Item No.
7/2003
City of Westminster
Decision-maker
Date
Title of Report
CABINET MEMBER
15 January Controlled Parking Zone Extension
(Queen’s Park) Review
FOR TRANSPORT &
2003
INFRASTRUCTURE
Report of Director of Planning &
CLASSIFICATION FOR GENERAL
Transportation
RELEASE
Harrow Road & Queen’s Park
Wards Involved
Policy Context
UDP Policy STRA24 states that the City Council will seek
to control on-street parking, with particular reference to the
special requirements of residents and people with
disabilities.
Financial Summary
The estimated cost of the study for the proposals given in
this report is £30,000, and to make the Queen’s Park CPZ
traffic order permanent £2,000, which can both be met
from provision in the Street Parking Account.
Philip Basher
Author
1.
SUMMARY
1.1
This report:



reviews the extension to the controlled parking zone (CPZ), which was
implemented in the Queen’s Park area in September 2001;
seeks approval to make permanent the experimental traffic orders
relating to this scheme; and
seeks approval to review the parking measures to reflect parking
demand in the area and the representations from local businesses,
residents and Ward Members.
2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1
That approval be given to make the experimental traffic order(s) governing
the Queen’s Park CPZ permanent from March 2003 and that the objections
are set aside.
2.2
That approval is given to the proposed study to revise visitor parking facilities
in the Queen’s Park CPZ and to increase parking facilities on Kilburn Lane
and Carlton Vale.
Page 1 of 10
2.3
That approval be given to traffic orders being made under sections 6 and 45
of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and to the statement of reasons in
Appendix 2.
3
BACKGROUND
3.1
In November 2000 the former Transportation & Highways Operational Subcommittee approved the extension of parking controls into the streets west of
Bravington Road (Queen’s Park) see figure 1. This followed a consultation of
residents and businesses in the area conducted in September 2000, which
came down against (53% of respondents) the introduction of parking controls
into the area. Committee approved the scheme because of the proposals by
the London Borough of Brent to implement parking controls into neighbouring
streets on its side of the boundary in spring 2001. It was also felt that the CPZ
extension into the whole of Queen’s Park should proceed in order to avoid the
boundary street phenomena caused by earlier piecemeal CPZ extensions.
3.2
In May 2001 the former Transportation & Highways Operational Subcommittee considered the objections to the traffic order and agreed that the
CPZ extension should proceed. It was agreed that the scheme would be
reviewed after approximately six months of operation by the Cabinet Member
for Transport & Infrastructure.
3.3
The scheme was implemented in September 2001. Surveys of parking
behaviour were conducted in February 2002. This report reviews the results
of the surveys, correspondence received concerning the scheme and makes
recommendations for changes to the parking measures.
4.
REVIEW OF THE NEW CPZ
4.1
Analysis of Survey Data
Parking occupancy surveys were carried out on all streets within the new
CPZ. Broadly speaking the surveys confirm that the CPZ extension has
fulfilled its aims of protecting and improving the availability of parking for
residents. The half hourly beat surveys were conducted between 6.30 a.m.
and 7 p.m. on 26 February 2002 and the table below outlines the all-day
average occupancy rates for each type of parking bay and single yellow lines.
Page 2 of 10
Type of parking
Residents’ parking
Shared use
Pay & display
Disabled parking
Motorcycle parking
Single yellow line
Number of spaces
1736
180
20
25
60
282
Average day-time
occupancy %
45%
54%
65%
47%
10%
11%
4.2
These results show that during the controlled hours a reasonable number of
spaces are generally available to residents’ looking to park on-street. The
occupancy rate for residents’ bays at 45% is lower than the City-wide average
of 78% or the Zone C average of 77%. This low occupancy rate equates to
approximately 955 vacant kerbside spaces, and indicates that it is not
generally difficult for a resident to find a space. The data also showed that
there appeared to be very little variation between the controlled hours
(Mondays – Fridays, 8.30 a.m. – 6.30 p.m.) and the uncontrolled hours in the
occupancy rates of residents’ parking bays.
