Business and Environmental Services

Executive Members

23 April 2021

Sleegill (Richmond) – Waiting Restrictions

Report of the Assistant Director – Highways and Transportation

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Corporate Director Business and Environmental Services (BES) and the BES Executive Members of the outcome of the public consultation and statutory advertisement which took place with regard to this proposal and to ask for a decision to be made as to whether or not the proposed Waiting Restrictions should be introduced.

1.2 A decision from the Corporate Director BES and the BES Executive Members is sought regarding the proposed Recommendation outlined in this report.

2.0 Background

2.1 Your officers have been made aware of an ongoing issue with the parking of vehicles on Sleegill in Richmond which is the section of road leading south eastwards out of the town to the south of the river.

2.2 The parking of vehicles at the location in question has been observed to cause problems for the free flow of traffic and occurs mainly during peak holiday periods and on bank holidays when there is an overspill from the parking facilities in the town centre and also when there is a match at the adjacent football ground. Many of the vehicles parked at the location in question are left partly on the footway adjacent to the carriageway which in turn causes problems for pedestrians.

2.3 A site meeting was held with the local County Councillor in order to agree the limits of the proposal which is as shown on the map provided as Appendix A.

3.0 Consultation

3.1 The proposal has been the subject of consultation and public advertisement in accordance with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The enabling Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was advertised for public comment in the local press, published on North Yorkshire County Council’s website and by means of a Legal Notice placed on street in accordance with the requirements of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations.

3.2 A copy of the accompanying ‘Statement Of Reasons’ which accompanied the details of the proposal is provided with this report as Appendix B.

3.3 At the conclusion of the consultation and public advertisement stages, a number of comments both in support of the proposal and objecting to the proposal had been received. These are summarised in Appendix C along with officer comments.

3.4 Members will note that as a result of one of the objections which was received, the proposed scheme has been amended so as to allow the parking of vehicles on a particular short section of Highway Verge. The amended proposal is as shown on the map provided with this report as Appendix D.

4.0 Officer Comments

4.1 Officers have considered each of the responses received and have summarised those responses along with an officer comment as Appendix C for consideration

4.2 It is considered that the introduction of the proposed waiting restrictions as amended in line with the details shown on the map provided with this report as Appendix D will assist in addressing the road safety concerns observed at the location in question.

4.3 The proposed measures will also enable the County Council to comply with its duty under Section 122(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to exercise its functions as road traffic authority to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) as well as its network management duty under Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to secure the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s road network.

5.0 Financial Implications

5.1 The funding for the Order and the works is to be met from the Elected Members Locality Budget and has been transferred to the Area 1 Signs, Lines and TROs budget for 2021/22.

6.0 Equalities Implications

6.1 An initial equality and impact assessment screening form has been completed for the proposed waiting restrictions and a copy is provided with this report as Appendix E.

7.0 Legal Implications

7.1 The process for the consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders was approved by the Executive on 29 April 2014 and County Council on 21 May 2014.

7.2 The consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) is now a matter for the Executive and the role of the Area Constituency Committee is changed to a consultative role on ‘wide area impact TROs’. The consideration of objections has been delegated by the Executive to the Corporate Director of Business and Environmental Services (BES) in consultation with BES Executive Members.

7.3 The new decision making process relates to the provision and regulation of parking places both off and on the highway where an objection is received from any person or body entitled under the relevant statute. A ‘wide area impact TRO’ is classed as a proposal satisfying all of the three criteria set out below:

· The proposal affects more than one street or road and;

· The proposal affects more than one community and;

· The proposal is located within the ward of more than one County Councillor.

7.4 The proposed TRO for Sleegill has not been classed as a ‘wide area impact TRO’ and therefore the Area Constituency Committee’s views have not been sought.

7.5 In the event that the BES Executive Members and BES Corporate Director resolves to follow the Recommendations contained in this report, then in accordance with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the County Council will be required to make the relevant Traffic Regulation Orders (with or without modifications) and publish a notice of making the Orders in the local press before the Order comes into operation. The County Council will also be required to notify the objectors of its decision and the reasons for making that decision within 14 days of the Order being made.

