A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Council and councillors

Decision details

Ketton parking restrictions

Decision Maker: Strategic Director for Places

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Purpose:

Line (markings) and associated traffic management for Ketton parking restrictions

To make TRO according to proposal and implement.

The approach to be adopted by traffic authorities in considering whether to make a TRO should be as follows:
(1) The decision-maker should have in mind the duty (at S.122 of the 1984 Act) to secure expeditious, convenient and safe movements of vehicular and other traffic including pedestrians in so far as is practicable (NB this case also confirmed that “traffic” extends to include pedestrians)
(2) The decision-maker should then have regard to factors which may point in favour of imposing a restriction on that movement; such factors will include the movement on the amenities of the locality and other relevant factors including those set out at S.1 of the 1984 Act
(3) The decision-maker should then balance the various considerations and come to the appropriate decision



Decision:

Following formal consultation, responses received by RCC, several responses questioned the need for restrictions as proposed and suggested elements outside the scope of the proposal.

https://www.rutland.gov.uk/my-community/transport/transport-strategy/highway-and-transport-concerns/

The purpose of the TRO is to benefit all highway users including residents - helping with expeditious, convenient and safe movement, especially in the context of a school area on an A road.
Factors the Council have considered which mean that a restriction needs to be imposed are:
• a need to help with expeditious, convenient and safe movement, especially in the context of a school area on an A road.
• a need to prioritise access for residents
• displacement to intended unrestricted areas
It is recommended to make TRO as proposal there is no material reason not to.
Other representations were made based on either personal preference or inconvenience caused by the proposal but were not considered to override the objective of providing a benefit to all highway users.


Alternative options considered:

No action, but no action not desired.

Publication date: 15/01/2021

Date of decision: 19/11/2020

Accompanying Documents: