North Yorkshire Council
Environment Executive Members
22 April 2026
Review of Traffic Regulation Order – Proposed Residential Disabled Parking Bay - 25 Beck Hole, Cayton
Report of the Assistant Director – Highways and Infrastructure
|
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of the report is: i) to advise the Corporate Director for Environment in consultation with the Environment Executive Member for Highways and Transportation of the outcome of the public consultation, and ii) for a decision to be made on whether to implement the changes, in view of the comments received.
|
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 This report details the comments received during a public consultation exercise regarding an application made to North Yorkshire Council for the installation of a disabled parking bay outside 25 Beck Hole, Cayton, as shown (Appendix A).
2.2 The details of this case are outlined in this report.
3.1 Residential Disabled Parking Bays can be introduced to provide on-street parking in residential areas for ‘blue badge’ holders. The Council’s policy states that provision of these bays should only be considered when an individual does not have access to off-street parking such as a driveway or a garage. Where a RDPB is provided it is not for the exclusive use of one resident but is available for use by any blue badge holder.
3.2 Disabled parking bays on the public highway require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to be in place in order to be enforceable. Historically some advisory and therefore unenforceable residential disabled parking bays were introduced without a Traffic Regulation Order. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 (as amended) do not permit the use of disabled parking bay road markings without a TRO and, as a consequence, enforcement action cannot be taken against those that misuse the advisory bays.
3.3 The Residential Parking Bay Policy was approved in August 2011 which determined that only enforceable bays would be provided. In line with this decision a two-stage assessment process was put in place against which applications are assessed. The assessment criteria for both stages are outlined (Appendix B).
3.5 The next part of the process requires the local Area Highways Office to assess the application against the Stage Two, highway and site assessment criteria.
4.0 PROPOSALS
4.1 North Yorkshire Council Customer Resolution Centre received an application from a resident for a disabled parking bay to be installed within a comfortable walking distance of their home.
5.0 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES
5.1 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 original TRO change consultation was in May 2024 and involved an extension to an existing waiting restriction (double yellow lines), the relocation of an existing disabled parking bay and the addition of a new disabled parking bay. This consultation raised four responses in favour and six against the proposal. After much consideration an amendment was made to the original proposal. The amendment involved dispensing with the waiting restriction extension and the installation of the new bay adjoining the existing disabled bay left in its original position. A reconsultation exercise was carried out for this amended proposal in January 2026. Refer to plan showing details of the original proposal and the amendment. (Appendix A.)
5.3 The proposals were hand delivered to 40 properties.
5.4 Responses received.
5.4.1 The reconsultation brought forth two responses in support of the proposal and five responses against the proposal.
5.5 Furtherdetails of the objections/comments received from residents are summarised, along with officer comments (Appendix C).
6.1 There are no alternative options.
7.1 Funding is available from the existing Highways Area 3 Signs, Lines and TRO budget to support the installation of these measures for the proposed parking bays. The current estimate for installing a RDPB is £2000.
8.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 Consideration has been given to the potential for any legal implications arising from the recommendations.
8.2 The process for the consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders was approved by the Executive on 29 April 2014 and Council on 21 May 2014. The consideration of objections to TRO’s is now a matter for the Environment Executive Members 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 for Environment in consultation with the Environment Executive Member for Highways & Transport. The 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
· The proposal affects more than one community
· The proposal is located within the ward of more than one Councillor.
8.2.1 This proposed TRO change is wholly within the council division of one member; therefore, this would not be classed as a wide area impact TRO.
8.3 In the event that the Executive Member for Highways & Transportation and the Corporate Director – Environment resolve to follow the recommendations contained in this report, then in accordance with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the Council will be required to make a Traffic Regulation Order (with or without modifications) and publish a notice of making the Order in the local press. The 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.
8.4 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.
8.5 In recommending the implementation of the proposed TRO as advertised for the reasons set out in this report, officers consider that the Council is complying with its duty under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and has carried out the required balancing exercise in coming to that decision. Beyond that, it is the view of officers that the proposals do not have any legal implications for the Council.
8.6 In accordance with the protocol for Environment Executive Member reports, the local Elected Members will be provided with a copy of this report and be invited to the meeting on 22 April 2026.
9.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
9.1 An Equality Impact Assessment has been completed for the Residential Disabled Parking Bay Protocol, and it is published on the North Yorkshire Council website. The provision of RDPB’s will enhance accessibility for mobility impaired residents enabling them to participate positively in community life.
9.2 A screening form has been included (Appendix D).
10.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
10.1 Consideration has also been given to the potential for any adverse climate change impacts arising from the recommendations. It is the view of officers that the recommendations do not have any adverse impact on climate change. A copy of the Climate Change Impact Assessment decision form is attached (Appendix E).
11.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1 The resident wants to be provided with a disabled parking space within walking distance of their home. The eligibility criteria for this application have been met after undergoing the Stage One and Stage Two assessments.
11.2 The Guidance on Local Transport Plans published in 2009 imparts on local highway authorities a specific duty to “have regard to the needs of disabled people”. This resulted in the first consultation exercise in May 2024 and the reconsultation carried out in January / February 2026.
11.3 Respondents to both consultations made similar comments upon which the objections were raised, namely:
· Most of the residents in the Beck Hole cul de sac are elderly and many have health and mobility issues.
· The site is visited by a variety of support and maintenance workers, carers, nurses and doctors.
· There is a lack of parking on this site, and insufficient parking areas available (22 in total) to cater for the number of properties (38 in total).
· The proposal would replace two valuable, general purpose parking spaces with one blue badge space.
· Rather than a single additional disabled parking bay, a better parking regime is needed such as the conversion of some existing grassed areas into parking bays (The grassed areas are not on highway or council owned land, the housing association are assumed to be landowner) or a resident parking permit controlled site.
11.4 The officer recommendations made in this report result from careful scrutiny of the responses received from the consultation exercise. In deciding whether or not to approve the proposal, committee should also carefully consider the details given in the responses. Two separate consultations at this site raised similar objections with respondents claiming the proposal would make the existing parking problems even more difficult and the core reasons for the parking problems not being addressed. It would seem reasonable to conclude that any further consultations would yield the same results.
‘’I have no objections to the application. However, I note the objections made and know that space is a premium in Beck Hole. The problem is sometimes people living on Main Street and Beck Mews are struggling with space and tend to try to park on Beck Hole. It is a difficult decision’
|
12.0 |
RECOMMENDATIONS |
|
12.1
12.2
12.3 |
It is recommended that the results of the consultation exercise are noted.
The Corporate Director, Environment, in consultation with the Environment Executive Member for Highways and Transport, approves the introduction of a new residential disabled parking bay at 25 Beck Hole, Cayton as shown in the Plan contained (Appendix A).
The Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) be authorised to seal the relevant Traffic Regulation Order by the Corporate Director, Environment and Environment Executive Member in light of the objections received and that the objectors are notified of the making of the Order within 14 days of it being made.
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix A Consultation Location Plans
Appendix B Assessment / Eligibility Criteria
Appendix C Summary of Objections
Appendix D Equalities Screening Form
Appendix E Climate Change Impact Assessment
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
None
Barrie Mason
Assistant Director - Highways and Infrastructure
County Hall
Northallerton
31 March 2026
Author of Report: John Hough, Project Engineer, Area 3 Highways
Presenter of Report: Hannah Benson, Area Manager