7.6 In accordance with the protocol for BES Executive Member reports, the Local Member will be provided with a copy of this report and be invited to the meeting on 23 April 2021

7.7 Where an Order has been made (i.e. sealed), if any person wishes to question the validity of the Order or any of its provisions on the grounds that it or they are not within the powers conferred by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, or that any requirement of the 1984 Act or of any instrument made under the 1984 Act has not been complied with, they may apply to the High Court within six weeks from the date on which the Order is made.

7.8 In recommending the implementation of the proposed TRO, officers consider that it will enable the County Council to comply with its duties under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, as detailed in Paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 of this report.

8.0 Climate Change

8.1 A climate change impact assessment has been carried out, see Appendix F. The impact of any changes to the waiting restrictions will be minimal at first due to vehicles that used to parking in the area will need to find alternatives, but once implemented for a period of time this will no longer take place as the restrictions will be acknowledged and the expectation to park in this location will no longer exist

9.0 Recommendations

9.1 It is recommended that:

i. The proposal to implement ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions as outlined in Appendix D under the delegated authority of the Corporate Director, BES, is approved.

ii. That the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) be authorised to seal the relevant Traffic Regulation Order to give effect to the proposed ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions as identified in Appendix D, (subject to the amendments and recommendations approved by the Corporate Director (BES) in consultation with the BES Executive Members in light of the objections received) and that the objectors are notified within 14 days of the Order being made.

BARRIE MASON

Assistant Director – Highways & Transportation

Author of Report: Ian Beighton

Background Documents: None

PROPOSED INTRODUCTION OF WAITING RESTRICTIONS

BRIDGE STREET / SLEEGILL, RICHMOND

STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL’S REASONS FOR PROPOSING TO MAKE THE ORDER

LEGAL POWERS AND DUTIES

Under Section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 the County Council, as traffic authority for North Yorkshire, has powers to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) where it appears expedient to make it on one or more of the following grounds:-

a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or

b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or

c) for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians), or

d) for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property, or

e) (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot, or

f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs; or

g) for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of Section 87 of the Environment Act 1995 (air quality).

Section 122(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 also provides that it shall be the duty of every local authority upon whom functions are conferred by or under the 1984 Act so to exercise those functions as to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.

REASONS FOR MAKING THE ORDER

The County Council considers that it is expedient to make this TRO on grounds (a) (c) and (f) above, having taken into account its duty under Section 122(1) of the 1984 Act, for the following reasons:-

Location(s) of Proposed Order

The proposal seeks to introduce a ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restriction on part of Bridge Street and Sleegill.

The proposed restriction is believed necessary in order to discourage indiscriminate parking at the location which is near to various areas of public open space. This parking can cause problems for the free flow of traffic and obstruction to the adjacent footways.

The proposal is as illustrated on Plan A1.811 (a).

Traffic Officer - Ian Beighton (Area 1 Highways)

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS

Under the County Council’s Constitution, the consideration of objections to a proposed TRO is delegated to the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services (BES) in consultation with the BES Executive Members. For each TRO where there are objections, it will be necessary to bring a report to the Corporate Director - BES and the BES Executive Members seeking a decision on the consideration of the objections. The report will include the views of the relevant local member who will also be invited to the meeting that considers the report. The Corporate Director - BES may wish to refer the matter to the Council’s Executive for a final decision.

A report to the relevant Area Committee will only be necessary when there are objections to a wide area impact TRO.

A wide area impact TRO is defined as a proposal satisfying all of the three criteria set out below:

· The proposal affects more than one street or road and,

· The proposal affects more than one community and,

· The proposal is located within the ward of more than one County Councillor

The report will seek the views of the Area Committee and these views will then be included in a report to the Corporate Director - BES and the BES Executive Members seeking a decision on the consideration of the objections. The Corporate Director - BES may wish to refer the matter to the Executive for a final decision.

The existing arrangements for members of the public wishing to attend or speak at committee meetings will apply and it may be appropriate for the Corporate Director - BES to have his decision making meetings open to the public, so that the public and in particular those with objections, have the opportunity to put their views across directly.

N.B. The Corporate Director - BES has delegated powers to make decisions on TROs where there are no objections.

Results Of Consultation On Proposed Waiting Restrictions - Sleegill, Richmond


Schedule Of Responses In Support Of Proposal


Consultee	Consultee Comment	Officer Comment


County Councillor Grant	In Support	Noted

Richmond Town Council	In Support	Noted

NYCC Passenger Transport	In Support	Noted

Resident 1	In Support	Noted

Resident 2	In Support	Noted

Resident 3	In Support	Noted

Resident 4	In Support	Noted

Resident 5	In Support	Noted

Resident 6	Proposal is welcomed to restrict inconsiderate and at times dangerous parking along Sleegill	Noted

Results Of Consultation On Proposed Waiting Restrictions - Sleegill, Richmond

Schedule Of Responses Not In Support Of Proposal

Consultee	Consultee Comment	Officer Comment
Resident 1	The only times that the need for Waiting Restrictions has been noted is on Richmond Football Club match days and during two recent illegal raves at Richmond Falls	Noted
	If the Waiting Restrictions are to be introduced then does not want corresponding signs and posts at the edge of the road or unsightly urban double yellow lines	There would be no requirement for any additional signs or posts to be provided. Double yellow lines would however need to be provided in order to give legal effect to the restrictions. These would be of a narrower style than those ordinarily used being 50 mm in width rather than the usual 100 mm
Resident 2	Parks on the carriageway adjacent to their property for short periods of time on occasions	The area immediately adjacent to the property in question is not appropriate for parking being adjacent to a bend in the road
	Suggests limiting on-street parking to a short period of time	The proposal seeks to remove instances of inappropriate parking so allowing short term parking would not be acceptable
	Temporary measures to prevent parking were introduced during the summer of 2020 but these weren't enforced.	This is a matter for the enforcement team. Should the permanent restrictions be introduced it is however expected that they will be enforced in line with other similar restrictions in the town
	The proposal seeks to address issues which are prevalent for short periods of time and the use of temporary restrictions as when there is a football match would be a better alternative. There is no justification for permanent restrictions.	The use of temporary restrictions is unduly demanding in terms of staff time and the loss of cones / barriers which are prone to vandalism
	The proposal would change the character of the area making it appear more urban	No new signs or posts would be required and any double yellow lines placed would be of a narrower style than those ordinarily used
Resident 3	The property is used as a holiday let and guests rely on being able to park a car on the Highway Verge either adjacent to or opposite the property. The proposal would prohibit this.	The proposal has been amended to allow this parking to continue on the Highway Verge immediately adjacent to the property but not on the opposite side of the road. The revised proposal is as shown on the map provided as Appendix D
	Parking at the location only takes place when there is a football match with cars parked on the verges with a couple of wheels in the carriageway which doesn't hinder passing traffic.	The parked cars are partly on the footway which causes issues for pedestrians
	The proposal is out of proportion to the perceived problem and temporary measures on match days may be better	The use of temporary restrictions is unduly demanding in terms of staff time and the loss of cones / barriers which are prone to vandalism

Initial equality impact assessment screening form (As of October 2015 this form replaces ‘Record of decision not to carry out an EIA’) This form records an equality screening process to determine the relevance of equality to a proposal, and a decision whether or not a full EIA would be appropriate or proportionate.
Directorate	BES
Service area	H&T
Proposal being screened	Sleegill (Richmond) Waiting Restrictions
Officer(s) carrying out screening	Neil Linfoot
What are you proposing to do?	Introduce waiting restrictions along the above named road to address parking concerns
Why are you proposing this? What are the desired outcomes?	Residents and 3^rd parties have requested waiting restrictions to address the parking concerns
Does the proposal involve a significant commitment or removal of resources? Please give details.	No
Is there likely to be an adverse impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, or NYCC’s additional agreed characteristics? As part of this assessment, please consider the following questions: · To what extent is this service used by particular groups of people with protected characteristics? · Does the proposal relate to functions that previous consultation has identified as important? · Do different groups have different needs or experiences in the area the proposal relates to? If for any characteristic it is considered that there is likely to be a significant adverse impact or you have ticked ‘Don’t know/no info available’, then a full EIA should be carried out where this is proportionate. You are advised to speak to your Equality rep for advice if you are in any doubt.
Protected characteristic		Yes		No		Don’t know/No info available
Age				ü
Disability				ü
Sex (Gender)				ü
Race				ü
Sexual orientation				ü
Gender reassignment				ü
Religion or belief				ü
Pregnancy or maternity				ü
Marriage or civil partnership				ü
NYCC additional characteristic
People in rural areas				ü
People on a low income				ü
Carer (unpaid family or friend)				ü
Does the proposal relate to an area where there are known inequalities/probable impacts (e.g. disabled people’s access to public transport)? Please give details.		No.
Will the proposal have a significant effect on how other organisations operate? (e.g. partners, funding criteria, etc.). Do any of these organisations support people with protected characteristics? Please explain why you have reached this conclusion.		No impact
Decision (Please tick one option)		EIA not relevant or proportionate:	ü		Continue to full EIA:
Reason for decision		The proposed waiting restrictions will have no negative impact on people with protected characteristics (or NYCCs additional characteristics) and will enable the County Council to comply with its duties under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004
Signed (Assistant Director or equivalent)		Barrie Mason
Date		14/04/21

