Residents Parking Forum 27th May 2003
This was the first Residents’ Parking Forum since the City Council elections and the change of administration. Councillor Holland emphasised that there would be a new approach in which residents’ concerns would be given a higher priority.
The new City Council will be taking a broader, holistic view of the City, linking different policy areas together. This will require a closer relationship between the City and the County Council.
The meeting welcomed this new approach, but emphasised that it would remain necessary for residents to continue meeting to push forward a positive agenda for their neighbourhoods and to ensure that the politicians continue to work toward meeting residents’ objectives.
Both Councils are concerned about solving the local parking issue, as is shown by participation in the Residents’ Parking Forum. It was reassuring for residents to see both Councillor Grenville Holland (City) and Councillor Nigel Martin (County) working together at the Residents’ Parking Forum. City Councillors Mary Hawgood and Bob Wynn sent their apologies.
Colin Green reported on the meeting held at County Hall on 6 th May (see below)
The meeting was a positive step forward showing that there are many areas of agreement.
A constructive approach from all sides would allow this agreement to be built upon.
All agree that parking in residential areas is to be reduced. Council Officers still favour the solution of 100% Pay and Display parking. Residents would prefer a mixture that includes ‘resident-only’ parking.
The differences seem to boil down to disagreement over the most effective way of reducing parking levels. If a programme of reduction can be agreed, then the type of control might become irrelevant. The important thing would be to manage the scheme to ensure that the agreed reductions are achieved.
Apart from the new yellow lines, there are unlikely to be any further developments until after the Park and Ride sites are open. There is some concern that the County Council might be prepared to impose parking meters at this stage.
The parking scheme is being extended to cover Potters Bank and Elvet Hill Road. Residents believe that this is how the scheme should be organised with meters in non-residential areas rather than residential streets.
If present plans continue there could be an oversupply of short-stay parking meters when the Park and Ride sites are open. Residents will look into this.
As regards overall strategy, it was agreed to continue the dialogue with the County Council with the intention of reaching an agreement on the way forward.
Residents are still very much in favour of achieving an effective resident parking scheme, however, and in improving conditions in their neighbourhoods. With this in mind it was agreed that the next meeting should focus on Home Zones, which aim to reduce the impact of traffic and parking in residential areas.
The next meeting will be Monday, June 30 th , 2003. 7.30pm at Waddington Street Church Hall.
This was a meeting between residents (Colin Green, Dan Keenan) councillors (Nigel Martin, John Lightley) and council officers (Dave Wafer, John McGargill). This meeting was useful in restarting a dialogue and establishing a better understanding of the respective positions.
There is a significant amount of agreement between residents and council officers over the situation after the P&R sites are in place. Both are agreed that on-street commuter parking is to be relocated to the P&R sites.
The timetable is still fluid, and the details of the scheme have still to be decided. The worst case scenario would see all three sites up and running by 2006.
Meters will be arranged to deter long-stay parking. Prices will be increased, but the level of charges and the time allowed (2, 4, all-day, etc) has still to be decided. The level of charges for the P&R sites and the bus fares are also still to be decided.
Three main reasons were outlined:
• The proposals fell short of expectations.
(Residents expected an Area of Residents Parking, City Council had proposed a Resident Only policy, Zones 1 and 2 had indicated that resident-only parking was to be commonplace.)
• The proposed charging regime was too lax to deter enough parking.
• The Hawthorn Terrace area was proposed as the only sub-zone without any ‘resident only’ parking.
• Charging regime will become more effective as P&R sites are opened.
• Officers approach has changed as the scheme has been put into operation:
• They have become less in favour of Resident Only arrangements and more convinced that a mixed provision of meters and resident permits is the best arrangement.
• This arrangement is simpler to administer and for all to understand.
• There are difficulties when different parking regimes apply in nearby streets – e.g. motorist buys ticket from a meter and then parks in a Resident Only street.
• If some streets in a neighbourhood are to be Resident Only and others not, is there a fair and objective way of deciding which street should be which?
The Council view remains that all the streets that have rejected the scheme should still become Pay and Display areas.
• University’s legal advice is that the University Regulations are legally valid. They intend to bring them in line with the council scheme, i.e. two cars per household.
• In high density student areas it may be possible to limit residents to one permit per household, but this would apply to all residents.
• Yellow lines are likely to be put down during the University summer break.