Agenda item

Report of the Director of Transportation, Highways and Sustainability

Notes:

(i)  The objectors and supporters have been invited to the meeting for the consideration of this item.

(ii)  A petition relating to ‘Proposed Waiting Restrictions – Queen Isabel’s Avenue’ bearing 44 signatures has been submitted. The petition is being supported by Councillor R Brown, a Cheylesmore Ward Councillor, who has been invited to the meeting for the consideration of this item, along with the lead petitioner. 

(iii)  A petition relating to ‘Proposed Waiting Restrictions – Crabmill Lane’ bearing 72 signatures has been submitted. The petition is being supported by Councillor S Nazir, a Foleshill Ward Councillor, who has been invited to the meeting for the consideration of this item, along with the lead petitioner. 

iv)  A petition relating to ‘Proposed Waiting Restrictions – Penruddock Drive’ bearing 23 signatures has been submitted. The petition is being supported by Councillor M Lapsa, a Westwood Ward Councillor, who has been invited to the meeting for the consideration of this item, along with the lead petitioner. 

The Cabinet Member considered a report of the Director of Transportation, Highways and Sustainability, concerning objections that had been received to a Traffic Regulation Order advertised on 7^th September 2023 relating to proposed new waiting restrictions and amendments to existing waiting restrictions in Wards across the City. The Order consisted of over 90 proposals, some proposals relating to multiple locations.

The report indicated that 44 objections were received, relating to 17 proposals.  One objection was in the form of a 16-signature letter. In addition, there were 9 responses in support of proposals. In accordance with the City Council’s procedure for dealing with objections to TROs, they are reported to the Cabinet Member for City Services.

The objections to be considered at the meeting related to proposals in the Bablake, Cheylesmore, Foleshill, Henley, Holbrook, Radford, Sherbourne, Westwood and Whoberley Wards.

A summary of the proposed restrictions, objections and responses were set out in appendices to the report. All of the respondents were invited to the meeting and several attended. In addition, a number of objectors had submitted additional written comments in response to the report and these were reported and responded to at the meeting.

The Cabinet Member was informed that over 46 of the proposals received no objections, the responses received were either in support or comments about the proposal. 

The report highlighted that many of the locations where changes were proposed had been identified from requests for new or changes to existing waiting restrictions. These requests had been received from a number of sources, including the public, for example due to safety concerns relating to parked vehicles at junctions. At least one Ward Councillor had confirmed their support of a request made by members of the public before it was advertised, in accordance with the Control of On-street Parking – Stopping, Waiting and Loading Restriction Policy 2022.  There were also proposals relating to developments.

An objector who attended the meeting in respect of the proposals for Chaceley Close / Neal Court, highlighted that parking was mainly by people who didn’t live there and that many of the vehicles parked did not belong to residents. A suggestion that Give-Way signs and a residents parking scheme would be preferable to the installation of double yellow lines was raised. The Cabinet Member decided that the proposals should be installed as advertised and advised the objector to work with Ward Councillors in respect of a residents parking scheme.

Councillor S Nazir, a Foleshill Ward Councillor, attended the meeting as the Sponsor of the petition, bearing 72 signatures, that supported the proposal to implement a residents parking scheme in Crabmill Lane. An objector who resided in Stoney Stanton Road also attended the meeting, highlighting the parking issues he currently experienced and that, whilst he did not oppose the parking scheme, he requested that he be provided with a parking permit for his property. The Cabinet Member decided that having considered the objector’s concerns, to approve the implementation of the Residents’ Parking Scheme as proposed on Crabmill Lane; retaining the permit allocation to properties within the scheme area and properties with a boundary adjacent to the scheme area and one permit to a property on Stoney Stanton Road where the objector resides. Also retaining the maximum permit allocation in accordance with the agreed policy.

An objector who attended the meeting in respect of the proposals for Crosbie Road/Oldfield Road, highlighted that the length of the proposed double yellow lines would mean that there was only a half car length for parking outside one property and requested that the extent of the lines be reduced. He also referred to the underutilised EV bays along one side of Crosbie Road that had reduced parking availability. The officer confirmed that, whilst the marked-out bays were intended for electric vehicles to park whilst charging, these bays were advisory, therefore there was no restriction on the times of use, duration of stay or type of vehicle that could use the parking bay. The double yellow lines at the junction were proposed in accordance with the advice from the Highway Code regarding parking at a junction and a reduction would compromise visibility. The officer advised that any future issues with EV bays would be reviewed and a canvas of opinions undertaken, and that a note would be kept on file accordingly. The Cabinet Member decided that the proposals should be installed as advertised.

An objector who attended the meeting in respect of the proposals for Fenside Avenue/Jacquard Close, highlighted that the length of double yellow lines did not permit a full car length parking outside a property in Fenside Avenue and requested that they be reduced accordingly. Having considered the objector’s concerns, the Cabinet Member decided to approve the implementation of the restrictions at Fenside Avenue /Jacquard Close with a reduced extent of double yellow lines, the restrictions not extending in front of no. 21 Fenside Avenue.

