You are here: Home » Your City Council » Council Meetings » Planning Boards » City Centre, South and East » Agendas 2006 » Agenda 18th December 2006 » Sharrowvale Permit Parking Scheme

Sharrowvale Permit Parking Scheme - Outcome of Consultation Process

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

REPORT TO CITY CENTRE, SOUTH & EAST AREA PLANNING & HIGHWAYS BOARD
18 DECEMBER 2006

SHARROW VALE PERMIT PARKING PROPOSALS – OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION PROCESS

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To inform Members of the outcome of advertising the intention to introduce a Permit Parking Scheme on streets in the Sharrow Vale area.

1.2 To seek approval to incorporate some changes and to proceed with the proposals.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The proposals for the Sharrow Vale area are the latest phase in the City Council’s programme for the creation of a Peripheral Parking Zone in which various measures are being introduced to address parking issues around the City Centre. The area covered by the proposals is indicated on the plan included as Appendix A.

2.2 The formal advertising process resulted in a large number of objections and letters of support being received, details of which are given in Appendix B.

3 PROPOSALS

3.1 The proposals, as advertised, briefly comprise the introduction of various new and amended controls to establish Permit Parking bays, restrict and prohibit parking, introduce Pay & Display parking, provide disabled parking bays and revoke existing waiting restrictions at various locations in the Sharrow Vale area.

3.2 In response to comments received during the consultation, changes are being proposed. These revised proposals are shown on Drawing Numbers TR-BG259-B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 on display at the Board meeting (and which have been displayed in the Members’ Library). Plans showing the revised proposals are also shown on the Council’s website and have been deposited at Highfield and Central Libraries and at First Point, Howden House.

4 CONSULTATION

4.1 The proposals, as outlined above, were advertised in May/June 2006. The consultation process comprised of the following:

· Leaflet drop – approximately 6700 leaflets were delivered to properties throughout the study area

· Street notices throughout the area

· Press notice and coverage

· Plans on deposit – at Highfield and Central libraries and First Point at Howden House

· Website – details and plans were available for inspection/down loading from the City Council’s website

· A variety of meetings have been held with the Area Panel, local residents’ and traders’ associations, local businesses and Hunters Bar School.

4.2 Although the official deadline for comments was 30 June 2006, comments continued to be received throughout July and August. Only in early September was the consultation concluded, in order to allow officers to fully analyse the responses and progress the scheme.

4.3 The Council has received 27 letters of support, which generally welcome the steps being taken to address major parking problems in Sharrow Vale. There have been 431 objections and 9 petitions, summarised below. A detailed list of the objections and officer responses can be found in Appendix B. Proposed changes to the advertised proposals are also described.

4.4 The objections received as a result of the formal advertising process generally fall into 4 categories as follows:

· 282 responses from the general public/residents living in the area

· 100 responses from staff based in the area – generally office and shop workers

· 49 responses from businesses based in the area

· 9 petitions – from commuters, businesses, and residents.

4.5 A further, collaborative response was received from some residents and businesses located in and around the Sharrow Vale Road shopping area, through the Chamber of Commerce. This correspondence, received in October, is discussed fully in paragraph 4.17, and in Appendix C.

Objections from the General Public/Residents

4.6 Analysis of the objections received from residents showed that there were several main issues that were raised repeatedly. These can be seen below:

Of the 282 responses, the main comments received were:

· I do not have a problem parking – 121 comments

· I do not want to pay for permits – 77 comments

· This is a stealth tax/fund raising exercise by the Council – 59 comments

· Provision for visitors is inadequate – 31 comments

· The scheme will transfer vehicles to outside the scheme boundary – 22 comments

· There should be more than 1 permit allocated to each household – 22 comments

4.7 A full response to these and the remaining comments can be seen in Appendix B.

4.8 Of the 121 residents who indicated they do not have a problem parking, a high proportion (60%) came from the same area. This area included the following roads: Junction Road, Hunter House Road, Hunter Hill Road, Guest Road, Penrhyn Road, Fulmer Road, Roach Road, Stretton Road, and Pinner Road.

4.9 A further key trend was that a notable number of residents of Endcliffe Glen Road and Endcliffe Vale Avenue wished for additional restrictions on their roads.

