1 South Essex Parking Partnership Sub Committee
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SOUTH ESSEX PARKING PARTNERSHIP SUB COMMITTEE THURSDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2020 – 10.00AM AGENDA ITEM 8 Subject THE ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (BRENTWOOD BOROUGH) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING, LOADING AND STOPPING) AND (ON- STREET PARKING PLACES) (CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AREA) (AMENDMENT No.3) ORDER 202* Relating to Roman Road, High Street, Fryerning Lane, Market Place, The Limes, Stock Lane, & Haslers Court, Ingatestone. Report by South Essex Parking Partnership Manager Enquiries contact: Nick Binder, South Essex Parking Partnership Manager, 01245 606303, [email protected] Purpose To report the receipt of representations made on part of; THE ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (BRENTWOOD BOROUGH) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING, LOADING AND STOPPING) AND (ON-STREET PARKING PLACES) (CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AREA) (AMENDMENT No.3) ORDER 202* Options The Joint Committee has the following options available: 1. to agree that the proposed Order be made as advertised; 2. to agree that the proposed Order be made subject to modifications which result in less restrictive provisions or reduced scope; or 3. to agree that the proposed Order should not be made. Recommendation(s) 1. The Order be made as advertised; and 2. The people making representations be advised accordingly. Consulters South Essex Parking Partnership Policies and Strategies The report takes into account the South Essex Parking Partnership Document setting out how the SEPP will deal with requests for parking restrictions requiring TROs. 1 1. Background 1.1 The purpose of this Order is to vary The Essex County Council (Brentwood Borough) (Prohibition of Waiting, Loading and Stopping) and (On-street parking places) (Civil Enforcement Area) Consolidation Order 2019 as set out below: - The South Essex Parking Partnership (SEPP) propose to make the above named Order following a parking review of Roman Road, High Street, Fryerning Lane, Market Place, The Limes, Stock Lane, & Haslers Court, Ingatestone. 1.2 A request to SEPP was received from a local Councillor. The Parish Council also supported an amendment to the parking restrictions in Ingatestone High Street and Roman Road, Ingatestone. The request was for the removal of double yellow lines in Roman Road, Ingatestone between Whadden Chase and Petre Close. The reason for this is to allow some on-street parking to act as traffic calming and provide local workers facilities to park, whilst preventing commuters. A speed survey has been carried out by Essex County Council (ECC) and results of this can be requested through them. In addition, a safety report by Essex County Council made a number of recommendations regarding on-street parking restrictions to the north of Ingatestone village. 1.3 A scheme was designed based on the requests and reports and agreed with the SEPP Joint Committee Member for Brentwood. It was agreed with the SEPP Joint Committee Member for Brentwood to cost a scheme to propose a number of amendments to improve traffic flow, safety, sight lines, access to bus stops, reduce vehicle conflict and provide facilities for residents, their visitors, local workers and shoppers to park on-street. It was estimated at £7,500. 1.4 The Order was originally published in the Essex Chronicle and with Notices on site on 20 February 2020. Copies of the ‘Notice of Proposal’, Plans, ‘Statement of Reasons’ and ‘Draft Order’ were sent to the following organisations; Essex Police, Essex County Council (the highway authority), Essex Fire & Rescue Command Centre, Essex Fire & Rescue Water Section Essex Ambulance Service, Essex Search and Rescue ECC Asset Management, Road Haulage Association, Freight Transport Service, Agricultural Industries Confederation and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. 1.5 The Proposed Order is for double yellow lines, single yellow lines, resident permit bays, limited waiting bays, keep clear entrance markings, disabled bay and bus stops 1.6 When the Order was published on 20 February 2020 a 21-day period of formal public consultation commenced. 2 Comments 2.1 The details of the representations are summarised in Appendix 2 to this report together with the comments of the Technicians. 