THE BOROUGH OF BLACKPOOL (VARIOUS ROADS) (VARIOUS RESTRICTIONS) AND (REVOCATION) NO 15 ORDER 2004

Objectors Address / Reason for objection / Our Response
BEECH AVENUE AND FOREST GATE
Resident, 15 Beech Avenue. / Asks where residents are expected to park if the new restrictions are approved.
Suggests that residents would be forced to park in nearby streets, which will affect the parking of residents in those streets, would like an alternative solution. / There are still spaces available on Beech Avenue and Forrest Gate.
(Also on Elm Avenue)
There should be sufficient spaces on Beech Avenue and Forest Gate without using other streets.
The new restrictions have been kept to the minimum requirements.
Resident, 19 Beech Avenue / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Resident, 21 Beech Avenue. / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Resident, 23 Beech Avenue. / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Resident, 25 Beech Avenue. / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Resident, 29 Beech Avenue. / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Resident, 33 Beech Avenue / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Resident, 35 Beech Avenue. / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Resident, 37 Beech Avenue. / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Residents, 39 Beech Avenue. / See “Resident, 15 Beech Avenue.”
Currently claims Disability Living Allowance and is a Blue Badge holder, has difficulty parking near property.
Disputes present situation restricts access for emergency vehicles / The nearest parking facilities are within 10 metres of this property.
Resident, 43 Beech Avenue. / Objects to proposals as it is a residential area and many of the properties do not have off street parking facilities.
There are no alternatives spaces available. / Spaces are available on Beech Avenue and around the corner on Hazelgrove
Resident, 33 Forest Gate. / Suggests that the notices on lamp columns were inadequate and residents should be notified by mail.
New restrictions would only cause anarchy between neighbours, also who would want to buy a house with nowhere to park? / A notice was placed at each arm or the junction of Forest Gate and Beech Avenue in accordance with legal requirements; an advertisement was also placed in the Evening Gazette on 16th November 2004 in the Public Notices Section.
There is parking available on Forest Gate and around the corner on Beech Avenue.
BUCKDEN CLOSE AND AREA
Resident, 1 Buckden Close / States that the properties on this street have a frontage of only 5 metres and some families have up to 3 cars.
Limiting the parking would reduce the attractiveness of these properties for future sales. There will be nowhere to park.
Suggests that residents should be allowed to park on parts of the footway or the provision of chevron parking on grassland in Huntingdon Road.
Issue relating to planning application for Sandpiper Close. / Restrictions were prompted by a request from a resident to facilitate access. The road is not wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides of the road and allow larger emergency vehicles and refuse vehicles to pass.
Alternative parking is available on street on other surrounding roads.
Resident, 2 Buckden Close / There is enough space for even large vehicles to drive down and turn in Buckden Close and Sandpiper Court.
Some houses have 2 or more cars and have problems parking on Huntingdon Road, as it is usually full. / See Resident, 1 Buckden Close
Resident, 4 Buckden Close / Refuse and emergency vehicles can move without any problem.
Will not be able to park outside own property. / See Resident, 1 Buckden Close
Resident, 14 Buckden Close / Pleased with the scheme but concerned about lack of evening enforcement. / Parking shop sends out mobile patrols.
Resident, 16 Buckden Close / Objects to proposals due to lack of alternative parking facilities, parking for visitors. / See Resident, 1 Buckden Close
LAUREL AVENUE AND AREA
Resident, 19 Laurel Avenue / Concerns about not being able to park outside his house.
Only people to park there are residents. / Single yellow lines are to be removed on areas of the street where alternative parking can be allowed.
Resident, 21 Laurel Avenue / Would like the Authority to explain reasons for new restrictions, / Some current restrictions are to be removed from sections of both Laurel Avenue and Kirkstall Avenue to allow for alternative parking.
Double yellow lines are being put in areas where parked vehicles could still cause an obstruction i.e. the turning area and opposite a junction.
MEXFORD AVENUE AND AREA
Resident, 3 Banbury Avenue / Can see no justification for the proposed restrictions. / Restrictions proposed to stop over saturation of parked vehicles by staff of Mexford House causing problems for traffic flow/access during the daytime.
