Issue - items at meetings - City-Wide Parking Review

skip navigation and tools

Issue - meetings

City-Wide Parking Review

Meeting: 04/10/2011 - Environment, Transport & Sustainability Cabinet Members Meeting (Item 36)

36 Citywide Parking Review pdf icon PDF 78 KB

Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached).

Additional documents:

Decision:

2.1       That the Cabinet Member for Transport & Public Realm:

 

(a)     Approves the urgent programme of reviews and/or consultation on extensions to parking schemes as described in Appendix A, timetabled in Appendix B and set out in the plan drawing, Appendix C;

 

(b)     Instructs officers to review the timetable in Appendix B and the resources required to implement it and, if possible, to accelerate this timetable.

 

(c)     Agrees that the programme of reviews set out in Appendices A, B and C of the report will replace the former timetable of parking reviews agreed on 24th January 2008;

 

(d)     Notes the summary of requests for parking consultations and parking issues raised by residents & other stakeholders set out in appendix D.

 

(e)     Instructs officers to undertake a city wide review of parking management and to report back on progress within six months of commencement.

Minutes:

36.1               Councillor Davey considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place concerning proposals to review the way the council manages parking and proposals to take immediate action to address the most urgent areas of parking demand in the city as identified by residents, ward members and other stakeholders.

 

36.2               Councillor Davey explained that he would hear from the petitioners and Councillor Pissaridou before opening up the debate to opposition spokespeople.

 

36.3               Mr Robert Rosenthal presented a petition signed by 424 people concerning parking problems in the area north of London Road Station and calling for the council to implement an urgent review and re-consult residents in relation to joining a controlled parking scheme (CPZ) to prevent the ongoing problems caused by displacement.

 

36.4               Councillor Deane presented a petition signed by 276 people concerning parking problems in the Round Hill area and calling for the council to re-consult residents on membership of the Area J Extension CPZ to tackle the problem of displacement.

 

36.5               Councillor Pissaridou, ward councillor for Wish ward, stated that the report did not propose a broad strategic review, but instead concentrated on urgent parking reviews in specific areas. She advised that it was unfair not to include areas of Wish ward for priority review and described the specific problems experienced by residents in the Wish Park area, which was a popular place for visitors to the seafront and lagoon to park and suffered from displacement from the adjoining CPZ; the level of parking resulted in significant safety issues for residents, including the elderly, disabled and children. She highlighted concerns raised by the Ombudsman in relation to a previous consultation on parking in the area and stated that residents were not properly supported by the council during the process, which she felt was flawed. She called on the council to listen to residents and include the Wish Park area as a priority for re-consultation.

 

36.6                Mr Don Odair, resident of the Wish Park area, stated that the problems experienced by residents needed to be considered more urgently than the proposed citywide review would allow. He explained that there was significant pressure on the roads in the area from residents, visitors to the seafront and park and from vehicles left there for long periods of time. He urged the council to include the area in the priority group.

 

36.1               Councillor Davey noted the petitions and acknowledged that parking was an emotive issue in the city that required the council to balance the needs of residents. He explained the report proposed a strategic and long-term approach to parking management, as well tackling some more urgent areas. He noted that all political Groups were supportive of a review and that the timetable agreed in 2008 had been abandoned in 2010 despite consultation having already been undertaken in some areas. He recognised the problems in the Wish Park area, but advised that there was no clear solution; he felt that extending the neighbouring light touch scheme would not solve all the problems and he did not have evidence of support for a scheme up to Boundary Road. He called for ward councillors and residents to work together with officers, possibly in a working group, to enable the best solution to be identified for the whole ward; if a consensus was achieved, consultation could proceed after the initial priority areas were completed. With regard to the citywide review, he advised that officers would engage with stakeholders across the city, along with Overview & Scrutiny involvement, and that the proposals represented the responsible way forward.

 

36.2               Councillor Morgan stated that the report dealt with changes to the existing timetable for parking reviews and was vague in relation to the citywide review. He welcomed the opportunity for Overview & Scrutiny involvement in the review and advised that the Environment & Community Safety Overview & Scrutiny Committee would contribute, but did not have the resources to undertake the whole review. He reported that ward councillors for Wish and South Portslade had not been approached in relation to determining a boundary for a CPZ in the problematic area described by Councillor Pissaridou causing the area to drop off the priority list. He stated that the report raised too many questions and urged the Cabinet Member to withdraw it and bring back two separate reports; a report on the priority areas with clear reasons for proceeding with some areas and not others, and a more detailed report on proposals for the citywide parking reviews.

 

36.3               Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that he had hoped there would be a review of all CPZs in the current year, but that the report lacked clarity as it did not state when the citywide review would begin. He questioned the length of the timetable for the review of the priority areas and noted that any action would take place under a new Administration. As ward councillor for Wish ward, he reported that the views of residents living between Saxon Road and Boundary Road were not known as they had never been consulted and that residents living Saxon Road and Boundary Road were misled would have voted differently in the previous consultation if they had known that the adjoining scheme was going to be implemented. He questioned why the Wish Park area was the only area adjacent to the seafront that did not have a CPZ, forcing residents to put up with congestion and road safety issues, when they could be included in a light touch scheme at little cost. He urged the Cabinet Member to undertake a full citywide review before proceeding with the identified priority areas.

 

36.4               Councillor Davey stated that the budget set by the previous Administration did not provide for a full review to take place in 2011/12 and that no terms of reference for the review were set. He advised that the proposals presented a way forward, allowing people to contribute to the review and also addressed problems in specific areas.

 

36.5               In response to a question from Councillor Peltzer Dunn regarding the timetable for the citywide review, the Lead Commissioner, City Regulation & Infrastructure explained that the process for the review was being determined; it would start within the current year and be completed within one year.

 

36.6               Councillor Davey advised that he would add an additional recommendation instructing officers to review the timetable for the priority areas and accelerate it if possible within resources (see 36.13 (b)), and that the report back on the citywide review after six months would be an update on progress (see 36.13 (e)).

 

36.7               RESOLVED - That the Cabinet Member for Transport & Public Realm noted the petitions and, having considered the information and the reasons set out in the report, accepted the following recommendations:

 

(a)    Approves the urgent programme of reviews and/or consultation on extensions to parking schemes as described in Appendix A, timetabled in Appendix B and set out in the plan drawing, Appendix C;

 

(b)    Instructs officers to review the timetable in Appendix B and the resources required to implement it and, if possible, to accelerate this timetable.

 

(c)    Agrees that the programme of reviews set out in Appendices A, B and C of the report will replace the former timetable of parking reviews agreed on 24th January 2008;

 

(d)    Notes the summary of requests for parking consultations and parking issues raised by residents & other stakeholders set out in appendix D.

 

(e)    Instructs officers to undertake a city wide review of parking management and to report back on progress within six months of commencement.


 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints