PORTFOLIO HOLDER DECISION POST ENGAGEMENT FINAL DECISION

Report subject Traffic Regulation Order – Sealing of Traffic Regulation Order ref P3 2020 Residential Disabled Bay Proposals

Decision maker Councillor Mike Greene – Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability

Proposed decision To make and seal the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and implement the restrictions which are outlined in Appendix 1.

Proposed decision 29 January 2021 publication date A copy of the proposed decision, reasons, background, options, etc., is appended to this final decision record.

Engagement period Following the publication of the proposed decision, interested parties were invited to comment on the proposal for a period of five- clear days from 29 January 2021 to 7 January 2021 inclusive.

Comments received No comments or representations were received during the engagement period.

Decision taken The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability has considered any representations received and determined to confirm the decision outlined above without modification.

Date of final decision 8 February 2021

Call-in and urgency: Subject to any urgency provisions which shall be identified, this decision will not come into force, and may not be implemented, until the expiry of 5 clear working days after the decision was made, recorded and published.

PORTFOLIO HOLDER DECISION RECORD

Report subject Traffic Regulation Order – Sealing of Traffic Regulation Order ref P3 2020 Residential Disabled Bay Proposals

Decision maker Councillor Mike Greene – Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability

Decision date Not Before 8 February 2021

Decision taken To make and seal the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and implement the restrictions which are outlined in Appendix 1

Reasons for the To consider representations following the advertisement of the decision Traffic Regulation Order and to approve the making and sealing of the TRO so that new on-street disabled bays and changes to existing on-street disabled bays can be implemented. Call-in and urgency: Subject to call-in and will come into effect on the expiry of 5 clear working days after the date of the decision if not called in.

Corporate Director Corporate Director of Regeneration and Economy

Responsible officer Sally Swaine

Wards Bearwood & Merley; East & ; East Cliff & Springbourne; & Iford; ; Redhill & Northbourne; & Winton West; Winton East;

Status Open

Background Residents who hold a blue badge for parking may apply for a residential disabled bay outside their home subject to certain conditions. These can be either a general disabled bay for use by all blue badge holders, or a permit bay for use by the permit holder only.

All the proposed disabled bays in Appendix 1 meet the required conditions and have successfully completed the disabled bay application process. All the proposed removals have been requested by the applicant or residents and have been ratified by Officers. Cabinet approved the advertisement of the TRO for the restrictions listed in Appendix 1 on 24 June 2020. Options appraisal The options are to:  make the TRO and implement the restrictions as advertised;  amend and make the TRO and implement amended restrictions that are less restrictive than advertised;  not to make the TRO.

Consultation The statutory consultation process set out in The Local Authorities' undertaken Traffic Orders (Procedure) ( and Wales) Regulations 1996 has been carried out as detailed below.

The 21-day public consultation opened on Friday 2 October 2020 where:  A Notice was placed in the Echo.  Notification emails were sent to all councillors and all statutory consultees (including emergency services, disability groups, local public transport provided, national transport associations various council departments).  Street Notices with consultation details were displayed in relevant locations.  The Deposit Documents (consultation documents) were published on the council’s website.

Financial/Resource The costs associated with both the consultation and implementation implications of the Traffic Regulations Order (TRO) will be covered by the income from the disabled bay application fees. The whole review cost is estimated to be £5,000.

Summary of legal The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended provides implications Highway Authorities the power to make Traffic Regulation Orders. The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 sets out the statutory process Highway Authorities must follow to make a TRO. The statutory consultation required by these regulations has been carried out as detailed above. All representations received have been formally considered as outlined in Appendix 1 and taken into account in making this decision.

Summary of Negligible. sustainability impact

Summary of public Positive. health implications Summary of equality Positive impact on residents with a disability who qualify for and implications hold a blue badge. An Equality Impact Needs Assessment is included in the background papers. Summary of risk The initial risk assessment has classed the proposals as low risk assessment and is included in the background papers.

Conflicts of interest Not applicable. declared by Cabinet member consulted on this decision

Background papers Cabinet Report 26 June 2020 – Item 17. Traffic Regulation Orders – Advertisement of Changes to On Street Disabled Bays (Ref P3 2020). Equality Impact Needs Assessment Initial Risk Assessment

t

Equality Impact Assessment: conversation screening tool

[Use this form to prompt an EIA conversation and capture the output between officers, stakeholders and interested groups. This completed form or a full EIA report will be published as part of the decision-making process] Policy/Service under New Traffic Regulation Order development/review: What changes are being made New Traffic Regulation Order to the policy/service? Service Unit: Growth and Infrastructure Persons present in the Clare Griffiths – Traffic Technician conversation and their Sally Swaine – Interim Team Leader Traffic Management role/experience in the service: Conversation dates: 29 April 2020 Do you know your current or Yes – People with disabilities or health conditions who potential client base? Who are qualify and hold a Blue Badge. the key stakeholders? Do different groups have different Yes needs or experiences in relation to the policy/service? Will the policy or service change Yes affect any of these service users? Residents with disabilities or health conditions who qualify and hold a Blue Badge. Residents without a disability. [If the answer to the three questions above is ‘don’t know’ then you need to gather more evidence and do a full EIA. The best way to do this is to use the Capturing Evidence form] What are the benefits or positive The provision of a residential disabled bay helps the resident impacts of the policy/service maintain their independence and mobility, which change on current or potential consequently could result in additional positive outcomes service users? including:  improved access to the greater community and its services thereby reducing social isolation;  improved health and wellbeing including mental health.

What are the negative impacts of Residents without a disability do not have parking spaces the policy/service change on adjacent to their properties. current or potential service users? Will the policy or service change No affect employees? Will the policy or service change No affect the wider community? What mitigating actions are None. planned or already in place for No action is proposed as residents without a disability can those negatively affected by the use an alternative parking space when a space adjacent to policy/service change? their home is unavailable. Summary of Equality Positive impact on residents with a disability who qualify for Implications: and hold a blue badge.

For any questions on this, please contact the Policy and Performance Team by emailing [email protected]

Appendix 1 - Consultation Outcome and Recommendations - Residential Disabled Bays (P3 2020) Consultation dates: 2 – 23 October 2020 Schedule Legend: DPP – Disabled Parking Place, SPP – Street Parking Place, NWAAT – No waiting at any time, LW- Limited Waiting

Item Road Proposed Existing Summary of Responses Decision Location Additional Info BCP Ward No. Name(s) Restriction Restriction Nearest suitable space Implement as advertised Columbia for the bay requested Redhill & Reason: no objections 1. Outside No. 101 DPP (Permit) Unrestricted No response received Road by resident who lives Northbourne nearby. One objection received: Implement as advertised - Off road parking available. Reason: - No. 19 are always able to park - Application meets on-street outside the property criteria for a bay - Suggests installed further away - Other residents may Englands Bearwood & nr Littlemoor Ave park elsewhere on 2. Outside No. 19 DPP (Permit) Unrestricted Way Merley - Bay location will affect Englands Way manoeuvrability & prevent 3 or 4 - Bay located as close as other vehicles from parking. possible to No. 19, within inset parking lay-by area and away from turning area. Leaphill Boscombe East Implement as advertised 3. Outside No. 32 DPP (Permit) Unrestricted No response received Road & Pokesdown Reason: no objections Markham Implement as advertised 4. Outside No. 146 Revocation DPP DPP Removal Winton East No response received Road Reason: no objections Conversion from Implement as advertised DPP (Conversion of 5. Ripon Road Outside No. 150 DPP general DPP to DPP for Moordown No response received Reason: no objections General to Permit) permit holder only Revocation Implement as advertised DPP Removal and Rosebery (Conversion back to DPP Boscombe East Reason: no objections 6. Outside No. 1 reinstatement of SPP No response received Road SPP for cars & (Permit) & Pokesdown for cars & motorcycles. motorcycles) Revoke 2m NWAAT to Implement as advertised replace with extension Reason: no objections Waiting limited to 1 to LW/Residents hour 8am – 6pm permits holders only return prohibited St Swithun’s bay of 2m to optimise East Cliff & 7. Outside No. 32 within 1 NWAAT No response received Road available residents Springbourne hour/Resident permit parking (following its holders only (S2) conversion from 6.6m 8am – 6pm disabled bay in previous order) Templer Wallisdown & Implement as advertised 8. Opposite No. 16 DPP (Permit) Unrestricted No response received Close Winton West Reason: no objections Item Road Proposed Existing Summary of Responses Decision Location Additional Info BCP Ward No. Name(s) Restriction Restriction DPP (Permit) Removal. Implement as advertised TRO for this bay was Reason: no objections advertised and sealed Warnford DPP Littledown & 9. Outside No. 27A Revocation in P1 2019 but No response received Road (Permit) Iford application was withdrawn prior to installation. One objection received: Implement as advertised - Area parking issues: terraces, Reason: narrow streets, lack of parking - Application meets provision with new residential criteria for a bay developments, leads to - Bay located as close as dangerous parking, danger to possible to No. 27 peds, vehicles & emergency - When notified of an service access. Reduction in unused disabled bay we Washington East Cliff & 10. Outside No. 27 DPP (Permit) Unrestricted public parking provision will will investigate and begin Avenue Springbourne reduce quality of life for all the statutory removal residents process if appropriate. - Sufficient vacant disabled bay provision near No. 27: Washington Ave – 2, Lincoln Ave – 3, Garfield Rd – 3, St Mary’s Rd – 3, Spring Rd – 1 - Many empty for long periods. Boscombe East Implement as advertised 11. West Road Outside No. 4 DPP (Permit) Unrestricted No response received & Pokesdown Reason: no objections

Equality Impact Needs Assessment

The Diversity Promise – Better for all

1. Title of Policy/Service/Project Residential Disabled Bay Proposals – May 2020 (P3 2020)

2. Service Unit Growth & Infrastructure

3. Lead Responsible Officer and Job Clare Griffiths, Traffic Technician Title Clare Griffiths 4. Members of the Assessment Team: Chris Parkes 5. Date assessment started: 29 April 2020

6. Date assessment completed: 29 April 2020

About the Policy/Service/Project:

7. What type of policy/service/project is this? (delete as appropriate)

New/Proposed Traffic Regulation Order

8. What are the aims/objectives of the policy/service/project? (please include here all expected outcomes)

To implement Traffic Regulation Orders at a number of sites as requested by members of the public. Residents who hold a blue disabled badge for parking may apply for a residential disabled bay outside their home subject to certain conditions. All of the disabled bays relevant to this decision record meet the required conditions.

1 9. Are there any associated services, policies or procedures? Yes

If ‘Yes’, please list below: Parking Enforcement, Road Safety, Development Control, and all legal requirements applicable to implementing Traffic Regulation Orders. 10. List the main people, or groups of people, that this policy/service/project is designed to benefit and any other stakeholders involved?

Disabled Blue Badge Holders

11. Will this policy/service/impact on any other organisation, statutory, voluntary or community and their clients/service users?

No.

Consultation, Monitoring and Research

Where there is still insufficient information to properly assess the policy, appropriate and proportionate measures will be needed to fill the data gaps. Examples include one-off studies or surveys, or holding informal consultation exercises to supplement the available statistical and qualitative data.

If there is insufficient time before the implementation of the policy to inform the EINA, specific action points will be need to be clearly set out in the action plan. Steps must include monitoring arrangements which measure the actual impact and a date for a policy review.

Consultation:

12. What involvement/consultation has been done in relation to this (or a similar) policy/service/project and what are the results?

A public consultation will be undertaken as well as advertising the consultation on-street via public notices, in the Daily Echo and on the council’s website.

2 Notifications will be sent to all councillors and all statutory consultees including emergency services, disability groups, local public transport providers, national transport associations and various council departments.

