TRAFFORD COUNCIL Report to: Executive Member for Highways ... Brookland… · Ward: Brooklands 1044(06/14) 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Since 2011 a number of requests have been received by

Ward: Brooklands 1044(06/14)

TRAFFORD COUNCIL Report to: Executive Member for Highways & Environment Date: August 2014 Report for: Approval Report of: Corporate Director Economic Growth, Environment and Infrastructure Report Title

East Brooklands Area, Brooklands, Sale Proposed Waiting Restrictions – Consideration of Objections

Summary

In March/April 2014 the council carried out a consultation with residents and businesses in the East Brooklands area of Sale for a number of minor revisions to waiting restrictions on several streets. As part of the consultation, the proposals were formally advertised and 25 responses were received of which 20 represented objections to parts of the proposed scheme. The purpose of this report is to consider the objections received and to seek approval to implement a revised scheme as detailed in the report. The proposals are shown on drawing E8895 and are described in Schedule 1.

Recommendations

Members are asked to agree the following:

1. That approval be given to the revised proposals removing proposed restrictions in the Beaufort

Road area, which will be the subject of a further TMU report, and to remove the proposed

daytime restrictions on Westwood Drive.

2. That authorisation be given to make and introduce the revised Traffic Regulation Order as

detailed in Schedule 1 to this report and as shown on drawing E8895, as soon as is practicable.

3. That the residents are notified of the Council’s decision.

Contact person for further information: Name: Paul Bentley Extension: 4783 Background Papers: None.


1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Since 2011 a number of requests have been received by the council, from residents, councillors

and local businesses regarding difficulties with vehicles parked inconsiderately at a number of locations in the east Brooklands area, making passage along the roads difficult or creating a visibility problem at junctions. The locations outlined in this report have a mixture of issues including problems caused by parking near schools by staff and parents and also employees of local businesses parking without full consideration to the road environment.

1.2 Waiting restrictions have been introduced previously in both Whitehall Road and Beaufort Road, however with a redevelopment at a nearby school and a number of changes to local business uses, further restrictions are now required. Waiting restrictions at the junction of Norris Road and Croft Road are specifically targeting problems created by parents at the start and end of the school day, but also provide junction visibility protection in a residential area. The restrictions on Westwood Drive are specifically to assist with access into the street and to ensure visibility is protected onto Norris Road.

1.3 A TMU report outlining the details of the proposals and comments from key stakeholders was approved by the Head of Highways on 20th March 2014 under delegated powers to advertise the intension to make the associated traffic regulation order, which was formally advertised on Wednesday 26th March 2014.

1.4 In addition to the formal advertisement, residents and businesses received a letter explaining the consultation process, indicating where to view the full proposals and asking for their support with a plan on the reverse side outlining the proposals near their property. Comments were required before Tuesday 15th April 2014.

2.0 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 2.1 In response to the consultation, a total of 25 submissions were received, of which:

• 3 represented objections to the proposals at the Whitehall Road / Alcester Road junction, with a further 3 supporting the proposal.

• 11 represented objections to the proposals on Beaufort Road, with a further 2 supporting the proposal.

• 4 represented objections to the proposals on Westwood Drive, and

• 2 represented objections to the proposal on Whitehall Road.

2.2 The 3 objections received for Whitehall Road stated that the proposals didn’t go far enough and wanted to see either further waiting restrictions or residents parking. One objector outlined a localised issue of access to and from a private drive and concern that the proposed no waiting at any time restriction nearby would displace a greater concentration of parking to opposite the objector’s driveway, causing difficulties with specific mention to access with a caravan. On balance, with consideration that 3 letters of support were also received, it is considered that the waiting restrictions as proposed mitigate the issues that brought about the original request, improving safety for vehicles at the junction/access and that to add further restrictions at this time could introduce difficulties for residents on Whitehall Road that don’t have access to driveways or designated parking on private roads. It is therefore proposed that no change be made to the proposals.

2.3 11 objections received covered a number of general concerns regarding parking issues in Beaufort Road, several of these used a pro-forma letter that proposed an alternative, however


one letter was also received from a resident objecting to the alternative proposal. Other objectors’ detailed potential access issues to the rear of The Mews, parking related to the school and also a request for residents parking. Officers met with local elected members and two residents following the end of the consultation period to discuss in more detail the issues on Beaufort Road. The meeting concluded with an agreement to consult on a revised proposal for peak hour waiting restrictions and a morning peak loading restriction.