4.3
The average occupancy rate for shared use parking is reasonable at 54%,
although this conceals some locations that are subject to greater parking
pressure. For example the average day-time occupancy figures for the
shared use in Beethoven Street was 93%, in First Avenue 94% and Mozart
Street 85%. These results indicate that it is difficult to find a vacant space at
these locations. Beethoven Street is the site of a number of businesses and
as noted below (paragraphs 4.5 & 6.2) there has been some correspondence
on this issue. First Avenue lies between the retail area on Harrow Road and
the Jubilee Sports Centre, and there have been requests for additional visitor
parking in this area. Mozart Street forms a small shopping road. These
matters are discussed in more detail below.
4.4
The average occupancy rate for single yellow lines at 11% is acceptable,
particularly given the fact that the survey included periods outside the current
hours of parking control in this area. Outside these hours (Mondays –
Fridays, 8.30 a.m. – 6.30 p.m.) it is legal to park on single yellow lines and the
survey results tend to show that vehicles start arriving on them after 6.30 p.m.
Furthermore this indicates the effectiveness of the City Council’s parking
enforcement regime.
4.5
Correspondence
The Council has received a small amount of correspondence concerning the
Queen’s Park CPZ extension and the main issues raised are:




general requests for visitor parking permits;
general requests for business parking permits;
request for a disabled parking bay (blue badge) in Nutbourne Street;
request for additional visitor parking in Nutbourne Street, Beethoven
Street, Huxley Street and Kilravock Street; and
Page 3 of 10

a request to review the provision of single yellow lines in Huxley Street.
4.6
Requests for on-street business parking and visitor parking permit schemes
in the Queen’s Park area were also raised by the recently completed parking
policy consultation exercise. These issues will be considered in more detail in
a separate report.
4.7
Given that there are 25 disabled parking spaces in the Queen’s Park CPZ ,
although about half of these are individual “white” badge bays, and the
average occupancy is 47% there does not seem to be a case for an
additional “blue” badge bay in Nutbourne Street. Normally the Council does
not provide “blue” badge bays in residential areas, except in the vicinity of
medical centres, hospitals, shopping areas and disability institutions. For
these reasons the request for a “blue” badge bay in Nutbourne Street is not
progressed.
4.8
The Metropolitan Police has also responded to the consultation exercise and
it believes that the Queen’s Park CPZ extension has succeeded in its
objectives.
4.9
Residents’ Parking Permits
Approximately 1,200 additional Zone C residents’ permits were issued
between July and October 2001, the majority of which were likely to have
been issued to residents within the new CPZ. However, it is likely that some
new permits were sold to residents who already lived in the existing CPZ
before September 2001 and who decided to buy one in view of the
forthcoming CPZ extension and the removal of all uncontrolled parking on
highway that is the responsibility of the City Council.
5.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE QUEEN’S PARK CPZ
5.1
It is clear from the correspondence, Parkman’s surveys and the review that a
number of changes to the parking facilities in the Queen’s Park CPZ are
necessary. These changes will not be implemented until the traffic orders
have been made permanent, which is discussed more fully below.
5.2
In view of the requests for additional visitor parking and the parking
occupancy data is felt that additional shared use parking spaces should be
provided in Beethoven Street, First Avenue, Mozart Street, Droop Street,
Huxley Street and Kilravock Street. However, as Parkman implemented
seven additional shared use parking spaces in Lancefield Street in June
2002, which is adjacent to Mozart Street and the Jubilee Sports Centre, it is
felt that there is no need at present to make further changes in this area.
Nevertheless, there is a case for additional visitor parking in other roads,
particularly Beethoven Street, and it is proposed that the Council’s
consultant, Parkman, should be instructed to investigate the following:

additional visitor parking in Beethoven Street, First Avenue, Droop
Street (close to the school), Huxley Street and Kilravock Street. This
should primarily be in the form of shared use facilities.
Page 4 of 10

5.3
5.4
5.5
review the provision of yellow line in the area, particularly with a view to
avoiding its presence outside residents’ homes, this will be extended to
other roads in the area (see paragraph 5.5).
