Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel

Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel 16 March 2006

ECONOMIC REGENERATION AND TRANSPORT SCRUTINY PANEL

A meeting of the Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel was held on 16 March 2006.

PRESENT: Councillor Booth (Chair), Councillors Sanderson and Williams.

OFFICIALS: C Barnfather, S Webster and E Williamson.

PRESENT BY INVITATION: B Major (Consultant – Faber Maunsell)

**APOLOGIES for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bloundele, K Hall, Ismail, B Taylor and J Taylor.

**DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Ismail had Declared a Personal/Prejudicial Interest in relation to consideration of agenda item number 4) Review of Residents’ Parking Scheme, as he was Ward Councillor for Gresham, an area covered by the Residents’ Parking Scheme Public Consultation. Councillor Ismail did not take part in the meeting.

**MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel held on 23 February 2006 were submitted and approved.

Review of residents’ parking scheme

The Scrutiny Support Officer presented a report, the purpose of which was to advise the panel of the responses received to the questions agreed at the previous meeting of the panel. The Group Leader for Parking Solutions was present at the meeting and addressed each of the questions outlined in the report.

In respect of current parking provision it was noted that on-street survey results had shown that where Residents’ Parking Schemes were in place there was sufficient space for residents and their visitors to park. However, the results had also suggested that some extensions to the scheme were required. It was advised that these recommendations would be contained in the consultants’ final report and presented to a future meeting.

A member of the panel posed the question as to whether it was not inevitable if a Residents’ Parking Scheme was in place that the surrounding area would suffer? In light of this how often could additional streets be added to the existing schemes without causing further displacement? The Group Leader for Parking Solutions explained that the situation needed to be carefully managed and it was important to anticipate the limit that people were prepared to inconvenience themselves to avoid parking charges.

In response to the prospect of extending the scheme’s operating times to include Sundays on-street observations had shown that no such extension was required. It was noted that there was no commuter traffic on Sundays and that all the Council’s long stay car parks were free of charge.

In terms of charging for permits the consultant advised that having surveyed a number of other local authorities there appeared to be little consistency in the charges levied. It was noted that the decision to charge was a political one but that the majority of other local authorities, with the exception of Wakefield, did impose some form of charge. The Group Leader for Parking Solutions expressed the view that Middlesbrough had always been clear on its parking policy - residents who lived in the town centre should not need to pay for parking. However, consideration could be given to the introduction of charges for visitors and businesses, which would help to control the number of permits issued.

A member of the panel queried the administrative cost associated with the issuing of permits and was advised that the cost of administering the scheme was in the region of £60,000. It was noted that approximately 5000 passes were issued annually and that each card cost on average £12. Additional funds were required for the enforcement of the scheme and although some of the costs were recouped, through the issuing of fines, £30,000 was needed on an annual basis. This funding was spent on maintaining lines and signage. The panel expressed the view that this cost ought to be recouped and that a nominal charge for permits could be considered.

The implications of any proposed extensions to the existing schemes on local businesses, in Zone A, were discussed and the panel expressed the view that areas for customer and operational business parking should be incorporated.

In terms of whether limits should be imposed on the number of permits issued per property the panel was advised that there appeared to be little abuse of the current system. It was noted that the existing system required residents’ to fill in a detailed form and have a registered vehicle against that address. It was stated that there were very few properties with more than two residents’ permits, due to low levels of car ownership in the area.

Examples of good practice, which could be adopted in Middlesbrough, were discussed and the consultant advised that the primary change recommended was the way in which the Council used lines and signage to advise of the areas covered by a Residents’ Parking Scheme. It was recommended that all bays be marked, that signs be mounted advising of the zone and the restriction in place and that all lamp columns be used to display this information.

In respect of identifying potential areas that could benefit from a Residents’ Parking Scheme the consultant advised that a priority list had been identified. It was advised that further details relating to this issue would be presented at a future meeting, as more work needed to be undertaken. However, five possible stand-alone schemes for areas outside of the town centre had been identified, these were outlined as follows:

1  Linthorpe Village –high on street parking capacity

2  Linden Grove – high on street parking capacity

3  Martonside Way / Cavandish Way – problem area

4  Middlesbrough College Area (it was noted that this may not be a problem owing to the future relocation of the college)

5  Western Crescent

It was emphasised that this identified priority list was based on provisional observations and that no beat surveys had been undertaken.