4.10 A full discussion of the Hunters Bar and Endcliffe areas can be found in paragraph 5.2 to 5.13.

Objections from Staff and Commuters

4.11 There were 100 responses from staff currently working in the area. These predominantly came from office workers based in the business parks off Ecclesall Road and Cemetery Road. Of the 100 responses, the main comments received were:

· No alternative to get to work other than car – 37 comments

· There will be nowhere for me to park – 28 comments

· The scheme ignores the needs and impacts negatively on businesses – 22 comments

· This is a stealth tax/fund raising exercise by the Council – 17 comments

· The scheme will transfer vehicles to the scheme boundary – 15 comments

· Object to the 2 and 4 hour pay and display bays – 15 comments

· There are no proposals to provide alternatives – 15 comments

A full response to these and the remaining comments can be seen in Appendix B.

4.12 The overall main concern from staff was that, under the proposed scheme, there would be fewer on-street long stay parking opportunities. The purpose of the scheme is to address the balance between the needs of local residents, businesses and shops. The intention is to provide a mix of parking throughout the area and this includes approximately 1200 unrestricted spaces, where vehicles can be parked without time limit or charge. This is an increase of approximately 560 unrestricted spaces as a result of proposed changes.

4.13 The Council is promoting the development and operation of travel plan measures such as car sharing and other alternatives to the car. A number of businesses have already become involved in such initiatives, or have agreed to, to help address any difficulties that staff may encounter. Many firms have car parks and can prioritise spaces according to need and personal circumstances of staff.

Objections from Local Businesses

4.14 49 responses were received from businesses operating in the area. The main issues raised were:

· The scheme ignores the needs and impacts negatively on businesses – 17 comments

· There will be nowhere for me/staff to park – 10 comments

· There are no proposals to improve public transport or provide alternative parking – 5 comments

· Object to the 2 and 4 hour pay and display bays – 5 comments

A full response to these and the remaining comments can be seen in Appendix B.

4.15 Travel Plan discussions have already started with a number of businesses. Officers have initially focused on encouraging businesses to develop travel plans to reduce the daily dependency of staff on the car. It is anticipated that this work will increase as businesses request additional permits – see paragraph 6.8 for more details.

Petitions

4.16 Nine separate petitions were received and the issues raised are considered within Appendix B, together with an officer response. The petitions were received from a variety of residents, businesses and commuters, and generally reflected the comments received as outlined in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.13.

Other correspondence

4.17 In addition, correspondence co-ordinated by, but not necessarily representing the views of, the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, was received in October 2006. This correspondence (incorporating the views of 89 businesses/residents and a petition of 198 signatures from the Sharrow Vale Road/Hickmott Road/Ecclesall Road area) raised a number of issues concerned with both overall planning policy, and individual aspects of the proposed scheme. Full details of this correspondence can be found in Appendix C, together with officer response.

4.18 Discussions have also taken place with Hunters Bar Infant and Junior Schools, which are located on Sharrow Vale Road and have no off-street parking. The schools have raised significant concerns about the scheme, mainly related to parking opportunities for staff. These discussions remain ongoing, and it is believed that the concerns raised by the school can be addressed through the allocation of additional business permits. More information on business permits is set out in paragraph 6.8.

4.19 Norwich Union has indicated that although they accept the scheme in residential areas, they see no need for short stay bays in the Pomona Street/Napier Street area. This is discussed in full in paragraph 6.3.

5 ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION

5.1 As discussed in paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9, in two cases many residents within the same area raised similar issues. In view of these clusters of residents raising the same comment, officers felt it appropriate to re-consult with residents of these areas to fully determine public opinion.

Hunters Bar: Re-Consultation

5.2 Residents of the Hunters Bar area (those roads as described in paragraph 4.8) were re-consulted and given 3 options:

· Option 1 – that the area be removed from the scheme

· Option 2 – that the residents’ parking bays be omitted but additional restrictions be introduced to protect driveways and junctions

· Option 3 – that the proposals be implemented as originally advertised.

5.3 An information pack was sent to all properties within the area, with a strict 3 week deadline for responses. 753 leaflets were delivered to properties, with a total of 277 responses (37%) received by the deadline of 19 October 2006.

5.4 The consultation results are as follows:

· Option 1 – 125 votes (45% of responses, 17% of properties consulted)

· Option 2 – 85 votes (31% of responses, 11% of properties consulted)

· Option 3 – 64 votes (23% of responses, 8% of properties consulted)

Of the 3 options, the lowest support (23%) was for option 3 – the originally advertised proposals. The remaining respondents (76%) voted for an option where the permit parking bays were omitted. 1% of respondents did not indicate their preference.

5.5 Further analysis of the responses showed that of all the roads consulted, only Guest Road and Osberton Place showed overall support for the scheme. Most support for option 3 came from properties closer to Sharrow Vale, at the lower end of the hill where parking problems are currently more acute. It should be noted however that even here there was as much support for option 1 as option 3.

5.6 In view of this consultation response, it is considered that the most appropriate way forward is to remove the Hunters Bar area from the scheme. It is likely however that some parking displacement will transfer into this area once the scheme is introduced in neighbouring Sharrow Vale.

5.7 Should the displacement be severe, with residents having significant problems parking during the day, it may be necessary in the future to reconsider introducing permit parking in the area. It is intended to carry out a formal review of the scheme once it has been in place for 6 months. This review will include the Hunters Bar area (and other adjacent areas), to determine the effect of the scheme.

5.8 In summary, the proposed way forward for the Hunters Bar area is:

· Acknowledge the resistance of the majority of residents to the proposals at the current time

· Remove the proposals for the area from the scheme

· Once the scheme is introduced, officers will review parking densities to determine the level of displacement

· Should parking densities have substantially increased, residents will be consulted to determine support for parking bays

· The outcome of the review and subsequent consultation, and a decision on whether or not to progress the scheme, would be considered by Area Board

Endcliffe Glen Road/Endcliffe Vale Avenue: Re-Consultation

5.9 As discussed in paragraph 4.9, a high proportion of the responses from residents of Endcliffe Glen Road and Endcliffe Vale Avenue objected to the lack of permit parking bays on their roads. Officers therefore developed a proposal – in consultation with some of the local residents – which was presented to all residents in an information pack sent to all properties within the area, with a strict 3 week deadline given for responses.

5.10 Residents were asked to return a questionnaire, indicating either their support or objection to the proposed scheme. Of the 53 leaflets distributed, the following results were obtained:

· Endcliffe Glen Road – 19 responses, 18 support, 1 objection

· Endcliffe Vale Avenue – 6 responses, 6 objections
5.11 Some residents of Endcliffe Glen Road indicated that although they generally supported the proposal, they felt a small amendment should be considered. This amendment – to position parking bays in such a way to keep speeds to a minimum – is detailed in full in Appendix B.

5.12 The residents of Endcliffe Vale Avenue were particularly concerned at the proposal to introduce 3 permit parking bays on the road. Residents have indicated their preference for there to be no residents’ bays, with a further letter of correspondence with signatures of all residents received. It is therefore proposed that Endcliffe Vale Avenue be subject to a single yellow line along its entirety.

5.13 Two residents of Endcliffe Vale Avenue indicated that although they supported the single yellow line restriction, they did not want it provided across their own driveways. Where possible we would comply with these wishes, however in this case yellow lines are required to prevent difficulties for residents accessing driveways, and to assist vehicles turning round on the cul-de-sac. If a motorist did park across a resident’s drive where there were no yellow lines, the Council’s parking attendants could not take any enforcement action.

6 THE WAY FORWARD

6.1 In view of the objections and suggestions received it is recommended that certain changes be incorporated into the proposals and these are shown on Drawing No’s TR-BG259-B1 to B5 on display at the Board meeting. The main changes are:

· The omission of the following roads from the scheme – Junction Road, Hunter House Road, Hunter Hill Road, Guest Road, Penrhyn Road, Fulmer Road, Roach Road, Stretton Road, Pinner Road, Sandbeck Place (as detailed in paragraph 5.8)

· The inclusion of additional restrictions on Endcliffe Glen Road and Endcliffe Vale Avenue (as discussed in paragraph 5.9)

· Various other small changes as indicated in Appendix B

6.2 Subject to approval, the scheme is programmed for implementation in the 2007/8 financial year. At this stage it is envisaged that the scheme will be fully operational by September 2007.