Kilburn Lane/Carlton Vale
A large section of Westminster’s portions of Kilburn Lane and Carlton Vale
was already controlled by single yellow lines, which operated between 7 a.m.
and 7 p.m. These restrictions had been introduced by the former Greater
London Council before 1986, and it was not possible to alter them whilst the
Queen’s Park CPZ is subject to experimental traffic orders. Undoubtedly
there are sites where it would be feasible to introduce parking bays and it is
therefore proposed that Parkman are instructed to review Kilburn Lane
between Beethoven Street and Fernhead Road, and Carlton Vale from
Fernhead Road to the City’s boundary with the London Borough of Brent. The
study would look at the feasibility of providing additional parking spaces, both
for visitors and residents and would be included in the proposed study
outlined in paragraph 5.2. Kilburn Lane will be included in the boundary
streets parking agreement with the London Borough of Brent, and this will be
progressed once the traffic orders have been made permanent in March
2003, see chapter 6.
The study will start in March 2003 once the traffic orders have been made
permanent and the results will be considered by the Cabinet Member for
Transport & Infrastructure in summer 2003.
Yellow Lines
There have also been a number of complaints about the installation of
lengths of single yellow lines outside residential units in the Queen’s Park
area. They are provided as loading gaps throughout Westminster and are
normally limited to 10 metres in length. Whilst elsewhere in Westminster most
residential property is divided into multiple units, many houses in Queen’s
Park are single homes, and the need to provide a loading gap in such
circumstances annoys residents as it is not normally required. As outlined
above the average day time occupancy of residents’ parking bays is
exceptionally low (45%) and this partly due to the low level of car ownership
and the lack of multiple occupancy properties. It is therefore recommended
that this matter is reviewed as part of the study to be conducted in spring
2003.
6.
TRAFFIC ORDERS FOR QUEEN’S PARK CPZ
6.1
The City Council implemented the Queen’s Park CPZ extension using an
experimental traffic order. The Traffic Order Procedure Regulations allow
experimental Traffic Orders to remain in force for a period not exceeding 18
months from the date they came into operation. The regulations also allow
Highway Authorities to make experimental orders permanent provided that
the orders are unchanged for a period of six months and any objections
received during that period are considered.
Page 5 of 10
6.2
In order to seek approval to make the traffic order permanent it is necessary
to review the objections received. The objections received by Parkman are
outlined in Appendix 3. They largely appear to concentrate on opposition to
the CPZ largely because it is not required and concern that there was no all
day on-street parking available for businesses. The latter matter is being
reviewed in a separate report on parking policy, which you should receive
soon.
6.3
It is noticeable that the majority of the objections to the CPZ originated from
the streets furthest from the previous boundary of the CPZ (Bravington
Road). Despite the lack of evidence at that time (spring 2001) that there was
a parking problem in some of these streets, e.g. Fifth Avenue, Ilbert Street,
the London Borough of Brent had not introduced parking controls into the
streets on its side of the boundary until May 2001. Nevertheless it is
considered that the traffic orders should be made permanent. The specific
request for changes to parking facilities in individual streets will be included in
the review outlined in chapter five.
6.4
Therefore, following recent changes in August 2002 made to the Queen’s
Park CPZ we are now seeking approval to make the traffic order permanent
in March 2003.
7.
REVIEW CONSULTATION EXERCISE
7.1
Parkman was instructed to contact the Ward Members, Amenity Societies
and the other Section 6 consultees for their views on the Queen’s Park CPZ.
The results are given below:
Member /
Organisation
Comment(s)
Director’s response
Cllr P
Dimoldenberg
(Queen’s Park)
Believes that the CPZ has been
successful in safeguarding
parking for residents and
reducing the number of dumped
cars. However, he feels a
scheme of visitor parking
permits and business & key
workers permits should be
introduced, particularly in light of
number of empty spaces during
the day.
Supports Cllr Dimoldenberg’s
position. He added that car
ownership would appear lower
than elsewhere and feels that
pay & display bays could be
reassigned. Also enquires into
measures for shop deliveries.
