Issue - items at meetings - Public Questions/Letters from Councillors/ Referrals from Committees/Notices of Motion Referred from Council
navigation and tools
Find it
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Issue
Issue - meetings
Public Questions/Letters from Councillors/ Referrals from Committees/Notices of Motion Referred from Council
Meeting: 08/11/2010 - Environment & Community Safety Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Item 25)
Letter from Councillor McCaffery attached
Additional documents:
Minutes:
25.1 Councillor McCaffery introduced her letter requesting a review of the council’s parking policy in residential areas. She said this was not solely a ward issue although residents in her ward had been raising concerns for example about the impact of parking restrictions in Preston Park Avenue on parking in the Park.
25.2 She said controlled parking zones had the effect only of moving problems to other areas. Formal questions had been asked and petitions presented on a range of issues. There were long waits to obtain a permit and congestion in the city appeared to be increasing. There were areas where parking meters were unused. During consultations there were roads that had asked to be included in schemes that in the event were not, and vice versa.
25.3 Some restrictions limited to part-day could be effective. A resident in the centre of the city had complained that people with large driveways to accommodate several cars, do not pay for parking
25.4 Councillor McCaffery asked for a public scrutiny review. She acknowledged that the issue was complex and that an internal review was going on. She said that people wanted their information to be heard and to give evidence in public.
25.5 Some parking had been displaced to the outskirts of the city and, in her view if no changes were made, areas such as Patcham, Withdean, Portslade would become parking lots.
25.6 The Chairman commented that a number of Panels were already in progress. Asked about the feasibility of a full scrutiny, the Head of Scrutiny said this would be resource-intensive and at present there was little capacity to undertake such a review. There was also a risk of duplication with the current review.
25.7 It was generally agreed that there was a need for a scrutiny review with public input but that it would not be feasible at present. The Chairman would write to the Cabinet Member. This could be discussed at the next meeting, 25 January 2011, with a view to adding Parking Policy to the Committee’s work plan during 2011.
25.8 RESOLVED that the Chairman write to the Cabinet Member as minuted above.