The results of the consultation will be added to the BCP Council website.

13. If you have not carried out any consultation, or if you need to carry out further consultation, who will you be consulting with and by what methods?

N/A

Monitoring and Research:

14. What data, research and other evidence or information is available which is relevant to this EINA?

Residential disabled bays are advertised and consulted on several times a year resulting in approximately 40 bays being installed annually. This service has proven to be very popular with disabled residents and as such this project is the latest batch of residential disabled bays to be installed. 15. Is there any service user/employee monitoring data available and relevant to this policy/service/project? What does it show in relation to equality groups?

N/A

16. If there is a lack of information, what further information do you need to carry out the assessment and how are you going to gather this?

N/A

3 Assessing the Impact

Actual or potential positive benefit Actual or potential negative outcome

17. No impact No impact Age Provides disabled parking adjacent to residents’ 18. Non-disabled residents do not have parking spaces properties who are registered disabled and meet Disability adjacent to their properties the requirements 19. No impact No impact Gender 20. Gender No impact No impact reassignment 21. Pregnancy No impact No impact and Maternity 22. Marriage and No impact No impact Civil Partnership 23. No impact No impact Race

24. Religion or No impact No impact Belief 25. Sexual No impact No impact Orientation

4

Actual or potential positive benefit Actual or potential negative outcome

26. Any other factor/ groups e.g. No impact No impact socio- economic status/carers etc 27. Human No impact No impact Rights

Stop - Any policy which shows actual or potential unlawful discrimination must be stopped, removed or changed.

28. If impacts have been identified include them in the action plan what will be done to reduce these impacts, this could include a range of options from making adjustments to the policy to stopping and removing the policy altogether. If no change is to be made, explain your decision:

Action Plan

Include: • What has/will be done to reduce the negative impacts on groups as identified above. • Detail of positive impacts and outcomes • The arrangements for monitoring the actual impact of the policy/service/project

5 Which Business Plan does this action link 29. Issue identified Action required to reduce impact Timescale Responsible officer to e.g. Service Equality Action Plan/Team Plan Non-disabled residents do No action is proposed as able bodied not receive parking spaces residents can use an alternative adjacent to their properties parking space when a space adjacent N/A N/A N/A to their home is unavailable.

6 V1.0 G2 Initial Risk Assessment PROJECT NAME: Residential Disabled Bay Proposals - May (P3 2020)

PROJECT NUMBER: To be obtained from PMO

PROJECT RISK LEVEL: LOW *

Table 1 - Suggested criteria on which to score the type of project (please tick appropriate category) CRITERIA Score 0-6 months 7-12 months Above 1 year 1) Duration of Project 2

1-4 people (FTE) 5-10 people (FTE) 11+ people (FTE) 2) Effort 1

Service Unit/Service More than 1 SU Council/External 3) Business Impact 10

Desirable Highly Desirable Essential 4) Priority 1

Up to £250k £251k-£500k Over £501k or if project is to be funded through 5) Costs &/or Savings 2 prudential borrowing 6) Risk Impact Low Impact - Minor service Medium Impact - Service High Impact - Significant or total service disruption/inconvenience, minor disruption, More serious injury or disruption, major disabling injury or fatality, high injury, small financial loss, isolated financial loss, adverse media or catastrophic financial loss, adverse national 1 service user complaint. coverage, numerous service user media coverage, ministerial intervention in complaints service running.

Risk 17 Score A numerical rating is applied to each cell (see Table 1) For example a ‘Priority’ of ‘Highly Desirable’ is worth 3 points and a ‘Cost’ of ‘£501-£1m’ is worth 5 points. Totalling the points scored for each ‘criteria’ gives a project score. This score is then mapped against a project-risk status in Table 1 below:

Table 1 - Risk Status Project Risk Rating Points Total Low Between 10-18 Medium Between 19-35 High 36+

Initial Risk Assessment P3 2020 Initial Risk Assessment (IRA) 1