Meeting documents

Traffic Regulations Working Party
Thursday, 7th March, 2013 6.00 pm

Place:
Jubilee Room, Civic Centre, Southend-on-Sea
 

Attendance Details

ItemDescriptionResolution
Part I
1 Apologies and substitutions.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J L Lamb (Substitute: Councillor Courtenay) and M Stafford (Substitute: Councillor Woodley).
2 Declarations of interest.
The following interests were declared at the meeting:

(a) Councillor Collins - Agenda Item No. 4 (Hospital Parking Management Scheme - Representations to Proposed Amendments) - Non-pecuniary interest: Regular patron of the Mobility shop in Hobleythick Lane;

(b) Councillor J Garston - Agenda Item No. 4 (Hospital Parking Management Scheme - Representations to Proposed Amendments) - Non-pecuniary interest: One of the objectors is known to him;

(c) Councillor Grimwade - Agenda Item Non 6 (Objections to Traffic Regulation Orders - Various Areas) - Non-pecuniary interest: Relative has access to garage in Rosary Gardens;

(d) Councillor Morgan - Agenda Item No. 4 (Hospital Parking Management Scheme - Representations to Proposed Amendments) - Non-pecuniary interest: Lives in Hobleythick Lane.
3 Minutes of the Meeting held on Thursday, 10th January, 2013
Resolved:

That the Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 10th January, 2013 be received and confirmed as a correct record.
4 Hospital Parking Management Scheme - Representations to Proposed Amendments
Resolved:

That the Cabinet Committee be recommended:

1. That Proposal 1, involving the extension of the scheme into Hobleythick Lane, Henley Crescent, Chase Gardens, Midhurst Avenue and Prince Avenue (part), not be implemented.

2. That Proposal 2, amending the bays to allow shared use by either permit holders or "Pay and Display" users, not be implemented.

3. That the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment be authorised to undertake the necessary steps to implement Proposal 3, increasing the number of bays and extending the existing bays where practical as detailed on the revised appendix circulated at the meeting summarised below:

Additional Bays
O/s 567 Southbourne Grove
O/s 272 Southbourne Grove
O/s 278 Southbourne Grove
O/s 298 Southbourne Grove
O/s 299/303 Southbourne Grove

Bay Extensions
O/s Rosary Court, Southbourne Grove
O/s 347 Westbourne Grove
O/s 221 Westbourne Grove
O/s 220/222 Westbourne Grove.

4. That the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment be requested to undertake a review of the parking restrictions in Hobleythick Lane to improve traffic flows and the passage of buses and be authorised to advertise any necessary amendments to the traffic regulation orders.

Note: This is an Executive function
Not eligible for call-in as the matter is eligible for call-in via Cabinet Committee
Executive Councillor: Cox
5 Petition Regarding Amendment to the Hospital Parking Management Scheme Operational Hours
Resolved:

That the Cabinet Committee be recommended to authorise the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment to advertise the necessary amendments to the relevant traffic regulation orders to facilitate short term free parking in Carlton Avenue in the vicinity of the Earls Hall School.

Note: This is an Executive function
Not eligible for call-in as the matter is eligible for call-in via Cabinet Committee
Executive Councillor: Cox
6 Objection to Traffic Regulation Orders - Various Areas
Resolved:

That the Cabinet Committee be recommended:

1. That the proposals for Bridgwater Drive be implemented as advertised.

2. That the proposals for the no waiting at anytime ("double yellow line") restrictions only be implemented as advertised Rosary Gardens and the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment be authorised to advertise no waiting at anytime restrictions opposite the junction, to provide junction, and provide notices prohibiting parking on the grass verges where appropriate.

3. That the proposals for Highfield Close be implemented as advertised and that the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment be authorised to advertise an limited waiting restriction ("single yellow line") in the turning circle.

4. That no further action be taken in respect of the proposals in Highfield Grove and Highfield Way.

5. That no further action be taken in respect of the proposals in Highfield Drive and that bollards and signage to prevent parking on the verges be erected in consultation with the Ward Councillors.

6. That the proposals for the provision of the loading bay in Westborough Road be implemented with amendments so as to reduce the hours of restriction to Mondays to Fridays only.

7. That the proposals to reduce the existing "no waiting at anytime" restrictions at the junction of Westminster Drive and Westborough Road be implemented with amendments so as to retain the existing no waiting at anytime restriction outside the property at no. 49 Westminster Drive.

8. That no further action be taken in respect of the proposals for the junction of Silverdale Avenue with Fairfax Drive.

9. That the proposals to reduce the length of the waiting restrictions at the junction of Silverdale Avenue with Westborough Road be implemented as advertised.

Note: This is an Executive function
Not eligible for call-in as the matter is eligible for call-in via Cabinet Committee
Executive Councillor: Cox
7 Final Approval of Permanent Vehicular Crossing Policy
Resolved:

That the proposed changes to the policy, process, procedures and fee levels as outlined in the report be noted and that the comments of the Working Party be forwarded to Cabinet for consideration.

Note: This is an Executive function
Eligible for call-in to the Economic & Environmental Scrutiny Committee
Executive Councillor: Cox
8 Council Procedure Rule 44.2
During consideration of Agenda Item No. 7, the hour of 10.00 p.m. having been reached, in accordance with Standing Order 44.2 the Working Party agreed to continue with the item business under discussion.
6.00 p.m./10.15 p.m.

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor T Cox (Chairman),
Councillors R A H Brown, A M Chalk, P M Collins, J I Courtenay*, J M Garston, D A Norman, P A Wexham and R A Woodley*
(*Substitute in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 31)
In attendance:
Councillors M R Grimwade and R N Morgan
M Mazhar, C Hindle-Terry and T Row

Business

ItemBusiness
4The Working Party considered a report of the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment that appraised Members of the representations that had been received in response to the statutory consultation for the traffic regulation orders for proposed amendments to the Hospital Parking Management Scheme and, after having considered those representations, sought appropriate recommendation to the Cabinet Committee. A revised Appendix 2 was circulated at the meeting. Some of those, who had submitted valid written representations attended the meeting to give their views in person.

The Working Party discussed the proposals and the parking scheme in some detail. In response to Members' concerns, the Group Manager Traffic and Highways Network Support undertook to write to the Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to offer assistance and guidance in developing a transport plan for the hospital.
5The Working Party considered a report of the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment that informed Members of the receipt of a petition comprising 262 signatures calling for changes to the operational hours of the Hospital Parking Management Scheme and which sought recommendation to the Cabinet Committee for the appropriate way forward.
6The Working Party considered a report of the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment that appraised Members of the representations that had been received in response to the statutory consultation for the traffic regulation order for proposed waiting restrictions at various sites within the Borough and, after having considered those representations, sought appropriate recommendation to the Cabinet Committee. A copy of the plans illustrating the proposals at each location were circulated at the meeting. Some of those, who had submitted valid written representations attended the meeting to give their views in person.
7The Working Party considered a report of the Corporate Director Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment that sought Members views on proposed changes to the existing Permanent Vehicular Crossing policy under highways legislation, revised application criteria, procedures and process following the outcome of the Permanent Vehicular Crossing Service review, prior to consideration of the proposals by Cabinet at its next meeting.

The Working Party discussed the report in some detail and, whilst it was generally supportive of the principle of a revised policy, there were a number of issues in the proposals that needed further clarification and reconsideration. These included:

• The term "PVX" must be clearly defined.
• A definition of "disabled person" is required and, in particular, the how the level of disability is determined to be eligible for the exemption of the application fee. This exemption is also only referred to the "Equalities and Diversity Implications" section of the report and not included in the Policy as set out in Appendix 1.
• The use of vague, "open-ended" terms such as "not normally be acceptable", "not on a bend", "busy junction with high pedestrian movements" or "significant length of verge" should be replaced by more precise, definitive criteria and clarification
• The possibility of relocating some moveable street furniture such as a refuse bins could included in the criteria.
• The removal of lengths of yellow line could be permitted in some circumstances
• The criteria relating to the removal of highway verge is unclear - it does not state whether it relates to individual crossovers or as a result of a number of crossovers.
• The measurements for parking availability do not stipulate whether they are maximum of minimum.
• The criteria regarding the gradient for new crossovers requires further clarification as a crossover might be required on a property located on a slope such as Leigh Hill
• As there is no right of appeal against refusal of permission and an application fee is payable, any complaints would need to be considered under the corporate complaints procedure. This should be explained in the guidance.
• Consideration should be given to restricting the width of crossovers where necessary and to a saturation limit for the number of crossovers as this could impact on-street parking availability.
• The responsibility for enforcement needs to be addressed.

The Group Manager Traffic and Highways Network Support assured Members that the comments of the Working Party would be addressed in the report to be submitted to Cabinet for consideration and that a guidance document would accompany the new policy to explain the policy and process in more detail.

Any further comments from Members should be emailed to him as soon as possible.

 

Get the best from this site

We use simple text files called 'cookies'. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For more information, including how to turn cookies off, see more about cookies - or simply click the Continue button to use this site as normal.