oxfordshire county council · outcome of informal consultation report dr final v2 120209.doc ......

Outcome of Informal Consultation Report DR Final V2 120209.doc

Divinity Road Area Controlled Parking Zone Outcome of Informal Consultation

12/2/09 Version 2

Oxfordshire County Council


Divinity Road Area Controlled Parking Zone

Outcome of Informal Consultation


Document Control Sheet Client: Oxfordshire County Council Ref. No. 1004800/PD/01

Project: Divinity Area Controlled Parking Zone Project No: B1004800

Document(1), (2) title: Outcome of Informal Consultation

Originated by Checked by Reviewed by Approved by

NAME NAME NAME NAME ORIGINAL

Vijay Subramaniam Naomi Barnes Naomi Barnes Gill Foster

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

04/02/2009

Document status (3)

NAME NAME NAME NAME REVISION

Vijay Subramaniam Naomi Barnes Naomi Barnes Gill Foster

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

12/02/2009

Document status (3)

(1) ‘Documents’ means any drawing, report, calculation, specification, etc. (2) Where for such as a group of drawings, the checker, the reviewer and the approver have each fulfilled that role

for each of the individual items, a single Document control sheet will suffice. (3) E.g. ‘For Client review’, ‘For construction’, ‘For information, etc’

Ref 1004800.PD/01

Date February 2009

Jacobs Engineering UK Ltd, Park House, Haddenham Business Park, Thame Road, Haddenham, Aylesbury, Bucks HP17 8LB Tel 01844296200 Fax 01844 296201

Copyright Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited. All rights reserved.

This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.





Contents Page

Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Consultation Findings

3.0 Recommendations

Main Report

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Background 1

3.0 Consultation Process 1

4.0 Traffic Survey Information 3

5.0 Outcome of informal Consultation 4

General Comments 7

6.0 Partial Footway Parking 7

6.1 Disability Groups 9

6.2 ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ at junctions 10

6.3 Permit Charges 10

6.4 Residents Permits 10

6.5 Visitors Permits 11

6.6 Shared parking bays 11

6.7 Tradesmen and Skips 12

6.8 Disabled Bays 12

6.9 Fire Service and Rescue Service 12

6.10 Oxfordshire Green Party 13

6.11 Divinity Road Area Residents’ Association 13

7.0 Specific Issues by road 14

Appendix A – Consultation Comments





Executive Summary 1.0 Background 1.1 Permit Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ’s) are a useful tool in managing Oxford’s traffic levels

and reducing the effects of congestion. This is achieved by removing commuter parking from within the zones, thereby encouraging commuters to use the Park and Rides or use alternative ways of getting to work other than by car.

1.2 A feasibility study was carried out in late 2007/early 2008 of the Divinity Road area and five

other areas adjoining or near to existing CPZ’s, which had previously been identified as areas potentially requiring resident permit parking controls. The study highlighted a relatively high level of commuter parking in the Divinity Road area, and recommended that it be taken forward for the promotion of a CPZ. Subsequently it was agreed that a CPZ should at the same time be developed in the Magdalen Road area.

1.3 An initial consultation for both the Divinity Road and Magdalen Road areas was carried out in July 2008, including letters to properties in streets adjacent to the zone. Overall the residents that responded were in favour of the scheme with most recognising the need to restrict the number of permits.

2.0 Consultation Findings 2.1 The informal consultation was undertaken between 7 November 2008 and 8 December 2009,

although late responses received up to 19 December 2009 were accepted. An exhibition displaying all the proposals was also held at The Regal on Cowley Road on Thursday 20 November and Friday 21 November 2009. Representatives from the County Council and Oxfordshire Highways were present to answer any questions.

2.2 All properties and businesses within the zone were consulted. The consultation pack was also

made available on the County Council web-site. The overall response rate from within the zone was 214 (20%).

2.3 87 (43%) of respondents found the currently proposed layout acceptable. 52%(105) were

against the current proposals however many made suggestions to improve the design which may make the design acceptable to them.

2.4 133 (66%) of respondents found the mix of different types of parking bays acceptable, 47

(23%) of respondents were against it. Several respondents were concerned that the shared parking bays allowed non-resident parking only on Monday to Friday, as this would be unacceptable for local businesses that were open on Saturdays. It was resolved that it would be beneficial to businesses and local residents to make the shared bays in force Monday to Sunday but retain the timings of 8:30am – 6:30pm.

2.5 151 (75%) of respondents felt the location of the car club bays was acceptable, 26 (13%) did

not. Overall there was a significant level of support for the car club bays and it is hoped that the scheme will go some way to reducing car ownership.

2.6 111 (55%) of respondents thought the usual allowance of visitors permits’ of 50 per resident

aged 17 or over was acceptable. However there was some concern that this would allow larger student houses or HMOs’ to park an extra car for much of the year. There was also concern from that 50 permits would be insufficient.

2.7 Of those who suggested alternative solutions, the majority were in favour of providing 100

permits per household as this would benefit single occupancy properties and restrict multiple occupancy properties.





2.8 The issue of partial footway parking was a controversial subject. The question was not raised in the questionnaire as it had previously been asked in the initial consultation. Nevertheless 75 respondents (37%) made additional comments about footway parking, of which 54 were against it. A number of emails separate to the consultation were forwarded from Cllr Hudspeth also expressing concerns regarding footway parking.

2.9 Many respondents were concerned about the reduction of footway widths to 1m. However,

there seems to have been some confusion as the proposals only restrict footways to this for very short lengths. The majority of the footways in the Divinity area will be 1.2m wide or greater.

2.10 A number of respondents were concerned regarding the extent of the ‘No Waiting at Any

Time’ at junctions. These have been provided to facilitate safe turning movements due to the restricted widths at the junctions. However, it is recommended to undertake track surveys at the junctions during the detailed design to assess if the restrictions opposite the junctions can be reduced.

2.11 21 (10%) of the respondents commented on the number of residents’ permits that they felt

should be provided. The opinion was divided between 1 and 2 permits per property. The current proposals are expected to meet the existing demand over the zone as a whole. Any recommended amendments to the scheme should at least maintain the currently proposed parking capacity. It is therefore recommended to proceed with the proposal to restrict permits to 2 per property and review it after 12 months of operation.

2.12 The Fire and Rescue Service expressed serious concerns about the proposals to provide

running lane widths of less than 3 metres as it can seriously affect fire appliance access. 3m running lanes allow 0.25-0.30m either side of the appliance for crews to dismount. They requested that partial footway parking be considered where necessary in order to guarantee emergency access.

2.13 17 (8%) respondents expressed concern about the student parking in the area. Some of them

commented that students should not receive residents’ permits. 2.14 Concerns were raised in Divinity Road against the proposal for parking only on one side in

the section between Hill Top Road and Stone Street due to the loss of parking spaces and the possible increase in the speed of vehicles.

2.15 In Southfield Road, among the two proposals: (i) parking on 2 sides and (ii) parking on one

side, concerns been raised about pavement parking. Most respondents expressed a preference for parking on 2 sides, agreeing to the partial pavement parking.

2.16 Specific issues were raised in each street which are listed in detail in the main body of the

report. The outcome of the above and these specific issues has resulted in the recommendations detailed below.





3.0 Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Cabinet Member for Transport authorie officers to:

1) Proceed with the Divinity Road area CPZ to detailed design and formal consultation.

2) Proceed with proposal to restrict residents’ permits to 2 per household, with a commitment to review this after a year of operation.

3) Retain the usual allowance of 50 visitors’ permits per resident aged 17 years or older.

4) Provide partial footway parking to maximise available parking on street, subject to the need to:

• Retain a running lane of 3 metres.

• Provide footway widths of 1.2m or greater except for short distances around pinch points where it may be reduced to 1.0m.

• Where possible retain one clear footway.

5) Amend the proposals to change all shared bays from being in operation 8:00am – 6:30pm, Monday to Friday to 8:00am – 6:30pm, Monday to Sunday, allowing residents parking Monday to Sunday (24hrs).

6) Continue the promotion of car club bays.

7) Revise parking layout in Bartlemas Road to provide carriageway parking on south east side and keep one footway clear.

8) Revise parking layout to provide parking on both sides of Divinity Road, between Hill Top Road and Stone Street, with partial footway parking on one side which will leave one footway free of parking.

9) Review the level of parking provided in Hill Top Road to ensure that wheel chair users are able to turn at intervals on the south west side where footway parking is currently proposed.

10) Review the shared parking bays in Hill Top Road.

11) Review the extent of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ at the junction of Parsons Place with Tawney Street. In view of this, tracked surveys of junctions are recommended to assess the feasibility of reducing the lengths of the restrictions as part of the detailed design.

12) Assess the feasibility of the proposals at the north-east end of Southfield Park , as it come to our attention it is designated as a private road. It will not be possible to propose parking restrictions without the agreement of the landowner.

13) Revise the proposals for Southfield Road, to retain parking on both sides but retain a 3m running lane for emergency access, which will result in partial pavement parking on one side.

14) As part of the detailed design, carry out tracking surveys of Warneford Road to assess the feasibility of reducing the lengths of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions.




Outcome of Informal Consultation Report DR Final V2 120209.doc 1

Main Report 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This report contains the findings from the informal consultation carried out between 7

November 2008 and 8 December 2008 on proposals to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the Divinity Road area of Oxford. The report sets the context for the consultation, describes how it was carried out, and summarises the findings. Further, it contains recommendations for further action, informed by these findings and other factors.

2.0 Background 2.1 Permit CPZ’s are a useful tool in managing Oxford’s traffic levels and reducing the effects of

congestion. This is achieved by removing commuter parking from within the zones, thereby encouraging commuters to use the Park and Rides or use alternative ways of getting to work other than by car.

2.2 The informal consultation is in the second in a planned series of 3 stages;

• initial consultation on the proposals (carried out in July 2008);

• informal consultation on the detailed layout of the zone, including the position of parking bays (carried out in November/December 2008); and

• formal consultation on the final proposed design and the relevant legal Traffic Regulation Orders.

2.3 The first two stages are not a legal requirement, but were considered to be essential in order

to deliver the scheme successfully. 2.4 A feasibility study was carried out in late 2007/early 2008 of the Divinity Road area and five

other areas adjoining or near to existing CPZ’s, which had previously been identified as areas potentially requiring resident permit parking controls. The study highlighted a relatively high level of commuter parking in the Divinity Road Area, and recommended that it be taken forward for the promotion of a CPZ. Subsequently it was agreed that a CPZ should at the same time be developed in the Magdalen Road area.

2.5 The initial consultation for both the Divinity Road and Magdalen Road areas were carried out in July 2008. Letters were also sent out to properties in streets adjacent to the zones. The overall response from the Divinity Road Area was 261 (24%). A copy of the report detailing the outcome of the initial consultation can be found on the County Councils website.

2.6 This report contains the findings of the informal consultation only. Full details of all comments received are detailed in Appendix A.

3.0 Consultation Process 3.1 A consultation pack was sent to every individual property address within the proposed CPZ

area, a total of 1,083 properties. The covering letter was addressed to ‘the occupier’. A list of the roads within the area was included in the report from the initial consultation.

3.2 The consultation pack included the following:

• A summary of the outcome of the initial consultation.

• A plan showing the zone boundary.

• A plan showing scheme details in the local area of the addressee.

• A questionnaire.

• A list of frequently asked questions

• An information leaflet regarding Commonwheels Car Club.

• A freepost envelope.





3.3 Plans showing the proposed parking restrictions for the whole of the Divinity Road and Magdalen Road areas were available to be viewed at Speedwell House, County Hall or at the Cowley and Central Libraries. The information was also placed on the County Council’s website.

3.4 Consultation packs including A1 size plans of the proposals in both zones were sent to the ‘formal’ consultees with a possible interest in the scheme, which included the emergency services, public transport providers, cycling and pedestrian groups, disability groups, local employers, schools, places of worship, residents’ associations, councillors and relevant council departments.

3.5 Letters and consultation packs were despatched on 7 November 2008 and the consultation

closed on 8 December 2008, although late responses received up to 19 December 2008 were accepted.

3.6 The consultation was carried out simultaneously with the Magdalen Road area. Many of the

‘formal’ consultees’ responses were clearly in relation to both zones, and so were taken into account for each of the two zones. Consultees were not required to provide their address, but the vast majority did.

3.7 An exhibition of the proposals was held at The Regal on Cowley Road on Thursday 20 November 2008 between 2:00pm and 8:30pm, and Friday 21 November 2008 between 10:30am and 4:00pm. Detailed plans of each road in both zones were exhibited and representatives from Oxfordshire County Council and Oxfordshire Highways were available to answer any questions. A total of 179 people attended the exhibition over the two days.

3.8 The questionnaire was designed to allow respondents plenty of space to give the council their

views on each of the topics, and thus provide officers with a good understanding of people’s reasons for the views they put forward. It also invited, and provided space for, additional comments, which have been analysed.

3.9 In many cases this resulted in information and views on each particular topic being provided

by respondents at different points within the feedback form, but all comments were read and taken into account.





4.0 Traffic Survey Information 4.1 Table 1: On Street demand/Initial Design Capacity

(*) Information provided by Street co-ordinators and Residents Association. Available only for Divinity Road, Southfield Road, Hill Top Road, Minster Road and Warneford Road.

Estimated Capacity

Street Name

Length of Street

(m)

No. of

prop.

Overnight Parking Demand Oct 07

Overnight Parking Demand Oct 08

Est no. of permits req.

(*)

Permit Holders

Only

Permit Holders

& Shared

Car Club

T O T A L

Bartlemas Close

402 9 48 8 - - 60

1

61

Bartlemas Road

246 66 84 83 - 62 16 - 78

Cowley Road

480 67 18 6 - - 35 - 35

Divinity Road

736 205 177 178 255 149 11 - 160

Hill Top Road

348 77 41 34 63 79 10 - 89

Manzil Way

253 7 5 5 - - 21 1 22

Minster Road

191 39 72 56 41 54 6 - 60

Morrell Avenue

469 87 81 20 - - 43 - 43

Parsons Place

134 33 33 32 - 22 7 - 29

Southfield Park

238 180 - 47 - 26 - 1 41

Southfield Road

606 170 153 156 138 140 31 3 174

Stone Street

139 8 53 25 - 11 22 1 34

Tawney Street

137 26 28 34 - 37 3 - 40

Warneford Lane

121 0 - 1 - - 24 - 24

Warneford Road

141 141 47 46 40 32 6 - 38





5.0 Outcome of informal consultation 5.1 A total of 1,083 consultation packs were sent out in the Divinity Road area, of these 16 were

returned as a result of difficulty accessing properties, properties under construction etc. Of these, 202 questionnaires were returned, with 12 additional letters and emails that did not include a questionnaire. This gives a response rate of 20% for the informal consultation. This is a similar rate to the responses following the initial consultation and is a fairly normal response rate in any consultation.

5.2 Consultees were asked 4 questions in the informal consultation, these included:-

1) Do you find the layout of the parking scheme for your street acceptable? 2) Do you find the mix of different types of parking bays in your street e.g. 1hr, 2hr, permit

holders only etc. acceptable? 3) Do you find the position of the proposed car club bays acceptable? 4) Do you think the usual allowance of 50 visitor permits per resident aged over 17 is

suitable for this area? Table 2 overleaf details the outcome of the responses by Road.

5.3 In Question 1, Consultees were asked if they found the layout of the proposed restrictions

acceptable. 87 (43%) of respondents found the proposed layout acceptable and105 ( 52%) did not. Of those who did not find the layout acceptable, many included comments on ways that the scheme could be improved. Where possible suggested improvements will be accommodated. Where this can be done many of those who did not find the scheme acceptable may do so.

5.4 In Question 2, Consultees were asked if they found the mix of different types of parking bays acceptable.133 ( 66%) of respondents found the proposals acceptable, 47 (23%) did not and 22 (11%) did not respond. It is possible to redistribute some of the types of parking bays following suggestions made which will further improve the scheme. Details of where this is possible is stated in the road by road analysis later in the report.

5.5 In Question 3, Consultees were asked if they found the location of the car club bays acceptable. 151 (75%) of respondents felt they were acceptable, 26 (13%) did not and 13 (12%) did not respond. Of those that did not respond, several people stated that they were not affected by the position of car club bays or that there were none detailed in their road.

5.6 A number of respondents commented that additional car club bays should be considered. The

car club scheme is in its early stages and already has 75 members: if successful more car club bays may be provided.

5.7 The car club is an initiative by local residents (Oxcar), in partnership with Commonwheels,

and offers members the chance to hire a reasonably-priced car by the hour (for £2.50 or £4 per hour).

5.8 A few respondents commented that the car club bays were removing valuable parking bays

for residents on the street. The aim of the car club is to encourage people to reduce the number of cars they own. Where the second car is used only occasionally this could be replaced with use of a car club vehicle. If this is successful the number of vehicles parked on street may reduce.





5.9 Table 2: Response to questionnaire by road:

Response Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4

Rate Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

All Roads 202 87 105 133 47 151 26 111 67

All Roads (%) 43% 52% 66% 23% 75% 13% 55% 33%

Bartlemas Close 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Bartlemas Road 7 4 2 4 2 5 1 3 3

Cowley Road 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Divinity Road 53 22 30 31 14 38 8 28 17

Hill Top Road 30 11 18 21 7 25 3 15 12

Manzil Way 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0

Minster Road 16 5 11 12 4 13 2 9 6

Morrell Avenue 13 10 2 9 2 8 3 9 3

Parsons Place 9 1 7 4 3 5 2 7 0

Southfield Park 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Southfield Road 48 21 24 34 10 39 5 23 20

Stone Street 3 1 2 3 1 3 0 3 0

Tawney Street 5 4 1 5 0 5 0 5 0

Warneford Road 8 4 4 5 2 7 0 4 4

Unknown 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 5.10 In Question 4, respondents were asked if they felt that the provision of 50 permits per resident

over the age of 17 was suitable for this area. From some of the comments it was evident that some people were confused over what this meant. 111 (55%) of respondents felt that the number of visitors permits was acceptable whilst 67 (33%) did not and 24 (12%) of respondents did not comment.

5.11 Of those who commented, various suggestions over the number of visitors permits were

made. These included:

• 16 respondents stated there would be insufficient visitors permits;

• 3 respondents said there should be no limit on permits;

• 9 respondents stated that less than 50 visitor permits per person was adequate;

• 6 respondents stated 50 visitors permits per person was adequate;

• 26 respondents stated that permits should be issued per household, 8 of which said it should be restricted to 100 and 4 said it should restricted to 50;

5.12 21 respondents commented on the number of resident’s permits that should be provided. Of

these:

• 4 stated a preference for 1 resident permit;

• 6 stated a preference for 2 residents permits (or more than 1);

• 3 stated that more than 2 residents permits were required;

• 4 stated that 2 permits should be issued in exceptional circumstances and stated that the charge for the second permit should be more than the first permit;

5.13 During the informal consultation 75(37%) respondents made additional comments regarding

footway parking. 54(26%) respondents were against footway parking, 13 (6%) were in favour of footway parking, 6 (3%) respondents were against footway parking on both sides, 1 respondent was against if it is not properly enforced and 1 respondent was against footway parking near junctions.

5.14 Seven respondents expressed concerns paying for visitors and/or residents permits.





5.15 17 (8%) respondents expressed concerns regarding the level of student parking in the area. Some did not feel that students should not be entitled to resident’s permits as they do not pay council tax.





General Comments 6.0 Partial Footway Parking 6.0.1 The proposal to provide partial footway parking is a controversial subject. Many of the roads

in the Divinity Road area are not wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides of the carriageway without vehicles straddling the footway. Due to the high level of car ownership partial footway parking has become common practice. People do not always park considerately which can lead to footways being obstructed. The removal of footway parking would lead to a significant reduction in available parking for residents in many of the streets.

6.0.2 During the initial consultation consultees were asked whether they found partial footway

parking acceptable. 262 people responded, 97 (37%) found it unacceptable, while 63 (24%) found it acceptable and 81 (31%) found it acceptable with some provisos. 21 (8%) were unsure or had no opinion.

6.0.3 During the informal consultation consultees were not asked again about pavement parking

due to the reasonable response rate in the initial consultation. However, there was some campaigning by residents of both zones against footway parking. 75 (37%) respondents to this consultation made additional comments regarding footway parking. 54 (27%) were against footway parking, 13 (6%) were in favour of footway parking and 6 (3%) were against footway parking on both sides. 1 respondent was against it if it is not properly enforced and 1 respondent was against footway parking near junctions.

6.0.4 Of those who supported footway parking similar comments were raised as in the initial

consultation and these included:

• Maximise on street parking;

• Regulation of current parking practices, reducing inconsiderate parking;

• Removal of footway parking could increase vehicle speeds. 6.0.5 Of those who objected to footway parking the comments included:

• Footways are for pedestrians not cars;

• Car drivers are being prioritised over pedestrians;

• 1m wide footways is insufficient to accommodate wheelchairs (some reflecting a misunderstanding that the proposals were to reduce pavement widths to 1m across much of the zone);

• Footways would be damaged. 6.0.6 The Oxford Pedestrians Association objected to the provision of footway parking and made

the following comments: ‘The proposals being put forward are destructive of the community aspects of the affected streets.

They are discriminatory in that they appropriate space used by all citizens in order to provide storage space for private cars. The approach is too narrow, based on a view that the purpose of streets is to serve only vehicular thoroughfares and as storage space for privately owned vehicles. The proposals contravene guidance issued by government to protect people going about on foot, and to create liveable communities. A holistic view is required based on the fact that the street is a community space and needs to be made available to all members of the community for their purposes. The present proposals ignore that and will blight the area by creating hostile street environments for the foreseeable future. The proposals ignore the policies of national bodies whose concern it is to protect the interests of vulnerable people. The government publication’ Safer Place – The Planning System and Crime Prevention (2004) specifically states seven key principles that underpin the creation of safer, sustainable communities. Among the seven principles is one for Access and Movement which states that





places should have ‘well defined routes, spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security’. The proposals not only ignore it they contravene it. By introducing narrow canyons of parked cars with no escape passages, contrary to recommendations of ‘Safer Places’, these proposals will invite street crime and create fear of crime, with all that that entails for discouraging vulnerable people from going about on foot. Consultation has been incomplete as it ignores the views of people who use these streets but do not have frontages on them, especially school children and parents who walk their children to school along the affected streets. The present proposals should not be considered further until the following has taken place:

• A review has been carried out and published, of the effects of the parking controls and footway parking in Ferry Road and William Street,

• Parking controls and parking permit limits have been introduced in order to determine the true level of parking demand. Only when that has been one, should any pavement parking options be considered.

• Car clubs have been established in a variety of locations in the proposals areas, and their effects on car parking demand.

• Other arrangements of street space has been considered. For example the establishment of shared spaces in place of separate carriageway and footway spaces in streets whose footways are worst affected by footway parking after the above measures have been taken.

6.0.7 The following are the comments from Cheney School against the pavement parking:

The catchment area for Cheney School extends through Divinity Road area and into Cowley Road, making both Divinity Road and Southfield Road a very well used route for students who walk to school: in the mornings and afternoons and it is very busy for this reason. As I understand it, the proposals would mean that residents in Divinity and Southfield Roads would be allowed to park on the pavements to allow wider access for motor vehicles, thus narrowing the already narrow pavement to less than 1 metre. We encourage students to walk to school for both physical and environmental reasons we feel that the pavement parking would send them a clear message that the pavement that their right as pedestrians are less important than that of the drivers. more over concerned parents will prefer to drive because of safety reasons. Students expressed concern about the difficulty of bringing musical instruments and such to school and the resolution would be for them to walk on the road or be driven to school. It is essential that the council takes into account that traffic accidental death for 12-16 year olds with almost 1 in 5 teenagers reporting being involved in an accident or near miss on their way home from school. We strongly feel that any further proposals in the area that may have an effect on our student and staff must be presented to school in order for us to make the contribution regarding the decision.

6.0.8 Huw Vaughan Jones, Principal Engineer, Transport Development Control in OCC commented that the minimum of 1.0m available footway width for pedestrians fell short of the requirement for disabled users and mothers with prams etc Manual for Streets recommends a minimum width of 1.5m.

6.0.9 There have been a number of comments stating that a width of 1.0m is insufficient for

vulnerable road users. It is felt that there has been some confusion over this issue. A 1m width is proposed as a minimum and will be the exception rather than the rule. The aim is to provide as much footway width as possible on all streets.





6.0.10 Detailed surveys of footway and carriageway widths have been undertaken in the majority of the roads in the Divinity Road area where footway parking has been proposed. Surveys of the remaining roads will be completed as part of the detailed design process. Measurements of footway and carriageway widths have been undertaken approximately every 10 metres to ascertain the extent vehicles would need to encroach the footway. These surveys have ascertained that footway widths on the majority of the roads would be 1.2m or above apart from short lengths, predominately where street furniture is encountered.

6.1 Disability Groups 6.1.1 Disability Groups were invited to respond to this consultation. Responses were received from

the Oxford Association for the Blind and the Oxfordshire County Council‘s Disability and Equality Adviser. They raised concerns that the scheme does not meet with Inclusive Mobility guidance. There were also concerns that the proposals could restrict footways widths to 0.75m as has occurred in other areas although this is not the case in the current proposals.

6.1.2 An extract from the Department for Transport (Dft) Inclusive Mobility Guidance states ‘Some

one who uses a walking stick requires a minimum footway width of 0.75m. A person who uses two sticks, crutches or a walking frame requires 0.9m, a blind person with a long stick or a dog requires 1.1m. A visually impaired person who is guided needs a width of 1.2m. A wheelchair user with an ambulant person side by side needs 1.5m’.

6.1.3 ‘A clear width of 2000mm allows two wheelchairs to pass one another comfortably. This

should be regarded as the minimum under normal circumstances. Where this is not possible because of physical constraints 1500mm could be regarded as the minimum acceptable under most circumstances, giving sufficient space for a wheelchair user and a walker to pass one another. The absolute minimum, where there is an obstacle, should be 1000mm clear space. The maximum length of restricted width should be 6 metres). If there are local restrictions or obstacles causing this sort of reduction in width they should be grouped in a logical and regular pattern to assist visually impaired people’

6.1.4 Manual for Streets details that a wheelchair user without an ambulant person requires 0.9m. 6.1.5 Manoeuvring space is needed for a wheelchair to turn corners or turn around. Skilled users of

manual wheelchairs can turn through 360° in a space no more than 1500mm x 1500mm, 6.1.6 The scheme design has tried to reach a compromise between the needs of residents’ and the

mobility impaired and is a substantial improvement over the current situation as it would provide considerably better access along footways.

• The proposed minimum width of 1 metre is only applicable over short distances in accordance with the guidance stated above.

• The majority of the streets will maintain a minimum width of 1.2 metres and where possible this will be exceeded. This is sufficient to allow a wheelchair user to pass and also sufficient for a blind person with a stick or guide dog. Manual for Streets indicates this is also sufficient for an adult and child to walk side by side. For much of the zone it is not possible to achieve a width of 1.5m without the loss of half the available parking in the road which is likely to be unacceptable to most residents’. However where it is possible to achieve this, these widths will be provided.

• Where possible one footway will remain free of parking.

• On routes with high pedestrian flows at least one footway will remain free of footway parking. Percy Street is an exception to this as the high pedestrian movements will cease when one of the school sites is closed.

• Areas to enable wheelchairs to turn will be provided, particularly on routes where there is likely to be greater movement.





6.2 ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ at junctions 6.2.1 A number of respondents throughout the zone commented that the length of ‘No waiting at

any Time’ at junctions extended too far into the side road, further reducing available parking spaces. At the majority of junctions the ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ has been extended to 10m into the road as set out in the Highway Code. If the carriageway/junction is wide enough it is possible to reduce this length. However, the majority of the roads in the Divinity Road area are narrow and therefore it is not recommended to reduce this length.

6.2.2 As part of the initial design the lengths of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ opposite side road

junctions on most of the roads have been proposed to match the length of the restrictions on the side of the junction. It may be feasible to reduce these lengths thereby providing additional parking bays. It is recommended to undertake a track survey at a typical junction to assess whether it is feasible to reduce the length of the restriction opposite the junction. If it is feasible, it is recommended to shorten the length of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ opposite the junctions to maximise parking on street.

6.3 Permit Charges 6.3.1 Six responses were received from residents who resented the fact that they were being asked

to pay to park outside their houses. On the other hand, several people suggested increasing the price of the residents’ permit for a second car, in order to deter car ownership. However, it is recommended that the charges for residents’ permits are the same as those in the other Oxford CPZ’s (with the exception of the Kassam Stadium area CPZ). These charges are currently £40 each for the first two permits per property. A change in the county council’s permit pricing structure would be a major policy change, requiring separate consultation.

6.4 Residents Permits 6.4.1 Of the 202 respondents, 21 (10%) commented on the number of residents’ permits that

should be provided. Of those commented 6 (3%) respondents preferred 2 permits, 4 (2%) respondents preferred to have 1 permit and 8 (4%) respondents commented that the second permit should be issued if there is a need or by charging more for the second permit.

6.4.2 The current proposals are to allow 2 residents permits per property, with a review being

undertaken after a year of operation. 6.4.3 A car club has been set up by residents in the area and early signs are that people in the area

support the scheme. If its success continues there may be a further reduction in the number of vehicles on street as residents may find they do not need their second cars.

6.4.4 The current proposals have a capacity of approximately 928 spaces, while the estimated

residential demand is 897 vehicles. This indicates that the scheme is expected to fulfil the current parking demand although residents may not always be able to park in their own street, which is similar to the current situation. The demand was estimated using overnight, on-street surveys in October 2007 and October 2008. The higher figure for each street was used.

6.4.5 A number of residents have undertaken parking demand surveys in their own streets as

detailed in section 4.1 (Table 1). These surveys detail the number of cars associated with each property. Unfortunately it was not possible to obtain surveys for all streets, however the current proposals for two permits are expected to result in a slight reduction in the number of vehicles parking on street, as there are properties that have more than 2 vehicles. This will further increase the available space on carriageway.





6.4.6 At the initial consultation, the preferred number of permits was two per property, and the current design exceeds the existing on street demand. The current proposal to restrict the number of permits to 2 per property should reduce the number of vehicles parking within the zone. In addition if the car club is successful it will also reduce the number of vehicles on street. Therefore it is recommended to retain the current proposal to allow 2 residents’ permits per household. Having a general limit of one permit, and allocating a second permit on the basis of need, is likely to be unworkable, because of the varying and complex needs of families, and the very difficult task of prioritising one type of need over another.

6.5 Visitors Permits 6.5.1 There was a mixed opinion regarding the preferred number of visitors’ permits. 26 (13%)

respondents, including a number of single occupancies, felt that 50 visitors’ permits per person would be insufficient. However, it appears that some respondents may have been confused and felt that the 50 permits were per house per year rather than per person.

6.5.2 26 (13%) respondents stated that permits should be issued per house. Eight of these stated

there should be a limit of 100, 4 said it should be 50 and the remaining respondents either did not state a number or commented that permits per resident will favour students/HMOs and so prefer to have permits limited per house.

6.5.3 25 (12%) respondents expressed concerns that multi occupancy properties would be entitled

to a large number of visitors permits, and this might enable them to park extra vehicles in addition to the 2 residents permits.

6.5.4 Whilst we acknowledge this risk, we would not recommend introducing an allocation of visitor

permits different from that in other Oxford CPZ’s. Allowing more visitor permits for single occupancies could reduce the parking space available for residents, while adopting a limit per property could cause difficulties for households with several adults. To help provide space for visitors, ‘shared use’ bays have been proposed throughout the zone, and people requiring care for medical reasons may be entitled to a carers’ permit, which can be used by any person providing them with care in their home.

6.5.5 Of those who commented various suggestions over the number of visitors permits were made

and these included:

• 16 respondents stated there were Insufficient visitors permits;

• 3 respondents said there should be no limit on permits;

• 9 respondents stated that less than 50 visitor permits per person was adequate;

• 6 respondents stated 50 visitors permits per person was adequate;

• 26 respondents stated that permits should be issued per household, 8 of which said it should be restricted to 100 and 4 said it should be 50;

6.6 Shared parking bays 6.6.1 A number of respondents expressed concerns that the shared parking bays were only

available Monday to Friday. Local businesses receive customers at a minimum Monday to Saturday and some local shops may open on Sundays. Residents can receive visitors 7 days a week and may benefit from the shared bays operating everyday. It is reasonable that as the CPZ is operating 24 hours 7 days a week that the shared bays also operate 7 days a week. It is proposed to retain the time limit to ensure residents only parking is maximised in the evenings.

6.6.2 It was suggested that the shared bays could have different timings: where they are serving

residents the time limit could finish at 5:30pm, and where bays are also serving local businesses these could cease to operate at 6:30pm. However, too many different restrictions in an area can be confusing to motorists, therefore it is recommended that the timings of the shared bays should remain as currently proposed but should operate 7 days a week.





6.7 Tradesmen and Skips 6.7.1 A number of residents expressed concerns over the placing of skips and what happens when

tradesmen are required to work in the area. However, it is not recommended to make any changes from the arrangements in place in other Oxford CPZ’s.

6.8 Disabled Bays 6.8.1 A few requests were received for the provision of disabled bays throughout the zone. In

addition some reports were received of redundant bays. These will be investigated and reviewed, and any changes to disabled bays within the zone will be included on the plans in the next phase.

6.9 Fire and Rescue Service 6.9.1 The comments from Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service were as follows:

Access for Fire Appliances within the City has caused Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service (OFRS) some concern for a number of years. The increase in vehicle ownership and resultant parking requirements has grown over the years and we have had instances over the years where Fire Appliances have not been able to proceed along various streets due to insufficient width to manoeuvre the appliance past parked vehicles and this has meant that Fire-fighters have had to proceed to the incident with all their equipment on foot. As a rule we are supportive of parking schemes which improve traffic flow in residential areas and reduce inconsiderate parking, which obstructs Fire Appliance access. I would ask that these proposals for control parking zones when considering emergency service access take into account the following: • Designs that may affect Fire Appliance response times in the event of an emergency. • Our front line rescue appliances (standard fire engine) are approximately 2.4-2.5 metres wide (3.1 including wing mirrors). • Our standard front line appliances are 7.9 metres in length and 3.3 metres high. • Some of our “Special” appliances including the Aerial ladder platform are wider than front

line appliances. • Reduced carriageway running widths on streets can affect fire appliance access. • This can be exacerbated by poor parking on one or both sides of the road (vehicle wing

mirrors can be a hazard particularly where parking on both sides of the road is permitted). • Consideration not only for fire appliance access along the length of a street/road but also

the affect on our ability to deal with an incident at any point on the street/road. • 3 metre running widths only allows approximately 0.25/0.3 metre either side of the Fire

appliance for crews to dismount (in some cases wearing breathing apparatus sets) from the Fire appliance and gain access to the side lockers to remove equipment required to deal with an incident.

• Fire hydrants should not be situated within parking bays. • Designated parking areas are far enough apart to allow access for Fire Appliances. • Consideration of partial pavement parking to maintain emergency vehicle access. • Consideration of bays along a route for emergency service parking to allow crews to

dismount and gain access to side lockers





6.9.2 In the initial design it was proposed that on carriageway parking be retained in some streets where traffic flows were low, even though the carriageway width would be slightly below 3 metres. In view of the concerns of the Fire Rescue Service it is recommended that routes where running lane widths of less than 3 metres have been proposed, are redesigned to incorporate partial footway parking where feasible, or single sided carriageway parking where not feasible.

6.10 Oxfordshire Green Party 6.10.1 The Oxfordshire Green Party (OGP) supports the general concept of the CPZ. However they

are concerned that the consultation is weighted towards car owners as non car owners do not seem to take as much of an interest. They request that a greater emphasis is placed on non car owners in future consultations.

6.10.2 The OGP have serious concerns regarding partial footway parking and believe the minimum

width should be increased to 1.2m. 6.10.3 They suggest that the standard should be one permit per household with a second permit

being issued on a basis of need. They suggest that a point system should be prepared to help determine that need, and that the price of permits should be based on car emissions.

6.10.4 The OGP are in favour of the car club bays. 6.10.5 The OGP suggest a high importance should be placed on local businesses, and that they

should be fully consulted. 6.11 Divinity Road Area Residents’ Association 6.11.1 A response was received response from Divinity Road Residents’ Association they stated:

‘As a Residents Association, we cannot comment constructively on the proposals because a) the data we collected on car ownership has not been analysed and b) we do not know the criteria for permit allocation. We are opposed to parking on pavements because a) it will widen the carriageway and encourage faster traffic speeds b) detrimental to pedestrians and families, people with disabilities and schoolchildren. Other comments: The County Council has given us the 'solution' it wanted to give us - irrespective of the consultation. Any CPZ design cannot be constructed in isolation - we have to look at rat-running, slower 20mph speeds and the rights of residents to enhance life within their community. OCC's attitude towards the HMD factor has been to close its eyes..





7.0 Specific Issues by road 7.1 Bartlemas Close 7.1.1 There were 2 responses from the residents of Bartlemas Close; both opposed to the scheme.

One respondent did not believe that Bartlemas Close should be included in the CPZ, and the second wanted shared bays to be longer than 2 hours, and more visitors permits to be available.

7.1.2 It is not desirable to exclude one road from the scheme as this would result in commuters

and other motorists parking in the close as they will not require a permit. . 7.2 Bartlemas Road 7.2.1 There were 7 responses from the residents of Bartlemas Road. Four responses were in

favour of the proposed layout and the mix of different type of parking bays, 2 were opposed to the proposed layout and the mix of different type of parking bays and 1 did not

express an opinion. 7.2.2 Two respondents expressed concern about the provision of footway parking. The current

proposals are to provide footway parking on both sides of the carriageway, as the majority of residents already park in this manner. Detailed surveys of the carriageway and footway widths indicate that it is feasible to provide footway parking on one side and carriageway parking on the opposite side. It is therefore recommended to revise the layout accordingly and provide footway parking on the north west side. This will ensure that one footway is kept completely free for pedestrians.

7.2.3 ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions can be provided in the detailed design for those

respondents who have requested it across their accesses. 7.3 Cowley Road 7.3.1 There were 3 responses from the residents of Cowley Road, 2 of which were in favour of the

scheme and 1 against. 7.3.2 Two respondents expressed concern regarding the need for business permits. However, it is

not proposed to adopt different procedures from other Oxford CPZs, where two business permits can be issued if an essential operational need can be demonstrated. These are transferable between vehicles.

7.3.3 It is not proposed to make any change to the parking bays and restrictions on Cowley Road. 7.4 Divinity Road 7.4.1 There were 53 responses from the residents of Divinity Road. 22 responses agreed to the

proposed parking layout and 30 were opposed. 7.4.2 Carriageway parking is currently proposed on one side at the north eastern end of Divinity

Road, as the road is too narrow to provide carriageway parking on both sides on this section. Currently residents park partially on the footway on both sides of the carriageway. Many do not park well and therefore the footway is significantly obstructed. The current scheme was proposed as it is a popular route used by pupils of Cheney School. Due to the restricted footway widths pupils have been observed walking in the carriageway. Therefore it was considered the footways should be kept clear for pedestrians.





7.4.3 Twenty residents were opposed to the proposal for parking on one side of the carriageway at the top of Divinity Road. They were concerned about the significant loss of available parking and an increase in vehicle speeds due to the wider running lane. Of the residents who expressed an opinion about parking on both sides of Divinity Road, 9 were in favour of footway parking, 3 against it and 7 had no opinion.

7.4.4 It is proposed to revise the parking layout to provide parking on both sides of Divinity Road,

between Hill Top Road and Stone Street, with partial footway parking on one side which will leave one pavement free of parking.

7.4.5 There were 4 concerns about the parking bay in front of the Co-op near the junction with

Cowley Road. The site is reportedly subject to regular congestion due to a conflict of vehicles entering and exiting the junction. Therefore it has been requested that the ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ is extended to restrict parking near the junction. The site has been reviewed and whilst some congestion does occur, motorists tend to cope with it well, therefore no changes are recommended.

7.4.6 Seven respondents in Divinity Road, opposed the number of shared parking bays on Stone

Street. Some felt that these should be Permit Holders only to alleviate the problems associated with the loss of parking on Divinity Road. Shared parking bays can be utilised by residents without restriction and therefore they will still be able to use these bays. Furthermore, the proposed changes to the scheme mean there is not a significant loss of parking.

7.5 Hill Top Road 7.5.1 There were 30 responses from the residents of Hill Top Road. 11 responses were in favour

of the current proposed layout and 18 were against. 7.5.2 A number of respondents were concerned that there is insufficient shared parking along Hill

Top Road. Some residents were concerned about insufficient shared parking bays and lack of parking for short term visitors on weekends and evenings.

7.5.3 The shared parking bays may be added during detailed design in Hill Top Road. The issue of

the timings in shared bays has been discussed earlier on in the report and it is recommended that they will be in operation over the weekend as well as weekdays.

7.5.4 Nine responses were against the footway parking on one side of the carriageway, and there

were no responses in favour of pavement parking on Hill Top Road. Some residents preferred single sided carriageway parking to avoid footway parking. The current proposals were designed to maximise the available parking in the Divinity Road Area zone. Hill Top Road has a smaller demand for on street parking than other streets. However, it is felt that additional bays should be provided to accommodate visitors to residents properties, and to provide some over spill parking for neighbouring roads.

7.5.5 Scope House is located in Hilltop Road objected to the footway parking proposals. If footways

are below 1.5m residents in wheel chairs may have difficulties exiting their gates and turning onto the footway. It is therefore recommended to ensure residents of Scope House can exit the property and to review the level of parking provided on Hill Top Road to ensure that wheelchair users are able to turn at intervals on the south east side where footway parking is currently proposed.

7.5.6 Requests for ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ across accesses may be addressed during detailed

design.





7.5.7 Hill Top Road Residents’ Association (HTRRA) commented that a 24/7 CPZ is not an advantage for them as the parking demand in Hill Top Road is less than other roads in the zone. The disabled and elderly residents expressed strong concern about their ability to get out of their house into ambulances/taxis if they have pavement parking outside their door. HTRRA preferred to have 50 or 100 visitor permits per household.

From the Hill Top Road Association survey:

• For the proposed parking layout - 20 households were against, 2 for and 4 abstentions;

• For the mix of different type of parking bays - 19 households were in favour, 4 against and 3 abstentions;

• For the position of proposed car club bays - 20 households were in favour, 2 against and 4 abstentions;

• For the allowance of 50 visitor permits per resident aged over 17 - 19 households were against the number of visitor permits, 2 in favour and 5 abstentions.

7.6 Manzil Way 7.6.1 One response was received from the East Oxford Health Centre in Manzil Way. They

were in favour of the mix of different types of parking and the number of visitors’ permits. However, they were against the proposed layout as the proposed plan shows the old East Oxford Health Centre building layout. It is proposed to review the layout and ensure the proposals correspond to the new building layout.

7.7 Minster Road 7.7.1 There were 16 responses from the residents of Minster Road. Five responses were in favour

of the proposed layout and 11 were against. 7.7.2 Two respondents objected to the proposed ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ on the turning area at

the south eastern end of Minster Road. The proposed restriction is to prevent parking in the turning area and to ensure vehicles are able to turn safely and avoid vehicles having to reverse back up the road which can be hazardous.

7.7.3 There were 2 requests for the shared bays to cover evenings and weekends in Minster Road.

The issue of the timings in shared bays has been discussed earlier in the report and it has been recommended that they will be in force over the weekend as well as weekdays.

7.7.4 Four respondents objected to footway parking in Minster Road, many of them concerned

about widths being reduced to 1m. Pavement parking is proposed on one side of Minster Road with a minimum footway width of 1.2 metres.

7.8 Morrell Avenue 7.8.1 There were 13 responses received from the residents of Morrell Avenue. 10 were in favour of

the proposed layout of the parking scheme, and 2 against. 7.8.2 Two respondents were concerned about the enforcement of proposed shared parking bays in

Morrell Avenue. This may be a suitable location for the introduction of parking meters, which help to enforce short term parking.

7.8.3 One respondent requested a Permit Holders only bay be located in front numbers 140 to 146

Morrell Avenue. The current parking regime in Morrell Avenue is unlimited parking bays. 2 hours, shared parking bays are proposed in the scheme to accommodate the customers of nearby local businesses and short term visitors.





7.9 Parsons Place 7.9.1 There were 9 responses from the residents of Parsons Place. One response was in favour of

the proposed parking layout and 7 against. 7.9.2 Requests for ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ across accesses may be addressed during detailed

design. 7.9.3 One respondent was against the proposed ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ on both sides of the

junction of Parsons Place with Tawney Street. ’No Waiting at Any Time’ is proposed to facilitate safe turning movements at junctions. However, it may be possible to reduce the extent of the restrictions. In view of this, tracked surveys of junctions are recommended to assess the feasibility of reducing the lengths of the restrictions as part of the detailed design.

7.9.4 One respondent objected to the proposed ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ within the turning area at

the end of Parsons Place. The proposed restriction is to prevent parking in the turning area and to ensure vehicles are able to turn safely and avoid vehicles reversing back up the road which can be hazardous. Reversing on streets where widths are restricted can lead to vehicles being struck. In addition it will be more difficult for drivers to see any pedestrians who may step into the road between parked vehicles.

7.10 Southfield Park 7.10.1 One response was received, which was in favour of the parking scheme. 7.10.2 Since the preparation of the initial design, it has been brought to our attention that the area at

the north east end of Southfield Park is designated as a private road. It is recommended to assess the feasibility of the proposals but it will not be possible to propose parking restrictions without the agreement of the landowner.

7.11 Southfield Road 7.11.1 Two parking layouts were sent to the residents of Southfield Road. The first option sent with

the main consultation pack consisted of partial footway parking on alternate sides of the carriageway and carriageway parking on the opposite side. Following requests a second option was prepared due to concerns regarding footway parking. This proposal consisted of carriageway parking only on alternate sides. This proposal was sent to residents on 18 November 2008.

7.11.2 There were 49 responses from the residents of Southfield Road. 15 of which were received

prior to the second proposal being sent out. Of these 9 were in favour of the proposed scheme with partial footway parking on one side and carriageway parking on the opposite side, and 5 against. 1 respondent did not state a preference.

7.11.3 Of the 34 who responded after they received the second option 12 stated they preferred

Option 1 which consisted of partial footway parking on one side and carriageway parking on the opposite side. 6 respondents stated they preferred Option 2 which consisted of parking on carriageway parking only on alternate sides of the carriageway.

7.11.4 Two of the respondents who preferred parking on both sides of the carriageway stated that

that they did not want this achieved with footway parking. 7.11.5 Currently residents park on the carriageway on both sides. For the majority of the length of

Southfield Road this leaves a running lane of 2.8m. Due to the concerns of the fire service it is recommended that the current practice should not be retained and that if adequate provision of residents’ parking is to be retained, partial footway parking on one side of the carriageway is the only option.





7.11.6 Of the 48 responses, 14 made comments on footway parking. Seven responses were against footway parking, 5 were in favour and 2 were in favour of footway parking on one side only.

7.11.7 Two respondents were concerned about the location of proposed shared parking bays near

Sinnet Court as they consider it may encourage students to park and it will not be available for short term visitors. Residents of Sinnet Court will not be eligible for residents’ permits and therefore will not be permitted to park in the shared bays for more than 2 hours.

7.11.8 There were 2 requests for the shared bays to cover evenings and weekends. The issue of the

timings in shared bays has been discussed earlier in the report and it is recommended that they will be in force over weekends as well as weekdays.

7.11.9 Requests for ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ across accesses may be addressed during detailed

design.

7.12 Stone Street 7.12.1 There were 3 responses from the residents of Stone Street of which 1 response was in favour

of the proposed parking layout and 2 against. 7.12.2 One of those who objected requested ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ across their access. This can

be addressed as part of detailed design. 7.13 Tawney Street 7.13.1 There were 5 responses from the residents of Tawney Street of which 4 responses were in

favour of the proposed parking layout and 1 against. 7.13.2 One respondent objected to footway parking as they are unable to exit their property with

their bicycle. A footway width of 1.2m will be retained along Tawney Road which should enable them to exit their property.

7.14 Warneford Lane 7.14.1 No responses were received from Warneford Lane residents. 7.15 Warneford Road 7.15.1 There were 8 responses from the residents of Warneford Road, of which 4 responses were in

favour of the proposed parking layout, and 4 against. 7.15.2 Two respondents’ commented that the proposed ‘No Waiting at Any Time at junctions is

excessive and reduces parking spaces. The proposed ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions at the junction of Warneford Road are set back to 10 metres in accordance with the Highway Code. The junction is narrow and turning movements are tight and therefore it is not recommended to reduce the length of the restrictions. However, a track of movements at junctions is recommended to assess if the extent of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ opposite junctions can be reduced.





APPENDIX A

INFORMAL CONSULTATION COMMENTS





Bartlemas Close

Ref. No

Comment

DR148

Q1: I was dismayed to see that my street (Bartlemas Close) is still included in the proposed CPZ, despite my protestations in your last consultation. Bartlemas Close does not have, and never has had, a parking problem. It is not in the Divinity Road or Magdalen Road areas, or even in the same postcode district or electoral ward. The fact that you are proposing a 3 hour parking limit in the street (which will presumably rarely be enforced) indicates that you actually agree with the above. Bartlemas Close SHOULD NOT be part of the scheme. I URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER !

DR172

Q1: I would like to have white line painted in front of my drive to stop cars parking there. Q2: Would prefer longer duration for family visitors, who often stay for 3-4 hours on visitors permit. Q4: Would prefer more visitor permits to be available but at a reasonable price.





Bartlemas Road

Ref No. Comments

DR13 If we have pavement parking on both sides, the carriageway will be wider, therefore more temptation to speed. Please can we have pavement on one side only, then we have a free pavement as well!

DR56

Q1. Layout for the parking scheme is not acceptable; because it does not take into account the houses those have more than 2 cars which they rely upon in order to go to work. The parking currently appears to be adequate, although busy at times, but still manageable. Permits discriminate against people who have least 2 cars etc. As a council tax payer, I should be fully entitled to park outside my own house without paying an annual charge. Q2. Parking layout will encourage more people to park here for short-stay who are not residents. Hence increasing more traffic on such small roads. Families, friends won't be able to visit on such short stay. It's restricting for those It is restricting for those residents who actually pay to live on this road. Q3. Proposed car club bays are not acceptable. No one in my house would ever rent a car daily. We would want a car to use as whenever we'd want to . And I don't see why these bays should be based in Cowley , as why would people visit this area! Q4. As a council tax payer we pay in excess of £1500/year to live in this area. I find it acceptable that I would have to ration how many visitors I could have in a year. There's five people living in my house-we should not be limited to visitors. The whole idea is outrageous. It is not taking into consideration the individuals, it appears to be a complete money grabbing scheme with absolutely no logic to it what so ever. It is not realistic to this area, if people complain about parking then they should also be aware that this area bound to be high in students and young professionals with two major universities in the near vicinity . It's inevitable for parking to be limited but don't penalise the majority.

DR62

I am not thrilled about on-pavement parking unless there are marked bays leaving space for pedestrians, wheelchairs, pushchairs etc. and unless the parking restrictions are strictly enforced. I would also like to see strict enforcement of no parking zones at corners. and intersections -an ambulance taking my husband to hospital had to reverse all the way down the road because it couldn't get past cars parked at the corner.

DR154 Q2. We feel that there isn't enough space in the road for each house to have 2 permits and park therefore all available space should be used for residents. Q4. Too many visitor permits

DR155

Q1. I wish to have double yellow lines in front of my garage, replacing the current white line. House no 61, Bartlemas Road. Please see attached map. Q4. 50 visitor permits means less than 1 visitor per week. I am a senior citizen with a large extended family, not resident in Oxford, who visit me. I would suggest 100 permits per year. My house is not marked on your map. Please find the enclosed correction to the map.





Cowley Road

Ref No. Comments

DR4 Q4. As a Business, am I entitled to a permit. We have a number of cars (4) But normally only 2-3 are in each day, however which 2 or 3 does vary. There is no car park option locally and the cars are needed for us to do our job, can you help?

DR78

Q1. As a well established local business we have 7 vehicles constantly going in and out of the office , inspecting properties, doing viewings etc. We have over 40 members of the public come to the office each day , 22 on average have driven. Where will we park?(in 2 spaces no where near the office) and where will our customers park. Q2. About the mix of different parking places- If we need to park for one hour , then go out, then return after an hour or so , we will ticketed I presume. Q3. About the proposed car club bay- I think these are a waste of bays. These could be bays used for parking. Local residents must realise how important our businesses are. If we move away the Cowley Rd will be derelict!! Why do any of this? Why not simply get a 'Ringo' prepay metre system (like car parks at station etc) going with , perhaps monthly in advance payments and reductions or even free for residents! Then a warden can check and there will be no problems.





Divinty Road

Ref No. Comments

DR10

Q1. Parking between 90 and 190 Divinity Rd has been reduced by half, affecting about 100 properties. There is only one car club bay within easy reach of these properties on Stone Street. Too drastic a reduction. Too few alternative car club bays available. Where are all the residents’ cars going to go? Should be some partial pavement parking in this part of Divinity Road. Q2. Very little visitor parking available. Q3.Too few to replace all parking lot on northern end of Divinity Road. Equivalent to about out car driver per week. Not many, but probably ok for a town with such good public transport.

DR11 My only worry has been that I am a blue badge holder and have to live on benefits, therefore £40 permit fee is untenable. So, although I don’t think this would be the case it has been a concern.

DR12

Q1. If residents parking scheme's pushed through, I think 18 space deficit below current (4am in October) resident demand is unacceptable (Divinity Road) Existing uncontrolled parking at least slows the traffic down. Bin lorries can get through. Fire engine or ambulance. Buyers to obtain too wide for the existing conditions vehicles is just perverse. Q2. I see no point in the red category. Commuters would be easily stopped by the green 2 hrs at time category. some people think the green category would be abused by overnight non-resident parkers, I don't think this is a significant danger. I am against the scheme - I'd leave things as they are except for painting double yellow lines on corners etc. and getting people to cut back their overhanging vegetation.

DR17

Q1. very restricted opposite nos. 128, 130, 132 may have the effect of speeding traffic up and taking out too many spaces. Manzil Way- the mosque - how will all the attenders fit their cars in?! And no they won’t go on the bus! Q3. Car club bays - great idea

DR23

Q1. Continuous parking on east side of Divinity Road in the vicinity of Stone St would provide more spaces. Removal of chicanes and 20mph limit would provide more spaces. A one way scheme particularly in Southfield Rd would allow parking on both sides without encroaching on pavements. I strongly object to the concept of parking on pavements.

DR24

Q1. Between 154 & 158 Divinity Road- Busy gated multi user driveway to garages and off-street parking for four properties (154,158,160 Divinity Road and backing property on Southfield Road) - all with legal access & usage rights. Please arrange double yellow lines across this driveway access with reasonable extensions to permit adequate sight-lines (as proposed parking on this side of road would potentially hide vehicles approaching up and down the hill often at fair speed) and also safe turning in & out of narrow drive (can be very difficult & sometimes impossible to turn in when cars parked right up to entrance on both sides) -207 & 209 Morrell Avenue - please arrange 'white access protection line' across the dropped kerb to protect the off-street driveway parking for these 2 properties. Q3. In general - no- suggest such vehicles should have 'standard permit holder' rights. Agree that something needs to be done & this may help with some 'fine tuning & adjustments as experience dictates.

DR26 Usual allowance of 50 visitor permits per resident aged over 17 is suitable for this area.





DR32

Q1. Parking scheme layout for the lower end of the Divinity Road is acceptable. But it is not acceptable for the higher end. Very much concerned that loss of parking to be reduced to one side only will cause great difficulty to residents in finding anywhere to park. This could be considerably relieved by changing proposed green zones in Stone Street and Hill Top Road to Red . However I am also concerned that if parking is only available on one side , traffic will speed up and sometimes mount the kerb endangering pedestrians. Q4. Too many existing MOH's(usually student households). These households could acquire 250-300 permits per annum, which would be enough for an extra car to be permanently parked during Brookes term time. Overall I really appreciate the effort and proposals being made for a CPZ in our area. Only real concern is for Divinity Road between Stone Street and Hill Top Road. i.e.., Many residents would be unable to find parking space and pedestrians may be endangered by passing cars/vans speeding or mounting kerbs.

DR33

Q1. Please reconsider top end of Divinity Road -remaining parking on only one side of the street will result in cars increasing their speed. It will also increase the pressure on parking in Stone Street where a number of Divinity Road residents already park their cars on a regular basis. Q4. 50 visitor permits is far too many . It would mean that a house full of Oxford Brookes students would have 250-300 permits per year enabling several to keep their cars in the neighbourhood for the whole of term time.

DR40

Q1. We do not understand that each household is eligible for 2 permits and yet in Divinity Road you are proposing parking on one side of the road only. Why not have pavement parking on both sides of the road as in Southfield Road. Why not have a one way street system in Divinity and Southfield Roads. We are in favour of resident parking but not in favour of restricting the amount of parking available which is already in very short supply.

DR48 Q1. Why are the double yellow lines outside Nos. 60 and 62, Divinity Road?

DR59 Prefer the timing of Controlled parking zone to be from Monday - Friday as the street is far less congested on weekends and this would allow more public use of the parking space.

DR60 Given that there is a large number of HMO's in the area with residents aged over 17, providing 50 visitor permits per resident will not alleviate the problems. Possibly 50 visitor permits per full permit would work.

DR67

Q1. Parking layout has insufficient parking spaces for the residents in Divinity Road . Green shaded (permit/shared parking) in Stone Street and Hill Top should be Red (permit holders only) to alleviate this. Q4. Student houses may have 5 residents over 17. Providing 50 visitor permits per resident would mean 250 permits per house and would enable student friends from other streets to use these permits every day of term time. This would obviously affect residents' parking. Parking on one side only at the top end of Divinity Road is broadly welcome as it would leave pavements clear. But consideration needs to be given to measures to reduce speed on this stretch.





DR72

Q1. In general yes. Only two suggestions. a) The corner of Stone Street and Divinity Road is always a problem area for traffic (not parking) and there are often grid lock situation there. We think the yellow line, no parking should be advanced one space each side of the road to allow more manoeuvrability for cars. We understand this would regrettably loose two parking bays. b) A similar problem where Divinity Road meets the Cowley Road, by the Co-op shop. This is the site of regular jams with traffic trying to get out of Divinity Road to turn right, traffic coming off the Cowley Rd, cars park badly for a quick trip to the shop, large delivery vans. It is unrealistic to think any scheme will stop this happening, but we think that the yellow , no parking area on both sides of the road, should extend up the Divinity Road a bit more , one bay at least. We are glad to see the parking proposals in Divinity Road , just below Minster Rd, acknowledge this is an area of danger at present. Q3. We think the bay at the bottom of Divinity Road is unwise. This will always be a problem area and not safe for a community car. Could it be moved a few bays up, for example, next to the disabled bay on the east side?

DR72

I write to urge the practice of allowing cars to park partly on the pavement should be kept to the absolute minimum. Ideally it should never happen. Pavements are for pedestrians, and agonies over parking cars might help to change attitudes to cars Vs public transport. Please take pedestrians seriously.

DR74

Q1. Could the permit holder parking on the east side of Divinity Rd be extended down to No. 138? Alternatively why not have continuous east side parking down to No. 128 instead of west side parking? This would provide several more spaces. Could the chicanes in Divinity Road be revived? They do not appear to achieve anything other than regular gridlocks. (and places for fly tipping). I get around with a stick and I have to be careful, I therefore hate pavement parking. At the junction of Stone St with Morrell Avenue has 5 or 6 cars close to the wall and once a blind man was standing helplessly wondering what the obstruction on the pavement was. one feels that today car owners are the most considered people in the community. In the days when I drove I would not have parked to give so much hardship to the elderly and people with buggies and children. I also find bicycles on the pavement - they tear along when I step off on to the pavement. I have to watch out after seeing one coming at the last minute and losing my balance and landed in JR. for a day and night with a hole in my head. some years before I was hit on a corner by a bicycle coming round the other way. I have filled in a form to our member who sends out Questionnaires.

DR82

Q1. Not enough overall parking spaces for residents and students cars. Q2. Too complicated, bureaucratic (as usual). Q3. This car club idea is pure fantasy. Q4. Too complicated and bureaucratic (usual stealth taxation of the vulnerable). Get some real people to make the streets one way.

DR87

Q2. Does not want shared parking bays in Stone Street. Even 1or 2 hour non permit holders will be filled up by student occupiers and attenders of Oxford Brooks. Limit of 2 permits per property. 145 Divinity Road is accessed off Stone Street. It has 6 flats mostly owner occupied, each flat would require a permit.

DR89

Q2. Not very clear if 24hr or 2/3. Still contrary to partial pavement parking, none of the streets within the boundary zone have large enough pavements. Cars that use this practice already i.e. Divinity Road from Stone Street should be fined. My strong opposition to the pavement parking. 1 metre of pavement for people on foot is unacceptable. There will be no room for wheelchairs, pushchairs, or people walking together and with children etc. Cars will damage kerbstones and pose a risk to those on foot. If there are fewer parking spaces, (is suggesting maximum 2 per household) people will be compelled to find other transport solutions, such as car clubs, bikes &public transport.





DR95

Q1. Will something be done about pavement parking on the following junction where there are dropped kerb for pedestrians? Parsons Place/Morrell Ave; Parsons Place/Tawney Street; Stone Street/Tawney Street, they need to either be formalised or made unparkable they make the area look very messy. Open up East Avenue. Is proposed 'no waiting at any time' the same as double yellow lines? I would like DYL outside my house/driveway. Will visitor permits cover use of 'skips' in the road or will there be some other arrangement? There are always loads of builders working around here. Will Taxis and hire cars require business permits. Parking on both sides of Southfield Road? It will be so narrow, it will encourage more traffic up Divinity Road.

DR98

Q1. Concerned that the provision of parking in Stone Street is inadequate. I use my car only at weekends and occasionally return on a Sunday night or early Monday all to find only spaces that would be double yellowed under the proposed layout. But perhaps some of the other cars are commuters.

DR99

Q1. I think that the default situation should be one permit per household. Those that need more could then apply for them within certain criteria. The problem in this area of multi-occupancy housing and the attendant presume that this puts on parking will not be solved by a blanket 2 permits per household.

DR105

Q1. You are proposing NWAAT along one side of Divinity Road where currently vehicles are parked on both sides (using some of the pavement). My concerns are the proposed restriction will allow through traffic a wider path and therefore increase their speed, as already happens when a cars have a gap to get through. There is not enough space for parking even with cars on both sides of the street. What provision will need to be made for skips during building work? We are planning extensive work on the house which will improve the view from the street.

DR107

Q1. We park our car on our drive, but because it is too narrow it is impossible to load/unload passengers, child seats, luggage without parking across the drive or outside our house. Nos 60 & 62 are the only family houses between 50-70. We are elderly with semi resident young grand children. No 62 has very young twins. We were told by your office that the no waiting spaces were needed to help traffic flow at the chicane below. But from our observation we have noted that there are very few hold ups outside our house, which are usually caused by inconsiderate driving closer to the chicane to which free space at No. 60 would make the difference. We hold regular pm meetings to which several very elderly plus infirm people come. Our access provides a guaranteed space for them, most of the day it is clear. The 4 garages shown at the bottom of our garden went in 1978 and the front garage is too narrow. Q4. Less than one visitor permit per week is inadequate. If we had a meeting once a month of say 5 people, a few visitors a week their allowance would be gone in no time at all. We support the ideas of having one permit per household, with a second permit issued on proof of work or children need, permits for only cars registered in the area. This will encourage students to leave their cars at home. Parking should be permitted on both sides of Divinity Road above Stone Street, as this makes the speeds of through traffic much slower.

DR110 Q4. 50 permits for residents is too much and will do nothing to improve the problem of parking by multi-occupant houses that are the principal difficulty in that area. I suggest 100 per household.





DR121

Q1: a) Strongly approve of full pavement width retention for whole of Divinity Rd and general layout. But b) Concerned that long stretches of one side only parking (in Upper Divinity Rd) may encourage speeding. In general, urgent need for effective measures to implement and monitor proposed 20 mph limit. Also at bottom end of Divinity Road (odd side) the double yellow line (No Parking) ought to be much longer replacing the green line/shared parking. Parking in that patch is a hazard and frequent cause of hold-ups at the Divinity Rd/Cowley Rd junction. Q2: See above for the Green slot at bottom of Divinity Rd (odd side) - needs to be replaced by Yellow. WHY is the yellow so very short here compared with other junctions and at such a major junction. Q4: Serious concern over excessive number of permits in circulation due to number so multi-occupied households. Much better to allocate per household and preferably a number larger than 100 per household. 1) Please protect our entrance (No. 111) with a YELLOW line (in place of the present white line) as also being requested by Nos. 109, 108 and 112. 2) Please consider reducing allocation of Resident's permits from 2 to 1, with a limited number of 2nd permits available.

DR123 Q1: No residents only parking outside our house - therefore likely to fill up with non-residents. Q2: As above

DR124

Q1: It will increase traffic volume - one sided parking at top of Divinity Rd only will send a clear message to motorists that this is the through road for traffic and that Southfield Rd and Stone St (with their two sided parking) are to be avoided. It will impose an increased and disproportionate difficulty in parking for residents at the top of Divinity Rd. Between Stone St and Hill Top Rd there will be space for only 24 cars to park for what would be 100 residents’ permits. Add on to this the huge number of visitors permits - residents here will have to pay for a permit in an area where they simply will not be able to find a space to park! TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. TOTAL INEQUALITY OF TREATMENT for those of us at the top of Divinity Rd. Please see my more detailed comments below. Q2: The mix is acceptable. The total inadequacy of parking space for residents allowed for by one-sided parking only at the upper end of Divinity Rd IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. It is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Q4: Absolutely not. Allocating so many to each resident over 17 in multi-occupational houses (many of which contain in excess of 5/6 residents - many of whom have cars and friends with cars), will render the situation at the top of Divinity Rd completely untenable. Strong views were expressed at the first consultation meeting regarding the allocation of permits to people/students in multi-occupied houses - and my sense was that the general feeling was that this should NOT be allowed unless those people in the HMOs were council tax payers. Given the levels of stress it is now proposed to place on residents such as myself at the top of Divinity Rd, I am extremely concerned that I shall have to be paying for a permit and will not be able to find a place to park my (one) car. I am deeply concerned that we at the top of Divinity Rd are being treated inequitably compared to our neighbours in Southfield Rd, Stone St, Hill Top Rd, Minster Rd. Please see my more details comments below. I find the current proposal for parking zones in the Divinity Road area as sent out to residents and exhibited at the Regal on 20/21 November totally unacceptable. The fact that the top of Divinity Road has been allocated parking on one side only, while surrounding streets of similar width (Southfield Rd, Hill Top Rd, Stone St, Minster Rd, Warneford Rd) have been allocated two-sided parking a) demonstrates an inequality of treatment and b) will have the following consequences which disadvantages residents at the top of Divinity Rd (where I live) in relation to their neighbours in nearby streets in the following ways: 1) Increase in Traffic Volume - a) the one sided parking at the top of Divinity Road only will send the clear message to motorists that this is the through road for traffic flow and





that Southfield Road and Stone Street (with their two-sided parking and consequent less easy two way traffic flow) are to be avoided. b) This will increase traffic volume, traffic fumes, speed and consequent danger to children and pedestrians needing to cross the road here. 2) Increased and disproportionate difficulty in parking a) One sided parking at the top of Divinity Rd (between Stone Street and Hill Top Rd) will allow parking space for approx 24 cars. b) This will cover an area of approx 50 houses. c) An allocation of 2 permits per house will generate up to 100 residents' permits for this section of road. d) Additional visitors parking permits (if computed in at 50 permits per resident over 17 - and many of these houses contain 6 or more residents over 17) will result in extremely high likelihood that permanent residents will not be able to find a place to park their car. e) Residents will additionally now be expected to pay for a permit with a minimal likelihood of being able to find a parking place. f) This situation compares unfavourably with the better chances that neighbours in Southfield Rd, Stone St etc have of being able to park their cars. g) On grounds of equality, if two-sided parking is deemed acceptable for other streets of similar width in the area, fairness dictates that the same has to be applied to the top of Divinity Rd. h) If one-sided parking is applied to the top of Divinity Rd, then the same should apply elsewhere in the area to streets of similar width - to balance out the flow of traffic and burden of load. PROPOSAL TO MAXIMISE FAIRNESS AND THE SHARING OF THE LOAD. I would like to propose that consideration be given to:- 1) Allowing 2-sided parking at the top of Divinity Rd (with pavement parking allowed on one side only so as to allow the free passage of wheelchairs and mothers pushing prams) 2) Applying a one-way system to the top portion of Divinity Road, with one of two possibly systems in place: a) Option 1 - 1. Uphill moving traffic being directed through Stone St and Morrell Ave. 2. Downhill traffic coming down Divinity Rd. 3. Two-way traffic operating on the section of the lower portion of Divinity Rd below Stone St, where the width of the road will allow this in addition to two sided parking. 4) More effective traffic calming measures/humps being used to reduce speed of traffic which will now have a clear run. b) Option 2 - 1. Uphill moving traffic being directed through Divinity Rd (with the option of using Stone St/Morrell Ave). 2. Downhill traffic being directed through Hill Top Rd/Southfield Rd, which will now become one -way all the way down. 3. More effective traffic calming measures/humps being used to reduce speed of traffic which will now have a clear run. Applying either of these Options will: Balance traffic flow, enable a more equitable parking facility in the area, and CRUCIALLY: share the load more fairly between residents of several streets in the area, instead of imposing the entire burden on those at the top of Divinity Road.

DR124

If pavement parking is implemented as the Oxfordshire Highways are currently proposing in the neighbouring streets - with only 1 side of the street with pavement parking - the other side will retain its full width for the - children, mothers punish prams, etc. My objection is at the top of Divinity road they are proposing parking only on one side of the road in contrast to the neighbouring roads which are being allocated 2 sides parking.. The unfortunate consequence of this, is that it will only allow a maximum of 24 car parking spaces for 50 spaces - that means it covers 100 permits. This is before the number of visitors' permits is computed. It is not hard to see that this will result in a untenable situation for car owners in this section of Divinity Road, resulting as it will in our having to pay for permits only to have nowhere to park!. I am writing it you to lobby for additional parking solutions to be applied. It will send clear message to the motorists that our street for through traffic. I make proposals which aim to balance the burden, to treat everyone equitably and to take into account the pedestrians' concerns.





DR137

Q1: The scheme on Divinity Road will increase speed and volume of traffic in the top portion of the street making it more dangerous. The suggestion for parking on one side of the road indicates a clear plan to channel more traffic through Divinity Rd which we are very opposed to. It will also encourage drivers to mount onto the pavement to pass each other which will be dangerous for residents. For us as a family living at 169 it would mean crossing the road with 3 small children directly onto fast lane traffic to get to our car ! This is a scary prospect. The majority of the portion of the street between Stone Street and Hill Top Road is residential families with many young children. Easy and safe access to our car is essential which the proposed scheme would not provide. Q2: This doesn't seem to affect our portion of the street so we do not have particular comments about it. Q3: We would rather it wasn't on Stone Street as it is a good street to park easily for us and to unload children if there is no space in front of our house. Q4: May be to be reviewed after a year as suggested. Other Comments: The proposed scheme for the top of Divinity Road is dangerous, impractical and doesn't provide any way of limiting speed or sufficient space for parking. So as it stands, we are against this scheme. On kerb parking is allowed on other portions and works well on Divinity Rd. We would favour the parking permit scheme as long as parking is kept as it is at the moment on one side of the road. It is about time that as part of the traffic and parking considerations, a one way system was reconsidered for Divinity Rd and Southfield Rd as well as a speed limit of 20pmh with effective ways of implementing it.

DR138 Q3: Do not think Car Club will work.

DR140

Q1: We gather there is more than one possible layout for Divinity Rd, but we did not get round to seeing the others on display in the Regal due to lack of spare time. The one circulated looks reasonably OK except for proposed parking too close to the junction with Minster Rd. However, we note with alarm the considerable amount of pavement parking, especially on Southfield Rd. The pavements are too narrow for this - it will be impossible for the people with pushchairs etc, and even those carrying 2 large bags of shopping. It could be DANGEROUS as you can never be sure when some vehicle will invade the pavement. Also vehicles speed on Southfield Rd as it is straight, so you can't have elderly people etc. crossing it to gain access to wider stretches of pavement several times in the course of walking up /down the road. Q2: Not sure - difficult to visualise how it will work out as we don't drive. Q3: Not sure - we do not drive. Q4: It may have to be fewer than 50. Other comments: Large cars etc, should not be allowed to park on residential streets - they block the view of those trying to cross over and could cause accidents. Also they would take up even more of the pavement than cars do. We have had a number of large (and often unsightly) vans parking for extended periods in Divinity Rd over the years.

DR 141

Q1: The proposal to allow parking on only one side of the upper part of Divinity Rd with double yellow lines on the other side will merely serve to push parking further down the road. With 2 permits per house this will mean that there is insufficient space lower down the road. There needs to be pavement parking at the top end - otherwise there will simply be insufficient space.





DR142

Q1: The 'No Waiting at any Time' areas upstream and downstream of No. 52 Divinity Rd mean that the available parking for permit holders outside Nos. 50-56 will be under excessive pressure and will selectively and specifically inconvenience the residents and visitors to Nos, 50-56 Divinity Rd. This small parking area will be under 'direct pressure' from numbers 44-62 as well as 'indirect pressure' from other houses and visitors. Q4: The very large number of students in Divinity Road would distort the availability of parking. In many houses this would be equivalent to more than one extra full time residents permit. Other comments: I am the landlord of No.52 and visit the house for up to 25 days each year to carry out repairs, decoration and maintenance (also involving the loading and unloading of materials and equipment). The current proposals do not make any provision for me to do this. Writing to the traffic Manager to beg for a permit every time I want to visit and to do this in advance - is very unsatisfactory. I do not live at No. 52. It is let to students each year.

DR142

I am concerned that under the current proposals , there is no provision for me to visit my property as a landlord for maintenance purpose which is on about 25 days a year. I understood that we can get permit only if the car is registered at this address. how are tenants who are students going to get allocation of residents’ permits? they will not, I suspect change their driving license address to a rented property which they are going to be in for 1 year or less

DR143

Q1: Exceptionally unfair on the residents to remove half the parking at the top of Divinity Rd. There will be chaos, particularly as student residences will be allowed 2 places PLUS permits for half (or more of the Academic Year. Pavement parking is ESSENTIAL and in this are it’s possible on one side of the road. the 'easy through route for traffic' argument against will simply turn Divinity Road into a far more convenient rat run. Cars provide protection for pedestrians. The unparked side of Div.Rd will become very dangerous. One full width pavement is enough! Parking should be allowed outside 117/119. You cannot use arguments about resultant congestion when the chicanes do just that. Q2: I cannot understand the philosophy of allowing any 2 hour limit areas. This encourages short term commuting! Get rid of them, and help the residents. Q4: This means that a two car student residence has enough permits for another car for one semester. Better to have no permits for non council tax payers. As much as Brookes will complain, most students have no need for cars. Other comments: The top of Divinity Road is turning into the 'sacrifice' for the mantra of CPZ? The present layout is a recipe for increased speed. Even pavement parking on a staggered 50% of the street would help with safety and fairness to residents. My Solutions My Solution: 1) An imaginative one way system, allowing no through route to all but emergency vehicles. 2) Do nothing at all (cheap) as I have to be convinced there is a problem. 3) If a CPZ, then make it harder for speeding rat runners and only 1 permit per house unless a urgent reason can be given. In addition, the Council should promise to do a traffic survey before and after the sadly inevitable measures.

DR145

Q1: There is no strong evidence on commuter parking in Divinity Rd. The major overcrowding of cars is during the evening and night when the students are in residence. The layout cutting out many parking spaces by allowing parking on one side only at the top to Div. Rd will exacerbate the extreme congestion in the area below Stone Street. There is plenty of parking e.g.. at Christmas and from May to September when the students are away. The students do not need cars as there is plenty of public transport and Ox.Brookes Uni should take a much firmer line. Q2: There are not many commuters, there are usually spaces near Cowley Rd - while students have cars and two permits per house will not solve the congestion below Minster Road (do you really think students will agree to car-sharing and not bringing their own? Q3: At the open day, I was unable to find out where the Car Club bays will be - it is an excellent idea and they will certainly need appropriate spaces. Q4: No to this question because it won't work. The problem is enabling access to our house for our frail elderly visitors. The fact that CPZ does not guarantee a space by our





house means that our visitors may not reach us. Is that 50 visits a year. The problems would be solved by regulating the reduction of student cars - most are able bodied and can walk the distance. Other comments: Essentially (we have one car) we object to paying another tax for CPZ and visitors when the car congestion problem remains unresolved. Pavement parking is not a viable option. It will be dangerous, damage crumbling pavements and make it impossible, (it is impossible now) to walk side by side, take a needed arm, and for children to run freely. So we say NO to CPZ until the student car problem is resolved and a resounding NO to pavement parking. You say most people said they were in favour of CPZ. We are not; we were not asked and I have not met anyone who is. The money would be better spent on mending broken pavements and holes in the local roads. Letter to Cllr Hudspeth: The arrangements in the Headington streets abutting on to Old Road look ghastly and are most uncomfortable. Recently the Council spent a lot of money in notifying Divinity Rd residents that the pavements were to be re-surfaced, work which was long overdue, people had been tripping on the rough patches and holes and I once had a dangerous fall, caused by stepping into a hole in the pavement at the upper end of Div.Rd. To our amazement, the pavement on only one side was resurfaced and some of the broken kerb stones were put back leaving parts of the pavement with jagged edges. First, in view of such inadequate arrangements for pavement maintenance, allowing cars to park on the side of the pavements will accelerate pavement surface deterioration and there will be extra hazards from more broken kerb stones. In many areas the pavements are narrow and it will be impossible to walk side by side. I have a damaged knee at present and as it is painful to walk, I need to take my husband's arm. There are many other elderly or disabled people who need similar supports which will not be possible with pavement parking. One meter is not wide enough. It will be very dangerous to pass by as cars are being driven on and off the pavements - some of the cars swoop into spaces very fast. Young children will not be able to run freely up and down the road as they do now and it is a delight to see them. Small children could well be out of the line of vision of drivers trying to park on pavements and accidents may occur. Pavement walking is pretty dangerous these days as pedestrians have to negotiate around fast moving bicyclists who regularly ride in all directions on pavements and older people and young children cannot easily jump out of their way. Accidents have happened. So please ensure that the pavements are kept clear and safe for pedestrians. Remember that under the Disability Discrimination Acts; all disabled people have the right to safe access to shops and the other facilities most people use.





DR157

Q1: For Divinity Road it is generally acceptable BUT question wisdom of pavement parking on Minster, Warneford and Stone Street - ALL streets in the area are used by large numbers of pedestrians (particularly children walking to school), cyclists (who walk the hill), and parents with prams. Stone St is a particular problem because it is used as a cut through and current parking on both sides/pavements cause it to become congested/dangerous already. Restrict parking to one side here. Should not be parking so close to corner on south side of Minster and on Divinity opposite Warneford corner. Pinch points at corners of Minster & Warneford are dangerous - on Divinity they should be removed. Q2: Spaces should only be available for residents and visitors. Availability of shared parking near Cowley Rd and Morrell Ave only encourages casual parking - even if time limited. As overall number of parking spaces for residents is being reduced, it is important to ensure overspill spaces are available for those who cannot park near their houses. Q4: Visitor permits should be available per household NOT per resident. In multiply-occupied houses with up to 5/6 residents/house, the use of visitor permits would become farcical. Other comments: Have particular concern about problem of parking at Cowley Rd end of Divinity Rd. These proposals do not address the problem. There should be double yellow lines on both sides of Divinity below nos. 1 and 2. On the north side there are currently 2 parking spaces and 2 garage entrance which consistently cause a problem for traffic turning into Divinity. Allowing parking in the bay outside Co- op should be stopped and the bay used only for unloading. At present Coop lorries unload on double yellow lines on Cowley Rd causing another hazard. It seems that there is a greater length of no parking in the north sides of Bartlemas and Southfield near Cowley Rd - even though these are used by less traffic than Divinity.

DR161

Q1: I am concerned that the No Waiting areas alongside 60-62, 90, 96-100 Divinity Rd and at the junction of Divinity and Minster Rds unnecessarily reduce the number of spaces and may increase traffic speeds. Where this is NOT necessary to maintain a minimum carriageway width (which might only be the case outside 96-100) these areas should be used for parking. The plan indicates pavement parking alongside the Coop store, which would be quite impossible in this location, and unnecessary - I hope this is an error on the plans. Q2: There is little 2 hr shared parking in Divinity Road, but some in Warneford Rd and just round the corner from there in Bartlemas Rd. Some 2 hr shared spaces in Divinity Rd, where it would be easier for visitors to find, should be provided. Q3: The space by the Coop is poorly sited as cars are often queuing to turn into Cowley Rd, making parking difficult. Pavement parking for Car Club bays is unacceptable - risk of damage to tyres (and greater risk to mirrors from passers by) and more difficult to park. Car owners can choose where to park but car club cars will have to be parked in the designated spaces. Q4: Only 'NO' is so far as there is a possibility in a shared house of 4 or more tenants the permits could collectively permit parking for an extra car for that household for one entire academic year or can that be prevented. Other comments: There is a dropped kerb serving 91 Divinity Rd which is not shown - it gives access to 2 parking spaces side by side, nearest the boundary to 89). 'Partial' pavement parking should not be implemented. It is unpleasant, especially in the dark, and forces use of the road to pass other pedestrians or badly parked cars. if necessary permits should be limited to cars registered in the area or to houses paying council tax).





DR164

Q1: We live on Stone Street, why should Stone Street bear the brunt of the 2 hours shared parking. This will become the short term car park for the entire area. Pavement parking is completely unnecessary. By widening the road, car speeds will be increased. There are many children around and reduced pavement width will force everyone onto the road. No waiting zone on Divinity Road will have same effect. One great big race track for taxis! Q2: All of Stone St is mixed. Many residents in Divinity Rd prefer Stone St parking as the road is slower. There will never be a space in Stone St especially at weekends. Q3: No - I have to be a NIMBY but your proposal has already removed any change of parking in our street and now the car club bay further reduces the likelihood of convenient parking. I would really prefer you to do nothing. Q4: No facts to base an answer on, but given a multi-tenant house on Divinity Road could hold 6 students, 300 extra term time permits - that’s 1 extra car. Other comments: What can we do to amend your plans? Are there any alternatives? Why do we need visitors’ days when visitors’ permits can be used? Why concentrate visitors parking in Stone St? You may think that parking is plentiful compared to the number of houses, but it is a favourite spot for many residents and non-residents, even more so with the significant reduction in Divinity Rd parking. Do you think visitors will park considerately on the pavement? they don't now.

DR168

Q1: 1) Upper part of Divinity Road is steep and Divinity Rd is already a rat-run. Making the upper part, residential parking only, will allow more traffic a faster route through. 2) The ........ number of spaces is heavily reduced. 3) Pavement parking anywhere is unacceptable - why should pedestrians have to file along a path in single file? what about pushchairs and wheelchairs. One metre is not enough. Q2: 2 hours allows Brookes students plenty of time to park here, go to a lecture and then return. Similarly shoppers going into Oxford can 'park and ride' from here. Ample time for dental visit etc. Needs to be 1 hour only. Q4: 50 visits per year (365 days) from family and friends - how would you like that? What if you are aged and housebound. Other comments: Your proposals for the area generally discriminate against pedestrians, the elderly in wheelchairs and indeed anyone wanting to walk with a friend. One metre pavements are inadequate. Both Divinity and Southfield Roads carry huge numbers of pedestrians (Cheney School pupils, Brookes students, Warneford and Churchill workers). Paying for parking (will not go up as quickly and steeply as the council tax has) is unacceptable. Let us remain as we are. The consequences won't be very different with these proposals.

DR168

I am absolutely amazed that you are seriously considering pavement parking around Divinity Road. you will realise if you stroll down Tawney Street on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, when all cars are at home, with a pram or luggage and couple of children. you will find that you have to walk in the road. Tawney Street is not so busy, so walking in the road is not dangerous but think of the long stretch road like Divinity Road or Stone Street. children use this route to get to Cheney school everyday. if cars are parked in the pavement that will increase the traffic speed which will be more dangerous. pedestrians not only have stationary vehicles to contend with, but also vehicles flying up and down. it is a disaster waiting to happen and it will not be long before someone get killed. the other areas where the scheme is a success does not have this much rat run and so many large schools in close proximity. The problem is because of Brooks university student/staff and HMO.I hope that you ensure the safety of everyone in our local community

DR171

Q1: There will be a major loss of parking at the top end of Divinity Rd. This will result in parking shortage and faster traffic. This stretch should be as Southfield i.e.. Parking half on the pavement, one side. Q2: BUT if answer to Q1 is not adopted, I would prefer Stone Street to be residents only.





DR181

Q1: The top part of Divinity Rd will not have enough parking spaces for even one car per house. I understand that allowing pavement parking causes difficulties for pedestrians but having to park a long way from their house will cause difficulties for residents especially parents with young children and older people bringing shopping and other loads home. Pavement parking has been allowed on both sides of Southfield Rd. Q2: No more resident spaces needed. Q4: Given the shortage of resident places, 50 is too many. Other comments: Two parking permits per house is too many, as there will not be enough spaces for even 1 per house for the top half of Divinity Rd. Could there be single yellow lines on the other side from the parking so at least we could park near our homes at nights.

DR183

Q1: However, we are strongly opposed to legalising pavement parking in these streets. This will a) cause distress to vulnerable people, b) quickly worsen the problem of cycling on the pavement which is a huge problem in this area, c) encourage speeding with severe implications for road safety, d) have quality of life e.g.. people will have to walk in single file instead of being able to socialise on the pavement. Q2: Please note the parking problem is exacerbated by the Council's policy of painting white lines in front of 'garages' almost all of which are used as store rooms. These stretches of kerbside are neutralised for parking area when the resident in question is e.g. away on holiday. Allowing white lines only in front of genuine garages would create 5-10 extra spaces on this street. Q3: Good luck to the car club, but we are very sceptical that it will lead to a reduction in cars. If as seems likely, it is mainly used by people who at present do not have cars for idealistic reasons, it may even lead to more cars on the road. Please create speed reduction humps at ALL of the narrowing at divinity Rd to reduce speeding. the humps and narrowing outside our house has greatly improved our quality of life and increased safety. Q4: For multi-occupation houses it is far too many. It will enable a house with 7 students to keep 3 cars on the road. In additional houses without cars will trade the permits meaning still more student cars will be able to park on the road. Other comments: The people who drew up this scheme appear to have NO UNDERSTANDING of the problem in this street and have ignored the findings of the very extensive research carried out by the Council 25 years ago. The problem is multi-occupation houses with several cars owned by students who leave at 10.00am and return at 4.00pm taking all the spaces before working residents return home. Commuters are only a problem at the bottom of Divinity and Southfield roads. The only real problem is the evening and night time parking in term time. Sinnet Court residents should be obliged to park on the premises. The ban on cars for Sinnet Court residents is a joke - 10-15 cars in term time. Proposed first car permit per address £40, second permit £200. Limit on number of visitor permits per address not per occupant.

DR184

Q1: I think that having parking on only one side of the road, on the upper part of Divinity Rd north of Stone St, will have two effects: 1) It will make it easier for cars to move along Divinity Rd, making it more attractive as a rat-run and therefore increase the traffic and 2) It will make it more difficult for us to park outside our house (142) as the parking is restricted to one side making more competition for the available spaces. Other comments: More and better speed-bumps to slow traffic down and make Divinity Rd less attractive as a cut-through route.





DR191

Q1: Although I have ticked all the 'YES' boxes on this questionnaire that is on the basis that establishing a CPZ is a fait accompli. I am in principle against the concept of a CPZ for this area because 1) commuter parking in the area is only a problem during the Brookes University academic year. For the rest of the year, we would be paying for permits we don't need. 2) CPZs reduce the number of parking spaces available, creating problems for residents rather than solving them. 3) Parking permits are an additional tax for those who don't have the privileged of off-street parking/drives/garages. 4) I am particularly against the idea of partial pavement parking. (The fact that this takes place anyway is just an indication of how the CPZ regulations will not be enforceable and the likelihood is that people without permits will park wherever they want to with impunity). Although I am a car driver, I believe that pedestrians should always take priority over motorists. This neighbourhood is very friendly and community-spirited and that is partly because walking is part of the local culture. Nothing should be done to discourage that.

DR191

Oppose to pavement parking in the East Oxford. Though I drive a car, I am also a pedestrian and I feel that pedestrians should have their space as well as motorists. If anything, the walking culture should be encouraged. - Life for disabled bay should not be made even more difficult by pavements narrowed by cars parked on them. People in wheelchairs should not have to go into the road and blind people should not have to walk single file with the person who is guiding them. - Parents should feel that their children are safe walking to school and that they will not be threatened by drivers driving up the pavement to park. - Residents should be able to go out and return home without having to manoeuvre themselves, and sometimes their pushchairs and bicycles( yeas I am a cyclist too) around cars parked on the pavement in front of their houses. -maintaining pavements that are constantly being drive on will be expensive. One argument given for pavement parking is that it happens already. The fact that the regulation against pavement parking, which is an offence, is not enforced gives an indication of the way the pavement markings will not be observed because motorists will know they can get away with it.

