Agenda, decisions and minutes

No apologies had been received.

No interests were declared.

Purpose

The purpose of the report is to provide an update on the progress of the Residents' Parking Programme of Consultation since August 2020 and to make recommendations on the way forward. 

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member agrees that

1.    The progress made since August 2020 (paragraph 3.4), and the conclusion of the rolling element of the programme (paragraph 3.6) is noted and that the rolling programme of consultation has been completed;

2.    The Programme set out in Table 1 (page 4) is agreed, meaning consultation recommences with the 5 self-contained* areas identified (*those unlikely to displace parking, and which have been waiting for some years to be considered whilst the rolling programme reached its conclusion);

3.    Once work in the 5 self-contained areas in Table 1 is complete, the remaining 4 areas on the Programme are progressed and a rolling element again developed to mitigate any displaced parking impact;

4.    Once work described in (c) above is complete, the review of existing parking zones recommences to ensure their optimal operation for permit holders, with a new Programme developed based on the demand from residents.

DECISIONS

a)    The progress made since August 2020 (paragraph 3.4), and the conclusion of the rolling element of the programme (paragraph 3.6) is

noted and that the rolling programme of consultation has been completed;

b)    The Programme set out in Table 1 (page 4) is agreed, meaning consultation recommences with the 5 self-contained* areas identified

(*those unlikely to displace parking, and which have been waiting for some years to be considered whilst the rolling programme reached its

conclusion);

c)    Once work in the 5 self-contained areas in Table 1 is complete, the remaining 4 areas on the Programme are progressed and a rolling element again developed to mitigate any displaced parking impact;

d)    Once work described in (c) above is complete, the review of existing parking zones recommences to ensure their optimal operation for permit holders, with a new Programme developed based on the demand from residents.

Kevin McKee, Parking Manager introduced the report.

Councillor Cal Corkery gave a verbal deputation

In response to questions raised in the deputation, Nikki Musson, Senior Transport Planner explained that many of the properties within roads off Canal Walk have driveways.  Railway View has received a zero score because there is a significant amount of off-street parking nearby including Housing-owned car parks.  Areas with narrow terraced houses take priority as parking congestion is severe and they have no off-road parking available. Many of the flats have access to parking areas and garages.  The criteria has been improved to reflect the true proportional demand in an area.  An informal survey is expected to be undertaken in October. 

A written deputation from Councillor Lee Hunt was then read out.

In response to questions from Councillors the following points were clarified:

Existing Residents' Parking Zones (RPZs) will be reviewed.

It would be difficult to give an idea of timescale for work to be carried out in different areas because it depends on the results of surveys asking whether residents want a RPZ.  If there is no demand, officers move onto the next area more quickly.

The more amenities that are within a 500m radius of a road, the more points are allocated on the scoring matrix.  Examples include Pembroke Park which is close to neighbouring RPZs, the seafront, the hovercraft and pay & display, and Doyle Court which is near the Mountbatten Centre.

The aim is to deal with the areas close to RPZs as quickly as possible.

In 2018 127,500 vehicles were registered to Portsmouth addresses. This increased to 129,600 vehicles in 2020; 104,500 of these are cars.

Councillor Lynne Stagg commented that 1.3 cars are registered per household in the city and there are only 0.3 parking spaces. 33% of households have no access to a car. 47% have 1 car. 20% have more than 1 car.

DECISIONS

a)    The progress made since August 2020 (paragraph 3.4), and the conclusion of the rolling element of the programme (paragraph 3.6) is

noted and that the rolling programme of consultation has been completed;

b)    The Programme set out in Table 1 (page 4) is agreed, meaning consultation recommences with the 5 self-contained* areas identified

(*those unlikely to displace parking, and which have been waiting for some years to be considered whilst the rolling programme reached its

conclusion);

c)    Once work in the 5 self-contained areas in Table 1 is complete, the remaining 4 areas on the Programme are progressed and a rolling element again developed to mitigate any displaced parking impact;

d)    Once work described in (c) above is complete, the review of existing parking zones recommences to ensure their optimal operation for permit holders, with a new Programme developed based on the demand from residents.

Purpose

To consider the public response to the proposed amendments to permit parking in Owen Street and Ward Road.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member agrees

1.    That the amendment to 3 residents' parking bays (accommodating approximately 12 vehicles) within the MG parking zone to allow MH permit holders, proposed under TRO 48/2021, is implemented;

2.    That feedback from local people is recorded and used to inform any future proposals, should they become necessary.

DECISIONS

1.    That the amendment to 3 residents' parking bays (accommodating approximately 12 vehicles) within the MG parking zone to allow MH permit holders, proposed under TRO 48/2021, is implemented;

2.    That feedback from local people is reviewed after three months after implementation and used to inform any future proposals, should they become necessary.