3 Conclusion 3.1 Although the correspondents have made a number of points which lead them to believe the Order should not be pursued in whole or part, the SEPP Joint Committee Member, Lead Officer and Technicians consider that none of them are of sufficient weight to warrant the Order not being made in full. 2 List of Appendices Appendix 1 – List of people making representations Appendix 2 – Summary of objections or support and Technicians comments 3 APPENDIX 1 Ref List of people making representations Type 1 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 20/02/2020 Objection 2 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 20/02/2020 Objection 3 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 27/02/2020 Support 4 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 02/03/2020 Objection 5 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 02/03/2020 Support 6 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 05/03/2020 Support 7 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 08/03/2020 Objection 8 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 09/03/2020 Support 9 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 09/03/2020 Support 10 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 10/03/2020 Objection 11 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 10/03/2020 Objection 12 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 11/03/2020 Objection 13 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 11/03/2020 Support 14 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 11/03/2020 Support 15 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 16 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 17 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 18 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 19 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 20 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 21 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 22 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 23 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 24 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 25 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 26 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 27 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 28 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 29 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 30 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 11/03/2020 Support 31 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 32 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 11/03/2020 Support 33 Email from local worker dated 11/03/2020 Objection 34 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 12/03/2020 Objection 35 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 12/03/2020 Support 36 Email from Councillor of Ingatestone dated 12/03/2020 Support 37 Email from local worker dated 12/03/2020 Objection 38 Email from local worker dated 12/03/2020 Objection 39 Email from local worker dated 12/03/2020 Objection 40 Email from local worker dated 13/03/2020 Objection 41 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 13/03/2020 Support 42 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 13/03/2020 Support 43 Email from Councillor of Ingatestone dated 13/03/2020 Support 44 Email from Councillor of Ingatestone dated 13/03/2020 Support 45 Email from local worker dated 13/03/2020 Objection 46 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 13/03/2020 Objection 47 Email from resident of Ingatestone dated 13/03/2020 Objection 4 APPENDIX 2 REPRESENTATIONS & RESPONSES FOLLOWING FORMAL ADVERTISEMENT – 20 FEBRUARY TO 13 MARCH 2020 Representations & responses relating to Roman Road, High Street, Fryerning Lane, Market Place, The Limes, Stock Lane, & Haslers Court, Ingatestone. Ref Representation - Technician response - 1 I wish to OBJECT to the proposed order on the following grounds: Objection 1 The proposed times of ‘No Tile reference TQ 640 987: Waiting Midnight-8.30am’ would provide local workers Objection 1 facilities to park and prevent The inclusion of the “No waiting Midnight – 8:30am” area on the north side of Roman Road is highly likely, commuters, as well as acting based on past experience, to result in commuter parking at this location. as possible traffic calming. If implemented this would be Objection 2 monitored for its effectiveness. The introduction of “No waiting at any time” on the main stretch of Roman Road (the locations other than junction protection) to replace the existing Monday to Friday will result in a lack of available parking for Objection 2 church services and weddings on Saturdays and Sundays. Alternative parking is available in other nearby Tile reference TQ 640 990 roads and it possible for blue Objection 3 badge holders to park on double yellow lines for up to 3 The inclusion of the “No waiting Midnight – 8:30am” area on the south side of Roman Road is highly hours if displaying badge. likely, based on past experience, to result in commuter parking at this location. Objection 3 Tile reference TQ 645 990 The proposed times of ‘No Objection 4 Waiting Midnight-8.30am’ would provide local workers The existing “no waiting Mon-Fri 2pm-3pm” restriction is inadequate in the stretch of Station Lane in the facilities to park and prevent immediate vicinity of the station carpark entrance and the level crossing. Parking in these locations is commuters, as well as acting never safe, and the presence of this restriction (especially with the “no waiting at any time” to the as possible traffic calming. If immediate north) makes it appear as it is endorsed. “No waiting at any time” should be extended from implemented this would be 5 Ashleigh Court to this area. (Note: the station car park applies charges throughout the weekend, monitored for its encouraging parking on street at the weekend when the on-street restrictions in Station Lane do not effectiveness.