Noted. The issues of visitor,
business and key worker
parking schemes will be
considered in the parking
policy review report.
Cllr B Taylor
(Queen’s Park)
Page 6 of 10
Noted. At present the survey
results indicate that the
balance of parking facilities
appears to be right, although
some small changes are
proposed. There are no
specific measures for shop
deliveries, although no
Metropolitan
Police
Supports the introduction of the
CPZ.
loading restrictions were
introduced with the CPZ.
Noted
8.
ALTERNATIVES
8.1
The alternative to agreeing the recommendation to make the Queen’s Park
CPZ extension permanent would be for the experimental Traffic Orders and
the CPZ to either be removed as soon as possible or in March 2003 when
the experimental traffic order becomes invalid. The implication not to make
the scheme permanent would exclude the area from the Council’s CPZ and it
would undoubtedly attract commuter parking. The area would also be entirely
surrounded by controlled parking in Westminster, Brent and Kensington &
Chelsea.
9.
PERFORMANCE PLAN IMPLICATIONS
9.1
The Transportation & Infrastructure Performance Plan 2002/03 does not
contain a specific performance target in respect of the matters set out in this
report.
10.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
10.1 The estimated cost of the proposed study reviewing parking in the Queen’s
park CPZ and Kilburn Lane/Carlton Vale is estimated at £30,000, which
includes the initial design stage. This can be met from the street parking
account.
10.2 The estimated cost of making the Queen’s Park CPZ traffic orders permanent
is £2,000, which can be met from the street parking account.
11.
WARD MEMBERS’ COMMENTS
11.1
The Members for Harrow Road & Queen’s Park Wards have been asked for
their views on the proposals and their responses are set out below.
Page 7 of 10
Member
Comment(s)
Director’s response
Cllr M Qureshi
(Queen’s
Park)
1. Concerned at the impact of the
CPZ on businesses in the area,
supports a business parking
scheme in this area.
2. Requests more shared use
parking in the Harrow Road area.
3. Suggests the Council
approach LB Brent re traffic
congestion in Kilburn Lane close
to Queen’s Park station.
Would like to know the progress
made on the introduction of a
business parking & teacher
parking scheme.
Supports idea of a visitor parking
scheme and would like this to be
investigated.
1. Business parking is being
considered in a separate report.
Cllr P
Dimoldenburg
(Queen’s
Park)
2. Noted, this issue will be
included in the proposed study.
3. Noted, this issue is outside
the scope of this report.
Business & teacher parking is
being considered in a separate
report expected to be
considered in January 2003.
Visitor parking is being
considered in a separate
parking policy report.
12.
PROGRAMME
12.1
Subject to making the necessary traffic order to make the Queen’s Park CPZ
permanent should be in place by March 2003, subject to any objections. The
study on Kilburn Lane and other potential changes to the parking measures
will start in March 2003 should be considered by the Cabinet Member for
Transport & Infrastructure in late summer 2003.
If you have any queries about this report
or wish to inspect any of the background papers,
please contact Philip Basher on 020 7641 3010,
pbasher@westminster.gov.uk
Background Papers
1.
2.
3.
Review of Parking Provision in Northwest Westminster, Transportation &
Highways Operational Sub-committee, 15 May 2001.
Parking control in the uncontrolled area – review of consultation,
Transportation & Highways Operational Sub-committee, 28 November 2000.
Review of Parking Provision in the Uncontrolled Area, Transportation &
Highways Operational Sub-committee, 23 May 2000.
For completion by Cabinet Member
Page 8 of 10
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME:

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME:
(N.B.: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate
to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
Controlled Parking Zone Extension (Queen’s Park) Review and reject any
alternative options which are referred to but not recommended.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for ……………………………….
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection
with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out
your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the
Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Page 9 of 10
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Chief Financial Officer and, if there are
staffing implications, the Head of Personnel (or their representatives) so that (1) you
can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into
account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be
properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to
the Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision
falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working
days have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
Page 10 of 10