Climate change impact assessment

The purpose of this assessment is to help us understand the likely impacts of our decisions on the environment of North Yorkshire and on our aspiration to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030, or as close to that date as possible. The intention is to mitigate negative effects and identify projects which will have positive effects.

This document should be completed in consultation with the supporting guidance. The final document will be published as part of the decision making process and should be written in Plain English.

If you have any additional queries which are not covered by the guidance please email climatechange@northyorks.gov.uk

Title of proposal	Proposed Introduction of Waiting Restrictions – Sleegill, Richmond
Brief description of proposal	Introduction of waiting restrictions on a bank to remove the parking which causes concerns during busy periods for people travelling in both directions
Directorate	Business and Environmental Services
Service area	Highways and Transportation
Lead officer	Neil Linfoot
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the impact assessment	Ian Beighton
Date impact assessment started	05/04/21

Options appraisal

Were any other options considered in trying to achieve the aim of this project? If so, please give brief details and explain why alternative options were not progressed.

Limited waiting and waiting restrictions for certain times of the year were investigated but this would have required associated signage and the concern is not restricted to any one part of the year

What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

Please explain briefly why this will be the result, detailing estimated savings or costs where this is possible.

The implementation costs are to be met from the Elected Members Locality Budget, but the long term impact is that the road markings will need to be refreshed at certain points throughout the lifetime of the Order. This will be undertaken within current programmes and the overall impact will be minimal

How will this proposal impact on the environment? N.B. There may be short term negative impact and longer term positive impact. Please include all potential impacts over the lifetime of a project and provide an explanation.		Positive impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	No impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Negative impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Explain why will it have this effect and over what timescale? Where possible/relevant please include: · Changes over and above business as usual · Evidence or measurement of effect · Figures for CO₂e · Links to relevant documents	Explain how you plan to mitigate any negative impacts.	Explain how you plan to improve any positive outcomes as far as possible.
Minimise greenhouse gas emissions e.g. reducing emissions from travel, increasing energy efficiencies etc.	Emissions from travel	X			Initially this may have an impact as people who normally park here will need to find elsewhere to park, but once they are aware of the restrictions will not return to park in this location
	Emissions from construction		X
	Emissions from running of buildings		X
	Other		X
Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost e.g. reducing use of single use plastic			X
Reduce water consumption			X
Minimise pollution (including air, land, water, light and noise)			X
Ensure resilience to the effects of climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, mitigating effects of drier, hotter summers			X
Enhance conservation and wildlife			X
Safeguard the distinctive characteristics, features and special qualities of North Yorkshire’s landscape			X
Other (please state below)			X

Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards.

The works will comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and in addition will utilise primrose yellow paint which is identified for use in conservation areas

Summary Summarise the findings of your impact assessment, including impacts, the recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

The proposals will be utilised to address a safety concern raised by residents and also the travelling public and other bodies. The residents have other locations to park cars and currently do not park on the carriageway so will have no impact on the current situation for them

Sign off section

This climate change impact assessment was completed by:

Name	Neil Linfoot
Job title	Improvement Manager
Service area	Highways and Transportation
Directorate	Business and Environmental
Signature	N Linfoot
Completion date	08/04/21

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature):Barrie Mason

Date: 14/04/21