Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of County Councillors Dylis Cornes and Simon Tagg.

There were no declarations of interest.

Held on 14 January 2013, to be signed as a correct record.

Resolved:     That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.

Verbal update on traffic regulation requests by Staffordshire County Council.

A verbal update was provided in respect of traffic regulation requests by Staffordshire County Council and a note was circulated showing new requests received since the previous meeting on 14 January 2013, which would be added to the list.  These included measures at Trent Grove, Newcastle, Coppice Road, Talke, Stanton Close, Newcastle, Mow Cop Road, Mow Cop and Grosvenor Place, Newcastle.

Resolved:     That the position be noted.

Determination of the four traffic regulation requests to be undertaken in 2013/14.

Further to minute number 6 of the meeting of 14 January, a list was presented of requests submitted by the eight county councillors for the divisions within the borough in relation to the prioritisation of Traffic Regulation Orders.

The committee was requested to select four orders for the county council to implement in 2013/14.

Resolved:     That the following locations be selected for Traffic Regulation Orders in 2013/14, in the priority order indicated:-

(1)               Parkstone Avenue, Newcastle

(2)               Liverpool Road, Red Street

(3)               The Avenue, Kidsgrove

(4)               Northwood Lane, Clayton

(a)       Verbal update on the progress of the Town Centre East Residents’ Parking Zone.

(b)       Petition regarding parking in the Dunkirk area of Newcastle town centre.

(c)        Funding of Residents’ Parking Zones.

(a)       A verbal update was provided on progress in relation to the Town Centre East Residents’ Parking Zone.

            Letters would shortly be sent to residents providing a general update and outlining the next steps.  A joining fee of £50 was currently proposed based on an uptake of 80 residents.  There would need to be sufficient uptake to ensure the scheme’s viability as its cost would be approximately £8,000.

(b)       A report was submitted advising the committee of the receipt of a petition from 49 residents in relation to parking issues in the Dunkirk area of Newcastle.

The petition called for a number of measures including signage, monitoring of vehicles at peak times, issuing of warning notices, enforcement action in respect of persistent parking on footpaths and at junctions, and ongoing monitoring.

Resolved:     That the content of the petition be noted and Dunkirk be reaffirmed as the next area to be considered for a residents’ parking zone.

(c)        A report was submitted in relation to the funding of residents’ parking zones.

            The introduction of civil parking enforcement had enabled the introduction of residents’ parking zones (RPZ) where appropriate and the county council was committed to progressing the introduction of one zone at a time, with the area to the south-east of the town centre currently being considered.

The process of assessing the suitability of an area for a RPZ was resource intensive and included significant amounts of consultation with the residents.  This had led to delays in investigating the introduction of RPZs, if suitable, for other areas within the borough.  In order to reduce the delays in introducing RPZs, the county council could buy in external consultants to supplement its resources, but funding for this would be needed.  Requests had been made to the county council for additional funding to support this acceleration of the program but unfortunately no suitable funding stream had been identified.

It could be possible for the borough council to sponsor the RPZ program, subject to the availability of funding.

The cost to undertake a review of an area for a RPZ was dependent on the response to the consultations with the residents and the area being considered.  A budget estimate of between £15,000 and £20,000 would not be unreasonable; this would not include any of the Traffic Regulation Order advertisement costs or the cost of any site works (signing, lining, possible kerbing works, etc).

As the county council was not able to provide funding to accelerate the program, the committee was asked to determine whether it wished to request the Cabinet to consider funding this proposal.

A successful scheme would deter indiscriminate parking, leading to the potential for increased use of the borough’s car parks and the associated increase in income.

Resolved:

(1)               That, as part of the co-operative agenda, the Cabinet be requested to consider the making of a financial contribution to increase the rate of introduction of residents’ parking schemes; and

(2)               Further discussions be entered into with the county council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

It was reported that the chairman had agreed to this item being considered as one of urgency in accordance with section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as the issue had come to the fore since the publication of the agenda for the meeting and to delay its consideration until the next meeting would lead to an unacceptable delay in addressing the financial implications of the issue.

It was reported that the current level of use of the charging restriction on Brampton Road, Newcastle was leading to its operation being unprofitable.

It was therefore proposed that the charging restriction be replaced with a waiting restriction of two hours.

Resolved:     That the county council be recommended to replace the charging restriction at Brampton Road with a waiting restriction of two hours, subject to the making/modification of the appropriate Traffic Regulation Orders.