DR192

Q1: Very concerned about traffic speeds at top of Divinity Rd. Even with parking on both sides traffic is too fast, and limiting parking to one side will make it easier for speeding vehicles. Current situation (pavement parking on both sides) is not ideal but does at least inhibit traffic flow and slow cars down. Q3: Car club - brilliant idea ! Other comments: Concerned 2 permits per household will allow more cars than the streets can accommodate. Could first permit be cheaper and second more expensive to discourage multiple car ownership? And/or only allow Councils tax paying households (i.e. non-students) to have a second permit





DR193

Q1: I live on Divinity Rd and noted it is proposed permit holders only parking 24 hours, Mon-Sun. I must point out when students are away the street gets freed up and there are more spaces. A pity this will be when the above is put into place and free spaces are available and not used as before. (if a party held daytime with several guests which I have had on a Saturday am, they have no way to park, if limited to only 2-3 hours. What constraints! But I agree it has become more and more difficult to find spaces during working hours which must be frustrating for residents who do not have a garage. I am lucky - I do! Would like a double yellow line in front of driveway. I use garage in and out all day. It is a shared driveway/garage spaces for 4 people. Q2: If I have a visitor e.g. my son and family overnight, for a few days, where will they park. I have never had a problem finding parking. What a disaster this will be for guests staying longer for a visit - longer than 2 hours. Other comments: I have considered the proposal of having either a double yellow line or white line between 154 - 158 Divinity Rd which has access to our drive. I do not want to be awkward but I feel due to the nature of my job, I am in and our of my drive as I travel around Oxfordshire to see clients (have flexi hours). If other people are parked in front of this access, I will be stuck so see no other option but to request double yellow lines. I have on occasions recently experienced this.

DR196

Q1: I am total opposed to pavements being used for parking. Pavements are for pedestrians and any parking on them will be unsafe for everyone and especially for children and the elderly. Pavements are already much used in Oxford by cyclists, who should be fined if caught doing this. Q3: see above Other comments: It is very hard for residents to live in a street overwhelmed by temporary visitors (students) and those using local shops. Students should not be allowed to bring cars here. It is not a human rights issue for them but it is for residents. They should use bicycles or the excellent public transport network. In Divinity Rd as well as other roads, it is the Students owning cars who have created the car situation. There is no problem when they are not resident.

DR196

Unacceptable proposal to allow cars to park on the pavements in east Oxford. Recently council spent a lot of money in notifying Divinity Road residents that the pavements were to be re-surfaced. The pavement was resurfaced on only 1 side and some of the broken kerb stones were put back leaving parts of the pavement with jagged edges. allowing cars to park on the pavement will accelerate pavement surface deterioration and there will be extra hazards from more broken kerb stones. 1 metre pavement is not wide enough. I have a knee problem and need support to walk. It would be the similar case for elderly or disabled. If the cars are being driven on & off the pavements it will be dangerous as some of the cars swoop into spaces very fast. Young children will not be able to run safely down the road. please make sure that the pavements are kept clear and safe for pedestrians. Remember that under the Disability Discrimination Acts; all disabled people have the right of safe access to shops and the other facilities most people use.

DR197

Q1: Top end of Divinity Rd layout would mean traffic will speed up and if it became easier to navigate the road, increase. Loss of parking space for residents is unacceptable. Pavement parking should be retained for the above reasons. As emergency services are re-locating, speed bumps should be introduced or use the same style as in London which allow emergency services through. Other comments: What was sold to residents as a way of improving parking, has formed into a scheme to make it easier for through traffic - exactly the opposite of what is wanted. A re-think is needed and an acceptance that no all resident are opposed to pavement parking if it is the only viable traffic restraint on offer.





DR198

Q1: We need the maximum parking possible. In Divinity Road, from Minster Road to Hill Top Road, we need to increase parking by including the following changes: Resident parking (not yellow lines) 128-138 Divinity Road (on the road) 180-190 Divinity Road (on the road) 145-191 Divinity Road (partial pavement) We are happy to have yellow lines outside 108/112 Divinity Road. Q2, Q3 and Q4: No comments





Hill Top Road

Ref No. Comments

DR30

Q3. Put a car club space in Hill Top Road. Please extend the residents parking so that it goes to the end of the dropped kerb outside 78 Hill Top Road. Please put a white line across the dropped kerb outside 78 Hill Top Road, and also across the garage of 72, Hill Top Road.

DR54

Q1. Not very happy about pavement parking being allowed all along the South west side of Hill Top Road( and elsewhere) because of the problem it causes for people using wheelchairs living on this side of road. But understand that this may be unavoidable given the demand for 2 resident permits per household. Note that in many places the camber of the pavement is too steep for people using wheel chairs. Prefer white lines rather than double yellows across driveways to avoid clutter of signs . Blocking of drives not likely to be a problem given that resident permits are required. (Note my drive at 82, Hill Top Road will be covered by a double yellow line. Also would prefer to see physical measures , barriers etc to deter through traffic in Divinity and Southfield Roads , partly to reduce need for pavement parking.

DR55 Q1. Only half of the street is shown on the map. What's the plan for Southfield Golf club end of Hill Top Road? Q3. Is one car club bay (which is on top of Southfield Road) enough ?

DR61

Q2. Not sure whether I understand fully whether the shared parking applies at weekends and nights, if it doesn't operate outside of business hours, how would these be 'policed'. Actually I assume it doesn't operate outside business hours because this would be impossible to enforce in the middle of the night! I can se you have worked hard on this and put a lot of thought into the scheme.

DR75 Q1. As a disabled scooter user I am worried about the pavement parking. Why not kerb parking?

DR79

Q1. Hill Top Road does not need 24/7 restrictions. Mon - Fri would suffice (This may not be the case for other streets). There are not enough shared use bays, unless this can be accommodated by visitors using our residents allocated spaces - Visitors badge/permits. Presume that allocated spaces x2 can be anywhere not just in front of houses. Allocation should only be to householders who pay council tax (this is done elsewhere e.g. London Boroughs). Deals with multiple occupancy houses. Q3. How long do you have visitors permits for? Can you get more? How long do they take to arrive if you order more? Can visitors park in residents areas? It would have been helpful to have the FAQ enclosed. Did not receive information for whole of street, making it difficult to assess impact Not convinced need pavement parking for Hill Top Road on SE side. Clearly do between Divinity Road and Southfield Road. Need a plan on street by street basis not one size fits all.

DR86

Q1. Why is the pavement in front of 13-19 no waiting at any time. This is essential parking for residents in those houses at this end of the street and does not impede traffic flow or pedestrians. Please reconsider this section of the layout. No permits should be issued to students registered with Oxford Brookes University unless they are part of a family registered in the zone.

DR111 Requires DYL across dropped kerb in front of driveway for property.

DR112

Q4. I have adult children visiting frequently. Gatherings of mediation groups of up to 10 people frequently. 24/7 controlled parking is too much. Evening and weekends should be free parking in bays and on single yellow lines. Mon to Friday controlled parking 8am to 2pm would be sufficient.





DR113

Q1: In general it seems OK but why do certain properties on Hill Top Road (82, 80, 78, 46 - large pavement length) have exemptions from cars parking in front of their properties. But why do these properties have the benefits of no cars parked in front of the properties but at the same time the benefit of resident parking permits. SURELY residents who refuse parking bays in front of their properties, should be refused resident parking permits for their properties, as why should they benefit from parking in front of our properties, when we can't do the same in front of theirs. PLEASE bring this issue up on future consultation documents. Also, why were not all the possible parking plans sent out to us, and only posted on 20/21 Nov ' 08 on the Cowley Road. Q2: It should be 24 hour resident parking only, 365 days/year. Except for carers, district nurses and disable permits. Why should hotels/guest houses be exempt from this scheme? They should provide off road parking for their customers. Business permits should not be issued, unless they can prove they are providing a service/doing a job at a property (residential) in the area, NOT at hospital and only short-term contract, if greater than 3-6 months, hospital should provide parking. Q3: They are a very good idea, BUT can one be placed in the middle of Hill Top Road also? Q4: As suggested there should be 100 per household per year, to prevent migrant student population in multi-occupancy houses abusing this system and using it for long term parking. 100 would be sufficient, but prevent students parking there all the time. If their car isn't in their name, isn't registered at an address in the restricted parking area and is not insured in their name. Why can't all residents in full-time employment (NOT students in part time employment) apply for parking permits when they live in area, if they can prove their employment/place of work is greater than 5-10 miles from their house in the area, irrespective of 2 permits/household i.e., allow more than 2 permits/household if resident can prove they need for full time employment with above distance criteria. This supports the Tax paying contributing residents, who need car to work and so pay council tax bills, compared to students in local area who do not have these demands on them or make the local tax contributions. Once parking permits/house have been decided, there should not be a reduction in future, as residents may purchase a property with expectations of being able to park a certain number of vehicles and it would be unfair to subsequently change this. Unless a student has significant medical problems or other similar problems, it is not correct in Oxford that they may need a car just as much as other professional residents. They do not have the same time and financial constraints - they travel shorter distances locally to study and have more time/scope to use public transport. KEY WORKERS (Policemen/women, NHS Clinical staff (doctors, nurses, physios, pharmacists, etc), Teachers, Firemen/women, Social workers) should be exempt from 2 permits/household in HMO's - i.e. more permits available/house for them.

DR114

Q1: Yes: So long as parking is allowed opposite to 1 Hill Top Road. Will students living in 196 and 198 Divinity Road be allowed to park in Hill Top Road? We do think you should seriously urge the University - especially Brookes - to discourage, if they cannot forbid, their students from bringing cars into Oxford.





DR115

Q1: I am opposed to any pavement parking in this area. The so-called 1m minimum width is quite insufficient for normal use of the pavement. In any case it is unachievable as vehicles wing mirrors encroach into the space available for pedestrians - particularly the young and elderly. The serious irregularity of the pavements create a hazard already which would be increased if the pavement width was further reduced. Finally the extent and frequency with which the shrubs and hedges already encroach is un-regulated and not a 'rare case'. Funds to staff will be needed to operate the 'policing' of this. Q3: Providing the number of bays can be increased should the scheme prove popular. Q4: Paragraph 11 is not clear. The (alternative) proposal of 100 total per property the FREE allowance? For how long would it remain £15 for 25/year? Although irrelevant to me, the no limit allowance to hotels or guest houses is also unclear - what is the cost? Why leave the explanation until paragraph 15? I went to the exhibition at the Regal. I was surprised that the 'assistants' freely implied that this was at a 'very early' stage and future plans may look 'quite different'. I await with interest.

DR131 Q1: Pavement parking may not be necessary all way along Hill Top Rd.

DR132

Q1: These very thought out proposals solve not the traffic problems. An expensive, time consuming exercise, one way systems for Divinity and Southfield and 20 mile mph speed limit with concessions would mean no loss of parking spaces for residents. Present student parking does not prevent residents parking. They need to be dealt with when they cause obstruction, which they do! Q2: Residents lose more than given. Q3: Waste of parking space. Q4: Some of us are more gregarious than others. Other comments: Those of us with driver issues should have full access at all times surely? I would opt for a white line.

DR135

Q1: a) Have not received full Hill Top Rd layout (saw at exhibition). b) Should be a dropped kerb shown for No. 5 Hill Top Rd. c) Keep parking top of Southfield/Hill Top Rd (I am aware there is a conflict between residents/large vehicles - but can it be resolved by allowing vehicles in from Divinity Rd/Hill top Rd where there are (and should remain) double lines?) Q2: OK during weekdays 8.30am to 6.00pm. TOTALLY UNSATISFACTORY evenings and weekends. Hill Top Rd beyond No. 45 underused. We need 3Hour parking along here and in other areas (e.g. top Southfield Rd, Warnfield lane) evenings and weekends. Q3: Way to go! Let's hope it works well. Q4: 50 is OK provided that there is short term parking available evenings and weekends. Other comments: Concerned that - a) the policy of 'keeping people out' * is wrong. We need control not Ghetto-isation! b) the attitude 'Oh never mind, it can be changed after a year' * is potentially misleading. There may simply not be the money. Let's get it right now as far as possible - even if it takes time to work!* Both these were said at the Exhibition on Cowley Road by an official.

DR149

Q1: Any pavement parking is not really acceptable. Our pavements are 1.5 metre wide and anything less is insufficient for wheelchairs - of which we have quite a lot in the area. It is unacceptable for wheelchair users to go into the road, and it is also impossible for pedestrians to walk side by side up the pavement if they are any narrower. Q4: This arrangement would overload the area with too many parked cars (NB there is a large student population here from Brookes University). So per household is more realistic. Other comments: Walking up the road yesterday (Dec 2nd) one had to step into the road, as a single pedestrian, as cars were parked so far onto the pavement, one could not actually get past them!





DR158

Q1: Hill Top Rd has given accurate figures for cars owned. This scheme allows for a greater number of cars. At the end of Hill Top Rd towards the golf club beyond No.45 virtually no residents cars are parked on the road. This will become an overflow car park for other roads. I oppose this. Meanwhile we have pavement parking at Divinity Rd end of Hill Top Road. Parking of cars at top of Southfield is needed, large lorries should be instructed to use Divinity Road not Southfield. Sign at the bottom of the road should be sufficient. Q2: There are no car parks around here so we residents need to be allowed to have dinner parties and our guests to stay 3 hours. We ask that the scheme is not 24/7 CPZ but one that operates (8am till 6pm) weekdays, to prevent students and commuters parking but allow residents to have 3 hour limited parking for guests evenings and weekends. In particular at the end of the road. Q4: As if you are having a party to invite guests to dinner 3 hours is needed, the 2 bays are not useful for this and 50 may soon be used. A better idea is to allow evening and weekend parking - the CPZ only to operate to prevent daytime weekday parking of commuters and students. Other comments: Room should be allowed for refuse vehicles, ambulances, fire engines etc but not pantechnicons. Please allow some parking at the top of Southfield Rd. I assume its left clear because of Pantechnicans needing to turn, better to put up signs to say not suitable for these vehicles. Three hour parking outside the 8.30 am - 6.30 pm scheme would be good for residents and allow some life but of course OCC patrolling with 24/7 traffic wardens will have less income, but residents will have a normal life and not have to use visitor permits.

DR160

Q1: NO - pavement parking is not acceptable. Pavements are for people, not cars. With the level of pavement parking on Hill Top Rd and Southfield Rd, I will be very anxious walking my young children to school at SS Mary and John. Drivers on the pavements will not be able to see small children. Q4: Two permits per student house plus 160 visitor permits is not going to solve the term-time parking problem of this area. Other comments: At the top of Southfield Road there is parking on the pavement on both sides of the road. There is very heavy pedestrian traffic on this road going to Brookes and Cheney School and down to SS Mary and John primary. This parking proposal is unsafe for pedestrians and will result in people walking in the road (especially those with pushchairs or wheelchairs), double buggies won't be able to pass nor will people pushing their bikes up the hill.

DR163

Q1: Since we moved to HTR we have been able to park in front of our house except during the day when Oxford Brookes is functioning. There is enough spaces for 4 cars. Parking here does not impede large vans and also has the positive effect of slowing commuter traffic morning and evening as they turn the corner. These extra 4 bays would reduce the need for some of the pavement parking. My husband is registered disabled so a parking place nearby is essential. Q4: It would be better to limit the number of visitors permits to 50/100 per household address. Other comments: As there is good parking in HTR at night and plenty of space it would be good to be able to have free parking for friends for the evening or overnight.





DR169

Q1: 1) My part of the street (No. 56) is not on your map. 2) Hill Top Road does not experience much pressure from parking except during working days/hours Monday - Thursday. We do NOT need to destroy our pavements, which are used by wheelchairs/pushchairs/suitcase pullers, as well as pedestrians in this street and therefore proposed bays on only one side of the street and NO blocking of pavements. NB Howath House, a high dependency using wheelchairs. Q2: We don't need 24 hours/weekend restrictions. Other comments: My main concern is about pavements. These were built for PEDESTRIANS and in a civilised country they should be preserved as such. Third world countries don't have these and crossing the road, or walking along it can be a nightmare. If you want us to be green and use public transport like buses, we need to be able to walk safely to them. NO PAVEMENT CUT-INS THANKS!

DR169

I am writing to express concerns about the pavement parking in Hill Top Road, this is a wrong and short sited idea on several counts: This would seem to undermine all the plans for the greening oxford which have been encouraging us to walk and take public transport. It will be dangerous and unpleasant to make ones way through cars and their protruding mirrors. More so for older people, young parents with push chairs as well people with luggage. In case of Hill Top Road, which has a high dependence unit in Jack Howarth House at the end, it will be impossible for carers to push the wheelchairs along the pavement. Pavements are ion my view a sign of caring and civilised society, that we in Britain have been privileged until now to share. we don't need to lose the pedestrian access to our homes?

DR173

Q1: We are opposed to pavement parking on the south-west side of Hill Top Road. We know from experience that there is not enough space for pedestrians to walk past and we find the proposed unacceptable. We consider our opposition on this to be FUNDAMENTAL Q3: We would even welcome one or two more. Q4: This might be counter productive in allowing people to bypass the spirit of the residents parking scheme. Other comments: Our principal opposition is to pavement parking and this is the issue which we find non-negotiable. It is already the case that cars parked on the pavement make it impossible for people with prams or bulky shopping to pass. Young children and old people - the vulnerable - are having to walk on the road in parts and this is simply unacceptable.

DR173

My strong opposition to the pavement parking in Hill Top Road. The parking of cars on pavements is a hazard for people with prams, young children, older people with mobility problems etc. I would prefer to have less cars rather than having cars on the pavement. I urge you to reject the proposals for car parking in our area which includes pavement parking.

DR176

Q1: I object to any pavement parking. Hill Top Road pavements are 1.5 metres wide, the minimum acceptable according to the Department of Transport recommendations. A pavement less than 1.5 metres is insufficient for two pedestrians to pass or to walk side by side. There are many wheelchair users in Hill Top Rd both from Jack Howarth House (previously called Chiltern House) as well as from houses in the road. It is not possible for a pedestrian to pass a wheelchair on a pavement less than 1.5metres. Q4. 50 permits per person will overload the available parking spaces. It should be 50 per household. Other comments: Pavement parking breaks kerb stones. With pavement parking some cars will exceed the specified distance, narrowing the pavement still further below 1 metre.





DR185

Q1: NO - the layout does not recognise the wishes of Hill Top Rd residents. The parking data shows that Hill Top Road requires about 35 parking places at maximum demand. We do NOT want to become the parking overspill for the rest of the area, which is to swap one problem for another possibly worse one. Give our demand a total of 40 parking places would be more than adequate. Q2: NO - again this does not reflect the wishes of the majority of HTR residents. All that is required is a maximum of 3-5 places in total for 2hr spaces and the car club. Q3: It is not clear where they are from my map. Q4: YES, provided that in 50 x 1 by which I mean not 59 strips which are multiples. Even this risks abuse by residents in HMOS who pool their permits. Other comments: The plan was very disappointing. It showed little evidence of genuine consultation. This was explained at the exhibition as because 'we just showed a plan that maximised car parking spaces'. But why? This is NOT what we in HTR or DRARA want. That is why we wanted our input into the design so that it reflected our wishes. That design should reflect a wish to minimise non-essential (e.g., overspill, commuting, students) parking. It would then be welcomed with open arms! Can you achieve this?





Manzil Way

Ref No. Comments

DR68 The enclosed drawings show the layout of the Old East Oxford Health Centre, not the new buildings. As a result it is difficult to say whether the proposed parking outside the building will restrict access or not. Please amend the drawing!





Minster Road

Ref No. Comments

DR3

Q1. Proposed yellow lines outside 33 & 44 Minster Rd (end of the road) is currently used by many residents for parking 3 cars. In removing this area, people living in the no-through part of Minster Rd will have to park in Southfield Rd or Divinity Rd. I strictly context this and suggests that the yellow lines are removed.

DR8

Q1. It is not clear from red shading along north side of Minster Road whether or not there is partial pavement parking. There is certainly no room for partial pavement parking outside Nos.1 to 11 and we would object such a layout if this is proposed, perhaps you could clarify. The occupant of No.2 Minster Road is not a disabled bay. No.3 needs a disabled bay. What is the difference between carer permits and disabled permit. Q2. We would like flexibility about non-residents parking at weekends/evening. Q4. Concerned about availability of parking for visitors staying for extended periods - given there are no evident shared parking spaces on Div Rd, and only a few in Minster Road and Southfield Rd, where majority of cars are likely to be parked (as now) by residents of Sinnet Court

DR14

Q1. I do not think it is acceptable to park on the pavements reducing access for pushchairs, wheelchairs and other users like dog owners. 1 metre is not sufficient distance/width to navigate a pushchairs/pram or even to hold a child's hand and walk alongside. this means residents will walk in the road as they do now. This is a health and safety matter. Q2. A simple solution would be to restrict parking to non-residents to 2 hrs only during weekdays. The problem with parking is significantly reduced out of office hours and weekends. Q3. There should be some free access parking to provide for non resident visitors & short stay parking. Q4. Why is the number of visitor permits being restricted? only one provision has been suggested for Minster Road. The pack only contains one feedback form assuming householders are in agreement. This is a poor service in terms of community consultation. I remain concerned about pavement parking, the restrictions resulting from reduced street parking by parking bays.

DR37

Q1. Parking on the pavement is unacceptable. We have terrible difficulty walking up and down our side of Minster Road & especially Southfield Road with our push chair and several children in tour, all because of cars parked on the pavement already. And a gap of 1 metre is too narrow to easily pass through with our double buggy and children. When will you realise that pavements are for pedestrians? But with the proposed plans you are officially going to put cars across them on the narrowest and busiest parts. We regularly have to walk in the middle of the road. to get around cars parked on the pavement in Southfield Road. Will it take an accident with small children involved before you realise the stupidity of these plans?

DR38

Q1. Perfectly happy with parking on both sides of the road, including kerb parking on one side. However the yellow line' no waiting' zone at the end of the cul de sac (outside numbers 44 and 33) deprives our end of Minster Road at three parking places. We've been told this way has been planned to allow 3 point turns; but our neighbours have parked there for years and we have all adopted reversing into our spaces and driving away forwards when we leave on a journey. Q4. 50 visitor permits per resident allows one visitor every week for everyone. We believe 50 visitor permits each would exacerbate the parking problem. We think 25 permits each would be ample. My wife and I visited the exhibition at the regal showing full plans , including an option 2 allowing parking on only one side of Southfield and Divinity Roads. Not only would this scheme severely reduce available spaces by nearly half but Minster Road and Warneford Roads would leave under enormous pressure. We trust option 2 was not sent with your consultation letter , (4 Nov) because it's unworkable.





DR42 Q1. There seems to be a disabled space marked at 2, Minster Road. The disabled person no longer lives there. It has been a student house for 3-4 years at least. The ability of disabled badge holders to park anywhere is sufficient.

