Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Executive Councillor (Economic Development & Regeneration)

The report sets out the results of the consultation on proposed changes to the Council’s Residential Parking Policy. The policy was developed following the internal audit report and a consultation on the existing policy and its implementation. This report proposes an improved residents' parking policy, with better consistency, more enforcement and the cost of a parking permit reflecting the cost of the schemes.  It allows local members to look at how best to use residents parking in their areas to get the maximum benefit for all.

The Executive is recommended to:

·         Note the results of the public consultation.

·         Agree to implement Residential Parking Policy, as set out in Appendix 7 as the default arrangement for all properties in the Borough.

·         Agree to use the decision criteria outlined in sections 4 and 5 of the policy to determine the suitability for Residential Parking Schemes.

·         Agree to the proposed charges as outlined in paragraph 6.1 of the report.

Officer contact: Megan Black, 0161 218 1410, megan.black@stockport.gov.uk

The Executive Councillor (Economic Development & Regeneration) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Executive Meeting to consider the results of a consultation on proposed changes to the Council’s Residential Parking Policy to improve its consistency, ensure more enforcement and ensure the costs of the permit better reflected the costs of the schemes.

The Executive Councillor (Economic Development & Regeneration) stated that following consideration of the proposals by the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee he had sought further clarification on the likely impact of any changes to the scheme on the most deprived communities in Stockport. He was satisfied that as there were almost no schemes in these communities, the proposed changes would in fact mean that the least well-off residents in the borough would not have to subsidise permit parking schemes in more affluent areas.

The Leader of the Council also stated that charges to the scheme reflected the cost of its implementation and would not be used to generate surplus income for the Council.

RESOLVED – That

·                the results of the public consultation on the proposed changes to the Residential Parking Policy be noted;

·                the implementation of the Residential Parking Policy, as set out in Appendix 7, be agreed as the default arrangement for all properties in the Borough;

·                the use the decision criteria outlined in sections 4 and 5 of the policy to determine the suitability for Residential Parking Schemes be agreed; and

·                the proposed charges as outlined in paragraph 6.1 of the report be agreed.

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration

The report reviews the results of the consultation on proposed changes to the Council’s Residential Parking Policy.

The Scrutiny Committee is requested to comment on the revised policy.

Officer Contact: Megan Black on 0161 218 1410 or e mail: megan.black@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) reviewing the results of the consultation on proposed changes to the Council’s Residential Parking Policy to improve its consistency, ensure more enforcement and ensure the costs of the permit better reflected the costs of the schemes. The draft policy had been developed following an internal audit report and consultation on the existing policy and its implementation.

The report would be considered by the Executive at its meeting on 12 November 2013.

The Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) (Councillor Iain Roberts) attended the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         A Member felt that the proposed charges would generate income for the Council rather than cover the cost of the service. He expressed concern that a flat rate charge was regressive as those from the lower socio-economic groupings were more likely to park on-street and so desire residents’ parking schemes. Another Member felt that those from the lower socio-economic groups should be financially supported by the Council as he considered that they were being penalised for something which was not their fault.

·         A Member expressed concern that existing free schemes (excluding Town Centre and Edgeley Park events zones) would only be left free until they needed refreshing which would be triggered by planned relining of the carriageway or planned (carriageway and/or footway) maintenance.

·         A Member felt that there should be more enforcement of existing free schemes.

·         A Member felt that the appeals mechanism should be reviewed in six or twelve months’ time.

·         The proposed charges were comparable with other local authorities.

·         Charges for public transport had been increasing for some time.

It was then

MOVED AND SECONDED

‘That this Scrutiny Committee

i)    Welcomes the decision not to introduce charging for the Edgeley Park Events Zones;

(ii)  Does not support imposing extra charges on residents given the squeeze on incomes from the cost of living crisis and the impact increasing permit costs will have on low income families and people on fixed incomes;

(iii) Does not support forcing residents with existing free schemes to move to chargeable schemes when necessary maintenance is needed on the carriageway and footways;

(iv) Regrets that more has not been done to investigate how the average £13,000 cost of creating a residents’ parking scheme could be reduced;

(v)  Regrets that residents will now fear that permit charges will rise year on year due to the decision to set charges through the Council’s Fees and Charges system from 1st April 2014;

(vi) Calls on the Executive to reject the Residential Parking Policy, as set out in Appendix 7, and to think again.

