Councillors and committees

Agenda item

EPSOM AND EWELL PARKING REVIEW (PHASE 10) [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION]

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.

 

Since the introduction of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) in May 2005, new parking / waiting restrictions in Epsom and Ewell have been introduced in nine phases, with the most recent being implemented through 2017.

 

This report details locations and general proposals for the Phase 10 parking / waiting restriction review, to be progressed in 2017 and seeks approval to carry out statutory consultation on the proposals.

 

The report also looks to assess whether or not it is possible to relocate parking bays and create additional chicanes along Temple Road.

Decision:

That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell] agreed to

 

(i)      Advertise all of the proposals set out in Annex 1 of the report, subject to the following additions and amendments:

(a)   The parking bays on the High Street, Ewell Village to be amended to remove Saturday from the current restrictions.  Monday- Friday to remain unchanged;

(b)   An extension of the double yellow lines in Windmill Avenue, 11m in a south easterly direction against the flank boundary of “Briar Hedge”;

(c)   Double yellow lines to be placed on the bends in Larkspur Way to improve forward visibility;

(d)   Junction protection markings to be added at the junction with Amis Avenue and Derek Avenue to improve safety;

(e)   Map 8 – extension of double yellow lines in Mavis Avenue towards Walsingham Gardens to match those which extend towards the A240 Kingston Road.

(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, subject to funding being identified to implement the proposals;

(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, subject to funding being identified to implement the proposals.

 

Reasons: 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.

 

The waiting restrictions in this report will help to:

 

·       Improve road safety

·       Increase access for emergency vehicles

·       improve access to shops, facilities and businesses

·       Increase access for refuse vehicles, buses and service vehicles

·       Reduce traffic congestion

·       Better regulate parking

 

Minutes:

Declarations of Interest: None

 

Officers attending: Stephen Clavey, Senior Parking Engineer

 

Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: 

 

Graeme Cole (question 2 item 3) indicated that he had collected a petition of 41 signatures from residents of Woodcote Side who are opposed to a Residents Parking Zone in the road, some of whom may have signed the previous petition in favour.  He felt that the issue had affected the community spirit in the road.  He acknowledged that there are some parking issues but he felt that this was as a result of residents having more than one vehicle.  Not all residents had been consulted when the petition asking for a RPZ had been submitted and he felt that it had been limited to those with parking issues.  Mr Cole was advised to submit his petition as part of the response to the consultation should the Committee agree to advertise the proposals.

 

Jane Livingston asked whether the Council would be interested in the results of randomly timed surveys showing the number of vacant parking bays.  The officer responded that this information could be submitted as part of the consultation response.

 

Andrew Macdonald asked about the implications for displacement of vehicles to other nearby roads if a RPZ is implemented in Woodcote Side and whether Epsom Hospital could be asked to provide additional staff parking.  The officer responded that the potential for displacement is considered in bringing forward proposals, but the county council is not able to request other organisations to provide additional parking.  It was noted that the days and times of the restrictions can be made less onerous if the results of the consultation indicate that this would be preferred by residents.

 

Residents will be letter dropped when the scheme is advertised and these letters will provide details of the proposed times and the cost of the permits to allow residents to respond to the consultation.

 

Vanessa Rapier asked whether residents in neighbouring roads would be consulted.  The parking officer responded that anyone potentially affected can respond to the consultation.  However only those directly affected will be letter dropped.  Notices will be displayed on lamp columns in the area and will be published in the local newspaper. 

 

There was no indication of any further public questions or statements so the Committee moved to debate the options outlines in the officer report.

 

The Chairman indicated that the majority of the proposals to be considered by the Committee have arisen as a result of requests from residents, the County Council does not actively seek to impose restrictions unless requested to do so.  He reminded residents that it is very important to submit views, both in favour or in opposition to any proposal, during the 28 day consultation period to enable a decision to be made on which proposals should be implemented.

 

Member Discussion – key points

 

A member queried whether if the proposed timings of a restriction proved not to be suitable after implementation could they be revised.  The parking officer responded that once the Traffic Regulation Order has been published no changes can be made until the next parking review.

 

It was noted that the proposal to remove Saturday from the restrictions to the parking bays in Ewell High Street would not impact on pollution levels as there were fewer peak time vehicle movements on a Saturday.

 

The Chairman reported that it had been possible to fund previous parking reviews from the surplus of parking enforcement income.  However currently there is only £15k remaining and the full cost of implementing everything recommended in the report could cost in the region of £50k.  He recognised that parking issues are important to residents and asked the Committee to agree to the recommendations whilst noting, that if additional funding cannot be identified, it may not be possible to implement all of the schemes and they may need to be prioritised at a later date.

 

In the absence of Mr Tufo consideration of the Annex 2 was deferred until the next meeting.

 

The Committee noted the amendments and additions to the report requested by members as outlined below.

 

Resolved: to

 

(i)      Advertise all of the proposals set out in Annex 1 of the report, subject to the following additions and amendments:

(a)   The parking bays on the High Street, Ewell Village to be amended to remove Saturday from the current restrictions.  Monday- Friday to remain unchanged;

(b)   An extension of the double yellow lines in Windmill Avenue, 11m in a south easterly direction against the flank boundary of “Briar Hedge”;

(c)   Double yellow lines to be placed on the bends in Larkspur Way to improve forward visibility;

(d)   Junction protection markings to be added at the junction with Amis Avenue and Derek Avenue to improve safety;

(e)   Map 8 – extension of double yellow lines in Mavis Avenue towards Walsingham Gardens to match those which extend towards the A240 Kingston Road.

(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, subject to funding being identified to implement the proposals;

(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, subject to funding being identified to implement the proposals.

 

Reasons: 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.

 

The waiting restrictions in this report will help to:

 

·       Improve road safety

·       Increase access for emergency vehicles

·       improve access to shops, facilities and businesses

·       Increase access for refuse vehicles, buses and service vehicles

·       Reduce traffic congestion

·       Better regulate parking

 

Supporting documents: