Agenda item

Report attached

The Committee considered a report that outlined the responses received to the advertised proposals to extend the Romford Controlled Parking Zone (Sector 3) into Park Lane, Corbridge Mews and introduce a Pay & Display parking bay in Park Lane. 

Following reports of commuter parking and high speed traffic flow at peak times, at its meeting in December 2013, the Committee agreed in principle to extend the Romford Controlled Parking Zone (Sector 3) further along Park Lane on the even numbered side from 72 to 150 and on the odd numbered side from No 45 to 61.

At the close of public consultation on the 31 October 2014, 29 responses’ were received, with ten respondents in favour of the proposals, eighteen respondents against the proposals and one neutral response. All comments received are summarised and appended as Appendix 4 of the report.

At its meeting in October 2014, the Committee agreed in principle to the proposals of Pay & Display parking bays in Park Lane (Romford).

The request was put forward to help with parking provision for local businesses, as it was now generally considered that the provision of Pay & Display parking bays was more user friendly and accessible to the public.

At the close of public consultation on the 5 December 2014, 13 responses were received. Three responses were in favour of the proposals with ten respondents against the proposals. All responses received were outlined in the report and attached as Appendix 5

Following reports of commuter parking in Corbridge Mews, a scheme to include the area in the Romford Controlled Parking Zone (Sector 3) was designed and publicly advertised on 10 October 2014,

At the close of public consultation on the 31 October 2014, one response (in favour) was received to the proposal.

The proposals were designed to ensure that traffic flow was maintained during traffic sensitive times and to ensure access for Emergency Services, and larger vehicles. The proposals would also prevent long term commuter parking.

The report outlined that the introduction of pay and display parking in popular local shopping areas had proved beneficial in promoting vitality in the local area and managing commuter parking.  A number of Pay and Display schemes were operating successfully in other areas in the borough serving both businesses and local community.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements the Committee was addressed by two local residents who spoke in favour and against the proposals.

A resident speaking in favour of the scheme stated that the proposal was long over-due. The speaker raised issues including communter parking, highway safety and damage to vehicles. The speaker recommended that Park Lane should be turned into a one way road. The speaker noted that some of the representations made against the scheme were from unaffected properties.

In response a resident speaking against the scheme questioned the restricted number of parking spaces available to local residents, noting that the current parking provision was insufficient. The speaker stated that elements of the scheme would result in the displacement of vehicles.  The speaker conceded that Park Lane was being used as a through road and vehicles needed to be slowed down.

During a brief debate, a member questioned whether an all-day restriction was required as a one hour restriction would have the same effect..

The Committee RESOLVED:

1. To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment that the following measures be implemented as advertised:

(a)  the extension of the Sector 3 resident parking scheme along Park Lane ( Romford) as shown on the drawing at Appendix 1;

(b)  the extension of the Sector 3 resident parking scheme along Corbridge Mews (Romford) as shown on the drawing at Appendix 2;

(c)  the installation of a Pay and Display parking bay in Park Lane (Romford) as shown on the drawing at Appendix 3;

(d)  that the effect of the scheme be monitored.

2)         To note that the estimated cost of all three schemes in Park Lane and Corbridge Mews as set out in the report was £7,500 and would be funded from the capital allocation;

The vote for the proposal was carried by nine votes in favour with two abstentions. Councillor Thompson and Durant abstained from voting.