For the motion 3, against 3, abstentions 2

The Chair exercised his casting vote in favour the motion.

MOTION CARRIED

A recorded vote was requested in relation to the voting on this motion and the voting was recorded as follows:-

The councillors who voted for the motion were Councillors Richard Coaton, Philip Harding and David Sedgwick

The councillors who voted against the motion were Councillors Andrew Bispham, Kevin Hogg and Craig Wright.

The councillors who abstained were Councillors Syd Lloyd and John Smith.

It was then

RESOLVED – That the Executive be recommended to give consideration to the comments of the Scrutiny Committee and the following resolutions:-

This Scrutiny Committee

(i)   Welcomes the decision not to introduce charging for the Edgeley Park Events Zones;

(ii)  Does not support imposing extra charges on residents given the squeeze on incomes from the cost of living crisis and the impact increasing permit costs will have on low income families and people on fixed incomes;

(iii) Does not support forcing residents with existing free schemes to move to chargeable schemes when necessary maintenance is needed on the carriageway and footways;

(iv) Regrets that more has not been done to investigate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

To consider a report of the Service Director (Place Management)

Following a review by the Council’s Internal Audit Team, the report details proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeks the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The Area Committee is requested to comment on the proposed changes to the residential parking policy, with particular attention to the introduction of paid residents’ permits in the Town Centre and First Team Match and Event Time schemes around Edgeley Park Stadium.

Officer Contact: Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or e mail: sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

The Service Director (Place Management) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeking the comments of the Scrutiny Committee on the proposed changes.

The report had been considered at the previous cycle of Area Committee meetings and a copy of the comments of the Area Committees on the proposals was circulated at the meeting.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         The purpose of the scheme was that the scheme should break even and not be subsidised.

·         A Member felt that the proposed increase in the charges for residents and visitors permits to £40 in 2015/16 was excessive.

·         A Member favoured the proposal to phase out the lower standard free residents parking by the end of 2014/15.

·         The enforcement of the residents parking system was a key issue which needed to be addressed.

·         A Member requested more information on how the traffic services cost of £28.89 was derived at.

·         A Member asked for confirmation that there had not been double counting in working out the cost of annual enforcement.

·         The parking problems on First Team Match days and events at Edgeley Park Stadium were not caused by residents who lived in the vicinity of the stadium.

It was then

MOVED AND SECONDED

That this Scrutiny Committee objects to the proposal to increase the cost of a residents permit to £30 in 2014/15 and £40 in 2015/16.

For the motion 5, against 0, abstentions 4

MOTION CARRIED

A recorded vote was requested in relating to the voting on this motion and the voting was recorded as follows:-

Those councillors who voted for the resolution were:-

Councillors Richard Coaton, Dean Fitzpatrick, Syd Lloyd, John Smith and David White.

Those councillors who abstained were:-

Councillors Andrew Bispham, Chris Gordon, Patrick McAuley and Craig Wright.

It was then

MOVED AND SECONDED

That this Scrutiny Committee objects to the introduction of paid residents’ permits for First Team and Event Time schemes around Edgeley Park Stadium.

For the motion 3, against 0, abstentions 6

MOTION CARRIED

A recorded vote was requested in relating to the voting on this motion and the voting was recorded as follows:-

Those councillors who voted for the resolution were:-

Councillors Richard Coaton, Dean Fitzpatrick and David White.

Those councillors who abstained were:-

Councillors Andrew Bispham, Chris Gordon, Patrick McAuley, Syd Lloyd, John Smith and Craig Wright.

It was then

MOVED AND SECONDED

That this Scrutiny Committee opposes appeals with regard to Residents Parking Zones being considered by the Executive and requests the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) to consider an alternative appeals mechanism.