DR53

Q1. There are many reasons why the parking scheme for any of the streets is not acceptable. Students and cars being the worst of the lot. We live here all the year, the student for at best seven months of the year. We should have a ban on cars for Brooks. The space, bad driving and many other reasons. we pay the rates not the county and should have the right to say no to their idea. It is poor in all its ways. Q2. Keep it simple in all areas of parking and not on the pavement (far too small). Q3. Has been tried before and it does not work. Headington, Marston and now East Oxford. One large mess of parked cars all at one line in 24 hours, plus many children from school etc. There is no room on the pavements for mothers and prams or children and a parked car. Someone will be killed walking down the street, I have seen some poor driving during the time of school children coming home etc. The high demand for parking to the available space will and should be much in your mind, but perhaps you will see the light before its too late. We have little room for sympathy for councils and the economic times are tough on them. But careless with money does not help.

DR65 Q4. 50 visitor permits will result in too much congestion caused by students. I welcome the CPZ and appreciate the time taken by the Council has taken in consulting the community. I hope the scheme moves to 1 permit per house.

DR84

Q1. We are not in favour of the CPZ at all in this area. Where is your evidence that this has worked in other areas of East Oxford. Are the local residents happy with it? The feedback we have researched has been CPZ has made it even harder for local residents to park in their roads, which has caused great resentment particularly as payment is required when we already pay an extortionate amount in Council Tax. I would not say we have a big problem in area with commuter parking but we have a desperate problem with Brooks Students bring cars to Oxford and multiple occupancy houses. This never gets addressed. What is going to happen in HMO's, the students will buy visitors permits once the free ones have been used up. They will think nothing of purchasing 75 a year and of course you at the Council will relish the extra income. This scheme won't alleviate the problem, it will exacerbate it, and yet again it will be the local residents who suffer. Q2. The disabled space in Minster Road is no longer needed. Q4. No visitor permits for HMO's.

DR100

Q1. We strongly disagree with the zoning as no parking at the end of Minster Road (outside 33 - 44). This loses 3 parking spaces which are regularly used. This parking is far more important thank any possible turning area. Reversing into Minster road will be greatly facilitated by implementation of the no parking (DYL) at the junction with Southfield Road. Q2. We are not convinced by arguments for 24/7 and suggest Mon to Fri in the first instance. Q4. We think visitors permits should be based per house. We are concerned by the possibility of multiple occupants all getting their quota to maintain effective permanent parking for student cars. 50 permits will be adequate for Mon to Fri but 24/7 will need more. e.g. 100 Attach signs to walls/fences rather than lots of posts (as per Marston Road).

DR108

Q4. There should be 50 visitors permits per household, otherwise it will be abused by those living in multi-occupancy residencies. We didn't find the scheme for visitors permits very clear. If there are to be up to 2 permits per household the second permit should be charged at a significantly higher rate. The category of 2hrs shared parking is not clear (nor 3hr). What does shared parking mean?





DR139

Q1: We are unclear about where visitor parking is - the FAQ 14 implies that visitors can park anywhere in the red or green zones. But the map implies that visitors can only park in the green zones. Please confirm which is right. We think visitors should be allowed to park for a 24hr period anywhere that residents park. Q2: Subject to clarification of the above - i.e. that visitors can park anywhere that residents can. Q3: Differentiation of the colours for Car Club bays and the shared parking is poor, especially for the colour blind. Q4: If the number of permits is being limited to two per household, then we think that the number of visitor permits should be limited similarly - i.e. 2 x 50 = 100 per household regardless of number of residents over 17 within. Otherwise, there could be a loophole in the system whereby HMD residents could pool their visitor permits and essentially get an extra car space! Other comments: We would prefer a single time band (either 2 or 3 hours) for the shared parking - that would eliminate need for extra signage. No skips and extended deliveries require visitor permit? All disabled parking bays not currently used should be deleted and assigned to one of the categories (resident, shared. etc). Please clarify whether visitor permits can be transferred between cars. Will residents who do not own a car need to use visitor permits on the days they rent cars? How often will monitoring/enforcement occur ?

DR152

Q1: We think pavement parking is unacceptable in most of this area including our street. The pavements are narrow, wheelie bins are left out, and children play in our cul-de-sac. The turning space at the end of the street is completely unnecessary - everyone reverses out of the street and we would lose up to 6 parking spaces i.e. any changes that increase pavement parking, severely reduce the amount of parking and/or increase traffic volume and speed are totally unacceptable. Q4: If this is the standard allowance in other parts of Oxford. Other comments: 1) Pavement parking is unacceptable, especially in parts of the area where it is not the norm at present - e.g.. The lower and middle part of Southfield Rd. Pavements are too narrow and the volume of pedestrians is very large. It will encourage cars to go faster and pedestrians will have to keep crossing the road. 2) 20mph speed limit needed. 3) No permits should be given to students as these are the main cause of lack of parking. 4) Houses should be restricted to ONE permit each - a second permit should have a substantial deterrent fee e.g. £500.





Morrell Avenue

Ref No. Comment

DR5

Q1. Although not as irritating as parking on pavement parking (partial or otherwise) on the grass verge creates problems -mud, unsightliness etc. we have welcomed bollards to help prevent this. We could do with more and help in replacing several already removed. Parking on pavements and verge (Morrell Avenue) has a big problem in the area. Whilst I understand it may be necessary in places what are the methods of regulating and taking action fines?) for those infringe boundaries? AS I understand it - it is not in the remit of traffic wardens and generally the police take no action indeed often show disinterest.

DR25 Same as above.

DR29

Q1. Having seen the layout of restrictions in the Divinity Road area CPZ, I feel the two parking bays outside 146,144, 142 & 140, Morrell Avenue (4 parking spaces in all) should no longer be shared parking but reserved for permit holders only as proposed for most of the other streets in the area. These two parking bays have , for many years now, been monopolised (i) by commuters (ii). by residents (and their visitors) of multi occupied houses on the opposite side of the road. It is unreasonable to expect the residents of 140-146 Morrell Avenue to continue coping with the commuters as well , particularly as the parking regulations have never been adequately enforced. Q2. No mix of parking at present in Morrell Avenue. Q3. 50 permits per resident are far too many for the space available in this area. Permits should be allocated per house, not per resident. It seems that the proposed CPZ has been concentrating on solving the difficulties in the Divinity Road area itself, while apparently overlooking the serious problems that commuters have caused some Morrell Avenue residents for over 16 years, and will probably continue to do so, if the parking regulations are not enforced. Therefore serious consideration should be given to changing the 2 bays outside 140-146 Morrell Avenue to 'permit holders only' bays, otherwise we will have to go on paying a high council tax to live in what is nothing less than a dangerous, noisy, fume filled car park, with no access to our parking bays.

DR34

Q1. Divinity and Southfield Roads need a one way system otherwise it will still be almost impossible to get up or down there. Surely this is the obvious solution rather than allowing an already narrow pavement to be used for parking to keep the load clear. The current system also inputs a great deal of extra traffic onto Morrell Avenue, which could be resolved easily with a 1 way system. Q2. They will be mostly ignored as they usually are without adequate enforcement.. Q4. In a street full of Multi-occupied houses? more per resident might work. There will never be an adequate solution to the parking problem in this area unless you can restrict the number of cars per household to no more than 2. A drive down around the area before and during University holidays should show you where the term time problems are created. Cambridge seems to have a policy with regard to this, perhaps you should liaise with them. I know that Brooks do their best, but polite requests not to bring cars don't work.





DR73

Q1. I find it all acceptable with the exception of our house,119 Morrell Avenue, which we are planning to drop the kerb in order to have off road parking. Apart from this it seem very reasonable. Q2. As long as residents always get priority and no restrictions, the mix of parking spaces on my street is acceptable. The pavement parking is a concern to me as I am aware of instances whereby the elderly tenant was unable to get out of her gate with her shopping trolley due to vehicle parking across her access. Also this may be a good plan. However if it is not policed better than at present , it will most certainly be a waste of time as people will do whatever they choose. This is the most important point. Are we to have plenty of parking wardens to enforce this new plan? The residents must be priority and I do not include students in this.

DR80

Q4. Very generous - Students always have plenty. Suggest first permit to be cheaper that second to encourage people to request single permit. Perhaps HMO's could have a system where a permit could be shared between 2 different cars.

DR93 Q2. These parking bays for mixed parking already exist in Morrell Av and are open to abuse unless they are regularly monitored by traffic wardens, which they don't seem to be in Morrell Ave in the area shown as the proposed CPZ Divinity Road.

DR104 Please keep checks on student parking. In a 3 bedroom semi we had neighbouring students parking 6 cars some time ago (we sent you the pictures).

DR117

Q3: The one at the end of Stone Street is in a dangerous place, I feel - so many cars come around that corner. Q4: However, where a resident has purchased one permit, I don't think he/she should have to pay for the second 25 visitors permits. I'm very please you proposed having parking on one side only of Divinity Road above Stone Street. Morrell Ave already works well so I'm happy with proposals here.

DR118 On your map of Morrell Ave you do not show that 117 Morrell Ave has a dropped kerb, and the double yellow lines are continuous from 99 Morrell Ave to 117 Morrell Ave. Do I need a permit to park in my own driveway?

DR127 A problem is with multi-occupancy households having 4 or more cars for a semi-detached house and covering over all of the front gardens to use for car parking. Visitors are parking on the grass verges or extend blocking the areas for pedestrians.

DR186

Q1: It might not be part of this survey but roll-on the introduction of 20pmh! Q3: Although a great scheme, I would be concerned about people getting in a strange car and then having to navigate Divinity - Tricky in a familiar car ! Q4: I would suggest 50 visitor permits for permanent residents less for HMO's. Other comments: I am very concerned about on-pavement parking in Divinity Rd and Stone St, particularly the pavements in Stone St which are narrow enough without parking cars on them. Given the speed the traffic flies through the road it would be very dangerous for anyone in a wheelchair or with a buggy who had to go into the road as the pavement was too narrow.





Parsons Place

Ref No. Comment

DR27

The dropped kerb shared by Nos. 10 and 12 of Parsons Place is not shown on the map. In original questionnaire I asked for double yellow lines for 12, Parsons Place. But I am prepared to go along with white lines if the resident of No. 10 Parsons Place opts for this.

DR43 Refer Parsons Place- several houses park their large vans used for work taking up more than one car space. Are they classed the same as cars?

DR52

Q1. I think the corner of Parsons Place and Tawney Street (No 7of PP -No 1 of TS) should have parking on one side as people do now. If it's possible, we will lose spaces to visitors, it's only fair to give us 'permit holders' more spaces. Currently that corner holds 3 cars. Also there is a home made driveway at No 16 . This is shown as permit parking which obviously won't happen due to the drive way. Also another home made driveway at No 5 , once again not taken into consideration. Q2. The mixes of different types of parking places are ok. I think it's a good idea especially as Parsons Place is a general dump site for those on other permitted roads., Just not sure if the joint parking will cater for us residents.

DR57

Q1. No waiting at any time in one-third of the street including in the close outside. If this is to eradicate double and triple parking it is a good idea but does it mean residents cannot park there? Against partial pavement.

DR81

Q1. Concerned that there will be insufficient parking for all cars in street. Often return from work after 5pm and have to park some distance away from Parsons Place. Believe the system will cause problems for residents as the spaces will not be sufficient. Q2. Permit holders who are residents should have the right to park without time restrictions. Q3. Welcome more information on car club bays. Due to the amount of cars currently using the streets, the scheme will not be helpful. Alternative parking should be considered. Motorists pay large road tax for use of cars, they should be able to park on any road. Residents should not have to pay for parking outside houses.

DR92

Q1. I experience racial abuse as well as my children, I can never park outside my home. People park and leave for a weekend to weeks people park and catch bus to work. I have to wait until 7pm to park. I have had 2 parking tickets outside house, most houses have more than 1 car per household. I and one other are the only ones without a driveway, so we have no right to park outside our home. This has been continuous for 11 years. Q2. I would like permit holders. This has caused real problems with neighbours with events on Cowley, we face real fears of fall cuts, and it’s not fair. If we were all allocated a parking space this would fix a now hostile street back to our relaxing home life.

DR96

Q1. The dropped kerb outside 7 Parsons Place is not shown on the proposed layout. I would like it added to the plan and to have a white line upon implementation. Has a one way system ever been considered for Divinity Road, Hill Top Road, Southfield Road. E.G. one way from Cowley Road up Divinity to roundabout at top, one way down from Hill Top Road, Southfield Road to Cowley Road.





DR150

Q1: There are too few parking spaces in our street - Parsons Place. One the face of it, it seems like a good idea, but there will be double yellow lines outside my house, and I already park in the next street (Tawney St) for about 65-70% of the time, due to lack of space. Q2: In our street, they are mainly 24 hr spaces. Q3: There are no club bays. Q4: I don't know. In all the other parking systems I know of (out of the area) people are simply given a visitors permit, 50 each, seems like an awful waste of card. I don't think such restrictions are necessary. Some will use lots and some hardly at all - it will balance out. Other comments: What distance from my house is it acceptable to walk from my parking space? People often park in the middle our street because of lack of available space, and also laziness. There are so many dropped kerbs and the new flats on the corner on the right hand bend as you turn up Tawney Street. This may be the main problem - houses with more than one car/van. It will no doubt be safer with no parking on bends and space at end of the street, but with the reduction of spaces still further, will cause a considerable shortage of available parking.

DR175

Q1: Parking is being proposed in Parsons Place on the eastern side right up to the corner joining Morrell Avenue. This will obstruct the view of traffic coming down Morrell Avenue and wishing to make the very sharp turn into Parsons Place and facing traffic head-on. (On a personal note, it will also add to the difficulty of reversing into my own driveway, which at present is possible with care and with the co-operation of patient drivers). We should also consider pedestrians walking down Morrell Avenue whose views could be obstructed. Q3: Please see my answer to Q1. A blue 'car club bay' is marked right on the corner.





Southfield Road

Ref No. Comment

DR1

Q2. Feels the section (green) between Minster Rd and Warneford Rd has been made available for Brookes Student parking. This is unacceptable as parking should be provided for students on campus. Q3. As a carer would like to see more club bays in the central area of Southfield Road. The proposed plan looks like it is only for the top and bottom of Southfield Road, some carers may have to walk some distance. Q4. The number of visitors’ permits should be unlimited. What happens if a resident has ore than 50 visitors a year, can they apply for more or park elsewhere. Aware that universities have no control over students bring cars into Oxford. Feels that Brooks University Campus in Southfield Road should have made adequate parking for all its students as it has the land to do this.

DR2 Q1. The chicanes occupy enough space for parking two cars apiece and, in Southfield Road, seem to have no useful purpose as they present no obstacle to drivers. They could be removed (or shortened to allow the tree to remain) thus releasing more parking spaces.

DR16

Q1. Would rather not have residents parking - residents parking will push the parking problem further along Cowley Road. Residents parking will make it difficult for people parking in to collect kids and for short visits. Q2. Don’t like option 2 in Southfield Road, as we will not be able to park outside our house as there are not enough spaces as it is (top of Southfield Road)- the demand for the green spaces will be very heavy. Q4. One visitor a week, need I say more?? (I have 3 children with busy social lives) Prefer option 1 but would rather not have to pay to park outside my own house.

DR18 Q1. At the moment we have a white line in front of our off road parking space. We would like to request that a double yellow lines be painted

DR19

Q1. I do not think that the parking situation is so bad as it is. I have lived in another with residents parking and do not like it. It is especially annoying for large young families who often need to have people round briefly to collect kids, etc. Things is live parties can be ruined by heavy handed wardens etc,. I feel the system becomes very intrusive. Q2. It depends, we are Southfield Road residents and option one is by very far the better option. Option 2 does not provide enough parking spaces. Q4. I think there should be a bigger allowance especially for families with children who are lively to have lots of visitors. If we have to go down the miserable residents parking route, then option 1 for Southfield Road is much better than option 2. Option 2 would be disastrous for us. You need to consider what it is true. When you arrive home late at night with 3 sleeping little children and you can only park two blocks away.

DR20

Q1. I would rather not have permit only parking in Southfield Road. Managing permits would need too much especially if I have a number of visitors using cars. They manage fine as it is and usually find a space even if they have to walk 50 -100 yards. It works as it is. Q2. Would prefer not to have a permit only scheme. Same reason as above. Q3. Think car club bays are a good idea.

DR21

Q1. Option 1 I am concerned that the section freeway even in scheme 1 may result in more cars going more quickly along the road. I am also concerned that it may allow cars to try and pass each other or cyclists.





DR22

Q1. The only option I find acceptable is with no pavement parking. The people park on pavement now - the pavement are too narrow, it makes it difficult to get out of the gates in buggies and/or bicycles - what about rubbish collection day. I understand this option does not fulfill existing number of cars - but we need to reduce cars. People will really have to think whether 2 cars are necessary and students may be persuaded to leave them behind. People would not stick to the designated width of the pavement. Q2. This will be confusing. Q4. No - I would offer a few more upto 100. What if people regular home help/nurse visits are most exempt. Southfield Road is a busy for pedestrians - going to school and college - we should encourage this mode of transport. Please take the opportunity to encourage walking and cycling - no pavement parking is the option for a better city.

DR31

Q1. 50 permits is wholly inadequate - effectively allowing only one visitor per week. Considering need for trade visitors -plumbers, builders etc - leaves very limited social opportunities especially for elderly and young families’ park and ride access poorer than other areas of the city. We believe that options with parking on both sides of the street - including pavement parking are essential otherwise there will far too few parking spaces for the existing residents' parking.

DR35

I hope that the white line, marking the entrance to my front drive will continue to be respected. If I find it is regularly abused will I be able to have double yellow lines put down on a later date? It would be nice if the number of my house was on the plan. It goes from 59-63. I am immediately below (south of) 30 Minster Road.

DR36

Q1. Parking scheme shown on plan 1200/004 is acceptable, but not 1200/010. Q4. 25 visitor permits is usual, i.e.. Normal- misleading question. Weekend visitors will use disproportionate amount of permits( at 1 permit a day). Visitor permits should relate to the property, not the individual residents, but should be 100 per property free of charge. In view of weekend visitors).

DR39

The large number of multiple occupant student households in this area means that it would be very likely that the occupants of a house would put their visitor permits together and would use them to have an extra car or two permanently parked during term time . There would be an abuse of the system and would make it likely that we could not get the advantages of controlled parking so much. We suggest reducing the allowance of visitor permits by half.

DR45

Visitor permits should be restricted to two lots per household. Otherwise student houses with 5 or 6 residents could obtain 250-300 visitor permits per year, so could park an additional car on the street. We are pleased with the sensible approach that has been taken to address the issue. Contrary to Oxford Pedestrians Association, I support in using the pavement edge for parking on Southfield Road, as a way of making it a safer road to park and drive through, while keeping as many as parking spaces as possible. I feel this will not be detrimental to pedestrians, as a lot of cars already park on the pavements and marking them will give a clear sign to drivers as to where they can and cannot park. I have friends who used to live on Stapleton Road, and have seen that this is a viable and acceptable way of maximising parking spaces while maintaining clear access for road and pavement users.

DR46

Q1. We are still strongly opposed to partial parking on the pavement . One metre is barely enough space for elderly person and partner to walk side by side. What happens if a wheel chair user or baby buggy comes up in opposite direction? Also many cars including ours cannot retract their wing mirrors. These are dangerous to infants and pedestrians and end up being smashed or broken when they get in pedestrians way as they will with pavement parking. Feel one permit per house should be adequate at this time when we are trying to reduce everyone's carbon foot print. Also feel the council should be able to restrict student car ownership.





DR47 Perhaps marking the single park spaces on the road would prevent people parking with unreasonably big gaps between cars. When will the CPZ start ?

DR50

Q3. I feel there is scope to increase the number of car club bays from 2 to 4 in Bartlemas Close/Southfield Park given the number of residents in the flats. Although this is a parking scheme , would there be scope to also add more/better cycle routes too? If parking is to increase on Bartlemas Close this should be accompanied by the improvement of street lighting . It is common for at least one light to be out at any time. There is also a higher rate of dumped and burnt out cars on this road. Better lighting would help.

DR51

I really feel we should be discouraging students from leaving cars in Oxford. I am sure if I can, so can they. As a non driver I would appreciate enough parking permits to enable my regular visitors from a distance to park. I am very concerned at the proposed to permit car parking on our narrow pavements. My objections are : 1. Pavements are specifically designed to protect pedestrians from road traffic. 2. There will not be room for pedestrians to use the pavements except in single file and there will be possibility of pushing a buggy or a bicycle on the pavement. Many people cannot cycle up Southfield Road, will be forced to push in the road. My blind neighbour will not be able to use the pavements for fear of parked cars. 3. Divided pavements are all right providing the pavement is wide enough, but even so motorists will not necessarily observe the marked limits, as in Ferry Road which is much less dangerous than Southfield Road. Our streets and pavements were never designed for cars in this quantity, and a radical solution will have to be sought for the menace of a car parking in dense housing without garages. I feel we need to deter the car ownership, not encourage it.

DR63

Q1. We're pleased that there is parking on both sides of Southfield Road. This not only provides for more residents, but also discourages cars from travelling at speed. Overall we are still concern that there will not be enough parking for all cars . We only park our car at week ends in the street as all of us work away from Oxford. We are worried that arriving back late on Friday night , there will not be a space. The nearest place to park will be further along the Cowley Road. Q2. I feel the 2 hour shared parking proposed for area near Sinnet Court/Hill Top Road will continue to encourage student and hospital parking. Q3. There don't seem to be very many bays I have come across quite a few people who are said they would be interested in a car club including ourselves.

DR70

Q1. I don't know what you mean by 'layout'. Q3. Proposed car club bays are not acceptable. The car bay at the bottom of Southfield Road where it joins Cowley Road is too close to the junction and is likely to contribute to congestion here. At the moment people park too close to Cowley Road which causes traffic jams. Q4. I did be happy with 25 visitor permits. I live at Southfield Court on Southfield Road , which has a car park at the back. At the moment there are white lines across the entrance/exit to allow access, although cars often park across white lines blocking the access. On the plans you've sent there appear to be no restrictions to traffic parking in front of/across the car park entrance. How will we get in and out of the car park? There should be double yellow lines there at least to deter illegal parking and enable access. There is an elderly resident at 4A Southfield Road with access only through the car park who must have ready access to Southfield Road for medical attention etc. Any parking across the entrance to the car park will restrict the services she can receive.

