At the request of the Area Committee this item has been placed on the agenda under the Open Forum arrangements.
Representatives from the Council and Stockport NHS Foundation Trust will be attendance at the meeting to discuss ongoing problems for residents caused by motorists working or visiting the hospital parking in nearby residential streets.
Minutes:
This item had been placed on the agenda at the request of the Area Committee.
Dan Reason, representing the Stockport NHS Foundation Trust and Mark Glynn, Service Director for Place Management at Stockport Council, attended the meeting to answer questions from Councillors and members of the public in relation to efforts to address concerns about inappropriate parking on the residential roads around the Stepping Hill Hospital site.
Representatives of the Stepping Hill Neighbourhood Action Group (SNAG) also attended the meeting to express their views.
Dan Reason outlined the measures taken by the hospital since the public meeting held in 2017:-
· the Trust had reduced the price for staff parking permits and as a result there had been a significant increase in the number of requests for permits;
· an ‘Agile Working’ policy was due to be approved by the Trust that was an element of the Trust’s wider plan to reduce its estate and as a consequence the demand for car parking. Reducing the buildings occupied by the Trust on the hospital site may also release space for additional car parking capacity;
· staff continued be encouraged to be courteous and considerate to neighbours when choosing their parking;
· an audit of car parking usage and capacity on the hospital site was due to be completed soon.
Councillors and members of the public asked questions and made comments, including:-
· Concerns were expressed that any measures introduced by the Council to reduce the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the hospital would lead to an undersupply of parking for hospital staff and visitors, thereby creating a further problem.
· Queries were raised about the status of previous proposals for a multi-storey car park (MSCP) on the hospital site, demolishing existing ancillary buildings to provide temporary parking, or to provide additional capacity on existing tiered parking. In response it was confirmed that while the long term aspiration for the Trust was to reduce its building footprint there were currently no plans to do, nor to provide a MSCP. It was stated that the suggestion of a third tier on the existing parking would be considered further.
· Clarification was sought on whether staff were being encouraged to use the Hazel Grove Park and Ride scheme. It was stated that a survey of staff travel origins indicated that the majority of staff were arriving from a northerly direction so the Park and Ride was not a convenient alternative. As a result, the Trust had given this less priority.
· A number of questions were asked in relation to likely timescales for the impact of the Trust’s measures to be noticed by residents. No definitive date could be given.
· It was acknowledged that the approval of the agile working policy would not immediately lead to improvements as there were operational requirements that would need to be implemented.
Representatives of SNAG outlined the background to the establishment of the Group in 2017 following a public meeting attended by local councillors, the Trust and Council officers. The Group had 350 members covering 22 roads around the hospital. Since 2017 SNAG had met with the local MP and featured a number of times in both the local and national media.
The Group expressed disappointment that no senior representative of the hospital had attended the meeting, and at the lack of progress in implementing measures to address their concerns that had been raised with the hospital on a number of occasions over a number of years. Disappointment was also expressed that the Trust had not been responsive to correspondence from the Group and that further meetings had not taken place despite assurances that they would. It was stated that the Group had been given the impression that their concerns were not shared or taken seriously by the Trust.
Mark Glynn made representations, including the following points:-
· The difficulties of parking around the hospital, and the consequences for residents were acknowledged, but they were part of a national trend. There were no simply or easy solutions these problems.
· The desire of residents for relief from these parking problems was also acknowledged, but there was no consensus amongst them on the possibility of paying for a permit scheme. The Trust had also highlighted potential capacity problems that might be caused by the introduction of such as scheme.
· The Council was proposing to explore a pay zone around the hospital that had time limiting measures to provide visitor parking capacity while displacing staff back to the hospital site but also generating revenue to allow the Council to enforce the parking restrictions.
Councillors and members of the public asked questions and made comments, including:-
· Any efforts to reduce problems for residents would need increased parking capacity at the hospital in order to have an impact.
· The Trust needed to consider increasing capacity, including engineered solutions to increase the capacity of existing parking provision. Taking these actions would help demonstrate that the matter was being taken seriously by the Trust.
· In the absence of a mutually agreed solution to parking problems the Council may have to take steps that forced staff at the Trust to change their behaviour because there were no alternative parking options.
· Previously it had been stated that the business case for a multi-storey car park was weak. Were the Council to introduce time-limited parking charges on neighbouring roads this would force staff to park on the hospital site thereby increasing the need for additional capacity/ multi-storey car parking and making the business case stronger.
· In the event that on-street charges were introduced and additional parking revenues were therefore generated for the Trust the cost of residents permits should be funded from these profits.
· Concerns were expressed about any proposal to introduce criteria for staff parking eligibility (to cope with reducing capacity) as this was likely to force further on-street parking.
It was suggested that the proposal put forward by the Council be discussed further between the Council, representatives of SNAG and the Trust in a working group.
SNAG representatives expressed disappointment that working group meetings after the public meeting in 2017 had not taken place beyond the initial meeting and this gave the impression to residents that neither the Council nor the Trust were taking seriously the concerns of residents. Assurance was given that the Trust had not been idle during the intervening period and had continued to take steps to improve the situation.
Requests were made for further information in relation to the revenue generated from parking at the hospital and what this was used for, and for the KPMG report into parking and associated documents to be made public. Dan Reason undertook to pursue these requests with appropriate colleagues within the Trust.
The Chair thanked those who had attended the meeting and who had taken part in the discussions. She encouraged ongoing dialogue between all parties.
RESOLVED – (1) That Mark Glynn, Dan Reason and representatives of the Stepping Hill Neighbourhood Action Group be thanked for their attendance and participation.
(2) That the Area Committee would welcome continued dialogue between the Council, Stockport NHS Foundation Trust and the Stepping Hill Neighbourhood Action Group on options for a time-limited on street parking zone and to report back to the Area Committee as appropriate.