2.4 4 objections were received for Westwood Drive, specifically on the daytime restriction, outlining that there was no current issue with parking on the street. One objection received was specifically on the basis of the negative impact on his family, in terms of access for two different visitors with disabilities. All four objections expressed support for the restrictions at the junction. It is therefore proposed to remove the proposed daytime restriction on Westwood Drive.

2.5 The 2 Objections received for Whitehall Road were on the basis of not enough being done to reduce speed on the road, rather than a direct concern over parking.

2.6 No objections were received for the proposals at the junction of Norris Road and Croft Road

2.7 A summary of all the submissions and the Council’s responses are included in Appendix A of this report.

3.0 COMMENTS

3.1 Chief Constable’s View: GMP have no issues with the proposals.

3.2 TfGM (P.T.E.) View: After reviewing we have no comments or issues to raise. 3.3 Chief Fire Officer’s View: There are no objections to these proposals from the Local Fire

Service

3.4 Ambulance Service View: No comments received.

3.4 Hackney Carriage Drivers/Operator Representative’s View: No comments to make. 3.6 Ward Councillors’ Comments:

Councillor Higgins – telephone call – Agrees report content.


4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 In response to the formal public consultation, a total of 25 submissions were received, of which

20 represented objections to the proposals.

4.2 Having considered the objections received, it is recommended that:

• The proposals at the junction of Norris Road and Croft Road are implemented as advertised.

• The proposals at the junction of Norris Road and Westwood Drive are amended to remove the proposed daytime restriction on Westwood Drive but implement as advertised the proposed at any time restriction at the junction.

• The proposal on Whitehall Road is implemented as advertised.

• The proposal at the junction of Whitehall Road and Alcester Road is implemented as advertised.

• The proposals on Beaufort Road and the associated junctions with Cunliffe Drive, Whitehall Road and Beaufort Avenue are not carried forward at this time, with a revised proposal taken forward in a separate TMU report.

5.0 SCHEDULE 5.1 Borough of Trafford (Prohibition of Waiting and Loading and Provision of Parking) Order 2001 (As

amended) – to be amended to include the following:-

Street Side From To Code

Croft Road, Sale

both its junction with Norris Road a point 10 metres south of its junction with Norris Road

7A

Norris Road, Sale

northwest

a point 10 metres west of its junction with Westwood Drive

a point 10 metres east of its junction with Westwood Drive

7A

Norris Road, Sale

south a point 20 metres west of its junction with Croft Road

a point 15 metres east of its junction with Croft Road

7A

Westwood Drive, Sale

both a point 10 metres north of its junction with Norris Road

its junction with Norris Road 7A

Whitehall Road, Sale

north a point 38 metres northeast of its junction with Georges Road

a point 10 metres east of its junction with Greystoke Avenue

7A


north a point 137 metres east of its junction with Brooklands Road

a point 172 metres east of its junction with Brooklands Road

7A

To be revoked

Street Side From To Code


north a point 50 metres northeast of its junction with Georges Road

a point 10 metres east of its junction with Greystoke Avenue

7A

7A - No waiting at any time.


Relationship to Policy Framework/Corporate Priorities

none

Financial The cost of providing the restrictions, estimated to be £675, is to be funded from the 2014/15 Traffic & Transportation Capital Programme budget. Scheme Number 2720

Legal Implications: The proposed Traffic Regulation Order is being progressed in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002 and if implemented will be enforced by the Council’s Parking Services or be self enforcing.

Equality/Diversity Implications none Sustainability Implications none

Staffing/E-Government/Asset Management Implications

none

Risk Management Implications Risk of challenge to the High Court is low.

Health and Safety Implications Improvements to the highway network will improve safety for all road users.

Other Options Leaving out the proposed restrictions to which objections have been raised would be detrimental to resident amenity, highway safety and would also lead to obstruction for other road users. Consultation In addition to the statutory advertising and provision of on street notices the proposals have been the subject of direct consultation with all affected frontages and with local ward councilors. The consultation was also posted on-line during the consultation period. Reasons for Recommendation To enable the necessary parking restrictions to be introduced and enforced, to enhance resident amenity, in the interests of highway safety and to discourage obstruction of the highway. Finance Officer Clearance GB (Graeme Bentley - Technical Finance Manager) Legal Officer Clearance CK (Claire Kefford - Legal Services)

Corporate Director Economic Growth, Environment and Infrastructure Signature (electronic)

To confirm that the Financial and Legal Implications have been considered.


