Objecting to a TRO

[bitwrx]

Hi SP&L.

Don't come in here much because I know nothing about the speed, plod or the law, so can't usually help. I'm here now because I could now do with a guide from anyone knowledgeable on the best way to object to a traffic regulation order.

Basically the local council want to limit parking durations throughout pretty much the whole neighbourhood so that the staff and visitors at the new hospital really do have nowhere to park during the working day. The effect for me and my neighbours is that unless we are lucky enough to be parked on an unregulated stretch of road, we will have to move our cars at lunchtime. This is merely an inconvenience for most of them as they are retired. However, I'm really going to struggle to do this because I'm at work.... 20 mins ride away.

Does anyone know what kind of language I should use when writing to the council to object? I've seen in the past phrases like 'diminished amenity' being useful in planning objections because it ticks some box somewhere in a council spreadsheet which basically means they have to taken notice. Is there anything that will have a similar effect in objecting to a TRO?

Thanks in advance PH. If you're interested, the TRO is this one:
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/427182/...

Charlie

PS - what is the best way of telling the highways chappie that people will take more notice of him if he knows the difference between 'exacerbate' and 'exasperate'?

[herewego]

Won't you get a residents permit?

[Dr Jekyll]

No point in objecting in my experience, councils take no notice whatsoever.

[hornetrider]

herewego said:

Won't you get a residents permit?

This surely?

[VFK44]

Unless it's a question of applying in the right legal category, don't bother with formal wording. Use normal language, just like you have done here. Put yourself in the shoes of the poor chap reading your appeal - he's not going to want to plough through stilted borrowed phrases. Maybe you can ask THEM what category it is best to use as an objection, and get them on your side.

[tvrgit]

hornetrider said:

herewego said:

Won't you get a residents permit?

This surely?

As far as I can see, there is no provision in the draft order for residents parking permits, so residents have to move their car at least once per day.

I think that your objection should point out how this is impractical (as you have set out above) and suggest that your objection would be overcome by allowing an essential exemption for residents

[bad company]

As above but try to get some of your neighbors to join your objection. I would also contact the local newspaper. Put on as much pressure as possible to make them listen.

[tvrgit]

bad company said:

As above but try to get some of your neighbors to join your objection. I would also contact the local newspaper. Put on as much pressure as possible to make them listen.

Agreed.

And get them to write individual objections, not a single petition - some councils count a petition as "one objection" - get as many separate bits of paper in there, as you can...

[Ozzie Osmond]

tvrgit said:

As far as I can see, there is no provision in the draft order for residents parking permits,

That sounds weird.

If you need to motivate your neighbours the best thing to do is write a short note on the subject, photocopy it many times and drop one through each letter box in the area. Keep the note very short and make sure it gives clear details of how to complain - so that it's as easy as possible for people to deal with. The simpler you make it the higher the response rate you will get.

[anonymous-user]

Ozzie Osmond said:

tvrgit said:

As far as I can see, there is no provision in the draft order for residents parking permits,

That sounds weird.

Sounds like
1.They forgot
2.They considered and thought naahh too much extra paperwork and expense.

I'd go with option 1
Remind them and tell all your neighbours individually to remind them, copying in the boss, the local councillors and MP, Raise the profile or it will be buried and waved through.

[bitwrx]

Think the neighbours are pretty motivated about this as well. As I say, many don't work any more so will be stitched up by this nearly as much as me.

You're correct to note there are no permits proposed, which is good. One plus-point of the neighbourhood for me when moving here was that they'd *never* need permits out here... Handy when I have a car and a bike, and frequently borrow cars/vans/bikes of family for various jobs/occasions. Permits really aren't the answer anyway. There's a high density modern development opposite with permit parking. Everyone just parks on the surrounding streets because it's cheaper than buying a permit. What's the point in making this happen on a much larger scale?

To be clear, it's not the whole neighbourhood going under parking restrictions; it's not even as much as I thought yesterday. (Comparing the 'before' and 'after' maps is like a really st game of spot the difference, but that's another matter). In the immediate vicinity it's only the dead-end side-roads either side of my little terrace that will be restricted on one side. Seeing as I've hardly ever had to park further away than this, I guess it just means that 50% of the time, I'm going to have to park in 'someone else's' street just so I don't have to move it the next day.

Anyway, will write to the roads guy and see what happens. He did write back when I objected to the fact that knocking out a load of parking to put in a zebra crossing seemed a bit silly when the road was narrower and already double-yellowed one block up. They did actually relocate the proposed crossing as well, so here's hoping.

ETA - the addressee for correspondence at the council has surname of Mann. So now I get to write a letter to Mr Mann. Awesome.

Edited by bitwrx on Saturday 26th March 13:50

[TooMany2cvs]

bitwrx said:

ETA - the addressee for correspondence at the council has surname of Mann. So now I get to write a letter to Mr Mann. Awesome.

Stick it to the Mann!

Is this TRO actually being imposed now? Or is it in a consultation period?

[bitwrx]

TooMany2cvs said:

Stick it to the Mann!

Is this TRO actually being imposed now? Or is it in a consultation period?

Consultation till 18 Apr. Although on reading the auto reply email I just got, it'll either be implemented unchanged or abandoned. Not sure if abandoned is 'completely abandoned' or 'abandoned, amended then resubmitted'.

Anyway, the auto reply also contained this little nugget: "PLEASE NOTE legal regulations require any objection or comment to include the grounds on which it is made, so if it does not include these and does not include your name and address or the relevant reference or identification of the relevant scheme you are referring to THE COUNCIL IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT IT."

The statement of reasons from the Council say that the purpose of the TRO is:
"""

• avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising
• facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians)
• preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road run

"""

I happened to mention in my objection the reduced amenity to residents, so hopefully it should push one of the right buttons.

Anyway, enough of this boring ste. I'm going to buy some spares for the Rallye.

[TooMany2cvs]

bitwrx said:

Consultation till 18 Apr.

So there y'go, then. Get your response to the consultation in. Get your neighbours to respond, too.

[bad company]

TooMany2cvs said:

So there y'go, then. Get your response to the consultation in. Get your neighbours to respond, too.

Make sure your neighbors are also aware of the 'nugget' legal requirement. You need as many objections as possible. As I said previously I would also contact the local newspaper.

Good Luck.

[Type R Tom]

One thing to keep in mind is that it’s all well and good objecting but what do you plan to do when you come home and can’t get parked as there are workers/visitors to the hospital taking all the spaces?

I’d be willing to bet my house that if the TRO didn’t go ahead in the near future someone will write to the council and complain about people parking outside their front door. I don’t know the area but it will be something along the lines of: “I can’t see getting off my drive, it’s dangerous” or “there was nowhere to drop my kids / elderly relative off” or “Tesco can’t deliver my food” etc. you get the idea.

This type of 20 minute TRO isn’t uncommon, they are placed all over the country near train stations, hospitals etc. to stop people parking all day for free. As I said I don’t know the area but sometimes you need to think what the alternative is, it could well be worse.

[bitwrx]

Type R Tom said:

One thing to keep in mind is that it’s all well and good objecting but what do you plan to do when you come home and can’t get parked as there are workers/visitors to the hospital taking all the spaces?

I’d be willing to bet my house that if the TRO didn’t go ahead in the near future someone will write to the council and complain about people parking outside their front door. I don’t know the area but it will be something along the lines of: “I can’t see getting off my drive, it’s dangerous” or “there was nowhere to drop my kids / elderly relative off” or “Tesco can’t deliver my food” etc. you get the idea.

This type of 20 minute TRO isn’t uncommon, they are placed all over the country near train stations, hospitals etc. to stop people parking all day for free. As I said I don’t know the area but sometimes you need to think what the alternative is, it could well be worse.

The alternative is unrestricted parking like we have at the moment. And it's just fine ta v much.

I've never had to park more than 50m from my front door, even when it's busiest during evenings and weekends.

[Type R Tom]

bitwrx said:

The alternative is unrestricted parking like we have at the moment. And it's just fine ta v much.

I've never had to park more than 50m from my front door, even when it's busiest during evenings and weekends.

Fair enough but if the hospital is new/getting bigger surely what happens now isn't a good representation of the future, hence why the Council are proposing changes in the first place?

As I said I don't care, don't live there but as I say to a lot of people that I deal with, just be careful what you wish for, the law of unintended consequences often surfaces in this sort of thing!

[tvrgit]

Type R Tom said:

As I said I don't care, don't live there but as I say to a lot of people that I deal with, just be careful what you wish for, the law of unintended consequences often surfaces in this sort of thing!

Almost always!

I was asked just recently by a distribution depot to help them object to a TRO that meant their staff couldn't park on the road outside - turned out that the TRO was being promoted as result of complaints by their own operations manager, that their lorries couldn't get in and out because of parked cars... I politely declined.

Another time years ago, when I was responsible for TROs in an authority, I was asked to make a residential street one-way because residents parking made it difficult for two-way traffic, and it was dangerous (so they said). I argued that one-way would be even more dangerous, but we were over-ruled by the councillors on the insistence of the local member, so the one-way was promoted and put in. Within 2 weeks we were getting complaints from that same local councillor, that traffic was going too fast on the one-way, now that nothing was coming the other way, so they wanted it taken out again. They weren't happy to learn that you had to go through the same lengthy process again to remove the one-way TRO.

We once lived near a stock car racing stadium, and all the streets were packed every Sunday. Neighbours wanted a parking ban, but I asked them where THEY (or their visitors, who wouldn't have permits) were intending to park on Sundays. "Oh, yeah..."

[Pete317]

Type R Tom said:

bitwrx said:

The alternative is unrestricted parking like we have at the moment. And it's just fine ta v much.

I've never had to park more than 50m from my front door, even when it's busiest during evenings and weekends.

Fair enough but if the hospital is new/getting bigger surely what happens now isn't a good representation of the future, hence why the Council are proposing changes in the first place?

As I said I don't care, don't live there but as I say to a lot of people that I deal with, just be careful what you wish for, the law of unintended consequences often surfaces in this sort of thing!

The hospital underwent a huge expansion, and has been open in its current form since early 2014, but the parking provisions were woefully inadequate even before the expansion.

Now they're shortly opening a big new parking garage on the hospital premises, which was belatedly built in response to countless complaints from staff and patients, and now all of a sudden the council's proposing these parking restrictions for the area around the hospital.

Of course it would be cynical to suggest that they're doing it in order to 'encourage' staff and patients to pay for parking in the shiny new car park, after having for so long parked for free on the streets surrounding the hospital.

Edited by Pete317 on Sunday 27th March 18:25