Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

The petition was introduced by the petition organiser, Mr Stephan Fifield. He criticised the parking order and spoke about the importance of Pittville Park to the community. He emphasised that its importance and popularity was based on accessibility and felt that introducing parking charges would damage this accessibility and reduce the number of visitors. He stressed that the order sought to achieve two contradictory goals: improving air quality by deterring the use of cars, while also improving access. Furthermore, it contradicted the council’s stated goal of making all parks ‘more accessible to all’. He suggested that a car parking policy should seek to maximise public good, and this could not be the case if access to the park was reduced. He asked that the two car parks (Pittville Pump Room and Albermarle Gate) be excluded from the order, on grounds of public good.

The Cabinet Member for Development and Safety, responded by reminding Members that the 2016 Car Parking Strategy included a consultation in September regarding smaller car parks on the outskirts of town. A number of petitions were submitted regarding other car parks, such as the one in Charlton Kings, and those suggestions were included in the final strategy. However, this petition had failed to meet the timeline. Other petitions relating to Pittville were submitted during the statutory consultation process and taken into account, resulting in changes to the recommendations. Two hours’ free parking were offered, with a £1 charge for the next two hours. He stressed that this did not generate significant income for the council, but ensured that people did not stay there too long. He suggested that the requirements of the new petition had already been satisfied by previous submissions, and that the decision made by Council in September was the correct one.

One Member asked when precisely the changes would be applied. Mike Redman, Director of Environment, clarified that the timings for this particular car park were between 8am and 6pm, which differed slightly from the usual schedule for Cheltenham car parks.

In the debate that followed, Members made the following comments:

·         Pittville Park had historically not always been free to all. The successful investment the council had made in improving the park was acknowledged.

·         Charges were minimal and would not affect public enjoyment, but would improve access by preventing the car parks becoming clogged up.

·         It was wise to discourage long-term parking, but questioned whether charging £1 was sufficient to do that, and whether enforcement would be properly carried out.

·         The 6pm cut-off point was endorsed as this allowed those attending evening concerts to avoid unexpected charges.

·         The only solution to overcrowding from commuter parking and student parking was to impose a time limit, set at four hours although this needed to be properly enforced. It was suggested that enforcement could be paid for through parking fees, creating a more direct link to users.

·         One Member echoed the concern that a £1 charge would not cover the cost of enforcement. They asked why they could not make four hours free and increase the fine after that.

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety summarised that the core issue was that car parks were not working for people using the venues they were supposed to serve. He emphasised the need for local solutions to local problems. He suggested that the recommendations of the report represented a workable compromise, with the contributions received during the consultation period taken into account.

RESOLVED THAT (28 for, 5 against, 0 abstentions)