Drawing E8895 – Sheet 1 of 6

Proposed No Waiting

At Any Time

Sale High

School


Drawing E8895 – Sheet 2 of 6 – Revision A

Proposed No Waiting

At Any Time



Existing restrictions indicated in red

Existing no waiting at any time restriction

lengthened by 10m



Existing restrictions indicated in red

Proposed No Waiting

At Any Time


APPENDIX A:

ROAD LOG OBJECTS SUPPORTS NATURE OF OBJECTION COUNCIL’S RESPONSE

Alcester Road / Whitehall Road

06 No Yes

Resident initially expressed support but wanted to see more waiting restrictions, when advised this would be considered as an objection, resident expressed support for the restrictions as proposed.

Resident was informed that supporting the proposals at this time would not prevent further restrictions being introduced in the future.


07 No Yes

Resident outlined a number of issues in the area regarding parking and speed in a first e-mail, then confirmed a few days later that they supported the proposal

Resident informed of the correct contact for reporting parking offences and the process of introducing 20mph speed limits was also clarified.


09 No Yes

Resident expressed that they wished to see the waiting restrictions introduced and also stated that they would like to see parking reserved for residents of the apartments.

Resident informed that parking could only be reserved as part of a residents permit parking scheme, no further communication received.


02 Yes In part

The objector agrees with the proposals, however does not feel that the proposals will resolve the whole problem of parking on Whitehall Road. Considered as an objection Objector raised a number of issues relating to Metrolink, LA Fitness and parents/staff at the nearby primary school, focused primarily on road safety.

The objector has not specifically requested further restrictions, however it was felt that in principal, more restrictions could be proposed in the future subject to funding.


03 Yes Unclear

The objector outlines a number of related parking issues in Whitehall Road, specifically focused on parked vehicles restricting visibility from a private car park and on the basis of preventing residents from unloading shopping and causing problems with being picked up by taxis and ambulances. Objector also reported issues with coaches parking on the existing waiting restrictions. Considered as an objection

The proposal will improve visibility from the private car park, the restrictions allow for loading of goods and also improve the current situation for residents to be collected and dropped off by taxis and ambulances by protecting a length of kerbside near the apartments at the junction. Objector also requested a residents permit parking scheme. The council has a list of such requests covering dozens of streets and at this time has funding to progress just a single scheme per year – i.e. it could be over a decade until funding could be prioritised at this location over other streets that already have requests. Objector was also advised of a suitable contact for reporting coaches parking on the current waiting restrictions.


05 Yes No

The objector had a specific concern that the proposed waiting restrictions would further encourage parking opposite their driveway and wanted to see waiting restrictions along a substantial length of Whitehall Road. Considered as an objection

Trafford Council would not seek to protect individual driveways and the alternative proposal would significantly impact on roadside availability of parking for residents in the nearby apartments.



Beaufort Road 08 No Yes

Resident outlined a number of parking issues and concerns over give way lines and existing “H” markings, when asked to clarify if objecting, the resident expressed full support for the proposals.

Resident also informed of further work as part of the consultation and that supporting the proposals at this time would not prevent further restrictions being introduced in the future.

Beaufort Road 25 No Yes

Resident supportive of the proposals, asking also for some extra restrictions in the private road access to The Mews and asked if the council could encourage the school to be more pro-active with its travel plan

Resident informed that due to significant local comments on the proposal, further consultation would be progressed in the near future.

Beaufort Road 01 Yes No

The objector specifically objects to the proposals on the basis that it would prevent residents of The Mews apartments from parking outside their own homes. The objector also indicated support for a residents permit parking scheme, which is not part of the proposal. The object also presented a pro-forma letter that has been used by several residents of Beaufort Road Considered as an objection

Whilst parking for residents of The Mews apartments is available to the rear of the building, further consideration is required due to the volume of residents that opposed the restriction. Objector also requested a residents permit parking scheme. The council has a list of such requests covering dozens of streets and at this time has funding to progress just a single scheme per year – i.e. it could be over a decade until funding could be prioritised at this location over other streets that already have requests. Recommend to consult on a revised proposal


The objector raised a number of issues relating to nearby Sale Grammar School, visitors parking, tradesmen, home deliveries and blocked footways. Key objection on the basis of the proposals do not address or solve the parking issue for residents. Alternative proposal for no waiting and no loading Monday to Friday 08:30-09:30 and 14:30-15:30 Considered as an objection

Alternative proposal put forward by this objector is not a restriction operational time that is currently used by Trafford Council. The suggested times if objected to, would require Trafford Council to undertake a Public Enquiry which has unknown costs and uncertain outcomes. Recommend to consult on a revised proposal


The objector agreed with the points raised by Log # 11 but also had concerns that the alternative proposal would displace vehicles seeking parking/drop off onto the private road to the rear of The Mews. Considered as an objection

