13/11

DECISION UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

DECISION CANNOT BE TAKEN BEFORE TUESDAY, 5 APRIL 2011

Title OBJECTIONS TO THE COUNCIL (VARIOUS STREETS, ) (TRAFFIC REGULATION) ORDER NO 1 2010 – PAPER B

Report Author REPORT TO THE LEADER OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL AND CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE, GOVERNANCE AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.

PURPOSE

1. To approve The Isle of Wight Council (Various Streets, Nettlestone and Seaview) (Traffic Regulation) Order No 1 2010, in light of the objections received to amend the parking restrictions in Church Street, Steyne Road and Madeira Road, Nettlestone and Seaview.

OUTCOMES

2. Alterations to the parking restrictions in the above roads in order to create a safer road network.

BACKGROUND

3. A number of amendments to the parking restrictions in Nettlestone and Seaview were advertised during March and April 2010 after consultation with the police, local council and local councillors.

4. Cllr Giles declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the Nettlestone and Seaview traffic order in relation to Church Street, Madeira Road and Steyne Road. It has been agreed that Cllr David Pugh (Leader of the Isle of Wight Council) makes the final delegated decision for these roads.

5. Therefore this cabinet report is titled Paper B and includes; Church Street, Madeira Road and Steyne Road. An additional report titled Paper A will address representations received in respect of proposals in Springvale Road and Nettlestone Hill.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

6. The recommended orders will contribute to the delivery of the Isle of Wight’s current Sustainable Community Strategy particularly priorities :

1 • 2 - create wealth and reduce our carbon footprint at the same time and

• 6 - Improve health, emotional wellbeing and life expectancy across the Island - to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 40% by the year 2010 - to cut the number of short car journeys.

7. The council’s Corporate Plan (2009-2013) identifies seven key priorities for delivery over the plan period. One of these priorities focuses on roads and the development and delivery of a Highway’s Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The 25 year Highway PFI will not only improve the condition of the Island’s highway network but also have wider benefits for the public realm, local economy and wider community.

CONSULTATION

8. Consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended, and the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) ( & Wales) Regulations 1996.

9. A public notice outlining the draft proposals, and inviting public comment was advertised in the Isle of Wight County press on 19 March 2010 and notices displayed on-street, and on the Council’s web site for a period of 28 days; the closing date for representations was 16 April 2010.

10. A further copy of the draft proposals was held at County Hall reception so that members of the public could view the full details of the proposals.

The proposals have also been circulated to all statutory consultees, including:

• Local Isle of Wight councillors • Nettlestone and Seaview parish council • Ambulance control • Parking services • Bartlett's garage • Navteq • Chamber of commerce • EXEL • Fire • Fire and rescue • Freight transport association • IW taxi association • County transport • Public transport officer • Post Office • RAC • Ramblers association • Road haulage • Southern Co-op stores • Southern gas networks • omnibus company

2 11. Two representations have been received from Nettlestone & Seaview Parish Council. The first dated 22 December 2009, confirming the council’s support for all of the proposed parking restrictions, whilst expressing concern about the loss of space immediately outside the entrance gates to St Peter’s Church in Church Street, and the second dated 17 February 2010 confirming the resolution taken at the parish council meeting that “further parking restrictions in Madeira Road, Seaview would have a serious effect on ease of access to local small businesses, resulting in a negative effect on their trade, and the parish council is therefore against the proposed loss of on street parking spaces”.

12. A further 28 letters of objections have been received and a petition containing 295 signatories, titled “Petition against double yellow lines, proposed bus route through Seaview village and lack of bus service along the Duver and into the village”,

13. One letter of support for the proposed restrictions has also been received.

14. The local Isle of Wight councillor, Reg Barry has confirmed his support for the proposed restrictions in Church Street, Steyne Road and Madeira Road.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

15. The costs associated with the introduction of the proposed order have been identified, and are to be covered as part of the highways capital allocation for Island wide minor traffic management schemes.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

16. The relevant powers are contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended. The procedure for introducing Traffic Regulation Orders is set out in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996.

17. By virtue of s1 Road Traffic Act 1984, it is the duty of every local authority to secure the flow and safe movement of all traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. The local authority must have regard to s122 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 when deciding whether it is expedient to make an order. In doing so the local authority must at least consider the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises, the effect on the amenities of any locality affected and, the importance of facilitating the passage of public service, so as to preserve or improve the amenities of the areas through which the roads run, and any other matters appearing to be relevant.

