Committee: Planning
Regulatory Committee
Date: 15 November 2023
Report by: Director of Communities, Economy and Transport
Title of Report: Traffic Regulation Orders – Eastbourne Parking Review 2022-23
Purpose of Report: To consider the objections received in response to the formal consultation on the draft Traffic Regulation Order associated with the Eastbourne Parking Review
Contact Officer: Natalie Mclean – tel. 01273 482628
Local Members: Brett Wright, David Tutt, John Ungar, Pat Rodohan, Stephen Holt
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Committee is recommended to:
1. Uphold the objections to the draft Order as set out in Appendix 1 of this report.
2. Uphold, in part, the objections to the draft Order as set out in Appendix 2 of this report.
3. Not uphold the objections to the draft Order as set out in Appendix 3 of this report.
4. Recommend to the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport that the Traffic Regulation Order be made in part.
1.1 Requests for new or for changes to existing parking and waiting restrictions in the Eastbourne Borough area are held on a priority ranking database, with those requests ranking high enough being progressed to consultation. Informal consultations began in February 2023 to see whether there was enough public support to introduce further controls such as double yellow lines or changes to permit parking schemes in the borough.
1.2 Feedback from the consultations led to formal proposals being developed. These formal proposals were advertised, together with the draft Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) (a copy of which is attached at Appendix 4) in the Eastbourne Herald on 14 July 2023. Notices and copies of the relevant plans were placed on posts and lamp-columns in the affected areas. Approximately 1800 letters were delivered to local addresses and the consultation was placed on the Council’s Consultation Hub for any member of the public to comment. The formal period for representations to be made ended on 11 August 2023.
1.3 Copies of the formal proposals were sent to relevant Borough Councillors, County Councillors and statutory consultees including the emergency services. Copies of all supporting correspondence are available in the Members’ Room and have also been made available to Planning Committee members in electronic format.
1.4 During the formal consultation 113 items of correspondence were received. These included 85 objections and 28 items of support. Two objections have since been withdrawn.
2.1 Each item of correspondence has been considered individually and a summary of the objections and officer comments are included in Appendices 1, 2 and 3. Plans and photographs showing the areas objected to are included in the Additional Information Pack
2.2 Four of the sites in this report relate to a proposed new zone C, which includes parts of the existing zones A and S as well as extending the existing permit scheme to a number of additional streets bordering the existing zones. Based on all of the representations received for these sites overall support for the new permit zone is approximately 19%, which officers feel is not high enough to proceed with the proposed zone C.
2.3 Following consideration of the responses, it is recommended to uphold the objections summarised in Appendix 1 and withdraw the proposals at the following sites:
· Bourne Street, Ceylon Place, Pevensey Road
· Colonnade Gardens, Colonnade Road, Marine Parade, Marine Parade Road, Queens Gardens, Seaside Road
Officers are satisfied that the objections received to these proposals do provide sufficient grounds to warrant their withdrawal.
Should the Planning Committee agree with the officers recommendations for these sites then the proposal for Royal Parade, included as site 12 in the additional information pack, will also be withdrawn. Although the proposal for Royal Parade did not receive any objections the only change proposed was to add the proposed zone C to permit holders and pay and display bays which are currently permit holders H or pay and display.
2.4 Following consideration of the responses, it is recommended to modify the following proposals (summarised in Appendix 2);
· Longstone Road
· Marine Road, Royal Parade, Seaside, St Aubyn’s Road
Officers are satisfied that these modifications do not involve a substantial change to the draft Order and it is unnecessary to consult again on their implementation.
2.5 With regard to objections relating to the sites listed below and as set out in Appendix 3, it is not considered that these objections provide sufficient grounds to warrant the modification or withdrawal of the proposals, and the proposals provide for the most efficient use of parking space. It is considered that these objections should not be upheld. The sites objected to and where it is recommended that the objections are not upheld are;
· Belmore Road, New Road
· Gore Park Road, Milton Road
· Grove Road, Old Orchard Road
· King Edwards Parade
· Langney Rise, The Vineries
· Langney Road
· South Street
2.6 It is also recommended that all other proposals not objected to should be implemented as advertised.
3.1 The approach in trying to resolve objections to the Order has been to appraise the concerns raised by residents and other road users, whilst not compromising road safety or other factors. Objections on two of the sites are considered to merit the withdrawal of the proposal. On balance, it is recommended that some objections are upheld with some minor modifications being incorporated into the Order. With the rest of the objections, officers consider that, for highway and road safety reasons, (as set out in Appendix 3) that they should not be upheld and the proposals in these areas should proceed as per the draft TRO as advertised. One site did not receive any objections, but officers consider that it should be withdrawn due to its connection to other proposals that are recommended to be withdrawn.
3.2 It is therefore recommended for the reasons set out in this report, that the Planning Committee upholds the objections in Appendix 1, upholds in part the objections in Appendix 2, does not uphold the objections in Appendix 3, and recommends to the Director of Communities, Economy, and Transport that the Order be made in part.