lintons Lane/Leith Road area not currently included

Church Road

Woodcote Side

Tintagel Close

These roads will be considered under the current system and will not be subject to the 70% resident agreement which will be in place for the next review. Should resources become available ahead of the next review the Committee may consider them earlier.

Reasons: It is expected that the implementation of the proposals will both increase the safe passage of vehicles and also ease the parking situation within the mainly residential areas.

Minutes:

Declarations of Interest: None

Officers attending: Stephen Clavey, Senior Parking Engineer

Petitions, Public Questions/Statements:

6 residents asked questions in addition to those in Item 4. The following points were made:

Several of surveys/petitions of residents had been carried out in various roads since the report was published. These showed a large majority of residents in these roads are in favour of a residents parking zone (RPZ) and requested that this information is taken into account by the Committee. Some residents felt that there was a level of apathy amongst residents, as they had been consulted a number of times about a RPZ and very little progress had been made, which may account for the low response rate to the initial survey.

A resident of Woodcote side indicated that he was unhappy with the recent survey carried out by residents and felt that those who had not replied to the Atkins survey had not done so because they were happy with the current situation. He felt that the views of those against an RPZ were not being taken into account.

A resident queried how roads where there are houses mixed with very large properties with multiple occupiers who may have off street parking are dealt with. The officers replied that these have to be looked at in more detail and a RPZ could be considered for a block of individual properties if it was considered to be viable.

Member discussion – key points

A statement was circulated by the parking team in response to the recent surveys and petitions submitted by local residents. A copy is attached at annex C.

Mrs Mountain expressed her disappointment that a number of the RPZs considered in her area had not been recommended to proceed in the current review due to the low response rate to the resident survey even though more than 50% of those responding were in favour. She was concerned that implementing a RPZ in other roads in the area would increase the pressure in these roads and that leaving consideration to the next review may mean that these roads have to meet the requirement for 70% of properties to be in favour, as a result of recent changes to the process. She questioned why those in favour are being disadvantaged by those not responding. In reply it was stated that as a RPZ would require residents to pay for a permit to park a vehicle in the road it was felt to be unreasonable to impose this on residents unless there is a clear majority of all properties in favour.

A member asked how people without internet access had been able to respond to the survey and whether there was information on the responses per household. The officer replied that the letter had provided details of internet access at local libraries and also given the number of the county council contact centre who would take residents through the survey whilst they were on the phone and recorded their responses. He confirmed that there were multiple responses from some properties and that petitions had been received from some roads during the consultation period. There had also been the opportunity to raise any additional questions at the time if residents were unclear on what was being proposed.

The Chairman made the following points: deferring the decision until the next meeting would hold up all the restrictions proposed; not all the new information received had all the address information needed to determine which properties are in favour; residents against the proposals would not have had the opportunity to put their views at the meeting as having viewed the agenda they may have been content that nothing was being proposed in their road. He proposed that where additional information had been received recently, that these roads should be considered in the next parking review with a commitment that they would not have to meet the 70% of residents in agreement criteria which would be in place for that review. If funding and staff resources could be made available in advance of the next review then these would be considered sooner.

Several members indicated that they had had representations from residents unhappy with the way the information in recent resident petitions had been collected and felt uncomfortable agreeing to include additional roads where there had been a low response rate in the original consultation with the roads to be advertised in the current review.

Resolved: That the following be agreed:

(i) Subject to the following amendments and additions, the recommendations detailed in Annex 1 and 4 as set out in the report be agreed;

Statement of Reasons: Map 3 “The Avenue” should read “Grafton Road”, Map 9 – make reference to the extension of the current restrictions in Ravensfield Gardens;