A member of the panel queried the way in which the scheme would be policed if new Residents’ Parking Schemes were introduced. The Group Leader for Parking Solutions advised that the department had a mobile enforcement unit, which was responsible for policing yellow lines within the Borough. It was advised that any additional Residents’ Parking Schemes would fall under their remit.

The issue of funding was raised and it was noted that potentially additional resources would be required if the schemes were extended for the provision of lines and signage, but that the enforcement side would be self-financing. Careful consideration would be needed prior to the introduction of any such additional schemes and it was advised that the following aspects should be considered:

-  Availability of space

-  Alternatives

-  Impact on shops / businesses / places of worship

-  Cost implications

-  Council objectives

It was queried whether any demands for a Residents’ Parking Scheme to be introduced on Rotcliffe Road had been received and the Group Leader for Parking Solutions advised that he had not received any requests in the last five years.

The consultant was asked how a view on whether a Residents’ Parking Scheme should be introduced would be reached. The panel was advised that areas worthy of further interest would be identified but that the Council would decide which areas would most benefit from the introduction of new schemes. The consultant stated that site observations would be made and those locations where it was felt that a Residents’ Parking Scheme would have genuine benefits without causing further difficulties would be listed as priority areas.

Reference was made to the current level of enforcement and dissatisfaction expressed by residents that the schemes in operation were not sufficiently enforced. The Group Leader for Parking Solutions advised that the complaints received were generally from residents who were dissatisfied that they were unable to find a space directly outside of their property. It was noted that the scheme was never intended to guarantee residents a space outside their property but to allow residents to find a space in their street. It was advised that the on-street surveys had suggested that the current level of enforcement was sufficient in meeting the objectives of the scheme.

The panel was informed that on-street observations had been carried out in Zone A, as well as in the area south of the University. The results had shown that Woodlands Road, Upton Street and Laura Street were full to 80 per cent capacity and that the streets around the university were at least 50 per cent full. It was noted that there was a need for parking provisions to be extended within this area but that consideration needed to be given to a number of factors.

The Group Leader for Parking Solutions advised the panel that a meeting had been held with the BME community to discuss the possibility of introducing a Residents’ Parking Scheme into the area. During the meeting concerns had been raised that if a Residents’ Parking Scheme were to be introduced this would result in insufficient parking provisions for those coming into the area to attend the mosques and purchase items from the specialised food shops. The BME community would therefore not support the introduction of such a scheme.

The consultant explained that from the results alone the area appeared as a prime candidate for the introduction of a Residents’ Parking Scheme, however the concerns expressed by the BME community had added a further layer. It was noted that additional thought and investigation was needed before any firm proposals could be put forward and other local authorities, which may have tackled this issue previously, would be consulted.

A suggestion was put forward that with the exception of permit holders a maximum stay of 2 hours could be imposed. The Group Leader for Parking Solutions stated that although this was one option to consider such a system would be difficult to enforce. The Council needed to take account of alternative needs within the community and the Consultant advised that further research would be undertaken.

Reference was made to the parking problems caused by the university and the panel was advised that this was now being addressed. A green travel plan had been drawn up by external consultants and proposals for a multi-storey car park had been put forward. The Group Leader for Parking Solutions advised the panel that the department had been reluctant to introduce a Residents’ Parking Scheme around the university site, as such a scheme would only result in the displacement of traffic to neighbouring streets.

AGREED that the information presented be contained within the final report.

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD UPDATE

In a report of the Chair of the Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel, Members were advised of the key matters considered and actions taken at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board held on 28 February 2006. It was noted that the Final Report on Worklessness had been submitted to the Executive and positive comments had been received.

NOTED

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

It was confirmed that the next meeting of the Economic Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny Panel was to be held on 6 April 2006. The Chair requested that the meeting commence earlier than scheduled at 4pm.

NOTED

1

Document5