Agenda item


The Director of Planning Development and Transportation submits a report.


Members of the Commission are recommended to consider the unresolved objections to the Traffic Regulation Order and pass their comments to the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation.


The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a report which considered unresolved objections to the Clarendon Park Area, Experimental Short Term [Residents Only Parking] Permit Scheme Traffic Regulation Order 2021 and invited views to be passed to the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation, who would take them into account when reaching a decision on whether or not to make the provisions of the experimental scheme permanent.


The City Highways Director presented the report. A  pilot Residents’ Only Parking scheme was currently underway in the Clarendon Park area, operating between 9.30am and 10.30am, Monday to Friday. Phase 1 of the pilot began in February 2021, which had since received 12 objections, recorded in Appendix D to the report, further summarised with responses in Appendix E.


Subsequently, the scheme has been extended to cover a broader area of Clarendon Park (Phase 2) under a separate experimental TRO.


It was noted that Phase 2 has extended the area covered by the scheme and was brought in  due to the overall success of the Phase 1 scheme in delivering more on-street parking spaces to over 900 residential properties and businesses, effectively tackling the issue of commuter parking.


Letters had been sent out in August 2021 notifying residents of the Phase 1scheme that the experimental phase was coming to an end and inviting any further feedback prior to the council deciding on whether to make the scheme permanent or not. There had been engagement exercises taking place with the public and local ward Councillors.


The City Highways Director recommended that the trial Phase 1 TRO scheme be made permanent due to the project’s success.


Councillor Myers and Councillor Kitterick, ward councillors for the trial TRO area were present and noted the following:


·         The scheme in effect had been efficient and flexible in implementation in the local area.

·         Both Councillors initiated a consultation with residents, with only one objection received and overall, was highly supported.

·         Further feedback was sought over private Facebook groups, with overwhelming approval for the scheme.

·         Local residents appreciated the one-hour day scheme over the prior recommended 24/7 blanket scheme, during the key time period of 9am and 10am.

·         The current scheme supported local businesses and places of worship.

·         The only objection requested more parking spaces be built instead of the application of a TRO scheme, which was noted to be costly and ineffective at tackling the issue.

·         The current charge for the scheme was £25 per year.

·         The most concerned group that raised issues were parents with young children, who may have had to park farther away from the location they wished to shop.


Members raised concerns over the cost of the scheme in return for smaller allotted hours of use. It was noted that the scheme amounted to around 10p a day and was the same cost as similar schemes elsewhere.


Members also discussed the potential of the Elected Members holding legal power to make decisions on TROs in place of Officers. It was noted that delegating decisions to officers at this level was common, including for example planning applications. Members could also comment on these TROs prior to the Officer decision, which were referred to the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation.


Members were in agreement with the scheme, as it had brought a marked improvement in residents’ quality of life and the business of local stores.


It was noted that displacement parking was an issue that should be considered further in the scheme.


A member of the public was in attendance and raised the following points:


·         Due to the success of the scheme, members of the public outside of the allotted area in Phase 2 have interest in implementing the TRO locally and as such, there was an increased demand to extend the boundary beyond its’ current area, such as in Greenhill Road.

·         Surveys and reviews should carry on being conducted through the duration of Phase 2, including additional areas with potential interest in the scheme.

·         While some objections to the charge have occurred, they had been resolved and considering administration and enforcement costs, the charge was generally accepted.

·         Other members of the public wished to attend but were unable, so they requested the recording of the meeting to be made public.


Members further discussed the issue of displacement parking and how it could be addressed, which the City Highways Director agreed to look into and review the boundaries of the effective scheme.


The Chair thanked the City Highways Director for the report and directed Members to provide any further comments to Andrew Smith, the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation.



That the contents of the report be noted and comments made at the meeting be referred to the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation for consideration in reaching a final decision on the TRO.

Supporting documents: