We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Vanita please sign in and let everyone know.

Dropped Kerb

We're waiting for Vanita to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Merton Borough Council,

Can you please provide detail on what is the requirement for parallel or angel parking as it is not stated on the information pack.

Whilst I'm looking at other borough criteria which allows for parallel / angel parking at front garden, with much clear information with reasonable depth and length.

Yours faithfully,
Vanita

foi, Merton Borough Council

Thank you for your email message. We aim to respond to all requests under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 within 20 working days. More information about the way we
deal with information requests is on our web site at
[1]www.merton.gov.uk/foi
 
Information Governance Team
London Borough of Merton.
020 8545 4634
 
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.merton.gov.uk/foi

Steve Cooper, Merton Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Vanita

Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations
2004 Information request

We have now considered your information request as set out below.

You asked:

Can you please provide detail on what is the requirement for parallel or
angel parking as it is not stated on the information pack.

 

Whilst I'm looking at other borough criteria which allows for parallel /
angel parking at front garden, with much clear information with
reasonable  depth and length.

Please find [1]Crossover Information Pack link for you to view in line
with my response.

The London Borough of Merton does not support parallel parking and the
assessment criterion is set to ensure Right-angle or 90 degrees to the
highway can be achieved. This is to prevent, as far as practicable,
obstruction through vehicle overhang or excessive movement on the highway
to access the hard standing.

Criterion A1 states measured at right angles (90 Degrees) and does not
offer parallel parking as an alternative

Criterion A5 states entering and exiting at right- angles (90 Degrees) and
does not offer parallel parking as an alternative

 

Diagram 1 shows the vehicle parked at right-angles and does not show
parallel positioning as an alternative.

A full review of all the Criterion was undertaken in 2018 with Cabinet
approval signing off the agreed criterion in May 2018. Parallel Parking
was considered as part of that review and was rejected on safety grounds.
The minimum criterion must be met to support an application and approval.

If you have any queries or concerns about this please contact me.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or wish to
appeal against the decision to exempt any part of your request, you should
request an Internal Review at [Merton Borough Council request email] or write in to Freedom of
Information team, Merton Council, Civic Centre, Morden, SM4 5DX.

If you escalate to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) without
following the council’s internal review process, the ICO will refer you
back to the council to enable the correct process to be followed.

You can also appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/offi...

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely

Steve Cooper

 

[2]cid:image001.png@01D3C5BC.F37DFC80

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Steve Cooper,

Thanks for your response. Few question:

1) So before May 2018, it would have considered for parallel parking/ angled parking.

2) What was the requirement for 90degree parking before May 2018, as I believe the agreement for every year runs from for example April 2020 to March 2021 or would the changes takes from when the agreement signed as you mentioned it was signed in May 2018 so effect takes from May 2018 or April 2019?

3)How often does the review takes place, as if looked at say Croydon they still do consider exceptional circumstances.

Yours sincerely,
Vanita

Steve Cooper, Merton Borough Council

Thank you for emailing me, I am unavailable today returning Monday 23rd
November.

Steve Cooper, Merton Borough Council

1 Attachment

Morning Vanita,

 

Parallel parking has never been supported as far as I am aware, however
many properties did start to park in this way and it had been seen as a
safety issue. I believe that around 1980 the Criteria was updated to
formally record a minimum forecourt depth at 90 degrees. So to answer your
q.1 Parallel parking has never been supported in Merton.

Q2. This would be answered by Q1. Above no we do not and have not
supported parallel parking in Merton

Q3. Reviews are undertaken when Members want to look to introduce new
criteria. This is brought to Officers who will advise on the suitability
of the change and advise on the safety and the impact when applied borough
wide. If this is felt to be in the best interest of our residents then a
formal review is undertaken. Parallel Parking has been raised many times
and is always discussed at length but has never been supported due to the
safety risks.

Review dates under my Management, June 2007 Introduction of the short
frontage agreement, April 2013 removal of the Appeal process, January 2015
Review of the need for planning applications on the materials used to
create Hard Standing on private property, December 2017 Scrutiny Task
Group reviewed all criterion, Applications were halted in January 2018
whilst the re-view was undertaken. June 2018 Current Criterion and policy
was signed off at cabinet with the short frontage minimum depth Increased
from 4.0m to 4.3m, Standard forecourt depth increased to 4.8m, a street
tree still staked could be re-located at the full cost to the applicant,
Grass verges to remain at 2.0m maximum depth but where two verges exist
the combined maximum depth could be considered up to 3.0m. Controlled
Parking Zone applications had to undergo a parking stress test to ensure
that where the bays were removed would leave suitable bays to meet the
permit allocation.

 

I had the pleasure of being invited to Croydon to present our crossover
policy, this was received well and you may see some changes in the way
Croydon assess their crossovers in the future. Their current financial
position has halted a lot of the changes that they were due to introduce
so this may be a while before it concludes. They have an issue with
vehicles manoeuvring on the public highway to access the off street
parking position without obstructing the footway. This is a danger to
highway users and they are trying to stop this.  

 

Thank you for your follow up in this matter.

 

Steve

[1]cid:image001.png@01D3C5BC.F37DFC80

 

show quoted sections

Dear Steve Cooper,

You mentioned the risk of vehicles manoeuvring on the public highway to access the off street
parking position without obstructing to the footway. with current policy it is still required for car to reverse back into main highway, whereas with parallel say with length of 6.5 to 7m and depth of 2.5m will allow manoeuvering will be with in it's boundaries and unlikely to hit footpath nor highway road.
Also, increasing the depth each year it seems, would it mean going forward there will be no dropped kerb approval will take place and force residents to park far from their properties on public road at night, as we know London properties are not as spacious compared to countryside houses, and narrow roads.

Also, you've mentioned this has been raised many times, so I believe this is something also been raised by resident of Merton.

May I please request to consider this on next review.

Yours sincerely,

Vanita

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Vanita please sign in and let everyone know.