The Director of Infrastructure Management & Operations has submitted a report to the Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee for their next meeting scheduled on 29th February 2012 to consider the objections to the advertised waiting restrictions in St. Matthew’s Gardens (SMG).
The purpose of the report is supposedly for the AJC to consider objections to the advertised waiting restrictions in SMG however most of the important grounds for the objections raised have been omitted from the report and other points placed selectively.
The report contains misleading/factually incorrect information.
St. Matthew’s Gardens is a development of 210 residential houses and apartments with a mixture of privately owned properties (82%) and social housing (18%) managed by Granta Housing Society. ALL of the privately owned properties have allocated parking spaces within the car park BUT Granta Housing Society properties do not have any parking provision at all.
The SMG development was supposed to be self-sufficient in terms of providing an adequate level of parking for all residents. In the planning application, the developer was required to provide a ratio of 1 parking space for every 0.9 dwelling units, in order for the planning application to be approved. The 191 off-street parking spaces shown in the planning application were not made available to all properties as all 38 Granta Housing units were denied off-street parking spaces. High maintenance charges deterred the social landlord from taking any spaces. This is in contravention of the planning conditions that are in place in relation to parking provisions.
A total of 191 off-street parking spaces are supposed to serve all 210 dwellings according to the approved planning application with the potential for additional on-street parking within the development in the form of a Residents' Parking Scheme (subject to a TRO) specifically to address the Granta residents' parking provisions shortfall.
The core root of the problem in SMG is two fold; firstly, the discriminatory decision against the Granta residents to deny them any off-street parking provision, and secondly, the fact that the developer deceived the private home buyers by selling them properties on the understanding that the SMG estate would fulfil a Utopian dream i.e. an environmentally friendly road free of cars. This was in spite of the fact that the developer had signed an agreement to designate the road as a public Highway and has no control over the future of the road.
Driven by the Utopian dream and backed by the feeling of having been cheated, some private owners started a fearless battle led by the informal Steering Group in collusion with the Council and Councillor Nichola Harrison, pushing for total on street parking restrictions. When they realised that they could not get away with total restrictions, due to these obviously being in outright contravention of Council policies, they focussed all their efforts on achieving their ultimate objective of reducing parking spaces to an absolute minimum. This is substantiated by the number of modified plans that clearly show a gradual decrease in the proposed number of on street parking spaces, and Steering Group newsletter.
In March 2010 Graham Lowe and Dr. Jon Finney the Development Control Engineer (City and South) produced a plan showing the extent of the double yellow lines that the Highway Authority would be able to support in terms of highway safety. Their plan accommodated approximately 25 car parking spaces. Their proposed layout would enable emergency service and refuse vehicles to easily traverse the site and short lengths of on street car parking would accommodate those properties without parking provision, visitor parking, etc. This plan was very generous in terms of the extent of the double yellow lines accommodating as closely as possible Steering Group demands.
This plan was refused by the Steering Group. The main objective of their Nov 2010 meeting with Council Officers and Ward Councillors and their campaign in general was to push for a minimal number of spaces by using excuses as well as misleading and deceiving tactics (see below):
The road became adopted highway in April last year (2011). The developers employed a private ticketing company to enforce its own parking restrictions between 2006-2010, with various lengthy relaxation periods in between for multiple reasons such as major repair works in the underground car park etc. The parking restrictions were not observed by many SMG residents which led the Steering Group to push for more Draconian measures by employing a wheel clamping company, which became highly publicised, for exactly 6 months from July 2010 to January 2011. Wheel clamping operations ceased for more than two months prior to the official road adoption.
The report misled Committee about the background information by only referring to the meeting that was held in November 2010 without reference to what had happened prior to that meeting. It failed to mention for example that officers had already drawn up a plan & identified 'appropriate locations' and this plan was refused by the steering group who had previously submitted an application for a total parking ban which had been turned down.
The report is flawed as it contains inaccuracies. Concerning the November 2010 meeting, it states, 'It was agreed that some on-street parking would need to be provided within St. Matthew’s Gardens and officers were tasked with identifying appropriate locations.' then it states that 'The measures shown in Plan 1 were approved by those that attended the November 2010 meeting'. How could officers have been tasked with identifying appropriate locations if they already approved the plan during the meeting?
