Agenda item

Councillor Willingham will introduce his request and the committee must decide if and how they want to scrutinise the issue (no officer implications were received from Gloucestershire County Council)

 Councillor Hay raised the issue of Councillor Harman chairing this item given his role as Cabinet Member at Gloucestershire County Council.  The Chairman did not agree that this was an issue, given his support for scrutiny of this topic, but suggested that the Deputy (Councillor Walklett) take the chair for this item, and the committee agreed.

Councillor Willingham as the proposer of the topic explained that on the 1 August 2017 permit parking was introduced in areas around Cheltenham Spa Station, and the West End area near the Lower High Street, following formal consultation in May of the previous year (2016).  In representations made at the time, Councillor Willingham had advised that this was likely to cause parking to be displaced into adjacent areas, and the need for a post-implementation review to be performed.  Within days of implementation, as he had predicted, parking displacement had occurred, with commuters having simply moved from one area to another.  In December 2017 Councillor Willingham was advised by the relevant Cabinet Member at Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) that a technical assessment of parking availability would be undertaken in January 2018 and when he queried, in February, if this had been completed, he was advised that they had carried out a survey in December but that the initial results indicated that there would be benefit in repeating the consultation in January, which had also been completed and the data was, at that time, being analysed.  With still no details of any planned review, resident’s felt that they were in limbo, with no end in sight and it was a testament to the level of local concern that so many residents had made requests for scrutiny and were in attendance at the meeting.  He was aware, from discussions with representatives from other wards that the issues he had described were not isolated to his ward but included St Paul’s and All Saints.  He felt that the fact that CBC were responsible for off-street parking and GCC responsible for on-street parking was irrelevant to the public and far from being about political expedience, joined up thinking between the two authorities was necessary in order to devise a town-wide strategy for Cheltenham and whilst this would not be a quick process, it was a must.  Whilst acknowledging the needs of commuters to be able to park in the town, the piecemeal approach that had been adopted was frustrating for residents and he also had concerns about future planned resident parking schemes in areas with predominantly CBH tenants, given that GCC didn’t appear to have a policy on cost and means testing. 

All members of the committee voiced their support for further scrutiny of this issue, in addition to which the following comments were made:

·         A revised residents’ parking scheme was introduced in All Saints, with a post-implementation review promised after 6 months, but 12 months on and the message from GCC was that there was no budget to undertake these reviews.  Having raised this issue again recently the ward member was advised that he could use Local Highways Challenge Fund to progress the issue more quickly, which he did not consider acceptable.    

·         The consultants, Arups, who had been commissioned by CBC to do a report into Cheltenham's car parking arrangements, had concluded that a piecemeal approach was the right one but this did not take account of the fact that it would impact streets differently.  A town-wide strategy was required.  

·         In London, to address the issue of all day commuter parking, limited parking restrictions were introduced and in time zones, which made enforcement more efficient and effective.  The suggestion was that to resolve the issue of commuter parking you simply had to disrupt it. 

·         In the ward of St Marks, resident parking schemes had addressed the issue of commuter parking but had only served to push the issue into other roads.  GCC had since advised that they were not able to commit to any timescales for a post-implementation review as there were no funds for them to be able to undertake such reviews. 

·         There appeared to be a lack of consistency, strategy and communication.  East Approach Drive in Pittville was subject to restrictions, residents were given permits and seemed to be working well, however, in West Approach Drive there were no restrictions and no problems but now the proposal was that bays would be introduced with all day parking available on one side and 4 hour limits on the other.  When this apparent discrepancy was raised, the ward member was advised that East Approach Drive had been a mistake but that it was too complicated a process to change again. 

·         An issue for residents in some streets in All Saints ward and possibly others was that business permits, which were readily available, often impacted a residents ability to park anywhere near their properties. 

·         GCC had undertaken 15 months of what was described as excellent consultation in the St Pauls ward various schemes were implemented in all streets except those which contained, predominantly social housing.  At the time of implementation a commitment was made to undertake a review in 9-12 months and despite numerous requests by the ward members and Councillor Fisher as the GCC representative, no response had been given. 