Kevin McKee, Parking Manager introduced the report.

Written deputations were read out from Ms K, Ms M and Ms G.

In response to questions from Councillors, Kevin Mckee and Nikki Musson clarified the following points:

Slightly more permits were issued than there are spaces in both the zones, which is common practice.

Some people with permits could have off-street parking, and there is a turnover of vehicles due to holidays etc.  There are often spaces available in Owen Road and Ward Road.

The proposals were publicised in the Portsmouth News, on the Council website and notices were displayed in the streets which would be affected including both sides of Highland Road, from Hellyer to Eastney Road. Copies of the notice were also posted to neighbouring households, which is an additional measure being undertaken since the pandemic to raise awareness, as people may not be going out as much as they used to.

In the MH zone the permit restrictions are operational from 6pm to 8pm and in the MG zone 12-1pm and 6-7pm.

A temporary Traffic Regulation Order could not be enacted in respect of parking bays. We would look at feedback from local people to inform any future proposals if the shared parking bays proved unsuccessful. Further surveys would not be required.

It isn't possible under the current system to issue permits for more than one parking zone or change the zone boundaries, rather than have shared parking bays. Giving access to people for other parking zones would undermine the parking scheme and would set an unworkable precedent for other areas.

There has been a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation regarding who is proposed to be able to park in this area, fuelled by social media and people who do not live in the vicinity. Word of mouth has caused distress to some people, who had already received the Council's proposals.

The properties concerned are older terraced housing with no rear access to the MH zone. They must walk a quarter of a mile to the nearest parking within their zone, whilst observing empty spaces in the MG zone immediately opposite where they live.

DECISIONS

1.    That the amendment to 3 residents' parking bays (accommodating approximately 12 vehicles) within the MG parking zone to allow MH permit holders, proposed under TRO 48/2021, is implemented;

2.    That feedback from local people is reviewed after three months after implementation and used to inform any future proposals, should they become necessary.

Purpose

To consider the public response to the proposed eastwards extension of the MH Westfield Road area residents' parking zone, in the context of the Programme of Consultation on Residents' Parking.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member agrees that

1.    The proposed extension of the MH Westfield Road area parking zone under TRO 8/2021 is implemented as advertised, with the following exceptions;

2.    The 14m double yellow lines proposed outside Nos. 87-88 Lidiard Gardens are deleted from TRO 8/2021 and not implemented - Part E) 3 a) (iii) of the notice;

3.    It is confirmed and noted that Nos.1-7 Highland Mews at 117 Lidiard Gardens is entirely private, separate from the public highway and not included in the physical proposals under TRO 8/2021, and that residents are entitled to apply for permits.

DECISIONS

1.    The proposed extension of the MH Westfield Road area parking zone under TRO 8/2021 is implemented as advertised, with the following exceptions:

2.    The 14m double yellow lines proposed outside Nos. 87-88 Lidiard Gardens are deleted from TRO 8/2021 and not implemented - Part E) 3 a) (iii) of the notice;

3.    It was confirmed that, should the residents in the roads east of the extension request permit parking in the future, they would be resurveyed.

4.    It is confirmed and noted that Nos.1-7 Highland Mews at 117 Lidiard Gardens is entirely private, separate from the public highway and not included in the physical proposals under TRO 8/2021, and that residents are entitled to apply for permits.

Verbal deputations were given by Jonpaul Knight and Martin Herriven.

Written deputations by Mr A and a resident from Lidiard Gardens were read out.

Kevin McKee introduced the report and in response to questions from Councillors, he and Nikki Musson clarified the following points:

During the pandemic, additional measures were taken to ensure that residents were aware of consultations, by posting copes of the proposal notice and information letter to affected properties. Residents and businesses were consulted and statutory notices were published on the council's website, advertised in the Portsmouth News and displayed throughout the area, including along Eastney Road for 21 days.

Residents from the east end showed little interest presumably because they have off-street parking so would not be affected by parking displacement to a great extent.  Residents from the western end side live in terraced housing and so have no off-street parking. Some people responded to the social media posts regarding this item, perhaps instead of the proposal notices displayed or the published proposals.  Three representations were received from people who live outside the proposed zone.

The informal survey is not a consultation.  It gathers information to assist the council in developing any formal proposals.  In some areas, the majority of people do not want an RPZ and therefore formal proposals are not developed or proposed parking zones are not implemented.

By way of an example, the residents of a large area in Baffins were surveyed about a proposed RPZ.  Following the response, a smaller one was installed where the support was clear.

The double yellow lines proposed would not take away any legitimate parking spaces; these would be placed opposite junctions and entrances and to prevent parking in unsafe places once parking bays are marked.

