Minutes:
The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director Policy and Resources, which informed Members of objections that had been received following public consultation on a proposed Traffic Regulation Order to introduce ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions in Russell Court, Widnes. At a previous meeting of the Board held on 15th June 2011, (Minute No8 refers, a petition from residents of Russell Court relating to long standing car parking problems in the area was considered It was recognised that there was no on-highway parking permitted on Farnworth Street and little off-street provision; the lack of any visible controls on parking in Russell Court had meant that this small cul-de-sac had become the parking place of choice for more drivers than the space available could comfortably accommodate.
In a
subsequent consultation exercise with residents of Russell Court, provision of 4 additional parking spaces on
the ‘drying area’ was proposed. However, this proposal was not generally
accepted due to the loss of amenity and comments from the residents that the
disabled parking bays should be near the houses. In view of the comments Halton
Housing Trust (HHT) decided that the scheme did not represent good value for
money, so the scheme was not progressed. However, the following was
constructed:
1.
three
new disabled person parking spaces at the head of Russell Court;
2.
a
former highway grass verge was replaced to create additional road space;
3.
two new
‘private’ off-street parking spaces in the gardens of other properties owned by
HHT;
4.
‘H-bar’
markings to protect adjoining accesses from obstruction; and
5. bollards
had been installed in some of the highway verges to prevent ‘driving on’ abuse of these areas.
However,
parking congestion had continued, creating access difficulties and leading to
inter-driver/neighbour disputes. As
Russell Court, was only 5.5 metres wide, parking could take place on one side
or the other, not on both sides simultaneously. In light of this, in June 2012 parking
restrictions shown in the report were sent out to public consultation. The proposed restrictions sought to prevent
parking where it should be avoided, in order to prevent obstruction and to
maintain the unrestricted flow of traffic.
Subsequently, four objections to the
waiting restrictions have been received.
There were no objections to designation of the three disabled person
parking spaces at the head of the cul-de-sac.The objections referred to:
·
Russell
Court is congested at the present time and raised concerns over parking
displacement into adjacent areas;
·
congestion
and parking space pressure in Russell Court;
·
the measures that
have been taken to try and alleviate the problems. Again the fears are for displacement of
parking demand and particular concerns over the behaviour of neighbours and the
possibility of further animosity and the parking difficulties facing visitors
to Russell Court; and
·
pressure on
available parking space if the proposed restrictions go ahead, and fears her
garage entrance would be blocked routinely despite the recently installed
‘H-bar’ marking.
The Officers responses to each of the objections and proposals were outlined in the report.
In accordance with Standing Order No.34 (9), the following public question was submitted to the Board by Ms Wilson:
“Why is there a proposal to restrict parking when it has been highlighted
that there should be an effort to resolve the issues with new parking bays and
that if restrictions were to go ahead this would have a knock on affect
to adjacent streets?”
In response it was
reported that efforts have been
made to provide extra parking and resident consultation had taken place on a
joint construction project with HHT for parking bays on the ‘drying area’ as
Para 3.2 of the Board item. Unfortunately, as a result of the consultation
feedback, HHT decided the scheme did not represent good value for money, and
the project was not progressed. At the turn of the year in response to demand
from the residents and local members, using Area Forum/HHT funding, three new
disabled person parking spaces were constructed at the head of Russell Court,
replacing a former highway grass verge to create additional road space. In
addition, two new ‘private’ off-street parking spaces have been created in the
gardens of other properties owned by HHT, and ‘H-bar’ markings have been
installed to protect adjoining accesses from obstruction.
It was acknowledged that
the proposed restrictions would displace a small amount of parking from Russell
Court. These vehicles could start parking in other side roads, such as
Farnworth Close and Windermere Street. This was an unfortunate side-effect of
any waiting restrictions, and any issues created would need to be dealt with in
the future. It was accepted that there was an unresolved, general lack of
on-highway parking in the area. However, it must be stressed that the proposed
restrictions in Russell Court sought only to prevent parking where it should be
avoided, in order to prevent obstruction and to maintain the unrestricted flow
of traffic.
Ms Wilson asked supplementary
questions relating to the following:
·
the new
bollards have resolved any parking issue of parking on both sides of Russell
Court;
·
in 5
years of living at current address not seen cars double parked;
·
visitors
to Russell Court would have nowhere to park; and
·
there are
existing parking problems at Farnworth Close and
Windermere Street and this would displace cars to those areas.
In response Officers advised that……………………
RESOLVED:
That the proposal to make an Order to implement ‘At Any Time’ waiting
restrictions on Russell Court, Farnworth, as listed
in Appendix 2, be supported and the report be submitted for resolution by the
Executive Board.
Supporting documents: