BOROUGH OF POOLE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP

28 FEBRUARY 2008

The Meeting commenced at 09:30 hours and concluded at 12:05 hours

Present:

Councillor Burden (Chairman)

Councillor Gillard (Vice-Chairman)

CouncillorsChandler, Mrs Evans (substituting for Councillor Mrs Lavender), Mason (substituting for Councillor Brooke), Trent, Mrs Walton (substituting for Councillor Gregory), White, Miss Wilson and Wilson (substituting for Councillor Mrs Long)

Members of the public present: 1

TAG92.08APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brooke, Gregory, Mrs Lavender and Mrs Long (with the above substitutions).

TAG93.08DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Gillard declared a personal interest in M.TAG96.08 – residents parking schemes, as a Member of the National Parking Adjudication Service.

Councillor Burden declared a prejudicial interest in M.TAG98.08 – Motor Caravan parking as Baiter, as a Motor Caravan owner. Councillor Burden intended to vacate the Chair for the consideration of this item.

Steve Tite, Transportation Services declared a prejudicial interest in M.TAG98.08 – Motor Caravan Parking at Baiter, as a Motor Caravan owner. He advised Members that he would not be giving the presentation on this item.

Councillor Miss Wilson declared a personal interest in M.TAG98.08 – Motor Caravan Parking at Baiter, as a Member of the Poole Tourism Management Board.

Councillor Miss Wilson declared a personal interest in M.TAG99.08 – 2007/08 Capital Programme – Budget adjustments, as a School Governor of Manorside School.

TAG94.08MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17th January 2008, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

TAG95.08SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION

There were no items of urgent business.

TAG96.08RESIDENT PARKING SCHEMES

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a Report which reviewed the Policy on introducing resident parking schemes.

Members were reminded that in December 1995, the Transportation and Technical Services Committee approved a Parking Policy, which included the introduction of a parking restraint zone around the Town Centre. This zone was identified as extending as far out from the town centre as Fernside Road and this was incorporated into the Poole Local Plan. The controls were proposed for the following reasons:

  • To reduce peak hour traffic volumes on the approaches to the town centre by encouraging town centre workers to consider alternative ways of getting to work.
  • To allow opportunities for residents in the areas close to the town, in areas which generally had low levels of off street parking provision, to park near their homes during the day.

In 2001 Area Parking schemes were introduced around the other two large employment centres; the Civic Centre and County Gates areas. These areas had fewer public car parks, were not particularly well served by public transport and local residents had more access to off street parking spaces and therefore commuters were also allowed to buy permits to park in appropriate parts of the zone. The charges for the permits was reviewed regularly in order to manage demand while still encouraging drivers to consider alternative ways of travelling to work.

The Council continued to receive frequent requests for resident parking schemes in other areas and it was therefore appropriate to review the reasons for introducing such schemes so that the requests could be considered in a consistent way.

Members were advised that experience indicated that area parking schemes tended to displace parking to other uncontrolled roads nearby. If controls were introduced in areas where workers could not easily make use of nearby public car parks or convenient Public Transport then they had no choice but to park in another public road and walk to their destination. Experience with the existing zones indicated that restrictions would need to extend some distance from any employment centre to influence travel choices. Introducing parking controls in individual streets would merely displace the parking into other roads nearby, whilst forcing very local employees and tradesmen to park further away.

Members were provided with further detailed information via Appendices to the Report which covered:-

  • Existing policy on “resident only” parking schemes
  • Sales of resident parking permits in a sample of streets in the Town Centre and Heckford Park area
  • Proposed policy for resident parking zones

The Council had recently received requests for parking schemes in the following areas:

(i)Palmer Road, Connell Road, Mellstock Road, Shottsford Road and Marlott Road.

(ii)Heckford Park Area – request for extended hours to deal with parking associated with hospital shifts and speedway.

It was felt that an area parking scheme in area (i) above would not significantly reduce peak period traffic volumes into a congested employment centre. The majority of the properties within these roads already had off street parking spaces and therefore it was felt that a Resident Parking scheme would not be appropriate. However, the Area Committee could consider whether it would be appropriate to impose waiting restrictions to keep particular locations clear.

Regarding Heckford Park, very few of the properties had off street parking, and there were external parking demands outside the normal working day. Therefore, it was being suggested that these issues be discussed with local Ward Councillors and a further report be presented to the next meeting of this Advisory Group.