In response to a question, Wayne Layton, Finance Manager explained that the income from parking fines could not be estimated as this is an unknown quantity. The level of contraventions in new schemes tends to spike initially and then tail off.  The income from the first Resident permits is estimated to be £9,500.  Other income would come from second and visitor permits.  This income can only be spent on specific things related to road safety, transport etc. under legislation.

DECISIONS

1.    The proposed extension of the MH Westfield Road area parking zone under TRO 8/2021 is implemented as advertised, with the following exceptions:

2.    The 14m double yellow lines proposed outside Nos. 87-88 Lidiard Gardens are deleted from TRO 8/2021 and not implemented - Part E) 3 a) (iii) of the notice;

3.    It was confirmed that, should the residents in the roads east of the extension request permit parking in the future, they would be resurveyed.

4.    It is confirmed and noted that Nos.1-7 Highland Mews at 117 Lidiard Gardens is entirely private, separate from the public highway and not included in the physical proposals under TRO 8/2021, and that residents are entitled to apply for permits.

Purpose

To consider the public response to the proposed parking restrictions in a number of locations in Portsmouth.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member agrees that

1.    The double yellow lines in Hayling Avenue remain unchanged, meaning the proposal to reduce their length by 5m at each end is not implemented;

2.    9m of the 11m of double yellow lines proposed on the bend in Cheslyn Road is implemented;

3.    The proposed 5m extension to the double yellow lines on both sides of Woolner Avenue is applied to the east side only, southwards from Havant Road junction;

4.    The 11m of double yellow lines proposed in front of the access road to Orford Court in Magdala Road, is implemented;

5.    The 30m of double yellow lines proposed on the bend in Peronne Road, north of Bapaume Road, is implemented;

6.    The parking in Shelley Avenue remains unchanged, meaning the proposal to install double yellow lines on the south side and move all parking (including 3 disabled bays) to the north side is not implemented;

7.    It is noted that the remainder of TRO 39/2021 was brought into operation under TRO 39A/2021 at the end of July, due to no objections being received to those proposals. Therefore, any proposals approved following this report will be brought into operation under TRO 39B/2021.

DECISIONS

1.    The double yellow lines in Hayling Avenue remain unchanged, meaning the proposal to reduce their length by 5m at each end is not implemented;

2.    9m of the 11m of double yellow lines proposed on the bend in Cheslyn Road is implemented;

3.    The proposed 5m extension to the double yellow lines on both sides of Woolner Avenue is applied to the east side only, southwards from Havant Road junction;

4.    The 11m of double yellow lines proposed in front of the access road to Orford Court in Magdala Road, is implemented;

5.    The 30m of double yellow lines proposed on the bend in Peronne Road, north of Bapaume Road, is implemented;

6.    The parking in Shelley Avenue remains unchanged, meaning the proposal to install double yellow lines on the south side and move all parking (including 3 disabled bays) to the north side is not implemented;

7.    It is noted that the remainder of TRO 39/2021 was brought into operation under TRO 39A/2021 at the end of July, due to no objections being received to those proposals. Therefore, any proposals approved following this report will be brought into operation under TRO 39B/2021.

Kevin McKee introduced the report.

Written deputations from Ms S, Mr & Mrs S, Mr M and Ms S were read out.

In response to questions, Nikki Musson clarified the following points:

Officers are not recommending that any disabled parking bays are moved in Shelley Avenue and therefore the proposals are not recommended for implementation.  Moving parking from the south side to the north side would disadvantage more people than it would benefit, in light of the local feedback received.

It was confirmed that the line-marking work proposed under the same TRO (39/2021) at the Tregaron Avenue and Dysart Avenue junction in Drayton started this week.

DECISIONS

1.    The double yellow lines in Hayling Avenue remain unchanged, meaning the proposal to reduce their length by 5m at each end is not implemented;

2.    9m of the 11m of double yellow lines proposed on the bend in Cheslyn Road is implemented;

3.    The proposed 5m extension to the double yellow lines on both sides of Woolner Avenue is applied to the east side only, southwards from Havant Road junction;

4.    The 11m of double yellow lines proposed in front of the access road to Orford Court in Magdala Road, is implemented;

5.    The 30m of double yellow lines proposed on the bend in Peronne Road, north of Bapaume Road, is implemented;

6.    The parking in Shelley Avenue remains unchanged, meaning the proposal to install double yellow lines on the south side and move all parking (including 3 disabled bays) to the north side is not implemented;

7.    It is noted that the remainder of TRO 39/2021 was brought into operation under TRO 39A/2021 at the end of July, due to no objections being received to those proposals. Therefore, any proposals approved following this report will be brought into operation under TRO 39B/2021.