6.3 As discussed in paragraph 4.19, Norwich Union have requested that the on-street parking in the Pomona Street/Napier Street area be left unrestricted. They indicate that the provision of 4 hour parking will only lead to staff parking for 4 hours and simply moving their cars to a different bay at lunchtime. It is considered however that the balance of parking controls in this area is suitable, with a mix of pay and display bays and unrestricted parking proposed. Approximately 98 unrestricted spaces remain in the vicinity of the Pomona Street/Napier Street area.
6.4 Any scheme such as this will require further amendments as parking patterns settle as a result of the new restrictions. It is therefore considered that the scheme should be reviewed once it is has been fully operational for a period of 6 months. This review would seek to make minor changes to the scheme, where necessary, and would address any issues outside the scheme boundary, if appropriate.

Allocation of Additional Permits - Residents

6.5 A substantial number of comments from residents were concerned with the restriction of permits per household. Under the existing proposals, each household will be able to initially apply for a single permit, with additional permits made available at the discretion of the Council.

6.6 Officers have developed guidelines for the provision of second permits for residents within the Broomhill Permit Parking scheme. These guidelines, intended for use on all permit parking schemes, link the number of permits allocated to the availability of on-street spaces. The guidelines are as follows:

· If the number of permits issued with respect to a street is less than 80% of that street’s parking capacity, then applications for second permits will be approved.

· There are some streets in the Zone which have few or no parking bays, and residents with permits will be parking on adjacent streets. In such cases, all second permit applications for properties in these streets will be considered by Traffic Regulations Group and Parking Services and a joint decision based on the parking capacity in the immediate area.

6.7 These guidelines have been discussed with the Cabinet Member for Transport, and are recommended for approval by Area Board. Following further experience in Broomhill and Sharrow Vale these guidelines may require adjustments in the future. Any changes to the guidelines will be reported to Area Board as part of the roll out of additional schemes.

Allocation of Additional Permits – Businesses

6.8        Similar comments were received from local businesses. The Sharrow Vale area comprises of a wide variety of businesses, from small local shops to large office based, national companies. The parking needs of these businesses are extremely varied, with some having a greater need for parking permits than others. It has become clear that the Council needs to adopt a robust policy on business permits for Residents’ Parking Schemes, to ensure that the needs of businesses are fully considered.
6.9        To address this issue, officers are preparing guidelines for the provision of additional business permits. These guidelines should provide a transparent and easily understandable process, and will be the subject of a report to be submitted for Area Board approval in due course.
6.10    At this stage, it is envisaged that the provision of additional permits will be linked to current car parking standards, with the development and operation of a travel plan a further key element. Smaller businesses would have to demonstrate operational need for additional permits.

7 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The physical introduction of the scheme has already been approved as a commitment within the overall LTP programme. It is estimated that this cost will be approximately £450,000.

7.2 The ongoing operational costs, primarily enforcement, will be covered by income from permits and pay and display bays. Without this income the scheme could not be enforced and therefore would become ineffective. There are therefore no new financial implications associated with this report.

8 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

8.1 Disabled (Blue) Badge Holders will not be able to park in the Permit Only Bays, unless displaying a valid residents’/business permit, but will be able to park on yellow lines in the area for up to 3 hours, provided that they do not cause an obstruction. They will also be able to park in the Shared Use Pay & Display Bays without charge or restriction on time. There are also several additional dedicated Blue Badge parking spaces provided within the scheme.

8.2 Ambulances and Community Transport vehicles should benefit by way of improved access within the area due to the reduction in the number of vehicles parked on street and waiting restrictions to protect junctions.

9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The scheme is intended to contribute to reducing the environmental impact of cars and to increase the attraction of walking, cycling and public transport, in line with Council environmental objectives. The removal of densely parked cars in urban areas will improve the environment for residents and visitors alike.

10 PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS

10.1    There are no property implications associated with this report.
11          RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1    That subject to the changes detailed on Drawing No’s TR-BG259-B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 the Sharrow Vale Permit Parking Scheme be introduced as advertised and the proposed Traffic Regulation Orders be made.

11.2 That the objectors and petitioners be informed accordingly.

11.3 That the scheme be reviewed 6 months after it becomes fully operational.

11.4 That a further report be submitted for Area Board approval regarding the additional allocation of business permits within permit parking schemes.

John Bann

Head of Transport & Highways

7 December 2006