18. The restriction proposed by these orders should be reasonable and should not go further than necessary to deal with the highway problems identified. The local authority are required to undertake a balancing exercise between the need to provide suitable and adequate parking facilities against the harm that may occur in highway safety terms of not making the orders.

19. The local authority must consider any objection that has not been withdrawn taking into account relevant representations, as above, when making the decision. This is considered in the risk and evaluation below.

3 20. It is recognised that restrictions on road users may represent an interference with an individuals human rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the first protocol (peaceful enjoyment of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any such interference is considered necessary and proportionate due to positive enhancement of road safety for other users in the area.

EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY

21. Following advertisement of all traffic orders which are subject to 28 days consultation, members of the public are entitled to raise any representations within that period.

22. The service has to undertaken an equality impact assessment. The purpose of which is to identify any impact on the local community and ensure access to services and remove any identified barriers to that access. An equality impact assessment has been undertaken to ensure that all those who use any nearby facilities to the proposed traffic regulation orders, including visitors, are taken into account for any possible disadvantages. .

23. The TRO for the Nettlestone and Seaview has been assessed and there are no findings that any of the equality and diversity areas will be affected.

OPTIONS

24. a) Not to approve Part B - The Isle of Wight Council (Various Streets, Nettlestone and Seaview) (Traffic Regulation) Order No 1 2010 for Church Street, Steyne Road and Madeira Road.

b) To approve Part B - The Isle of Wight Council (Various Streets, Nettlestone and Seaview) (Traffic Regulation) Order No 1 2010 for Church Street, Steyne Road and Madeira Road.

c) To approve Part B - The Isle of Wight Council (Various Streets, Nettlestone and Seaview) (Traffic Regulation) Order No 1 2010 with amendment for Church Street, Steyne Road and Madeira Road.

RISK MANAGEMENT

25. Should the proposed changes to the existing parking restrictions not be introduced, this would have the potential to increase the probability of personal injury collisions, which on average cost the local community £89,820 per incident (Department for Transport ‘Highways Economics Note No 1 2005 – Valuation of the Benefits of Prevention of Road Accidents and Casualties Issue Date January 2007). This would also affect the Isle of Wight Council’s ability to achieve its current targets for casualty reduction.

4 EVALUATION

26. Church Street and Madeira Road, Nettlestone and Seaview

To revoke ‘Limited waiting 2 hours no return within 2 hours Monday to Saturday 8am to 6pm’ in the following lengths of road:

Church Street, on the north-west side, from a point 3.5 metres north-east to a point 11.5 metres south-west of its junction with Madeira Road

To introduce ‘No waiting at any time’ in the following length of road;

Church Street, on the north-west side, from a point 3.5 metres north-east to a point 11.5 metres south-west of its junction with Madeira Road

Madeira Road, on the south side, from a point 7.5 metres east to a point 33 metres east of its junction with Church Street

27. If implemented, eight metres of the limited waiting bays will be removed from the west side of Church Street and replaced with a double yellow line parking restriction and 25.5m of double yellow lines will be painted on the south side of Madeira Road from the a point 7.5 metres, to a point 33 metres east of the junction of Church Street.

28. Twenty six letters of objection and a petition containing 295 signatories have been received regarding the proposed restrictions in Church Street and Madeira Road – the main points being:

• there will be a negative effect on the church, its activities and general village life (7); • the restrictions will make it difficult for the elderly and infirm (6); • funerals, weddings and events at the church will be affected (13); • local businesses will suffer as a result (16); • a safety issue for pedestrians will occur (8); • the current designated coach route does not include these streets so why does it seem acceptable to allow buses to use them (4); • these proposals are for the convenience of the new bus route (12); • much needed on-street parking will be lost as a result (11); • residents will not have anywhere to park (1); • no one wants the buses coming through the village (2); • a better solution would be to use single decker buses (1); • the buses should go back to using ‘The Duver’ which better serves the community (2); • buses should be able to serve the centre of the village (1); • using Madeira Road would cause the least amount of inconvenience (1); • the negative approach taken by the residents and the parish council is unhelpful and a more positive approach into restoring the service should be taken (1).

29. The proposed changes to the parking restrictions in Church Street and Madeira Road have been advertised following an application from the local bus operator to 5 register a bus service in the area, and a subsequent site visit attended by highways officers and representatives of the local bus company.

30. A detailed evaluation of the highway infrastructure concluded that the current on- street parking arrangements are such that access for large vehicles is severely restricted, and that a review of current parking provision is required to ensure that all vehicles that have a lawful right to use the local highway network can do so, without obstruction.

31. Representations received indicate a clear link between the advertised parking restrictions and the local bus operator’s aspiration to register a local bus service via Church Street and Madeira Road; this has resulted in a number of the representations focusing on the provision of local bus services, rather than been specific on matters related to the advertised traffic regulation order.

32. The local highway infrastructure was not, in the main, designed for the benefit of the motor car, let alone capable of accommodating the size and volume or vehicles that currently demand use if it, nevertheless it is the council’s duty to manage the network in such way as to ensure the safe and expedient passage of all vehicles that have a lawful right to use it. The council has no such responsibility to provide on-street parking provisions, albeit that parking restrictions are kept to minimum to ensure that the maximum number of on-street parking spaces is retained.

33. A number of representations refer to the potential impact that the proposed restrictions will have on the commercial viability of the village, and the ability for residents to park on-street; in recognition of the concerns that have been expressed a further evaluation of on-street parking provision has been undertaken which has highlighted the potential to generate an additional four on-street spaces in the Madeira Road/Pier Road area, thus mitigating the potential loss of seven parking spaces that will result from the introduction of the proposed parking restrictions. The additional provision will need to be considered as part of the next review of the local traffic regulation order, to ensure that such proposals can be subject to full local consultation.

34. A number of the representations make reference to the potential difficulties that are likely to be encountered when funeral and wedding services are being undertaken at the church, however, the proposed traffic order makes exemption for vehicles being used in conjunction with funerals and for persons boarding or alighting from a vehicle; as such adequate provision for such services is provided.

35. The police and local Isle of Wight councillor have indicated support for the proposed restriction but Nettlestone and Seaview Parish Council does not support this section of the traffic order.

36. Having considered the points raised and the existing site characteristics, the relevant issues are recognised but on balance it is considered necessary for highway safety and the safe passage of movement to make this order, therefore it is proposed the restriction is implemented as advertised.

6 37 Steyne Road, Nettlestone and Seaview

To implement No waiting at any time in the following lengths of road:

38. Steyne Road, on the west side, from a point 36.5 metres south to a point 80.5 metres south of its junction with Somerset Road.

Four letters of objection have been received for Steyne Road, the main points being:

• the proposals are unnecessary as there is not a problem (3); • parked vehicles do not cause an obstruction and actually slow the traffic flow (1); • if the proposal was to go ahead the speeds would increase and endanger the squirrels that cross in this location (1); • residents, visitors and allotment holders will have no where to park (2).

39. The proposed restriction in Steyne Road have been advertised following representation from the local parish council who raised their concerns regarding parked vehicles on the brow of the hill, increasing the risk of a head on conflict. These restrictions are designed to address this problem.

40. Paragraph 243 of the Highway Code (2007) states = “Do not park your vehicle or trailer on the road where it would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct pedestrians or other road users, i.e. near the brow of a hill”.

41. Representation has been raised at the loss of available on street parking places; whilst the proposals are designed to address the road safety issues on-site, every effort has been taken to retain as much on-street parking provision as possible; regrettably this section of highway needs to be kept sterile to avoid any potential conflict. Parking is, however, available on the opposite side of the road, and further to the south.

42. The council’s duty is to manage the network in such a way as to ensure the safe and expedient passage of all vehicles that have a lawful right to use it; the advertised restrictions are required to ensure that this duty is fulfilled.

43. The police, parish council and local councillor have indicated their support for the proposed restriction.

44. Having considered the points raised and the existing site characteristics, the relevant issues are recognised but on balance it is considered necessary for highway safety and the safe passage of movement to make this order, therefore it is proposed the restriction is implemented as advertised.

7

RECOMMENDATION

45. Option B:

To approve Part B - The Isle of Wight Council (Various Streets, Nettlestone and Seaview) (Traffic Regulation) Order No 1 2010 for Church Street, Steyne Road and Madeira Road.

Contact Point: Kevin Burton, Group Manager – Transport Strategy  01983 823777, e-mail [email protected]

STUART LOVE COUNCILLOR DAVID PUGH Strategic Director Leader of the Isle of Wight Council and Economy and Environment Cabinet Member for Finance, Governance and School Improvement.

Decision Signed Date

8