In response to a member question, another committee member confirmed that residents could apply for a maximum of two permits per household, regardless of whether they had off-street parking or not. 

A member did raise the question of whether the GCC member reps on this committee had ever raised the issue of post-implementation reviews or town-wide strategy with the O&S Committee at the County Council.  Councillor Hay confirmed that he had raised questions at Council but had not referred the matter to the O&S Committee to scrutinise.  The suggestion was that this would be beneficial. 

At this stage the Chairman invited any residents who were in attendance, to address the committee if they so wished.

Mr Walker explained that since the introduction of parking schemes in adjacent streets to his own, it was not only residents who struggled to park but also trades people.  He felt that there were failings in an approach which saw some streets empty all day and others so full that residents couldn’t park anywhere near their own property and had GCC to be unresponsive to his concerns. 

Mr Shepherd explained that he had never had any issue parking near his property prior to August last year and yet since that time, Monday to Friday, and to his mind a result of commuter traffic, it sometimes proved impossible to park anywhere near his home, when in adjacent streets such as Lansdown Parade, where parking meters had been installed, were all but empty.  He suggested that a drop in on-street parking fees as you radiated out from the town centre might make it more attractive to commuters to park in these streets and thus generate more income.  The ward member for Lansdown refuted that it was the cost that was prohibitive to commuters but rather the 4 hour limit that had been introduced as a means of attracting shoppers rather than commuters. 

Mr Jaynes reiterated that the issue of commuters parking in his street often meant that residents, some with young families, were not able to park in anything like close proximity to their home. 

Ms Atherstone, a candidate for St Peters ward in the upcoming Borough elections reaffirmed that the prediction made by Councillor Willingham had come to be and following a number of surveys it was clear that some of the bays and lines that had been introduced in some streets were, either blocking driveways or inexplicably reducing the number of spaces available within a street.  In some instances they were also creating dangerous parking situations resulting in pedestrians being unable to get a clear view of the road when attempting to cross.  She agreed with Councillor Hay’s suggestion about the adoption of a similar approach to that adopted in London and felt strongly that Cheltenham required a town-wide strategy. 

The Chairman thanked the members of the public that had addressed the committee for having provided a better understanding of the issue, before inviting the Leader to address the committee if he wished.  The Leader, invited by the Chairman, explained that the Station was the final of the ‘new schemes’ which represented a timely opportunity to undertake post-implementation reviews of schemes across the town and which he would fully support.  He did note that there had been a Parking Board which had facilitated open dialogue on issues such as this, but that this had been scrapped when enforcement for on-street parking was taken back by GCC.  

The Chairman asked that the committee, who were clearly in support of further scrutiny of this issue, to decide what form this should take.

Councillor Willingham, as proposer of the topic felt that there were two matters to be addressed, a town-wide strategy was one, but the more urgent, from the standpoint of residents, was the post-implementation reviews. 

A member suggested that, in terms of a strategy, it would be sensible to first hear from the relevant Cabinet Members and Lead Officers from both CBC and GCC and members of the committee supported this approach.  The Democracy Officer advised that, in line with the county-wide protocol for the attendance of officers and members of one public authority at meetings of another public authority, she would write to the Chief Executive of Gloucestershire County Council and make the request.  The committee would be updated as to any response. 

Another member proposed that Councillors Hay and Payne, as County Councillors as well as members of this committee, submit a Call for Action to the O&S Committee at GCC, regarding post-implementations which are yet to be undertaken.  The committee supported this proposal. 

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that:

1.    The relevant Cabinet Members and Lead Officers from both CBC and GCC be invited to discuss on-street and off street parking at a future meeting of the committee. 

2.    Councillors Hay and Payne submit a Call for Action to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at Gloucestershire County Council, seeking post-implementation reviews of all new parking schemes introduced in Cheltenham.