A Member raised a concern at the proposal to limit the purchase of permits to 20 per year stating that he felt there should be some flexibility here particularly with regard to elderly persons and their carers.

Steve Dean, Transportation Services advised that there had not previously been an occasion to issue any more than 20 permits per year but a flexible approach would remain, if needed.

In relation to potential schemes where local residents had limited opportunities to park off street, a Member raised a concern regarding the suggestion that these be considered and funded by the local Area Committee. He added that he felt that this Advisory Group should be consulted on all possible schemes to ensure that they complied with the wider strategic view. Steve Dean, Transportation Services advised Members that there was already a mechanism for any areas of strategic concern that arose through local Area Committees to be referred to this Advisory Group for consideration.

A Member concurred with this view due to the insufficient funding allocated to the local Area Committees. A Member stated that he was in general agreement with the policy being proposed but stated that he would welcome a “criteria” based system whereby requests were considered via a “box ticking” exercise. Steve Dean, Transportation Services, stated that this was an area that could be considered as part of the review and he agreed that this criteria based system could prove useful when assessing future requests. He added that as part of this exercise, officers would look to also include information on the “eligible” roads in any proposed scheme so that Members had all the necessary information in front of them in order to make a balanced judgement.

A Member raised a concern regarding Transportation Services supporting planning applications with no on-site parking provision. He felt that this issue needed attention.

Julian McLaughlin, Head of Transportation Services advised that a Parking Guidelines Review was currently underway and the results of this work would be presented to this Advisory Group at the appropriate time. In support of this, a Member advised that the Planning Committee had also raised this as a concern and had agreed to allocate some time in order to seek to address this situation.

A Member proposed the following additional recommendation:-

“To avoid potential clashes, Area Committees be consulted on major parking changes within the locality and the Transportation Advisory Group be consulted on residents parking schemes.”

This proposal was not seconded.

In response to a Member question regarding the associated costs of such schemes, Steve Dean, Transportation Services advised that the larger “area” schemes would be approximately £10,000 with the smaller “individual street” schemes costing approximately £2,000.

RECOMMENDED that

(i)the Portfolio Holder be requested to approve the policy on resident parking schemes as set out in Appendix C;

For:Councillors Burden, Chandler, Mrs Evans, Gillard, Mrs Walton and White

Against: Councillors Miss Wilson and Wilson

Abstentions: Councillors Mason and Trent

(ii)the Portfolio Holder approve that it is not appropriate to introduce a resident parking scheme in the Palmer Road, Shottsford Road and Mellstock Road area;

For:Councillors Burden, Chandler, Mrs Evans, Gillard, Mrs Walton and White

Against: None

Abstentions: Councillors Mason, Trent, Miss Wilson and Wilson

(iii)the Portfolio Holder request a further report on extending the hours of operation in the Heckford Park area being presented to a future meeting of this Advisory Group.

For:Councillors Burden, Chandler, Mrs Evans, Mason, Trent, Mrs Walton, White and Miss Wilson

Against: None

Abstentions: Councillor Wilson

TAG97.07STOPPING UP OF HIGHWAY – CIVIC CENTRE

Steve Tite, Transportation Services, presented a report, which considered declaring an area which was currently highway in front of the Civic Centre buildings surplus to highway requirements.

During the 1970’s a short length of road running from what is now the roundabout by the police station past the Civic Centre and out onto Parkstone Road opposite the clock tower was stopped up. The area was subsequently incorporated into the surface car park serving the Civic Centre.

Legal and Property Services were now in the process of going through the formal land registering process for Council property to ensure their titles were complete and had identified a small parcel of land which was mistakenly omitted from this process. Members were provided with a plan which indicated this strip of land and were advised that it was currently isolated and to all intents had been used for many years as part of the car park. Therefore, it was being proposed that this piece of land be “stopped up” which, if successful would then return to the Borough estate and be maintained as such.

Applications to the Magistrates Court to stop up highway under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 could be made by an appropriate Highway Authority. The process would be to place a legal notice on site and in the press to advertise the intention to stop up the piece of land, with any objections received being considered by the Magistrates Court. Property Services would pay for the legal costs associated with this Order.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder be requested to approve that:-

(i)the area of land shaded on Drawing HT001 in Appendix A be declared surplus to requirements; and

(ii)an application be made to the Local Magistrates for a Stopping Up Order under Section 116 of the Highways act 1980.

