committee bishopstoke, fair oak and horton heath … va… · newspaper, on the eastleigh borough...

BISHOPSTOKE, FAIR OAK AND HORTON HEATH LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

BISHOPSTOKE, FAIROAK AND HORTON HEATH TRO REPORT

Report of the

Senior Engineering Specialist

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee approve the implementation of:

(1) Parking Restriction measures along Riverside and Church Road as advertised;

(2) Parking restriction measures within Hardings Lane, Lynx Close, St Austell Close, Stag Close, Truro Rise;

(3) Parking restriction measures within Noyce Drive deferred until measures to help address resident’s concerns regarding the lack of parking can be included in the eventual solution; and

(4) An amendment to the extent and timing of the School Keep Clear markings within Elland Close.

SummaryThe proposal is to implement parking restrictions to enable obstruction free access to a number of residential roads, and in addition prevent obstruction of sight lines in order to maintain road safety.

Statutory Powers

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; Traffic Management Act 2004.

Legal AgreementsAgency Agreement dated 30 March 2009 between Hampshire County Council and Eastleigh Borough Council.

Eastleigh Borough Council

Strategic Implications

1. This report addresses a number of the strategic objectives: Tackling Congestion and associated pollution on key commuter routes, and helping to create an Excellent Environment for All.

2. Introduction

The changes proposed for Riverside and Church Road address a number of concerns including all day commuter parking which leaves local businesses without spaces for their customers, the layout is designed to encourage slower traffic speeds; whilst retaining on street parking ensuring this parking does not disadvantage pedestrians or residents

The Various locations order addresses specific points on the highway where parking is causing obstruction (either physical or to sight lines / visibility splays).

Consultation

2. The formal consultation was advertised in the Hampshire Independent newspaper, on the Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) website, the Hampshire County Council (HCC) Public Notices Portal and on public notices placed throughout affected areas. Properties adjacent to the proposed measures have also been notified by hand delivered letter.

3. Summary of Comments

This section summarises the nineteen responses received from residents and provides the engineers response to the points raised. The Committee is asked to consider the comments received, in order to inform their decision on the implementation, or otherwise, of the Traffic Regulation Order.

Church Road and Riverside

Two residents in support, one resident with comments and five residents objecting. Eleven commuters objected. It should be noted that recent HCC maintenance works have prevented parking between Spring Lane and Church Close and this has given the impression to drivers that parking is to be banned on this section; this is not the case.

Comments Response

One resident wrote in supporting the measures

The comments of support are noted thank you.

One resident expressed the point of view that they feel limited waiting would be more helpful to residents

The aim of these restrictions is to best accommodate all road users the mixture of limited waiting and all day parking is designed to permit some parking where it may be safely


accommodated whilst ensuring some areas have a higher turnover of parking ensuring parking is available for those people using local facilities.

Two residents are concerned about being able to park outside of their properties between 20 and 28 Church Road

The follow up to this scheme makes allowance for this and retains a space the residents the restriction at this point is to be left out of the implemented works.

Two resident wrote to object as they feel having a restriction in front of their house will make parking more difficult

The property in question has a garage but the residents appear to park across their frontage the proposed measures do not prevent this so will have no detrimental effect on the property

Eleven people wrote to object on the grounds that they rely on being able to park in Church Road and feel this will simply move the parking to other streets

The measures proposed retain a mixture of parking allowing some commuter parking but also having a short section of limited waiting to accommodate local requirements.

One resident wrote to request that the limited waiting rather than permitting all day parking be applied to all of Church Road

This appears to have come about as a result of works in the area causing all day parking to have moved to other roads where the parking is less appropriate (on bends / junctions etc) the measure proposed are designed to strike a balance between the different parking needs.

One resident wrote to object as they feel having a restriction in front of their house will make access more difficult and dangerous

The property has a narrow drive the access has been checked using a vehicle tracking programme and this indicates the access would not be affected by the proposals.

Truro Rise / St Austell Close

One resident wrote in with a concern.

One resident wrote in regarding a concern that the restriction would result in the disabled bay they use being moved.

The restriction does not alter the disabled parking space so no reason for concern. The restriction adjoins the disabled bay but does not remove it.


Stag Close

One resident wrote in with a concern.

One resident called to comment that the restrictions are ok so long as they are enforced otherwise there would be no point.

These observations are to be passed to the enforcement team to ensure that the benefits of implementing the restrictions are realised.

Lynx Close

One resident wrote to object.

One resident wrote in to object on the grounds that the residents have a lack of space to park in front of their properties.

The proposed works in Lynx Close are short sections of restriction to prevent a pedestrian dropped kerb being obstructed in the bell mouth of the junction and is not in front of any properties. Lynx Close has two resident parking areas neither of which is marked out into formal bays to ensure these areas are used to best advantage the areas could be marked out to assist residents.

Hardings Lane

No representations received.

Noyce Drive

Eleven residents wrote in to object.

One resident wrote to object and express the view that they feel the restrictions to prevent verge parking is unnecessary.

The measures to prevent verge parking are to protect the utilities plant buried within the verges as well as stop the damage occurring to the kerbs and verge surface.

One resident wrote to question that if the restrictions are in place where are the residents supposed to park when they run out of drive space.

It is for drivers to park in a legal and safe manner as with many residential areas parking space is at a premium and not always available adjacent to one’s home.


One resident wrote to comment that they were unaware that parking was a problem at the points indicated for restrictions on the plan.

The measures to prevent verge parking are to protect the utilities plant buried within the verges as well as stop the damage occurring to the kerbs and verge surface

Two residents wrote to object on the grounds that they and their family park on the verge and do not feel it is a problem and do not know where they could park if the restriction goes ahead.


One resident wrote to object and express the view that they feel the restrictions to prevent verge parking would be impractical for Noyce Close.


One resident wrote to comment that they feel the issue of drivers using the road as a short cut is more of a problem

Interesting to note the road is being used in this way however this is beyond the scope of the parking measures to address.

One resident wrote to comment that one of the verge areas was sold off by EBC many years ago so not possible to restrict as the verge is now privately owned.

The verge opposite 9 to 15 does appear to have been disposed of so this element of the order will have to be removed.

Three residents from the same property wrote in to object to the verge restriction, they feel parking on the verges is a common sense measure to avoid congestion.

The measures to prevent verge parking are to protect the utilities plant buried within the verges as well as stop the damage occurring to the kerbs and verge surface.

Elland Close

No representations received.

Financial Implications

4. Church Road / Riverside: - The Layout design, production of the legal order and public exhibition has cost approximately £8000 this sum has been found through the BIFOHH allocation of the £100k outstanding TRO fund


5. Various Order:- Developing and implementing a legal order to prevent obstructive parking will cost in the region of £3500. This has been paid for from the annual allocation received from Hampshire County Council.

Risk Assessment

6. The proposals raised in this order have come to light because of concerns for safety; the risk not taking forward the locations recommended is that the potential for damage either a collision or damage to underground services is heightened.

The public have been consulted on these proposals via the press adverts, notification on the Eastleigh Borough Council website and by on street notices.

Equality and Diversity Implications

7. The Equality Act is relevant to the decision in this report as the decision relates to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, between different people in the following ways: the measures include preventing parking across pedestrian access ramps and helping to keep footways clear. This will assist all pedestrians particularly the elderly, disabled and parents with pushchairs and prams.

Climate Change and Environmental Implications

8. These measures help to lower Greenhouse Gas/CO2 by reducing the likelihood of congestion (drivers held up attempting to pass poorly parked vehicles).

Conclusion

9. The problem being experienced on the roads included within this order relate to obstruction of access’ and junctions as well as the risk of damage to utility equipment buried within verges. The issue with Church Road is that of commuter parking which is restricting the lives of residents accessing driveways, local facilities, the proposed measures are to strike a balance between the needs of both commuters and residents.

DAVID PICKETTSenior Engineering Specialist

Date: 03 January 2020Contact Officer: David Pickett Tel No:e-mail: [email protected]


Appendices Attached: Order Plans for

Church Road and RiversideSt Austell Close / Truro RiseStag Close / Lynx CloseHardings LaneNoyce DriveElland Close

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - SECTION 100D

The following is a list of documents which disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. This list does not include any published works or documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information.

List Background Papers or state None.


Appendicies

Church Road and Riverside as advertised


Church Road as recommended


Truro Rise / St Austell Close


Stag Close / Lynx close

Hardings Lane


Noyce Drive


Elland Close

committee bishopstoke, fair oak and horton heath … va… · newspaper, on the eastleigh borough...

Documents