See comments for Log # 11 Recommend to consult on a revised proposal


The objector presented a signed copy of the pro-forma created by Log # 11 Considered as an objection











The objector presented a signed copy of the pro-forma created by Log # 11 but also expressed concern over access for emergency services Considered as an objection



The objector presented a signed copy of the pro-forma created by Log # 11 and raised access for emergency vehicles attending the residential home. Considered as an objection









The objector expressed concern that the proposal would impact on access for visitors, deliveries etc. and that the counter proposal would also need to consider that concern. Considered as an objection

Whilst the proposal would not impact on deliveries, it is recognised that access for longer visitors and various trades would be impacted by the initial proposal and would need to be considered in any further consultation. Recommend to consult on a revised proposal

Westwood Drive 10 Yes No

The objector clearly outlined their concerns in several points

1. Never seen a problem where the waiting restrictions are proposed in 12 months of living at the address

2. Raised an issue about a neighbour who parks vehicles inconsiderately but won’t be affected by the proposals

3. Made the council aware of access issues by family members that the proposals would directly impact on making their access less safe.

Considered as an objection

Whilst the first two points are subjective the third raises the potential for increasing risk to two vulnerable road users both with disabilities. The proposals for Westwood Drive are in two parts. Firstly, no waiting at any time restrictions in the junction mouth, which protect visibility at the junction and also protects crossing points for pedestrians. Second, a daytime restriction on Westwood Drive that essentially moves parking from one side of the road to the other. It would appear that parking in the street is currently managed reasonably by those leaving vehicles in the street and that there are no specific traffic issues created by the parking at the current time Recommend removing the daytime restriction from the proposals on the basis of reducing safety for two vulnerable road users, but recommend rejecting objection to the no waiting at any time.




The objector was supportive of the no waiting at any time proposals at the junction, but felt that the daytime waiting restriction was self-defeating in that vehicles would just move to the opposite side of the road. Supports the introduction of no waiting at any time at the junction mount Considered as an objection

Observations by the objector suggest that the “offending” vehicles are actually residents rather than the alleged businesses. It would appear that parking in the street is currently managed reasonably by those leaving vehicles in the street and that there are no specific traffic issues created by the parking at the current time. Recommend removing the daytime restriction from the proposals and retain the no waiting at any time restriction for junction protection


The objector states that vehicles cause congestion 7 days a week, from early in the morning till late at night and that vehicles are often left in the street for days at a time. Objector also raised a comment that by proposing restrictions during the daytime, the council is in effect promoting parking at all other times. Considered as an objection

The objector appears to want at any time restrictions throughout the cul-de-sac, which would be in contrast to the majority of residents in the street and would be overly restrictive for no reasonable reason. It would appear however that parking in the street is currently managed reasonably by those leaving vehicles in the street and that there are no specific traffic issues created by the parking at the current time. Recommend removing the daytime restriction from the proposals and retain the no waiting at any time restriction for junction protection


Objection in part to the daytime restriction on the basis that having monitored the situation for a period of three weeks following the consultation letter, there has been typically just two cars parked in the street during the proposed hours of operation and no evidence of local businesses using the street for parking. Supports the introduction of no waiting at any time at the junction mount Considered as an objection

With consideration of the points raised by the objector and the evidence presented in the letter, it would appear that parking in the street is currently managed reasonably by those leaving vehicles in the street and that there are no specific traffic issues created by the parking at the current time. Recommend removing the daytime restriction from the proposals and retain the no waiting at any time restriction for junction protection

Whitehall Road 04 Yes Unclear

The objector suggests that existing waiting restrictions have increased vehicle speeds on Whitehall Road and that traffic calming should be installed. Considered as an objection

No personal injury collisions have occurred on this section of Whitehall Road in the last 5 years. As such, funding for a traffic calming scheme could not be prioritised in this road.

Whitehall Road 23 Yes Unclear

The objector firstly offers support for the proposed restrictions, then continues to request that traffic calming is introduced to address speed concerns, that the proposed restrictions are extended by a further 10m and that extra parking is made available at a private residential home. Considered as an objection

No personal injury collisions have occurred on this section of Whitehall Road in the last 5 years. As such, funding for a traffic calming scheme could not be prioritised in this road. Whilst further restrictions could be introduce, there appears to be little evidence of a need to. Finally, the Highway Authority has no powers to insist that a private individual or company provide extra parking.


Documents

TRAFFORD COUNCIL Report to: Executive Member for Highways ... Brookland… · Ward: Brooklands 1044(06/14) 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Since 2011 a number of requests have been received by