Agenda item

Purpose

To consider the public response to the proposed MH Westfield Road area residents' parking zone, in the context of the wider Programme of Consultation on Residents' Parking.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member approves

1.               That the MH Westfield Road area parking zone proposed under TRO 42/2020 is implemented as advertised;

2.               That, should the recommendation above be approved, an extension to the MH parking zone is subsequently proposed to cover the roads to the east which responded positively to the MJ informal survey, namely:

(i)           Bransbury Road (Eastney Road to Minstead Road)

(ii)          Fordingbridge Road

(iii)        Henderson Road (Eastney Road to Lidiard Gardens)

(iv)        Lidiard Gardens

(v)          Minstead Road

(vi)        Ringwood Road

3.         That the following clarifications are confirmed and noted:

(i)           Residents of Devonshire Avenue would continue to be able to park on either side of their road, as enabled by signage, despite each side being allocated to a different zone.  Parking bays are included in the proposed MI parking zone, as the MH proposals could not make reference to a parking zone that had not yet been proposed;

(ii)          Pedam Close is a private road and these proposals do not affect that status.  Properties would be eligible to apply for MH permits should they wish to use the adjacent public roads for parking.

1.    Agreed that the MH Westfield Road area parking zone proposed under TRO 42/2020 is implemented as advertised;

2.    Agreed that, should recommendation no.1 be approved, an extension to the MH parking zone is subsequently proposed to cover the roads to the east which responded positively to the MJ informal survey, namely:

(i) Bransbury Road (Eastney Road to Minstead Road)

(ii) Fordingbridge Road

(iii) Henderson Road (Eastney Road to Lidiard Gardens)

(iv) Lidiard Gardens

(v) Minstead Road

(vi) Ringwood Road

3.    Confirmed and noted the following clarifications:

(i) Residents of Devonshire Avenue would continue to be able to park on either side of their road, as enabled by signage, despite each side being allocated to a different zone. Parking bays are included in the proposed MI parking zone, as the MH proposals could not make reference to a parking zone that had not yet been proposed;

(ii) Pedam Close is a private road and these proposals do not affect that status. Properties would be eligible to apply for MH permits should they wish to use the adjacent public roads for parking.

Kevin McKee, Parking Team Manager, introduced the report. He read out deputations in favour of the recommendations from Steve Braley and Sian McCune, and against from Simon McNab and Sarah Couch.

Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson gave a deputation in favour of the recommendations. He thanked officers for their work on the MH and MI Zones. He apologised on behalf of ward councillors that reminders to residents to respond to the proposed MI RPZ were not distributed because of lockdown so the number of respondents is reduced.

Deputations can be viewed on the council's website at:

Agenda for Cabinet Member for Traffic & Transportation on Thursday, 17th December, 2020, 4.00 pm Portsmouth City Council

Nikki Musson, Senior Transport Planner, responded to points made in the deputations.

When the ME RPZ was introduced there were no parking bays in Winter Road but all properties could apply for ME RPZ permits as an interim measure. Residents on the east side of Winter Road can use the bays proposed under the MH RPZ and side roads; those on the west side can use the bays under the ME RPZ.

Whereas Devonshire Avenue has parking on both sides Winter Road is very restricted with many double yellow lines. However, adjustments have been made in Winter Road so single yellow lines allowing parking in the evenings are unchanged and there are bays allowing limited waiting that can be used after 6 pm. If the east side was in the ME RPZ residents on that side would not be able to use it. If residents have double yellow lines opposite and parking outside their houses they want to use it.

The proposed RPZ was well-publicised with notices sent to all properties and was publicised on the website. The report responds to objections and tries to meet preferences but it is very difficult to accommodate all preferences. For example, some comments said 6 pm was too late to start but 41% respondents wanted a zone to deal with evening and overnight parking. The proposed times means vehicles not entitled to be parked in the zone cannot be left for weeks and months at a time, thereby releasing space for residents' vehicles.