Resident, Dudley Avenue / Object to proposed parking restrictions. / See Resident, 3 Banbury Avenue
Resident, 4 Dudley Avenue / See ‘Resident, Dudley Avenue’
Also it is a residential area, would like details of the proposals, does not agree that reasons are valid for such a proposal. / Consultation was carried out with residents in the area in February 2004.
This option received more support than the alternatives.
Resident, 6 Dudley Avenue / Suggests residents parking as an alternative and would like a disabled bay outside her house, for herself and her visitors.
Suggests the staff at Mexford House causes the problems. / Resident parking scheme was provided as an option in the consultation but did not receive the majority of support.
There are some exemptions for disabled drivers.
Resident, 7 Dudley Avenue / See ‘Resident, Dudley Avenue’
Resident, 18 Dudley Avenue / See ‘Resident, Dudley Avenue’
Resident, 23 Dudley Avenue / Objects to the 10am to 4pm No Waiting restrictions in Dudley Avenue and surrounding streets. As this will penalise residents who work shifts/don’t use their car during the day.
Residents/visitors will be forced to park further away from their homes.
Concern that residents will get parking fines for parking outside their homes.
Objects to having to pay for a dropped kerb to provide additional parking.
These restrictions would only move the parking problems elsewhere. / Consultation work was carried out with residents before this order was proposed. Some un restricted parking will still be available in the effected streets.
Alternative parking is also available in nearby streets.
Resident, 24 Dudley Avenue / See ‘Resident, Dudley Avenue’
Resident, 26 Dudley Avenue / See ‘Resident, Dudley Avenue’
Resident, 28 Dudley Avenue / See ‘Resident, Dudley Avenue’
Business, 298 Devonshire Road / Restrictions would stop customer’s ability to park and force them to shop elsewhere; this would severely affect the business. also residents living above the businesses and delivery vehicles would be unable to park their vehicles.
Suggests a lay-by, residents parking with limited waiting or time pressured parking.
The present situation does not cause any hazard. / Different options were provided in a consultation before the order was proposed.
The business is not within a street where the restrictions have been proposed.
Unrestricted parking would still be available nearby.
Business, 300 Devonshire Road / See ‘Business, 298 Devonshire Road’
Business, 302 Devonshire Road / See ‘Business, 298 Devonshire Road’
Resident, 302B Devonshire Road / See ‘Business, 298 Devonshire Road’
Business, 304 Devonshire Road / See ‘Business, 298 Devonshire Road’
The Pension Service, Mexford Avenue / Proposals would just move the parking problem elsewhere.
There will be insufficient parking for everyone; also it is not practical for some staff to use public transport.
Where do people park in the mornings and evenings? / Unrestricted parking in these streets causes obstruction, and problems for traffic flow.
Resident, 12 Mexford Avenue / Halving number of parking spaces for residents.
Cannot park outside their own homes.
No restriction areas will allow people to park over driveways.
Residents who do use public transport will not be able to leave their car at home. / There would be areas where parking is allowed within these streets and in nearby streets.
Waiting restrictions have been proposed to facilitate access/remove obstruction.
Resident, 50 Raymond Avenue / Residents oppose new parking restrictions. / Consultation was carried out with residents.
Resident, 52 Raymond Avenue / Doesn’t take car to work and would have to move car before leaving for work.
Will only cause inconvenience to residents. / There would be unrestricted areas in these streets and nearby where daytime parking would be allowed.
Resident, 200 Warley Road / No Consultation was undertaken.
Old and incapacitated people in the area will not be able to park near their homes.
After carrying out a traffic count, I found that 146 cars would have to park elsewhere. / Consultation was carried out in February; some unrestricted parking would still be available in these streets.
SKIPTON CLOSE AND AREA
Resident, 4 Skipton Close / Would make parking impossible for carers visiting the elderly.
Concerns about where visitors are to park. / A resident of Skipton Close prompted proposed restrictions. There will continue to be parking available on one side of the street. It is important to keep the junction with Penrose Avenue, the area adjacent to the garages and the turning area clear.