DR76

Q1. The proposed parking scheme goes across our driveway, which we use continually. The map does not show the dropped kerb for the driveway. We request that a white access protection line be painted outside our driveway at 92, Southfield Road. Q4. It is very hard to judge if 50 visitor permits per resident is acceptable given the number of HMO's and students in this area. Intuitively I think that 50 permits per house are appropriate.





DR88

Q1. Dislike pavement parking, 1 metre is not wide enough. Will make the area dominated by cars, less pleasant for pedestrians, impossible for disabled/wheelchairs. One sided parking reduces parking and will cause major problems as there is not enough space for cars. Increasing the driving area to 3m means that cars will feel they are able to drive even faster than they do at present. Cars will be damaged by having to drive on pavements. As long as roads are 2 way, emergency vehicles will have difficulty, expanding to 3m will make no difference. Neither of the 2 options is acceptable. Q2.Very little alternative parking (i.e. non resident), perhaps it could all be a mix so if residents aren't there others can use their spaces. There are often spaces during the day, ( i counted 12 at 12pm on a Friday) why shouldn't they be used by people who work locally. Q3. Car Club has only just started, it seems to have a disproportionate number of bays for the few cars. It is an expensive way to have a car for a few journeys and hasn't been passed yet. Q4. If you have regular visits from family, lovers, medical or social services 50 will quickly run out. The pavements are not wide enough to have parked cars and still allow buggies and wheel chairs. Push chair users will have to swap sides as they go up the road. If you leave things as they are this is not a problem. Residents parking zones are expensive to install, costly for residents and a nightmare for partners. It will be another tax, and keep people in the County Council in employment. I car share with someone in St Mary's Road, a different zone. We each have the car half the week. This permit system does not cater for this. Many students or visitors will have their cars registered else where, will they be able to obtain permits?. Parking is a little difficult around here but it works fine. Please keep it as it is. Some households have more than2 adults, usually poorer households, will they be penalised if they have 2+ cars? Q4. If you have regular visits from family, lovers, medical or social services 50 will quickly run out. The pavements are not wide enough to have parked cars and still allow buggies and wheel chairs. Push chair users will have to swap sides as they go up the road. If you leave things as they are this is not a problem. Residents parking zones are expensive to install, costly for residents and a nightmare for partners. It will be another tax, and keep people in the County Council in employment. I car share with someone in St Mary's Road, a different zone. We each have the car half the week. This permit system does not cater for this. Many students or visitors will have their cars registered else where, will they be able to obtain permits?. Parking is a little difficult around here but it works fine. Please keep it as it is. Some households have more than2 adults, usually poorer households, will they be penalised if they have 2+ cars? The two proposal of Southfield Road, 1. Parking on only one which reduces 50% of parking which is unacceptable. 2. Parking on 1 side on the pavement. Both options will likely to increase the speed of the traffic. Pavement is for pedestrians. 1 metre is enough for a push chair let alone a wheelchair. The basis on which the permits are issued might exclude many people who live in the area on a temporary basis. - Students, visiting academics, musicians, actors etc. I share the car with someone in St. Mary's Road 3 days a week. Can you tell me what facility is available to get a permit when CPZ comes into effect?

DR91

Q1. There is access to off-street parking for 4B - 4F and the need to for access to bungalow 4A - this is marked as residential parking on your scheme. Please change this to DYL, access is needed at all times, the white line has not proved successful so far in preventing blockage or partial blockage of access, making it difficult to get in and out of the street. Q4. There is a level of student accommodation in the area which increases the number of cars at times. I would suggest a limit per household, rather than per resident.





DR94

Q4. We have a large number of HMO's and this would lead to too many visitors permits being available. The suggestion of a maximum of 100 permits per household is much more reasonable. What about students in Halls of Residents (e.g. Sinnet Court). They should not be allowed residents or visitors permits as a condition of their tenancy is that they are not allowed to keep cars.

DR106

Q1. I am not in favour of pavement parking. The street is a place for people, not just a car park. Until fairly recently stickers were issued with police & council logos saying - it is an offence to obstruct a footpath - pavements are for people, please don't park on them, even for a moment. I still agree with those sentiments. Removing the chicanes would increase the number of parking spaces. After consultation with my neighbours we have decided to keep the WAP to protect our driveways.

DR116

Q1: Makes sense - a good compromise - but see below comments please. Q2: No - short term parking will allow shoppers to park, when the parking in the street should only be for residents. There's not enough space to accommodate both residents and shoppers, encouraging shoppers to use the area for parking will cause further crowding and general traffic difficulties in an already overcrowded area. Q3: Looks good - but there must be 'passing' areas where cars up (*or down) can pull in to let other pass. How do cars going 'up' the road therefore pass those who are going 'down'? Is it envisaged to have bigger humps in the road to slow the traffic and/or to have traffic only moving in one direction / one way? There is evidence such a high degree of 'road rage' as people got into difficulties managing what they perceive to be other motorist's insensivity in driving through the area/ not yielding to other traffic. Q4: High level of multiple occupancy (i.e. rented housing) could cause chaos in the road for permanent, long term residents - owner-occupiers. The proposals look good, thanks for getting on with this.

DR119

Q1: Yes, and we prefer the scheme that allows for cars to be parked on both sides of Southfield Road. Otherwise, Southfield Road might just turn into a second Divinity Road with plenty of cars, some driving way too fast. Q4: Yes, under the assumption that these visitor permits will be available for residents that don't own a car and don’t have a parking permit.

DR120

Q1: I much prefer the version with no pavement parking in Southfield Road. Parking on the pavement outside my house, from experience, means that I have difficulty getting my bicycle out on to the road and that it is difficult to get my car out of my garage. The 'Club Car only' space has been marked in Southfield Road and is not when it is shown on the maps. Q3: See above - it has already been marked in a different position! This is before any consultations. Q4: Provided it is properly policed. Since I have a garage, I presume I will not need a parking permit. It is important that visitor/permits are still allocated to my house. What is proposed for Sinnet Court? They are allowed only a very limited number of cars and they are not for students. With less parking an enforced 20mph speed limit will be essential. I was pleased to see that the proposal included a car club space to be placed closed to Southfield Road: Minster Road junction., however this morning some workmen arrived and marked a space almost opposite my house and well away from the position marked on the map. What is the point of consulting if the decision has already been taken?





DR125

Q1: Southfield Road (Between Minster Rd and Hill Top Rd) OPTION 1 1) I request that the garage forecourt dropped kerb has no residents parking and is marked by yellow double lines as permanent 'No waiting'. 2) I am opposed to pavement parking on both sides. The existing 'chicanes' have a clear straight route 2.3m wide and prove adequate for refuse lorries. I request the chicanes are removed and the lengths marked with double yellow lines to provide passing places. 3) Any increase in road width will encourage speeding (if cars cannot pull to the side) throughout the full length of the road. 4) Pavement parking, leaving only 1m width for 30m long, is unacceptable. At lamp post positions the 1.5m pavement is already reduced to 1.3m. Q2: For OPTION 1 only Q3: 1) The position shown on OPTION 1 plan (outside 15 Minster Rd) would have been acceptable. 2) However, the position was actually painted south of No. 62 which is preventing flexibility in that length of parking. I object that this space was moved prior to the consultation and at the behest of only one resident. 3) The best position is in the 'Public' (green) area next to the sub station south of 32 Minster Rd. A much more suitable position for Sinnet Court Car Club members. Q4: Permits should be allocated per property. Multi-occupied houses with, say 6 residents, would provide 300 permits. Not a method of discouraging cars and encouraging public transport use Other Comments: 1) A separate sheet has been completed for OPTION 2. 2) I consider that it was presumptive to mark Car Club bays in advance of Public Consultation completion. The Club should have been subject to criticism from residents and should not have presumed special treatment. 3) Please take particular note of Item 1.1 comment. As I understand that this request should have been made on the initial consultation form but that it is not too late to adopt this request. Q1: Southfield Road (Between Minster Rd and Hill Top Rd) OPTION 2 1) The loss of 62 potential car spaces is unacceptable. Totally unworkable. 2) The increased road width would encourage even greater speed than suffered at present. 3) I live at no. 66 and own garages between Nol 63 and 13 Minster Rd. I am in favour of double yellow lines for the full width of the garage forecourt dropped kerb. 4) See Option 1 comments re Car Club space. Q2: Insufficient 'Public' (green) parking. Q3: See Option 1 comments. Q4: See Option 1 comments. Other comments: A separate sheet has been completed for Option 1.

DR129

Q1: Pavement parking is not acceptable under any circumstances. This road is used by children and students walking to school or university and by wheelchairs and single and double buggies. All these users would be encouraged and sometimes obliged to use the roadway to pass each other on one-meter pavements. If you make pavements narrower, more people will use cars but we need a parking scheme which reduced traffic speeds and promotes walking - on safe pavements. Other comments: pavement parking prioritises drivers over pedestrians, yet we are all pedestrians. Traffic speed in the area is already excessive and dangerous. An imaginative scheme which uses parking bays to reduce speed and discourage rat-running but also to provide adequate parking space is the only acceptable solution. Please re-consider these dangerous and thoughtless plans. This is a residential area and all but local traffic should be discouraged by any means.





DR130

Q1: As I do not have a car, being over 96 years old, I do not feel able to comment. However, see notes overleaf for Q4. Q2: See above and below. Q3: See above and below. Club bays will take up valuable spaces and will often be empty, as the cars will be in fairly constant use. Who will be able to use these empty bays? Q4: NO!! I am 96 years old and live alone. a) My family and friends visit me regularly and often stay overnight. I shall need for more visitor permits. b) I have a cleaner and a gardener weekly. Shall be allowed sufficient visitor tickets for them? Other comments: This questionnaire does not deal with on-pavement parking for cars. Pedestrians, the elderly and young families with prams are not being sufficiently considered. One metre is barely sufficient for my family to take me out in my wheelchair. PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS!

DR133

Q1: Parking on pavements is not acceptable - so drawing 009 would be OK up to a point. Q3: Would be useful to have a few more. Q4: There seems to be an inconsistency between what is proposed/recommended in the letter which talks of permits per property and this question. Would this for example apply to all the residents of Sinnet Court? Perhaps it would be better to allow, say, 100 visitor permits per property per year, or else to rule that halls of residence (which in any event are within easy walking or cycling distance of the University) would not qualify for permits.

DR136

Q1: I do not agree with having a CPZ. Q2: I do not want people wishing to park locally for life reasons, to get tickets and be restricted. Q3: I don't think car clubs will help the congestion at all, as people need cars to get to work, care for family, including domestic support and responsibilities. £4 hour car hire won't help most people who work and are committed to all aspects of life. Q4: I disagree with limiting visits and paying for extra visits - I pay council tax already - e.g.. Family visiting to help me daily as I am disabled. I really think this does not help keep families together. Other comments: This system invades my life, limits the help I will get from my family. It adds to my bills and makes me feel oppressed in by neighbourhood.

DR144

Q1: You send to layouts. We agree with that shown on B1004800/A3/PD/1200/004 Rev0 - that is, we prefer parking on both sides of the road with pavement parking on one side. We do not prefer parking on one side of the road only. Other comments: The option to pair on one side only would increase use of road as a rat run and also increase speed of traffic. Decreasing through traffic and speed is a priority for this area. The speed is already dangerous. If the proposals could include effective traffic calming that would be wonderful.

DR146

Other comments: The reduction in parking, particularly in Divinity Rd and the use of pavement parking does not provide any benefits to residents. There will still be parking difficulties. Pedestrians will be inconvenienced by the pavement parking and the current control on speeding vehicles, i.e. parking on both sides of the street (and not pavements) will be removed which will only encourage faster driving and consequent dangers. How can you possibly think the scheme will be of any help apart from raising money?

DR151

Q1: Neither Option 1 nor Option 2 are acceptable. Option 1 is not acceptable because it allows pavement parking and we are opposed to any pavement parking. Option 2 is not acceptable because it will reduce the number of parking spaces available and it will lead to a larger volume of through traffic and increase the speed of that traffic, as a result of the increased width of the carriageway. Q2: In Option 2 there is too much 2-hour parking at the top of Southfield Rd. Since Option 2 provides fewer residential parking spaces, 2 hour parking spaces needs to be cut back as well. Other comments: Other options need to be considered such as staggered, herringbone parking which could provide a reasonable number of parking spaces without pavement parking. Any scheme that facilitates the flow of traffic will increase the volume and speed of that traffic which are more serious problems that the current parking one.





DR153

Q1: I do not want pavement parking. So of the options presented, I would like B1004800/PD/1200/012 Rev 0. However, I do not want a CPZ in the DRARA area as there is no way of combining no pavement parking, sufficient parking spaces and the increased carriageway width you say is a safe minimum. The consultation did not include an explicit 'no CPZ' option and was flawed. Q3: I cannot see them on the plan. Other comments: The CPZ cannot be made to work as sufficient parking is not available without pavement parking when the increased width of the carriageway (for safety access) is imposed. This consultation is flawed. There has not been sufficient invitation to vote against a CPZ, only one set of plans was initially circulated and the second set do not show proposed areas of pavement parking clearly.

DR153

I don’t believe the proposals we are being presented with can be made to work and this is exacerbated because the consultation is not being held in an open manner. Regarding the proposals, it is not reasonable to have 1 metre width on the pavement by allowing cars to park on the pavement. Experience in ferry Road and William Street shows this destroys the feel of the road for residents and is not enough for me and my child to walk side by side. The plan insists on widening the carriageway so we either push cars on to pavements or can only park on 1 side of the street. Neither option is better than the current situation and costs me £40/year. There was no "No CPZ" box to tick on the initial consultation. Afterwards we were sent plans for only 1 option and the other option is still being officially on the table. When we got sent the plans for the second option the proposed areas of pavement parking are not shown correctly (e.g.: Bartlemas Road). Please consider not proceeding with the CPZ.

DR159

Q1: Very concerned that traffic will drive even faster because width of carriageway is now widened. Pavements are narrow enough - will make it almost impossible to walk comfortably in the street. Issue of permit criteria has not to date been disclosed. This is critical to the viability of the design.

DR162

Q1: As a Residents Association, we cannot comment constructively on the proposals because a) the data we collected on car ownership has not been analysed and b) we do not know the criteria for permit allocation. We are opposed to parking on pavements because a) it will widen the carriageway and encourage faster traffic speeds b) detrimental to pedestrians and families, people with disabilities and schoolchildren. Other comments: The County Council has given us the 'solution' it wanted to give us - irrespective of the consultation. Any CPZ design cannot be constructed in isolation - we have to look at rat-running, slower 20mph speeds and the rights of residents to enhance life within their community. OCC's attitude towards the HMD factor has been to close its eyes.

DR165

Q1: As shown on first drawing sent, Ref No. B1004800/A3/PD/1200/003-004. Q4: I think that 50 free visitors’ permits per resident is acceptable. Other comments: I think that students should NOT be eligible for residents parking permits. Only house-owners of those families renting long term should be eligible.

DR166

Q1: I am not sure that we need a CPZ. I can always find somewhere to park. If we are to have one then I would favour the one with partial pavement parking as I feel the others offer too few parking spaces for residents in Southfield Rd (the other roads are not so affected by the question of parking on the pavement and lose a lower proportion of spaces if pavement parking is not allowed) Q2: I like the idea of 'car club' cars - I think they could reduce the no. of cars wanting to park. Q3: Not enough - I'm a widow and rely on my daughters visiting me and friends - I would need more than 50 per year just for my daughters to stay with me, let alone visiting friends. At present they can always park somewhere. Other comments: For the dropped kerb outside my house, I'd prefer a single white line rather than a double yellow. I also feel the CPZ will adversely affect local businesses on the Cowley Rd who rely on people being able to park nearby. If pavement parking is adopted, why can't it all be on one side of the road, leaving the other side for wheelchairs





DR170

Q1: As the mother of 3 young children walking up and down the road every day with a double buggy, I find the idea of pavement parking totally unacceptable. It would be dangerous for pedestrians, make the pavements totally impassable on rubbish collection days, an eyesore for the residents, a source of increased noise as people roar up onto the pavements and damage kerbs etc. The solutions do not seem to have been fully considered - non-pavement parking could be increased by swapping some stretches of parking to opposites sides to avoid garages, driveways etc and more parking could be allowed slightly closer to the junction (as currently happens). Other comments: The so-called 'residents demand' for parking spaces is based on a misleading figure - any survey taken between 4.00 - 6.00am would currently include cars from Sinnet Court and student households with multiple cars, which wouldn't be allowed under permit scheme. Please don't ruin the nature of our street by introducing a scheme pandering to inflated figures. Surely in these times of environmental crises, this is an ideal time to encourage/force households to manage with 1 or 2 cars.

DR174

Q1: I find plans B1004800/A3/PD/1200/004 Rev 0 and B1004800/A3/PD/1200/003 Rev acceptable in order to fit in the number of cars there are in Southfield Road - displacing 62 cars will not work. Drastic footway parking is not essential (2 weeks maybe) often parking on pavements is a state of mind e.g. different parts do, other parts don't, pavement park. Other comments: I have a white line across my garage. This would need double yellow lines under this plan.

DR178

Comments are on SECOND layout sent out: Q1: This layout, with parking one side of Southfield Rd is more acceptable than the first. The only suggested amendment would be parking in BOTH sides of the carriageway on Southfield between Warneford and Minster. I think this would help to reduce pressure on spaces, and traffic blockages could be avoided if traffic turns into Warneford or Minster Roads. Overall, I am worried that traffic speeds will increase, so double parking as described above would help to slow drivers down. Q2: I feel there is too much shared parking in the lower part of Southfield (below Warneford) and that these spaces might be continually occupied by student visitors. Would prefer longer green stretch below Warneford to be RED. If double parking acceptable above Warneford, one side could be green. Q4: I would reduce to 40 - main visitors are students and their access to parking should be reduced if possible. Other comments: Overall, I do worry that this scheme may be to the detriment of pedestrians. I particularly dislike the introduction of pavement parking as standard, and for the measures proposed (especially 1m pavements) are insufficient. Thousands of pedestrians use these tracks every day and there is a worry that their lives will be made more difficult - and that accidents will increase. E.g. more schoolchildren walking in the road, plus higher driver speeds.

DR179 Q1: As per first proposals - Acceptable. Second proposals - Not Acceptable. Q4. Hard to know at this stage.

DR180

Q1: First Option you sent - YES. Second option you send is NOT ACCEPTABLE it reduces parking available far too much. The element of pavement parking is slight and not a problem Q3: Too late - it has already been marked on the road so why ask?





DR187

Q1: I object strongly to parking on pavements and specifically to pavement parking on my doorstep. The pavements are narrow enough as it is. If you make pavements less than 1metre (less where there are obstructions) people with prams, wheelchairs and even just shopping bags, won't be able to use the pavements. Existing gateways into >1m pavements will be hard for the majority of residents with bikes and the minority who use wheelchairs. I also feel strongly that any CPZ designs should complement and enhance the proposed 20mph zone and feel that this has been completely disregarded in the design - using cars parked alternately would form natural chicanes - as A is, motorists will have even wider lanes, which will encourage higher speeds. OPTION 2 FOR SOUTHFIELD WAS MUCH BETTER THAN OPTION 1. Q2: I didn't understand what would happen at weekends in the green and blue sections - no shared parking? Q4: There are a lot of HMO and students who would circumvent the CPZ by using visitor permits to park all their cars in term-time. You should have a limit per house not per person. Also, if you limit allocation of visitor permits in say 2 or 3 tranches during the year, you may be able to limit students’ access to permits. I still think the Council should have found ways for students to be excluded from the scene. Residents are not informed properly that there will be 3 possible layouts in the exhibition for our road. One of alternative being reduced or pavement parking, which is a big issue. If this isn't a fait accompli, it is certainly a consultation stacked firmly in favour of the plan that you are consulting. I am surprised and disappointed.

DR188

Q4: I think a limit of 100 per household would be better due to possibility of abuse of the system by HMO's. Pavement parking is not acceptable in any circumstances. It means the pavements are no longer a safe place for a child. In learning road safety, a child learns that the pavement is a safe place to be and the road is not. Both options of the proposal will increase the speed of the traffic. Meanwhile if the pavement parking is employed, those with wheelchairs or pushchairs would be forced onto this faster, busier road. I know the pavement parking option is to satisfy a minimum acceptable road width, but doing it contravene the guidelines for a minimum acceptable pavement width. I therefore propose a system in which cars park on both sides of the road with someone sided parking sections for cars to pass one another, thus providing enough spaces without causing great inconvenience and increased danger for the most vulnerable members of our community.

DR190 Favour the pavement parking solution.

DR212

Q1. We support parking on both sides of Southfield Road, but see no reason for allowing pavement parking. The Road works well with parking adjacent to the kerb on both sides. The refuse trucks, ambulances etc. are able to use the road, but large delivery vehicles/lorries are suitably deterred from using the road as shortcut. The worst solution would be to allow parking on one side only. This would be detrimental to residents as there would be totally unreasonable and would seriously disadvantage many at very short notice. It would also mean that cars traveling through the area could do more quickly and easily than they do now, more people would be encouraged to use these streets to get to Brookes ad the hospitals. These are residential streets and they should be kept as such. If pavement parking is to be allowed, it would be better to leave one pavement free so that it will be safer for the students walking to Cheney school and Brookes; and also the primary schools at the bottom of the hill. Pavement parking should be strictly enforced. Arrangements may have to be made where there are wheelchair users so they are able to leave their gardens/homes i.e.., not be trapped by a car parked across their exit. If pavement parking allowed, may need to remove chicanes to slow the speed of cars.





Stone Street

Ref No. Comment

DR64

The parking layout is acceptable except for the fact that we would like the first two dropped kerbs on each side of Stone Street when accessed from Morrell Avenue to be yellow line protected and not white line protected. This includes our own access way. This is because we are unable to access our drive way at peak traffic times when cars are parked across the dropped kerb opposite ours.

DR128

Q1: The partial pavement parking outside No. 5 is not acceptable as parking in the proposed fashion already takes place. The pavement is very narrow and when cars are parked in this way, it makes access for prams, pushchairs, wheelchairs, our wheelie bins, elderly people with sticks and walking aids, difficult and some of these people walk in the road just before the blind bend which is even more obscured by parked cars. Q2: Yes - for students and commuters and shoppers who go to Brookes, Oxford all day, Oxford not for resident parking or residents visitors. Other: The dropped kerbs location outside No. 5 is in the wrong place on the plan and seems to permit pavement parking right across our driveway.





Tawney Street

Ref No. Comment

DR7

Q4. Difficult to know without trying the system out first. So would only allow 1 visitor per week. Could all areas have a ten minute waiting time. E.g. For when ex husband collects children etc. I want to be able to park over my driveway, but do not want others to (block my garage access) apart from visitors. Could you provide an official permission to park on my driveway for my use and for occasional visitor?