The truth which they have not revealed about the November 2010 meeting is the fact that the steering group refused the Highway's recommendations and the plan they had then which allowed for approximately 25 spaces. They demanded further reductions to the parking spaces & officers were tasked with exactly this task. (see newsletter)
The parking proposal shown in plan 2 defines the Steering Group's ultimate objective of only 12 on-street parking spaces, however this could not be put forward for the informal consultation as it would not have gathered enough support due to the obvious reduction of parking spaces in comparison with plan 1 (25 spaces). However, the foundation was laid in respect of the fact that mention was made of the estimated 11 parking spaces as advised by Council officers. Although this figure was not binding according to the Council, it was noted in preparation for the switch to the final plan in order that it could be claimed that the same number of parking spaces had been maintained all along. (See also fig 4.3 below). Bearing in mind that figure 11 is what the residents would be left with as one space was also planned for a car club, so 12 spaces were planned all along.
Also note that Plan 1 submitted in the report to the AJC is not the same one that was in the informal consultation. It further reduces the parking spaces shown, changes sides and reduces the thickness/effect of the yellow lines (probably in a bid to make it more difficult to notice the reduction of parking spaces).
The informal consultation shows that only 62 (29%) responded out of a total 210 (see fig 5.1).
21 objections were received in response to the formal consultation with only 5 in support of the proposal.
Objectors to the development (from surrounding streets) raised many concerns regarding the parking overspill from the estate. They were reassured by the planning committee that an adequate level of parking would be provided for all SMG residents with the potential of additional on-street car parking for those who do not have access to the underground car park i.e. Granta residents (subject to TRO which could not be determined at the time). The planning committee recognised the need for a Traffic Regulation Order to address the parking problem created by the development, to provide spaces in the context of a residents parking scheme.
The allocation of 11 on street parking spaces is grossly disproportionate to the number of properties in SMG given that there are 38 properties (Granta Housing), including family houses (2, 3 and 4 bedrooms), in the development with no parking provision at all. Demand for on street parking within the area is high, the proposed 11 spaces will not make any noticeable contribution to the SMG residents given that the spaces are available to all road users and not restricted to residents via a residents only scheme.
There is no majority support by residents for any parking restrictions in SMG. The amended plan in the proposal (plan 2) is considerably different to the plan which attracted most support by SMG respondents to the informal consultation. Plan 1 shows more than double the parking spaces (26 spaces) than those that are shown on plan 2 (11 spaces). There is no indication at all to suggest that plan 2 is supported by SMG residents.
The proposed extensive parking restrictions, cannot be justified on the basis of highway safety, and contravene the County Council’s policy relating to the provision of Minor Traffic Measures.
The need to achieve a reasonable balance of parking demands and to provide an appropriate level of parking for local residents.
Third party funding for Minor Traffic Measures is permitted if the proposed measures are consistent with policy requirements.
In their application that was submitted under Minor Traffic Measures the applicants made the false claim that the majority of residents of SMG supported total parking restrictions. The outcome of the informal consultation proves this not to be the case as only 15 (7%) out of 210 residents want no parking at all.
Funding is to be taken from residents as an additional payment to their annual maintenance charge without their consent.
SMG is pushing its parking problem elsewhere, to the severely congested surrounding streets.
Underground parking spaces are being offered for rental where many residents/families do not have any parking provision.
The proposals is discriminatory as it specifically affects the social housing part of the development.
Affected residents in the surrounding streets not consulted/informed.
The informal consultation shows that only 62 (29%) responded out of a total 210. The majority (71%) of SMG residents did not respond to the consultation which indicates that the vast majority is not supportive of any amendment. Based on the poor response rate the TRO should not have been advertised at all.
The Officer states that the design and layout dictates where on street parking can be accommodated without causing access and egress issues and that the proposal takes into account the access requirements.
The extent of the double yellow lines proposed goes beyond access and egress requirements. In his plan of March 2010, John Finney proposes a level of parking restrictions, very generous with its double yellow lines, that fully takes into account access and egress issues, whilst permitting more than twice the number of parking spaces than in the proposal.
The Officer remarks that consideration could be given to implementing a residents’ parking permit scheme at a later date.
This suggestion is ridiculous as once double yellow lines go down and the Steering Group achieves its objective of near total parking restrictions in SMG, no one is going to be concerned about resolving the Granta Tenants' parking issue, nor would they care who is parking in the spaces i.e. SMG residents or members of the public.
