Agenda item

The report by the Director of Transport, Environment & Business Support  re-presents the information on LB zone, enabling the decision taken at the

26 November 2015 Traffic & Transportation meeting to be reviewed, as per the Scrutiny Management Panel decision made on 17 December 2015.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member authorises either:

(1)       3-week consultation on the LB zone via a permanent TRO on amending and reducing the size of the LB zone (while the zone remains in place)

            or

(2)       6-month consultation on the LB zone via an experimental TRO on amending and reducing the size of the LB zone (while the zone is suspended)

            or

(3)       That no action is taken regarding the LB zone (zone continues unchanged)

The Cabinet Member authorised that no action be taken regarding the LB zone (zone continues unchanged).

Pam Turton, the Assistant Director of Transport, Environment & Business Support presented the report which set out the background to the consideration of this item, as requested by the Scrutiny Management Panel.  The Director of Transport, Environment & Business Support provided three options for the way forward.

Councillor Ellcome reported that he had read the written deputations and emails received on this subject.

Deputations were then heard, which are summarised:

1)    Mr Davis of St Andrews Road who felt that the parking zone had been ended without consultation and it was wasteful to remove the expensive signage and refund permits when it should stay in place.

2)    Mr McCreesh lives in the adjoining Havelock area where the problem of displaced parking had become worse and there was a high proportion of HMO and student properties in the area; and he raised questions later answered by the officers.  He would support option 1 of the 3 but felt that the survey results would be ignored.

3)    Mr Wood who had spoken with local residents and gave examples of residents whose lives were significantly affected by the need to park near their home for reasons including disability, family and work patterns and vehicles.  He therefore advocated Option 3, to keep the residents' parking zone.

In response to some of the questions raised by those making deputations it was reported that:

·         The number of student houses in the affected roads in the LB zone was 333 (55 in Margate Road) (affected road being in the current LB Zone but would be excluded under the proposal)

·         The density of car ownership in the LB zone area was unknown or the number of student cars

·         From the first survey results (on the £30 charge) there had 26 respondents from  7 non- affected roads in favour of the RPZ  and 84 in favour from the 11 affected roads

·         From the follow up residents parking survey 84 were in favour from non-affected roads and 155 from affected roads.

It was also reiterated that the original request for the RPZ had come from the residents and ward councillors.

Councillor Stagg, as Spokesperson, felt that the residents parking zones are requested by residents and if the majority of survey returns show that they are in favour, they should get what they want.  She did not favour students having permits in line with the university discouraging the bringing of cars into the city.  She therefore favoured Option 3.

Councillor Chowdhury, as Spokesperson, also was concerned regarding the level of student cars in the area.

Councillor Ellcome as Cabinet Member responded that student parking could be displaced and sometimes there was capacity within a zone to cope with this.  In response to issues raised by the deputations he explained that council procedures on call-ins had led to some of the delay in notification regarding the suspension or retention of the RPZ.  He stressed that any new decisions on residents' parking would not be taken in isolation but taking a more comprehensive approach for the wider Southsea area.  For the LB zone the survey on the payment of permits had shown 69% had been in favour and Councillor Ellcome took this into account and the views of those who had contacted him and spoken and therefore wished to support option 3 to retain the 'LB' RPZ.

DECISION: The Cabinet Member authorised that no action be taken regarding the LB zone (the zone continues unchanged).