DR71 Can we please have a white access protection line across our driveway?

DR182 Other comments: I am just about to ask for permission for a dropped kerb and would like white lines outside please.

DR194

Q1: Access to my house - As a cyclist, I cannot leave my front garden with pavement parking outside the gate, without damage to the car or me! I object to pavement parking as a pedestrian and the hill in Tawney, Divinity and Southfield Roads necessitates taking the push bike into the road on return journeys. For mothers with children in prams and buggies, the elderly etc, this is totally unacceptable. Divinity Road car users are incredibly inconsiderate in this respect, Tawney St is quieter with regards through traffic, but it is a risk nevertheless as drivers tend to zoom up the straight run (people before wing mirrors). Other comments: I do not own a car, but certainly need visitors permits. The area is saturated with parked cars already, so I fear for the future. To accommodate pavement parking, I see that existing trees are attacked if growth overhangs the pavement, detracting from the area instantly.





Warneford Road

Ref No. Comment

DR9

Southfield Road is heavily congested in rush-hour traffic, while restricting parking to one side of the road is probably not a feasible solution. I would suggest making it a One-way Road together with Warneford Road, Minster Road and possibly Bartlemas Road. Negotiating who gets to go first on Southfield Road with the inevitable backing up is by for the biggest headache when driving in this area.

DR15

Q1. Disagree with pavement parking. Q2. Agree in principle to a mix but will need to adapt if reduce due to reducing the number of pavement parking. Q3. Car clubs bays are ok. Need to see how it goes and adapt. Q4. Too many visitor permits will give multi-occupancy student houses( there are many in the Divinity area) the upper hand to the disadvantage of the permanent residents. Reduce permits to 1 per household unless special circumstances. Work with collages to reduce the students bringing in cars to the city. Look at more radical options in Warneford Road, Minster road and possibly Bartlemas road to do away with pavements and make it an open pedestrian, car parking, cycling and friendly space.

DR28

Q1. Partial pavement parking makes wheel chair & walker access impossible . My household uses both at present. My 90 year old mother who lives with me does not have a dedicated carer. She has daily visitors from family, plus chiropodists, gardeners, vicar etc. 50 visitor permits would not nearly cover her requirements.

DR44

Q2. I feel that after 6.30 pm it should be available for anyone to park anywhere. It is getting completely ridiculous to have any family or friends over for a cup of tea with these restrictions. A lot of houses around here are shared houses, meaning lots of separate family and friends coming over. I live in a house of 5 in a shared house currently 4 of us have cars. This is needed due to work. I do not work in Oxford. Please can you tell me how we are going to decide who is allowed a car and who is not? Technically who can get to work and back and who cant? I already do a car share scheme to work , any advice is most appreciated.

DR77

Q1. There is no need for pavement parking on one side of Southfield Road. If people park tight to the kerb, which they do, even large removal vans can get through easily. No justification is offered for putting the pavement parking on the south side. I am sure the affected residents are unanimous in their opposition . Such a measure is discriminatory and will affect house prices. An alternative would be to widen the carriageway at the expense of both pavements equally. Q2. The mix of different types of parking is acceptable, but I still believe that the whole scheme is unnecessary. Q3. The position of the proposed car club bay is acceptable, but only if this is kept under review. I doubt the scheme will take off. The scheme is clearly unnecessary. I am unperceived if only 'most' of 24% of residents were in favour. You need a much higher response rate to demonstrate the need for a change to the status ? How many were against? Presumably the 76% are content whatever happens, or expect to be steam-rolled anyway.





DR109

Q2. Shared parking should be limited to 1hr not 2hr. 2hr will not stop people using Warneford Road as a free car park for doing their shopping on the Cowley Road. Q4. The number of visitors permits in insufficient. If a resident lives alone, especially if older, they might well have a family member and/or friend visiting several times a week and permits would soon run out. I see no need to limit as long as residents only give them to bona fide visitors. I do not feel any plans should be finalised until an up to date figure of existing car ownership is obtained. I know that a recent survey has been carried out. If there are already too many cars owned in the area perhaps fewer permits should be given out and a waiting list system apply. At least this would ensure that eventually all residents would get their permits and students might have to wait. It would be very galling if a resident paid for their permit only to find they could not even park in their street or street near by.

DR147

The length of the No waiting at any time at street intersections are too long, thereby reducing the number of parking places unnecessarily. They should be reduced by 50% and this would still allow enough room for all vehicles to make their turns un-hindered. With this alteration I would consider the scheme acceptable, but please maximise the total number of spaces where possible - with improvements as above. Pavement parking acceptable

DR199

Q1: I feel that there is too much wasted space at junction with Bartlemas Road. The pressure on parking needs to maximise parking. Closer inspection of tracking curves might help. Q4: There should be more for permanent residents and less for students who are away for at least one third of the year.





Emails & Letters

Ref No. Street Name Comments

DRE187 Southfield Road

Residents are not informed properly that there will be 3 possible layouts in the exhibition for our road. One of alternative being reduced or pavement parking, which is a big issue. If this isn't a fait accompli, it is certainly a consultation stacked firmly in favour of the plan that you are consulting. I am surprised and disappointed.


I was pleased to see that the proposal included a car club space to be placed closed to Southfield Road: Minster Road junction. however this morning some workmen arrived and marked a space almost opposite my house and well away from the position marked on the map. What is the point of consulting if the decision has already been taken?

DRL88 Southfield Road

The two proposal of Southfield Road, 1.parking on only one which reduces 50% of parking which is unacceptable. 2. Parking on 1 side on the pavement. Both options will likely to increase the speed of the traffic. Pavement is for pedestrians. 1 metre is enough for a push chair let alone a wheelchair. The basis on which the permits are issued might exclude many people who live in the area on a temporary basis. - Students, visiting academics, musicians, actors etc. I share the car with someone in St. Mary's Road 3 days a week. can you tell me what facility is available to get a permit when CPZ comes into effect

DRL89 Divinity Road

My strong opposition to the pavement parking. 1 metre of pavement for people on foot is unacceptable. There will be no room for wheelchairs, pushchairs, or people walking together and with children etc. Cars will damage kerbstones and pose a risk to those on foot. If there are fewer parking spaces, (is suggesting maximum 2 per household) people will be compelled to find other transport solutions, such as car clubs, bikes &public transport.

DRE164 Divinity Road

I am absolutely amazed that you are seriously considering pavement parking around Divinity Road. You will realise if you stroll down Tawney Street on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, when all cars are at home, with a pram or luggage and couple of children. You will find that you have to walk in the road. Tawney Street is not so busy, so walking in the roads is not dangerous but think of the long stretch road like Divinity Road or Stone Street. Children use this route to get to Cheney school everyday. If cars are parked in the pavement that will increase the traffic speed which will be more dangerous. Pedestrians not only have stationary vehicles to contend with, but also vehicles flying up and down. It is a disaster waiting to happen and it will not be long before someone gets killed. The other area where the scheme is a success does not have this much rat run and so many large schools in close proximity. The problem is because of Brooks university student/staff and HMO.I hope that you ensure the safety of everyone in our local community





DRL142 Divinity Road

I am concerned that under the current proposals, there is no provision for me to visit my property as a landlord for maintenance purpose which is on about 25 days a year. I understood that we can get permit only if the car is registered at this address. How are tenants who are students going to get allocation of residents’ permits? They will not, I suspect change their driving license address to a rented property which they are going to be in for 1 year or less.


Pavement parking is not acceptable in any circumstances. It means the pavements are no longer a safe place for a child. In learning road safety, a child learns that the pavement is a safe place to be and the road is not. Both options of the proposal will increase the speed of the traffic. Meanwhile if the pavement parking is employed, those with wheelchairs or pushchairs would be forced onto this faster, busier road. I know the pavement parking option is to satisfy a minimum acceptable road width, but doing it contravene the guidelines for a minimum acceptable pavement width. I therefore propose a system in which cars park on both sides of the road with someone sided parking sections for cars to pass one another, thus providing enough spaces without causing great inconvenience and increased danger for the most vulnerable members of our community.

DRE169 Hill Top Road

I am writing to express concerns about the pavement parking in Hill Top Road; this is a wrong and short sited idea on several counts: This would seem to undermine all the plans for the greening oxford which have been encouraging us to walk and take public transport. It will be dangerous and unpleasant to make ones way through cars and their protruding mirrors. More so for older people, young parents with push chairs as well people with luggage. In case of Hill Top Road, which has a high dependence unit in Jack Howarth House at the end, it will be impossible for carers to push the wheelchairs along the pavement. Pavements are ion my view a sign of caring and civilised society, that we in Britain have been privileged until now to share. We don't need to lose the pedestrian access to our homes?

DRE72 Divinity Road

I write to urge the practice of allowing cars to park partly on the pavement should be kept to the absolute minimum. Ideally it should never happen. Pavements are for pedestrians, and agonies over parking cars might help to change attitudes to cars Vs public transport. Please take pedestrians seriously.


I don’t believe the proposals we are being presented with can be made to work and this is exacerbated because the consultation is not being held in an open manner. Regarding the proposals, it is not reasonable to have 1 metre width on the pavement by allowing cars to park on the pavement. Experience in ferry Road and William Street shows this destroys the feel of the road for residents and is not enough for me and my child to walk side by side. The plan insists on widening the carriageway so we either push cars on to pavements or can only park on 1 side of the street. Neither option is better than the current situation and costs me £40/year. There was no "No CPZ" box to tick on the initial consultation. Afterwards we were sent plans for only 1 option and the other option is still being officially on the table. When we got sent the plans for the second option the proposed areas of pavement parking are not shown correctly (eg: Bartlemas Road). Please consider not proceeding with the CPZ.






My strong opposition to the pavement parking in Hill Top Road. The parking of cars on pavements is a hazard for people with prams, young children, older people with mobility problems etc. I would prefer to have less cars rather than having cars on the pavement. I urge you to reject the proposals for car parking in our area which includes pavement parking.


Contrary to Oxford Pedestrians Association, I support in using the pavement edge for parking on Southfield Road, as a way of making it a safer road to park and drive through, while keeping as many as parking spaces as possible. I feel this will not be detrimental to pedestrians, as a lot of cars already park on the pavements and marking them will give a clear sign to drivers as to where they can and cannot park. I have friends who used to live on Stapleton Road, and have seen that this is a viable and acceptable way of maximising parking spaces while maintaining clear access for road and pavement users.


If pavement parking is implemented as the Oxfordshire Highways are currently proposing in the neighbouring streets - with only 1 side of the street with pavement parking - the other side will retain its full width for the - children, mothers punish prams, etc. My objection is at the top of Divinity road they are proposing parking only on one side of the road in contrast to the neighbouring roads which are being allocated 2 sides parking. The unfortunate consequence of this is that it will only allow a maximum of 24 car parking spaces for 50 spaces - that means it covers 100 permits. This is before the number of visitors' permits is computed. It is not hard to see that this will result in a untenable situation for car owners in this section of Divinity Road, resulting as it will in our having to pay for permits only to have nowhere to park!. I am writing it you to lobby for additional parking solutions to be applied. It will send clear message to the motorists that our street for through traffic. I make proposals which aim to balance the burden, to treat everyone equitably and to take into account the pedestrians' concerns.

DRL74 Divinity Road

I get around with a stick and I have to be careful, I therefore hate pavement parking. At the junction of Stone St with Morrell Avenue has 5 or 6 cars close to the wall and once a blind man was standing helplessly wondering what the obstruction on the pavement was. One feels that today car owners are the most considered people in the community. In the days when I drove I would not have parked to give so much hardship to the elderly and people with buggies and children. I also find bicycles on the pavement - they tear along when I step off on to the pavement. I have to watch out after seeing one coming at the last minute and losing my balance and landed in JR. for a day and night with a hole in my head. Some years before I was hit on a corner by a bicycle coming round the other way. I have filled in a form to our member who sends out Questionnaires.






I am very concerned at the proposed to permit car parking on our narrow pavements. My objections are: 1. Pavements are specifically designed to protect pedestrians from road traffic. 2. There will not be room for pedestrians to use the pavements except in single file and there will be possibility of pushing a buggy or a bicycle on the pavement. Many people cannot cycle up Southfield Road, will be forced to push in the road. My blind neighbour will not be able to use the pavements for fear of parked cars. 3. Divided pavements are all right providing the pavement is wide enough, but even so motorists will not necessarily observe the marked limits, as in Ferry Road which is much less dangerous than Southfield Road. Our streets and pavements were never designed for cars in this quantity, and a radical solution will have to be sought for the menace of a car parking in dense housing without garages. I feel we need to deter the car ownership, not encourage it.


Unacceptable proposal to allow cars to park on the pavements in east Oxford. Recently council spent a lot of money in notifying Divinity Road residents that the pavements were to be re-surfaced. The pavement was resurfaced on only 1 side and some of the broken kerb stones were put back leaving parts of the pavement with jagged edges. Allowing cars to park on the pavement will accelerate pavement surface deterioration and there will be extra hazards from more broken kerb stones. 1 metre pavement is not wide enough. I have a knee problem and need support to walk. It would be the similar case for elderly or disabled. If the cars are being driven on & off the pavements it will be dangerous as some of the cars swoop into spaces very fast. Young children will not be able to run safely down the road. Please make sure that the pavements are kept clear and safe for pedestrians. Remember that under the Disability Discrimination Acts; all disabled people have the right of safe access to shops and the other facilities most people use.


Yes to pavement parking. I welcome some parking on the pavement in Southfield Road as it will make more likely that we have enough parking spaces. I also hope that we get some physical re-enforcement of the 20 mile an hour limit due to be imposed on our street. Our street is full of families with young children including my own it would be a relief if the 20mph enforced.

DRE202 Bartlemas Road

I feel the consultation has not gone far enough and has not taken into account the academic year. I would suggest all students unless disabled would not have access to parking permits. Students do not pay for their council tax where they study. They pay for their council tax where their student grant is provided i.e. at home with their parents. I would suggest that a pilot scheme of a year to introduce permits for residents who pay council tax and see what the impact is. If as I suspect there will be adequate parking, there would be no need to park on the pavements. I have seen enormous cars in the term time.





DRE203 Cheney School

The catchments area for Cheney school extends through Divinity area and into Cowley Road, making both Divinity Road and Southfield Road a very well used route for students who walk to school: in the mornings and afternoons and it is very busy for this reason. As I understand it, the proposals would mean that residents in Divinity and Southfield Roads would be allowed to park on the pavements to allow wider access for motor vehicles, thus narrowing the already narrow pavement to less than 1 metre. We encourage students to walk to school for both physical and environmental reasons we feel that the pavement parking would sent them clear message that the pavement that their right as pedestrians are less important than that of the drivers. More over concerned parents will prefer to drive because of safety reasons. Students expressed concern about the difficulty of bringing musical instruments and such to school and the resolution would be for them to walk on the road. or be driven to school. It is essential that the council takes into account that traffic accidental death for 12-16 year olds with almost 1 in 5 teenagers reporting being involved in an accident or near miss on their way home from school. We strongly feel that any further proposals in the area that may have an effect on out student and staff must be presented to school in order for us to make the contribution regarding the decision. Please ensure that all further proposals are sent for the attention of Ms Jolie Kirby (Headteacher).


Please do not allow pavement parking. 1metre of pavement is not sufficient for people on foot, especially given that there are overhanging hedges in many gardens. People in wheelchairs and those with pushchairs, especially double pushchairs, will be forced out into the road. Pavements were intended for walkers. Please ensure that they are not sacrificed to the need of car users, whose vehicles should be confined to the carriageway.

DRE205 Cowley Road

I am writing to express concerns about the pavement parking. 1 metre left for those on foot is not enough. I walk my child to school at SS Mary and John - it will not be possible to walk and talk to her with that width. It is difficult and hazardous enough as it is with all the cars on the pavement without the County Council legitimising this dangerous and anti-social practice of parking on pavements. The streets are not just for car drivers but for all of us - car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. I would be grateful is you could explain why the council prioritises the needs of car drivers above all others in the city.

DRE206 Bartlemas Road

Contrary to the apparently widely help opinion, I am in favour of pavement parking. I see no alternative solution to the parking problems in our area - the roads are too narrow and there are too many cars. Pavement parking is the only answer.





DRE207

I am deeply concerned that the prospect of parking bays encroaching into pavement space in Southfield, Minster and Divinity Roads as far as the plans seem to indicate that they will. Leaving 1 metre on the pavement means 2 children or 2 adult cannot walk side by side. It is likely to diminish the sense of social cohesion in the neighbourhoods. Set against this is an additional convenience for residents who own motor vehicles. But the present arrangements for parking, in which most such vehicles are parked in the roadway is perfectly adequate. By ensuring the available carriageway to be narrow, can reduce the speed of the vehicles, thereby contributing to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists May I know what measure the county council plans to use to determine whether this encroachment is a success? Is there any empirical evidence that in the other areas of Oxford where it has been tried it has been successful? Can you explain how the number of parking places that we are told were required was determined? Did the method for determining them include counting cars owned by residents of "Sinnet Court" whose tenancy terms are not enforced by the management association - despite being a condition of planning permission?


1. your map does not show the new property at 101 Divinity Road (a small development of 5 flats) I would recommend the parking in front of this property currently marked as no waiting at any time has at least one space for permit holders only parking 24 hours Monday -Sunday to allow any of the tenants the chance to have visitor park in front of the property. 2. My 84 year old mother lives at 99 Divinity Road where the space is currently on your plans marked as a no waiting at any time. I would like to support her letter to you requesting the space be changed to a disabled space. She has severe difficulties in walking and as such has a registered blue disabled badge. She has therefore for many years parked in front of No.99 Divinity Road for this reason and would therefore request that she still has the ability to do this. 3. Between 99 and 101 there is a driveway accessing parking at the rear for the 101 flats - this will need to be marked in such a way that it is not blocked so that all tenants have access 24 hours a day.

DRL209 Hill Top Road

The proposal will infact affect us quite considerably concerning access requirements. All our residents need wheelchairs and require at least 1metre space on the pavement. At the moment Hill Top Road had ad hoc pavement parking on both sides of the road and there is certainly not 1 metre clear/continuous space on the pavements. Pot holes, uneven surfaces and overhanging shrubs/plants compound the difficulties. Consequently our residents are often pushed down the middle of the road. Divinity road is also non negotiable for wheelchairs for the same reasons. I understand that there are a number of elderly residents in Hill Top Road, and elderly people's Home, with some residents dependent on wheelchairs for mobility. Wheelchairs access to/from a property requires at least 2 metres turning circle which clearly will not be available should pavement parking be introduced.






It looks like a thorough, careful and thoughtful attempt to address the really terrible parking problems in this area. I live at 14, Hill Top Road, at the top left hand corner of Southfield Road. 1. According to your plan, the top of Southfield Road is coded green: Does that mean that after 6:30 pm anyone could park without limit until the morning, or does it mean that after 6.30pm the spaces revert to permit holders only? (You mention 2 or 3 times in your papers the problem of overnight non- resident parking in the area. If it means the former, I have second query: 2. The entrance to our garage is at present protected (by some extent) by a dropped kerb and a white line. You say the neighbouring residents usually respect the white line, and a white line also means residents won't get a ticket if they park over. But is it your experience that non-residents also respect the white line? It may be better for us to have double yellow line in front of our garage. As one of the effect of long standing parking problems in these areas that we have a real horror of having access to our garage blocked). 3. You are proposing to allow 1 metre pavements at the top of Southfield Road, to accommodate partial pavement parking. The cyclists very often get off their bikes and wheel them up the pavement there. I fear that the partial pavement parking will exacerbate an already existing problem: pedestrians with bikes, buggies or just shopping or rucksacks careless scratching the cars on their right, and damaging fences to their left. Is there any way of addressing this?

DRE211 Warneford Road

Oppose to pavement parking in the Divinity Road area. I live in Warneford Road and it would be most inconvenient and unsuitable to have cars parked on the pavements. There are elderly people and families with children in the area which would make it difficult for them. I myself have my father who is elderly and ill, so it would make matters very disabling for him.

DRE214

I would like to voice my concern about the plan to mark out pavements for parking. I feel this is the wrong direction to be taking. My family and I are pedestrians. We walk to and from school and to and from work. We have had frequent close shaves with cars manoeuvring on and off pavements. I feel very strongly that pavements should be a no go area for cars, quite simply. This would promote pedestrian safety, which has to be the primary concern. I am afraid to say that the over crowding of East Oxford with cars would be better addressed by fewer cars that by more lax parking arrangements.

DRL51 Southfield Road Against pavement parking

DRL74 Divinity Road Against pavement parking

DRL196 Divinity Road Against pavement parking






Oppose to pavement parking in the East Oxford. Though I drive a car, I am also a pedestrian and I feel that pedestrians should have their space as well as motorists. If anything, the walking culture should be encouraged. - Life for disabled bay should not be made even more difficult by pavements narrowed by cars parked on them. People in wheelchairs should not have to go into the road and blind people should not have to walk single file with the person who is guiding them. - Parents should feel that their children are safe walking to school and that they will not be threatened by drivers driving up the pavement to park. - Residents should be able to go out and return home without having to manoeuvre themselves, and sometimes their pushchairs and bicycles (yes I am a cyclist too) around cars parked on the pavement in front of their houses. -maintaining pavements that are constantly being drive on will be expensive. One argument given for pavement parking is that it happens already. The fact that the regulation against pavement parking, which is an offence, is not enforced gives an indication of the way the pavement markings will not be observed because motorists will know they can get away with it.

DRE215 Huw Vaughan Jones

With regard to the footway parking as outlined in your proposal, I note that it is your intention to have a minimum of only 1.0 metre available for pedestrians. This falls far short of the requirement for disabled users and of course mothers with prams etc which sets out the minimum at 1.5 metres. (Manual for Streets). I have no comment to make on the remaining part.

DRL216 Fire and Rescue Service

The Fire and Rescue Service have on numerous occasions' encountered difficulty in gaining access to incidents within these areas. I would like to confirm that the proposals in your plans take account of these issues and will provide adequate access for a Fire Engine to proceed to an incident within this area without the restriction caused by parked cars.

DRE217 Fire Risk Manager city

With regards to Southfield Road, the parking in this area on both sides of the road has in the past restricted the width for appliances proceeding along this road. I would support any control measures that allow parking thus increasing the available width of the carriageway and improving access for fire appliances. With regards to any proposed road closures utilising gates or rising bollards, my concern would be the impact that this has on our response to incidents in and around the area and the possible delay on appliances and crews reaching an incident.