An objector who attended the meeting in respect of the proposals for Lollard Croft, highlighted the parking difficulties for his property and requested that he be provided with a parking permit accordingly. Having considered the objector’s concerns, the Cabinet Member decided to approve a reduced extent of double yellow lines on Lollard Croft, reducing the proposed extent by 5m each side of the road and the provision of a resident’s parking permit (Zone C3) to one property on Lollard Croft.

Councillor R Brown, a Cheylesmore Ward Councillor, attended the meeting as the Sponsor of the petition, bearing 44 signatures, that supported the proposal to implement a residents parking scheme in Queen Isabel’s Avenue. The petition organiser who also attended the meeting in respect of the proposal for a residents parking scheme for Queen Isabel’s Avenue, spoke in support of the proposals. The Cabinet Member decided that the proposals should be installed as advertised.

An objector attended the meeting in respect of the proposals for Penruddock Drive, highlighted a problem with speeding vehicles and parking on the corner at the location of the Post Office and indicated his agreement for the reduced extent on the southern side of the road, extending the double yellow lines by 7.5m. The Cabinet Member decided to approve the installation of the double yellow lines as proposed on the northern side of on Penruddock Drive and a reduced extent on the southern side of the road, extending the double yellow lines by 7.5m, not the originally proposed 16m, and monitor to see if this resolves the issues.

Two objectors who attended the meeting in respect of the proposals for Rowington Close, highlighted that in respect of the current traffic regulations, appropriate signage and enforcement in respect of permitted parking times and durations, was required. Also, that the proposals would impact on the private parking bay area. They confirmed that they had been informed that EV parking bays were no longer proposed to be installed on Rowington Close. A written statement had been submitted by a local resident and this was read out at the meeting. Having considered the objectors concerns, the Cabinet Member decided to approve that an access protection marking is installed across the pedestrian dropped kerb on the eastern side of  Rowington Close with a reduced extent of double yellow lines and the proposed double yellow lines on the western side of Rowington Close are not installed, instead the existing no waiting restriction at school entry and exit times is retained.

The officer responded in detail to all the issues raised at the meeting.

The cost of introducing the proposed TROs, if approved, would be funded from the Highways Maintenance and Investment Capital Programme budget through the Local Transport Plan.

RESOLVED that, having considered all the objections to the proposed waiting restrictions:

1)  Approves the implementation of the restrictions as advertised at Cecily Road/William Bristow Road, Chaceley Close and Chaceley Close/Neal Court, Crosbie Road / Oldfield Road, Dingle Close, Mallam Close/Tile Hill Lane, Parkgate Road, Queen Isabel’s Avenue.

2)  Approves the implementation of the restrictions at Fenside Avenue /Jacquard Close with a reduced extent of double yellow lines, the restrictions not extending in front of no. 21 Fenside Avenue 

3)  Approves the implementation of the Residents’ Parking Scheme as proposed on Crabmill Lane; retaining the permit allocation to properties within the scheme area and properties with a boundary adjacent to the scheme area and one permit to a property on Stoney Stanton Road where the objector resides. Also retaining the maximum permit allocation in accordance with the agreed policy. 

4)  Approves the installation of the restrictions as advertised on Dutton Road and advertise an extension to the double yellow lines as part of the next waiting restriction review.

5)  Approves that the proposed 1 hour limited waiting restriction on Gardenia Drive is not installed and a proposed limited waiting time of 2 hours no return in 4 hours (8am-6pm) be advertised as part of the next waiting restriction review.

6)  Approves a reduced extent of double yellow lines on Lollard Croft, reducing the proposed extent by 5m each side of the road and the provision of a resident’s parking permit (Zone C3) to one property on Lollard Croft.

7)  Approves a reduced extent of double yellow lines on the northern side of Montalt Road, reducing the proposed extent by approx. 6m.

8)  Approves the installation of the double yellow lines as proposed on the northern side of on Penruddock Drive and a reduced extent on the southern side of the road, extending the double yellow lines by 7.5m, not the originally proposed 16m, and monitor to see if this resolves the issues.

9)  Approves an access protection marking is installed across the pedestrian dropped kerb on the eastern side of Rowington Close with a reduced extent of double yellow lines and the proposed double yellow lines on the western side of Rowington Close are not installed, instead the existing no waiting restriction at school entry and exit times is retained.

10)  Approves that the proposed changes to the waiting restriction times in the Stanier Avenue Area are removed from the Traffic Regulation Order process and the exiting waiting restrictions are retained.

11)  Approves that the proposed changes to the waiting restriction times on Upper Spon Street are not implemented and that further monitoring is undertaken with the potential removal of the existing waiting restrictions in the next review.

12)  Subject to recommendations 1) to 11) above and following consideration of objections to Proposed Waiting Restrictions (Variation 12), approves that those parts of the proposed Traffic Regulation Order referred to in this report are made operational.

13)  In addition to recommendation 12) above, approves that the proposals within Waiting Restrictions (Variation 12) which have received no objections are made operational.