Agenda item

Outcome of consultation on revised proposed parking scheme

The Committee considered a report that detailed the views of those responding to a revised public consultation on an extension to the Romford Controlled Parking Zone Sector 3, into Park Lane and Clifton Road. The Sector 3 area was presently bounded by Malvern Road, Globe Road, Brentwood Road, Victoria Road, South Street, Thurloe Gardens and Clydesdale Road. Any resident with a permit could park in the zone.

The following scheme was proposed:

·        To bring Clifton Road and Park Lane into the current Sector 3 Controlled  Parking Zone (north of Malvern Road);

·        To provide 1 no. business permit bay in Park Lane, outside nos. 33 and 35.

The Permit bays and single yellow lines would be operational Monday to Saturday 8.30am to 6.30pm.

The report informed the Committee that there were 62 properties in Clifton Road and the scheme would provide parking for approximately 51 vehicles plus 3 existing disabled parking bays located outside registered properties.

By the close of consultation, thirty seven responses had been received which was a 27% response rate, 36 of these were from Clifton Road. No businesses replied. The comments were summarised in the report. Twenty six were in favour of the proposals although some still had reservations about the detail. Ten residents objected.

Many residents mentioned the problems caused by businesses, commuters, school parents and users of the local church and dance school parking in Clifton Road. It was claimed that existing CPZ residents have also been parking in Clifton Road for ‘free’. Some respondents did raise the point of these parking problems shifting on to other streets should this scheme go ahead.

Several residents, whilst in favour of the scheme in principle, objected to the extent of the single yellow lines.

The single yellow lines would result in a net loss of available parking space. The affect this would have would only be borne out with time as, once the scheme was implemented, commuters, drivers from schools and other local amenities would be unable to park in Clifton Road, freeing up spaces for permit holders.

An elderly lady residing in Clifton Road depended heavily on non-resident family carers who spent 5 to 6 hours per day with her. They all objected because the carers permit was for a maximum of 2 hours and one visitor permit allowed parking for 4 hours only. This would therefore become expensive for the family.

Some objections related to the increase in length of the disabled bays but this proposal only brought the bay size up to standard. With the proposed parking bays abutting the disabled bays at either end, the increased length allowed room for the disabled driver to manoeuvre.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by two residents who expressed their views for and against the scheme respectively. The resident who spoke in favour of the scheme outlined various problems residents faced from non-resident parking causing problems to the extent that “free parking” in Clifton Road was being locally advertised. She also expressed residents’ concern that the road gets blocked for deliveries and ambulances and residents’ driveways get blocked by non-residents.

The resident who spoke against the scheme explained that she and other members of her family cared for an elderly relative and as she did not have a car, she would not obtain a permit. She objected to the 2 hour maximum stay for carers and the cost of the carer’s permit.

Councillor Andrew Curtin spoke in favour of the scheme. He explained that he was strongly in favour of the scheme and that residents were also strongly in favour. He said that for Clifton Road, about half had responded and of those, about 73% agreed with the scheme. He urged approval of the proposed scheme.

During deliberations the Committee raised the following issues:

A Member felt that the council should be reviewing the existing CPZ to provide additional parking spaces. He felt that some people agreed with the scheme but also had concerns and so these views should be discounted as they did not fully agree. He felt the scheme would actually reduce the available parking spaces and as such felt the scheme was the wrong solution.

The carer to contact the Cabinet member for Individuals to discuss her relative’s circumstances as he felt there was a way of dealing with her issue.

The Committee voted 8 to 1 in favour of the scheme.

The Committee RESOLVED to:

1.    Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment that the proposals be implemented as shown on the drawing.

(a)      An extension to Sector 3 Controlled Parking Zone, Drawings QJ054.OF.102.C and 105.C.

2.    That the estimated cost of implementing the residual elements of the scheme of £5,000 be met from the 2011/12 revenue allocation for Minor Parking Schemes.