Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Environment

13 November 2001

Traffic Regulation Order - Lavant Street and Parking Places and Restriction of Waiting Order Amendment, Petersfield

Report of the County Surveyor

Item 17

Contact: Chris Thomas, ext 6884

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

    That approval be given to implement the proposed Traffic Regulation Order in Lavant Street, Petersfield, as shown on the attached drawing No. TS3339, and to introduce Transferability of Residents' Parking Permits.

2. Reason

2.1 The scheme was developed in response to requests by local residents and advertised with the approval of the local Member, Councillor West, and the Police. The effect of the Order would be to:

    (i) introduce two Residents' Only bays in Lavant Street to permit Residents Parking; and

    (ii) amend the Petersfield Parking Places and Restriction of Waiting Order to allow residents' parking permits to be transferable between specified vehicles.

2.2 Three letters of objection have been received as a result of formal advertisement and the issues raised are summarised in the attached appendix, together with officer's comments. None are considered significant enough to justify amendment or withdrawal of the proposed Order.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected - Not applicable.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - Not applicable.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1.

Published works.

2.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE

LOCATION

Correspondence File 19/1/177

Technical File

County Surveyor's Department

Bureau

Room 307

6744/CT

APPENDIX

Objector

Objection

Officer's Comments

Councillor B Ayres (St Peters Ward)

17 Kimbers

Petersfield

GU32 2JL

(i)

Providing 2.5 metres of residents' parking does not satisfy the needs of Lavant Street as there are 12 addresses on the Register of Electors.

The proposed residents' parking bay is 11 metres in length, sufficient for the parking of two vehicles. This will be achieved by converting a 6.6 metre length of 'No waiting during the working day' and a 4.4 metre length of '30 minute limited waiting'. By including Lavant Street in the residents' parking scheme, residents will be eligible for parking permits which can be used in any of the town centre residents' bays.

       
 

(ii)

The proposed parking is close to the junction with Charles Street so adding to the hazards of this already hazardous junction.

The proposed bay does not encroach unduly onto the Charles Street junction and sight lines are safeguarded.

       
 

(iii)

Residents of Lavant Street who apply for permits will look to neighbouring streets to park, especially Charles Street which is already overlooked.

All restrictions cease at 1800 and during the day Lavant Street residents will have an opportunity to park in locations currently unavailable to them, although the number involved is likely to be small in relation to the total number of available parking spaces.

       
 

(iv)

Visitors Permits will exacerbate the problem.

Not considered to be significant.

       
 

(v)

This part of Lavant Street is a designated secondary shopping frontage in the Local Plan.

Only a very short length of '30 minute waiting' will be lost.

       
 

(vi)

The impact on amenity of neighbouring streets is not justified by this amendment.

Not considered to be at all significant.

       

Petersfield Town Council

The Town Hall

Heath Road

Petersfield

GU31 4EA

(vii)

Plan incomplete as it did not include other areas in great need.

Other areas will be pursued separately, in due course.

       
 

(viii)

Lavant Street is a trading street and should not have residential parking.

See comments (v) above.

       

D W Aubrey Stevens

14 Castle Gardens

Swan Street

Petersfield

GU32 3AG

(ix)

How can one parking bay satisfy the needs of the residents of Lavant Street?

See comments (i) and (iii) above.

 

(x)

No attempt to describe the means by which permits may be transferred between vehicles.

The proposed order provides for more than one registration number to be included on a permit, thus allowing transfer of permits between specified vehicles.

       
 

(xi)

Procedure to amend 1997 order is "stealthy and not entirely above board". Notice does not draw attention to the provision to be amended and includes information not altered from the 1997 Order.

The existing order regulating the residents' street parking scheme in Petersfield is proposed to be revoked and replaced by a new re-drafted order. The notice refers only to changes of substance to the existing order and there are no changes of substance which are not referred to in the notice. Although details of permit fees and permit entitlements are largely unchanged from the existing order, they are being introduced in relation to Lavant Street for the first time and are specified in the notice for this reason. The need for the substitution of Swan Street for Castle Gardens resulted from an earlier misunderstanding concerning road names - Castle Gardens is located in Swan Street. Article 15 of the 1997 Order had previously been misinterpreted by the objector and the wording of the article (now article 16) has been expanded to prevent the possibility of misinterpretation in the future.

       
 

(xii)

The proposed order includes a provision for revoking itself.

The draft order cited identical titles for the existing Order and the proposed order. This error was subsequently corrected.

       
 

(xiii)

Other comments relate to matters not relevant to the advertised proposal which have been dealt with previously in correspondence with the objector. The representation records that some issues had been raised in a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman and was not pursued by the Ombudsman.