Extension of Controlled Parking Zone in Meopham PDF 26 KB

GRAVESHAM BOROUGH COUNCILReport to:Joint Transportation BoardDate: 17 th June 2009Reporting officer :Subject:Director (Business)Extension of Controlled Parking Zone in MeophamPurpose and summary of report:This report sets out representations made on the proposed extension to a controlled parkingzone in Meopham.RECOMMENDATIONS:That the Board agrees the proposed extension and those making respresentations beinformed accordingly.1. INTRODUCTION2. PROPOSALS1.1 The Board agreed a forward programme of TROs at its meeting in March2008. One of the recommendations was to consult on a southerlyextension to the Controlled Parking Zone in Meopham.1.2 The northern part of Meopham Village has in recent years suffered from onstreet parking by rail commuters seeking to avoid paying the daily chargelevied at Meopham railway station. As a result, a Controlled Parking Zonehas been imposed on all the residential roads near the station and on laybyareas of Wrotham Road extending southwards as far as its junction withDenesway. It was last reviewed and extended in 2007.1.3 The Controlled Parking Zone takes the form of a waiting restriction whichoperates between 1.00 and 1.30pm Mondays to Fridays (marked by singleyellow lines and entry zone signs only). Residents within these roads areentitled to apply for up to two waiver permits to enable them to park theirown vehicles on the street during the restricted hours. The current chargefor a waiver permit is £15, renewable every 5 years.2.1 The CPZ has been successful in deterring congestive parking in the areaswhere it operates, but there has been a noticeable displacement of parkedvehicles into the parts of Denesway and the layby areas in Wrotham Roadadjacent to Denesway.2.2 The current proposal is to extend the Controlled Parking Zone (in line withthe existing scheme) to cover the length of Denesway, the layby area onthe west side of Wrotham Road south of Bartellas and the layby on the east

side of Wrotham Road south of Denesway. The layby containing the busstop on the west side of Wrotham Road would become a bus stop clearwayand the remainding areas of Wrotham Road between Denesway and GreenLane (east side) and between Bartellas and Huntingfield Road (west side)would be protected by no waiting at any time restrictions. Theserestrictions would also extend into Huntingfield Road to provide cornerprotection at its junction.2.3 Additionally, it is proposed to extend the limit of “no waiting at any time”restrictions on the west side of Wrotham Road from its southernmostjunction with Melliker Lane to the southern boundary of Woodbine. This isto correct a previous discrepancy in the text of the TRO and to ensureadequate exit visibility is available to drivers entering the A227 from MellikerLane.2.4 These proposals were put out to consultation between 19 th March and 17 thApril this year – both by public notice in the Gravesend Reporter and bystreet notices. A copy of the public notice is shown as an Appendix.3. FORMAL CONSULTATION4. DISCUSSION3.1 The proposals were out to consultation between 19 th March and 17 th Aprilthis year – by way of a public notice in Gravesend Reporter and asequence of notices erected in each affected road.3.2 Kent Police and Kent Highway Services both raise no objections.Meopham Parish Council has raised no objections. Three letters of supporthave been received from residents of Denesway.3.3 An objection has been sent in from a resident of The Fairway whocommutes by rail to Victoria on a daily basis. He says that the extension tothe CPZ is unnecessary and will lead to commuters walking even further toseek parking space which avoids the extortionate charges imposed at thestation. He says the Council would be better employed lobbying MeteorParking to reduce their charges rather than to stop taxed vehicles frombeing parked legally on residential roads.3.4 Two objections have been received from residents of Fox Cottages,Wrotham Road affected by the extension of double yellow lines from thejunction of Melliker Lane. They point out that these cottages have no offroadparking and there are currently 5 waiver permits issued for theirvehicles. However, the proposal will leave space for only 2 vehicles to beparked at one time. They consider it unacceptable to park across the roadand face the dangers of negotiating traffic to return to their houses.4.1 Officers consider that there is some displacement of parking from the CPZwhich is causing problems in particular areas – an example of which is theWrotham Road layby adjacent to Denesway which remains full of cars formuch of the day, often encroaching onto the main carriageway. It is notclear where the problem will move to if long term parking is prohibited here,so the proposals have been extended to Denesway and the section ofWrotham Road down to Huntingfield Road.2

4.2 The objection from the rail commuter is based on the fact that parkingcharges are set too high at the railway station. There are 154 parkingspaces managed by a private operator and and daily parking is a maximumof £3.70 (this reduces if weekly or monthly tickets are puchased).Observations have shown that at least 50 spaces remain unoccupied onmost week days. The car park appears well laid out, lit and secure.Neither Gravesham nor Kent County Council has any control over thesetting of parking charges at railway stations. It is worth noting that therewere 10 objections from rail commuters when the last extension to the CPZwas considered in 2006 and only one at this time.5. CONCLUSIONS4.3 With regard to the objections from Fox Cottages, it is true to say that theseproperties have no off street parking and the residents rely on parkingwithin the highway. However, the view is taken that junction safety takesprecedence over parking provision. The sightlines from this junction areoften restricted to the south by the presence of parked cars and in order tomeet the recommended standards, the parking of vehicles should bebanned along this entire section of Wrotham Road. The proposal is anattempt to compromise, whereby the sightlines are preserved to somedegree while some space is retained for residential parking. Residents ofthese cottages qualify for “waiver” permits which enable to park on a singleyellow line within any part of the zone and it is considered that there isadequate provision nearby.5.1 Having considered the representations made on these proposals, I amminded to recommend that the advertised proposals are confirmed andimplemented without amendment.6. BACKGROUND PAPERS6.1 Meopham CPZ extension plans and letters of objection – kept on filein Planning and Regeneration Section.6.2 All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in thefirst instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic ServicesDepartment.3