For the motion 5, against 0, abstentions 4

MOTION CARRIED

A recorded vote was requested in relating to the voting on this motion and the voting was recorded as follows:-

Those councillors who voted for the resolution were:-

Councillors Richard Coaton, Dean Fitzpatrick, Syd Lloyd, John Smith and David White.

Those councillors who abstained were:-

Councillors Andrew Bispham, Chris Gordon, Patrick McAuley and Craig Wright.

It was then

MOVED AND SECONDED

That this Scrutiny Committee opposes the removal of free residents’ parking schemes.

For the motion 3, against 0, abstentions 6

MOTION CARRIED

A recorded vote was requested in relating to the voting on this motion and the voting was recorded as follows:-

Those councillors who voted for the resolution were:-

Councillors Richard Coaton, Dean Fitzpatrick and David White.

Those councillors who abstained were:-

Councillors Andrew Bispham, Chris Gordon, Patrick McAuley, Syd Lloyd, John Smith and Craig Wright.

RESOLVED – That the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) be recommended to give consideration to the following resolutions of the Scrutiny Committee:-

(a) That this Scrutiny Committee objects to the proposal to increase the cost of a residents permit to £30 in 2014/15 and £40 in 2015/16.

(b) That this Scrutiny Committee objects to the introduction of paid residents’ permits for First Team and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

To consider a report of the Service Director (Place Management).

The report details proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeks the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The Area Committee is recommended to comment on the proposed changes to the residential parking policy.

Officer contact: Sue Stevenson on 474 4351 or email: sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Service Director (Place Management) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeking the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Concern was expressed about the proposed rate of increase in the charges for new permits.

·         There needed to be an improvement in the level of enforcement of the restrictions.

·         Consideration should be given to maintaining those existing schemes were residents did not currently pay, and accordingly received significantly less enforcement, where they opted to do so.

·         It was commented that residents were being asked to pay to resolve problems caused by other operations such as stadia, hospitals and businesses.

RESOLVED – That the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) be recommended to give consideration to the comments of the Area Committee.

To consider a report of the Service Director (Place Management)

The report details proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeks the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The Area Committee is requested to comment on the proposed changes to the residential parking policy.

Officer Contact: Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or e mail sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Service Director (Place Management) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeking the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

•           The proposed increase in the charge for a residents permit and visitors permit from £21 or free to £30 in 2014/15 and £40 in 2015/16 was considered excessive.

•           The £3.22 identified in the cost of reviewing a year’s permit and £28.99 Traffic Services cost seemed excessive, and more information was requested on the costs included in a year’s permit.

•           Concern was expressed that the appeals process with regard to a Residents Parking Zone was to the Executive and it was suggested that there should be an alternative mechanism.

•           Concern was expressed that it was proposed that the cost of a medical/care visitor permit would increase from £10 to £15 in 2014/15 and £20 in 2015/16. The scheme should protect the most vulnerable people in the borough.

•           Concern was expressed with regard to the current free residents parking areas being moved over to a paid permit system, including the First Team Match and Event Time schemes around Edgeley Park Stadium. The parking problems on First Team Match days and events at Edgeley Park Stadium were not caused by residents who lived in the vicinity of the stadium. Residents in the less affluent areas of the borough were being penalised.

•           A Member queried the assertion that the Town Centre Controlled Parking Zone residents system should be amended to a paid permit parking scheme as there was an increasing amount of residential development happening in the town centre and future demand for spaces would be high.

•           The purpose of the proposals was that the scheme should break even and not be subsidised.

It was then

MOVED AND SECONDED

That this Area Committee objects to the proposals for Residents Parking on the following grounds:-

1.    Huge increase in charges which are unaffordable.

2.    Charging for Match Day Parking.

3.    Appeals being undertaken with the ability to overrule the Area Committee by the Executive. If an appeal is overturned then it should come from the Executive budget and not the Ward budget.

4.    Removal of Free Parking Schemes.

For the motion 9, against 2.