For: Unanimous

TAG98.07MOTOR CARAVAN PARKING – HARBOURSIDE PARK

Due to the prejudicial interest declared earlier, Councillor Burden vacated the Chair for the consideration of this item. The Vice-Chairman thereupon took the Chair.

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a report, which considered preventing Motor caravans from parking in the pay and display parking bays in Labrador, Catalina and Newfoundland Drives.

Members were that on 11 October 2007 this Advisory Group considered a petition requesting that Motor caravans should be prevented from using the parking bays on the roads surrounding the Baiter Park estate. At that time the Portfolio Holder approved that officers should look into the best way of achieving this.

In order to introduce this type of restriction, the Council would need to:

(i)make an Order to prevent parking by motor caravans with a legally enforceable definition of the restricted vehicle.; and

(ii)make the restriction clear to drivers in a way that the Parking Adjudicator would uphold.

In relation to item (i) above, The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1987 included the following definition.

“"motor caravan" means a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and their effects and which contains, as permanently installed equipment, the facilities which are reasonably necessary for enabling the vehicle to provide mobile living accommodation for its users; “

While this would not always be obvious from an external observation, particularly with the smaller campervan type vehicles, there should be little doubt about the more intrusive, larger purpose built motor caravans.

The Traffic Order necessary would cost approximately £800 to advertise and implement. There would also be a need for this Advisory Group to consider any representations that were received in response to the advertisement. In view of the discussions that were held with Motor Caravan representatives a few years ago and the responses that some of them had made following press coverage of the previous decision of this Advisory Group, it was suggested that they should be made aware of the advertisements and the reasons behind them. Given the intensity of on street motor caravan parking in this area, and the fact that there was adequate parking available in the two car parks nearby, it was considered that these roads were particularly unique in respect of considering this type of restriction.

A number of other types of vehicles were already prohibited from these parking bays and some of these were listed on the tariff boards. Motor caravans would be added to this list at an approximate cost of £400. In view of the longstanding popularity of this area amongst motor caravan owners it would also be appropriate to provide clearer information adjacent to the road. Therefore, It was being suggested that the existing signs should be amended to make the new restriction clear. If approved, new additional, signs would be erected along the Harbourside Park side of the road as the existing signage was quite sparse in this area. Members were provided with detailed information on the proposed sign via an Appendix to the report which also indicated the locations of these signs. This would cost approximately £4,500.

Members were advised that the Poole Tourism Management Board discussed campervans at their April meeting last year and there was agreement amongst the Management Board that the town should still be positive towards campervans and to continue with current parking provision. Rather than merely banning motor caravans from the on-street spaces, it was felt appropriate to make drivers aware of the availability of spaces in the car parks as they entered Labrador and Newfoundland Drives. Members were provided with information on the proposed signs stating “Motor Caravans Please Use Car Parks”, via an Appendix to the report and were advised that these could be erected at these entry points for an approximate cost of £600.

It would also be appropriate to reinforce the message that overnight camping was not allowed in the car parks by adding more conspicuous signage, and these were also provided to Members via an Appendix to the report. Members were also asked to note that the Council would not be able to enforce this with Penalty Charge Notices. This additional signage would cost approximately £4,000. There may also be requests to remark some of the spaces to accommodate them. It was therefore being suggested that this situation should be monitored over the course of the forthcoming season, with any subsequent changes considered being agreed by the Head of Transportation Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.

In conclusion, Members were advised that the total cost of these measures would be £10,400, for which there was no allocated budget. On the basis of this scheme going ahead this would need to be funded from the car park budget at the expense of other planned works.

A Ward Councillor stated that she supported and welcomed this approach particularly with regard to the safety concerns over the proximity of these vehicles to residential properties.

A Member stated that he had some concerns regarding the possible implications regarding “definition”. He also referred to similar problems being experienced in his Ward with motor caravans and stated that he felt there were worse examples of this problem in other areas of the town.

A Member stated that he supported the proposals in principle and added that clearly worded signage would be important here. He added that he would also favour one designated area within the car parks for the motor caravans to park with larger marked bays. He concluded by stating that in the longer term, he felt that this Council should look for alternative sites for motor caravan owners to visit where they could pay, stay overnight with al the necessary facilities.

A Member stated that in addressing this issue, the Council needed to be careful regarding “sign pollution” and questioned exactly how many signs would be used. Steve Dean, Transportation Services stated that when the report was presented back to this Advisory Group on the representations received to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order, he would include a bigger, more detailed site plan which would indicate the exact number of signs together with their locations.