When the ME RPZ was introduced there were a lot of complaints about displacement parking in the proposed MH zone, which the MH zone will help resolve. The two-hour time limit definitely acts as a deterrent.

If the MH RPZ is approved it is proposed to extend it to parts of the MJ RPZ which requires a formal consultation via a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order).

Information on the cost and estimated income are included in the Finance comments (section 9). Income gained from parking permits has to be ring-fenced for specific transport related purposes, for example, environmental improvements or public transport.

Parking on football match days is an emotive topic but it was given as the sixth in a list of seven parking problems in the area. Parking zones are not installed for infrequent events. A zone introduced specifically for this purpose would be difficult to enforce as officers do not want enforcement staff in direct conflict with supporters on match days. The hours proposed will help with parking for evening games though Saturdays are excluded.

Councillor Heaney raised two concerns:

·         Recommendation 2.2 seems to be establishing a principle of removing streets ("slice and dice") which have said they are in favour of a zone despite an informal survey showing that most residents in the area were opposed to a zone. Residents east of Minstead Road will be unaware of the proposal as they are not part of the consultation and this could undermine confidence in the way the council acts. Furthermore, roads which have said they are in favour such as Ringwood Road and Fordingbridge Road only had a small number of respondents. Although residents at the western end of Henderson Road are in favour of a zone overall there may be more residents in the whole road who are opposed.

·         He has had complaints from residents who say they are not always informed of the result of surveys and consultations but are directed to a website. Residents should be informed about initial surveys as they will all be affected so residents east of Minstead Road should be informed they will be consulted again about a possible RPZ in the west of the area.

Officers explained that when they informally survey people they sometimes propose a zone in part of an area. In this case most of the support for a zone in the MJ zone came from the western end. Information gathered during the MH consultation showed that many people on Eastney Road use side roads for parking; there is off-road parking so demand for street parking is less and they can also park near the park. Therefore, it made more sense to extend MH than create a new zone.

Officers do not automatically inform people of survey results but are told information will be put on the council's website. The Technical Transport Planner informs ward councillors and residents who have responded to consultations. Recommendation 2.2 is not to extend the MH RPZ but to request a consultation of everyone in the area.

Councillor Bosher shared Councillor Heaney's concerns and thought the figures showed only about 6% of about 200 respondents were in favour, which could lead to residents asking to be surveyed again. He asked if there was sufficient manpower to enforce zones as residents who have paid for permits expect enforcement. In addition, Civil Enforcement Officers may spend more time checking vehicles parked in the wrong zone rather than vehicles parked dangerously, resulting in residents reporting infringements. Some areas, for example, Drayton & Farlington do not have the same level of safety enforcement as some other areas.

Councillor Stagg acknowledged that MJ was a problematic zone with a very clear geographical divide, and that numbers of respondents to consultations can be low. Respondents are usually people who are either strongly in favour or strongly against zones. She would like to see a higher percentage of residents engaging.

DECISIONS

The Cabinet Member for Traffic and Transportation:

1.     Agreed that the MH Westfield Road area parking zone proposed under TRO 42/2020 is implemented as advertised;

2.     Agreed that, should recommendation no.1 be approved, an extension to the MH parking zone is subsequently proposed to cover the roads to the east which responded positively to the MJ informal survey, namely:

(i) Bransbury Road (Eastney Road to Minstead Road)

(ii) Fordingbridge Road

(iii) Henderson Road (Eastney Road to Lidiard Gardens)

(iv) Lidiard Gardens

(v) Minstead Road

(vi) Ringwood Road

3.     Confirmed and noted the following clarifications:

(i) Residents of Devonshire Avenue would continue to be able to park on either side of their road, as enabled by signage, despite each side being allocated to a different zone. Parking bays are included in the proposed MI parking zone, as the MH proposals could not make reference to a parking zone that had not yet been proposed;

(ii) Pedam Close is a private road and these proposals do not affect that status. Properties would be eligible to apply for MH permits should they wish to use the adjacent public roads for parking.