Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of members' interests.

The report by the Director of Transport, Environment & Business Support  re-presents the information on LB zone, enabling the decision taken at the

26 November 2015 Traffic & Transportation meeting to be reviewed, as per the Scrutiny Management Panel decision made on 17 December 2015.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member authorises either:

(1)       3-week consultation on the LB zone via a permanent TRO on amending and reducing the size of the LB zone (while the zone remains in place)

            or

(2)       6-month consultation on the LB zone via an experimental TRO on amending and reducing the size of the LB zone (while the zone is suspended)

            or

(3)       That no action is taken regarding the LB zone (zone continues unchanged)

The Cabinet Member authorised that no action be taken regarding the LB zone (zone continues unchanged).

Pam Turton, the Assistant Director of Transport, Environment & Business Support presented the report which set out the background to the consideration of this item, as requested by the Scrutiny Management Panel.  The Director of Transport, Environment & Business Support provided three options for the way forward.

Councillor Ellcome reported that he had read the written deputations and emails received on this subject.

Deputations were then heard, which are summarised:

1)    Mr Davis of St Andrews Road who felt that the parking zone had been ended without consultation and it was wasteful to remove the expensive signage and refund permits when it should stay in place.

2)    Mr McCreesh lives in the adjoining Havelock area where the problem of displaced parking had become worse and there was a high proportion of HMO and student properties in the area; and he raised questions later answered by the officers.  He would support option 1 of the 3 but felt that the survey results would be ignored.

3)    Mr Wood who had spoken with local residents and gave examples of residents whose lives were significantly affected by the need to park near their home for reasons including disability, family and work patterns and vehicles.  He therefore advocated Option 3, to keep the residents' parking zone.

In response to some of the questions raised by those making deputations it was reported that:

·         The number of student houses in the affected roads in the LB zone was 333 (55 in Margate Road) (affected road being in the current LB Zone but would be excluded under the proposal)

·         The density of car ownership in the LB zone area was unknown or the number of student cars

·         From the first survey results (on the £30 charge) there had 26 respondents from  7 non- affected roads in favour of the RPZ  and 84 in favour from the 11 affected roads

·         From the follow up residents parking survey 84 were in favour from non-affected roads and 155 from affected roads.

It was also reiterated that the original request for the RPZ had come from the residents and ward councillors.

Councillor Stagg, as Spokesperson, felt that the residents parking zones are requested by residents and if the majority of survey returns show that they are in favour, they should get what they want.  She did not favour students having permits in line with the university discouraging the bringing of cars into the city.  She therefore favoured Option 3.

Councillor Chowdhury, as Spokesperson, also was concerned regarding the level of student cars in the area.

Councillor Ellcome as Cabinet Member responded that student parking could be displaced and sometimes there was capacity within a zone to cope with this.  In response to issues raised by the deputations he explained that council procedures on call-ins had led to some of the delay in notification regarding the suspension or retention of the RPZ.  He stressed that any new decisions on residents' parking would not be taken in isolation but taking a more comprehensive approach for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The purpose of the report by the Director of Transport, Environment, and Business Support is to consider the responses to the public consultation on the proposals under ETRO 10/2014, Palmerston Road (south), and ETRO 2/2015, Villiers Road.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member for Traffic and Transportation:

(1)             Makes the provisions of ETRO 2/2015 (Villiers Road) permanent to allow traffic to use Villiers Road in a westbound direction from The Vale to Palmerston Road (south)

(2)             Makes provisions of ETRO 10/2014 (Palmerston Road (south)) permanent and in turn authorise the following:

(i)               Authorises the advertisement of a new permanent TRO to implement a ban on left hand turns from Auckland Road West into Palmerston Road, to include engineering measures (to discourage use of Netley Road and Auckland Road West by vehicles wishing to access Palmerston Road (south))

(ii)              Acknowledges difficulties experienced by visually impaired pedestrians as highlighted in the Equality Impact Assessment, and instructs officers work with Portsmouth Disability Forum to improve usability for all users of the shared space area on Palmerston Road (south)

The Cabinet Member for Traffic and Transportation:

(1)       Makes the provisions of ETRO 2/2015 (Villiers Road) permanent to allow traffic to use Villiers Road in a westbound direction from The Vale to Palmerston Road (south)

(2)       Makes provisions of ETRO 10/2014 (Palmerston Road (south)) permanent and in turn authorised the following:

The advertisement of a new permanent TRO to implement a one-way north bound on Netley Road.

(3)       Acknowledges difficulties experienced by visually impaired pedestrians as highlighted in the Equality Impact Assessment, and instructs officers work with Portsmouth Disability Forum to improve usability for all users of the shared space area on Palmerston Road (south)

Pam Turton, Assistant Director of Transport, Environment and Business Support presented the report which set out the history of the two experimental traffic orders and the feedback from the 6 month consultation.