Resident, 6 Skipton Close / Will loose the liberty to park in front of their own home.
Parking in the turning circle is not a problem for residents.
Residents would have problems with people parking adjacent to their driveways. / Restrictions are being proposed to allow access along the road/remove obstruction at junctions and the turning point.
Resident, 8 Skipton Close / Lack of notification.
Concerns about where visitors are to park.
Waiting restrictions are excessive.
Other nearby streets do not have these restrictions. / Notices were placed on site and an advertisement was placed in the Evening Gazette.
Waiting restrictions have been proposed to allow access, as the road is narrow.
Resident, 12 Skipton Close / Has a disabled badge and would like to know where they and their visitors are to park. / Restrictions are on one side of the street only
Resident, 56 Penrose Avenue / No notice was attached to the north end of Skipton Close.
Parents should be allowed to park close to the school.
Uses garage for business storage and would not be able to access it.
Concerned about where visitors are supposed to park. / 2 Notices were put up on site. Restrictions were advertised as required by law in the local newspaper.
Unrestricted parking will still be available on one side of the street and on surrounding streets.
Resident, 58 Penrose Avenue / Bought the property 3 years ago and the proposals did not appear on the search.
Inadequate notification.
Needs to park works vehicle close to his property as he works out of his garage. / An advertisement was placed in the local newspaper allowing time for objections. 2 additional notices were put up on site.
WARBRECK HILL ROAD AND AREA
Business/Resident, 1 Warbreck Hill Road / Lack of parking facilities.
Have problems parking on the car park as coaches are now allowed to park on there.
Where are the residents and visitors and guests to park?
Proposals would be devastating to the business. / The proposals were prompted by a request from a resident.
There is parking available for both cars and coaches on the car park, other parking is available in nearby streets. The area is used by both visitors and residents. A turnover of parking would be beneficial next to Gynn Gardens
Business, 12 Warbreck Hill Road / Short-term parking is not appropriate for this area where tourists and visitors need to leave vehicles for long periods. / Restrictions would allow a high turnover of visitors to the businesses and longer-term parking is available nearby in other streets, and in the car park.
Resident, 14 Warbreck Hill Road / Objects to proposed restrictions. / Parking would still be available in the off street car park and in other streets.
Resident, 16 Warbreck Hill Road / Proposals would cause more people to park at the rear blocking access to garages. / Parking would still be available in the off street car park and in other streets.
Business, 18 Warbreck Hill Road / The parking restrictions would stop customers being able to access the property. / See Resident, 12 Warbreck Hill Road
Resident, 19 Warbreck Court, Warbreck Hill Road / Cause inconvenience to residents.
Would increase parking in nearby streets. / Short-term parking would still be available in the street and would be unrestricted in the evening.
Resident, 20 Warbreck Hill Road / Has canvassed 150 residents and not one wants the restrictions.
Increased traffic movements.
Add congestion to nearby streets.
Will devalue property.
This is a residential area and residents should be put first. / Request from restrictions originally came from residents who currently live in the area.
Business, 22 Warbreck Hill Road / No consultation.
Would not be able to park outside property to unload.
Savoy Car Park in often full and unsafe.
The proposed restrictions did not show up on the search when purchasing the property.
Property would be devalued.
Would increase the amount of traffic by 1000%.
Were not given the option of residents parking. / Higher turnover of spaces would increase chance of finding a place to park.
Short term parking/space for loading or unloading, proposed restrictions were advertised in the local newspaper and notices were placed on street.
Letters were also sent to residents.
Business, 24 Warbreck Hill Road / Will have a negative impact on their business. / See Resident, 12 Warbreck Hill Road
Petition, Cllr Delves,
Re Warbreck Hill Road / Petition signed by157
Against one hour parking restriction on Warbreck Hill Road. / Request from restrictions originally came from residents who currently live in the area.
Resident, 30 Ormond Avenue / Cars will be forced to park on roads such as Ormond Avenue where the houses have no driveways.
Warbreck Hill Road is easy to park on, even in the season.
One hour parking is not enough to allow visitors to enjoy a day in Blackpool. / Alternative long-term parking is available.