MOTION CARRIED

It was then

RESOLVED – (9 for, 2 against) (1) That this Area Committee objects to the proposals for Residents Parking on the following grounds:-

1.         Huge increase in charges which are unaffordable.

2.         Charging for Match Day Parking.

3.         Appeals being undertaken with the ability to overrule the Area Committee by the Executive. If an appeal is overturned then it should come from the Executive budget and not the Ward budget.

4.         Removal of Free Parking Schemes.

(2) That the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) be recommended to give consideration to Minute (1) above and the comments of the Area Committee.

A named vote was requested in relation to the voting on Minute (1) above and the voting was recorded as follows:-

Those councillors who voted for the resolution were:-

Councillors Sheila Bailey, Richard Coaton, Philip Harding, Brian Hendley, Chris Murphy, Maureen Rowles, Andy Sorton, David White and Wendy Wild.

Those councillors who voted against the resolution were:-

Councillors Sue Derbyshire and Daniel Hawthorne.

To consider a report of the Service Director (Place Management)

The report details proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeks the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The Area Committee is requested to comment on the proposed changes to the residential parking policy.

Officer contact: Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or e mail: sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Service Director (Place Management) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeking the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The following comment was made/issue raised:-

•           Concern was expressed that it was proposed that the cost of a medical/care visitor permit would increase from £10 to £15 in 2014/15 and £20 in 2015/16.

RESOLVED – That the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) be advised that this Area Committee generally supports the proposals and recommends him to give consideration to the above comment.

To consider a report of the Service Director (Place Management)

Following a review by the Council’s Internal Audit Team; the report is to inform the Area Committees of the proposal to make recommended changes to the Council’s residential parking policy and ask for their comments.

That the Area Committee comments on the attached policy and proposed changes with particular attention to the introduction of paid residents permits in the Town Centre and First Team Match and Event Time schemes around Edgeley Park Stadium.

Officer contact: Sue Stevenson, 0161 474 4351, sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Service Director (Place Management) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeking the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The following issues were raised:-

·         Councillors queried the financial information contained in the reports. In particular, the cost per household was queried. It was also suggested that the income from general parking enforcement had not been factor into the analysis, nor had the specific income from Resident Permit Parking enforcement been taken into account.

·         Concerns were expressed about the increase in the cost of the permit scheme, in light of the assurances given when the scheme was adopted that increases would be in line with inflation.

·         Concerns were expressed about the number of permits being issued per zone and whether the number meant that residents were not receiving value for money.

RESOLVED – That the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) be recommended to give consideration to the comments of the Area Committee.

To consider a report of the Service Director (Place Management)

The report seeks the Area Committees comments on proposals to make changes to the Council’s residential parking policy.

The Area Committee is requested to comment on the report.

Officer Contact: Sue Stevenson on Tel: 474 4351 or email: sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Service Director (Place Management) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeking the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Councillors suggested that the current scheme remain and that the consideration of the policy be reviewed at a future date.

RESOLVED – That the Service Director (Place Management) be informed that the Area Committee would wish to see the current policy remain in place with a view to it being reviewed in the future.

To consider a report of the Service Director (Place Management).

The report details proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeks the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The Area Committee is recommended to comment on the proposed changes to the residential parking policy.

Officer contact: Sue Stevenson on 474 4351 or email: sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Service Director (Place Management) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing proposals to make amendments to the Council’s residential parking policy and seeking the comments of the Area Committee on the proposed changes.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Set-up costs of new schemes would be disproportionately and potentially unfairly more expensive for smaller areas than larger schemes.

·         Concern was expressed in relation to the level of enforcement that current schemes experienced.

·         Members stated that Residential Parking Schemes were originally established such that any charges levied would seek only to cover the Council’s ongoing costs to administer the schemes.  In the light of that, the justification of any proposed increases in charges was queried.

·         More rigorous enforcement of the existing restrictions would aid in driving down the cost to Traffic Services.

RESOLVED – That the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) be recommended to give consideration to the comments of the Area Committee.