Deputations were heard and are summarised:

i)             Ms Ross-Richards spoke on behalf of residents at Palm Court who wished the ETRO to be made permanent as the one-way traffic arrangement had been very successful and she felt that taxis were not using Villiers Road so this was welcomed, and visitors could still access the care home residents.

ii)            Mr Openshaw had been involved in the City Centre Manager's task force to look at options and this had concluded that there was the need for traffic to flow from South to North in Palmerston Road and he felt this had been successful.  However he was against the proposal to ban the left turn out of Auckland Road West.

iii)           Mr Winn of Villiers Road supported the extension of the one way flow for Palmerston Road although for Villiers Road a barrier was the best option and he outlined his safety concerns regarding the previous pedestrianisation.

Councillor Symes spoke as a ward councillor supporting the views of Mr Openshaw, advocating the retention of the left turn from Auckland Road West and supported the request for Netley Road to be one way northbound to prevent "rat-running".  She felt that it had worked well for businesses for Palmerston Road to have the one-way traffic. Councillor Stagg, Spokesperson, also supported retaining the left turn from Auckland Road West.

Councillor Ellcome thanked those who had spoken and who had made written deputations which he had read, including one from Mr Cairns raising issues relating to safety for the disabled.  He was mindful that Palmerston Road was in need of improvement so was pleased that the temporary arrangements could be made permanent and the area could be made safer for the visually impaired.  He therefore would support recommendations 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.2 but not 2.2.1 which he amended to request the advertisement of a new Traffic Regulation Order for Netley Road to be made one-way northbound, which he hoped could come back to him for decision before the period of political Purdah (ie. before 30 March) if possible.

DECISIONS The Cabinet Member for Traffic and Transportation:

(1)       Makes the provisions of ETRO 2/2015 (Villiers Road) permanent to allow traffic to use Villiers Road in a westbound direction from The Vale to Palmerston Road (south)

(2)       Makes provisions of ETRO 10/2014 (Palmerston Road (south)) permanent and in turn authorised the following:

The advertisement of a new permanent TRO to implement a one-way north bound on Netley Road.

(3)       Acknowledges difficulties experienced by visually impaired pedestrians as highlighted in the Equality Impact Assessment, and instructs that officers work with Portsmouth Disability Forum to improve usability for all users of the shared space area on Palmerston Road (south).

The report by the Director of Transport, Environment and Business Support sets out the proposed speed reduction scheme proposed for Lonsdale Avenue

RECOMMENDED

That the Cabinet Member for Traffic & Transportation supports the installation of speed reducing measures as detailed in this report. The design for this is included at Appendix A.

That the Cabinet Member for Traffic & Transportation supports the installation of speed reducing measures as detailed in this report.

(The design for this is included at Appendix A of the report.)

Pam Turton, Assistant Director of Transport, Environment & Business presented the report which set out the responses to the public consultation which had shown broad support for the proposed speed reduction measures.

It was reported that Councillor Potter, as a Spokesperson for Traffic & Transportation, had enquired about the option of full width speed cushions and this had been considered by the officers however consideration was given to the suitability on a bus route (as this could cause discomfort for passengers) and there was also a cost differential which meant that the 3 speed cushion design was favoured.

DECISION: that the Cabinet Member for Traffic & Transportation supports the installation of speed reducing measures as detailed in this report.

(The design for this is included at Appendix A of the report.)

The report by the Director of Transport, Environment and Business Support is to consider the response to the public consultation on proposed double yellow lines under TRO 82/2015.  When objections are received to proposed Traffic Regulation Orders, it is a statutory requirement to consider them at a formal decision meeting. 

RECOMMENDED that 3 metres of double yellow lines are implemented in Waltham Street to maintain access to the rear of the Charter House and Beddow Hall buildings.

that 3 metres of double yellow lines be implemented in Waltham Street to maintain access to the rear of the Charter House and Beddow Hall buildings.

Pam Turton, the Assistant Director of Transport, Environment and Business Support presented the report.

DECISION: that 3 metres of double yellow lines be implemented in Waltham Street to maintain access to the rear of the Charter House and Beddow Hall buildings.

The report by the Director of Transport, Environment and Business Support seeks approval for the revised and updated:

·         Parking Enforcement Guidelines

·         Vehicle Removal Guidelines.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member approves the revised guidelines as attached at Appendix (A) and (B) and agrees that they will supersede all previously published guidelines and policy.

the Cabinet Member approved the revised guidelines (as attached at Appendices A and B of the report) and agrees that they will supersede all previously published guidelines and policy.

Michael Robinson, the Parking Operations Manager, presented this report which updated the two documents, as regular updates had previously been made to the policies via the Members' Information Service. For vehicle removal a significant change was that the authority could take more severe action against those abusing the blue badge system.  For parking infringements there had been a significant High Court case that meant that local authorities can issue penalty notices on private land where there are significant problems being caused to pedestrians, but it was not envisaged that this would be used often.  He further reported that he had heard that day from the Department of Transport that they were carrying out a consultation on the national guidelines for parking contraventions so should there be further minor changes these would again be reported via the Members' Information Service.

DECISION: the Cabinet Member approved the revised guidelines (as attached at Appendices A and B of the report) and agreed that they will supersede all previously published guidelines and policy.