Agenda item - Hanover & Elm Grove / Craven Vale resident parking scheme consultations

Report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture

That the Committee approves:

(a)          That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Sunday 9am-8pm) be considered within the area South of Elm Grove (including the southern section of Elm Grove) and for those streets in the North West section (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment

(b)          That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Sunday 9am-8pm) be considered within the Craven Vale area (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment.

(c)          That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Friday 11am-12 Noon & 6pm-7pm) be considered within the remainder of the roads (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment subject to e), f) and g) as set out below

(d)          That the proposed shared parking on Freshfield Road be amended to resident permit only to give residents in the Pankhurst area more opportunities to park; with further consideration given to accommodating some parking in Firle, Glynde and Clayton roads respectively and a report brought back to the next committee.

(e)          That officers arrange a meeting with representatives of the residents associations in the Pankhurst area and the ‘Top Triangle’ area to discuss any refinements to the scheme available with the Elm Grove Residents Action Group ahead of the traffic order being advertised with outcome reported back to the next ETS Committee.

(f)           That the Council’s Road Safety Team investigates options to deter potential speeding along Pankhurst Avenue in response to concerns raised by residents and consider concerns raised by residents about speeding in Firle, Glynde and Clayton Roads, should the proposed double yellow lines be installed and report back to the next ETS Committee.

(g)          That a trial scheme should be piloted allowing businesses to buy a number of visitor permits, in order to help offset potential adverse impacts of a CPZ

(h)         That an order should be placed for any required pay and display equipment to ensure implementation of the new proposed parking scheme (if agreed at a further committee meeting) is undertaken as programmed. 

74.1      The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that set out the outcome of the public consultation undertaken for a proposed parking scheme in the Hanover & Elm Grove and Craven Vale areas and requested permission to proceed with respective schemes as detailed in the report.

74.2      Councillor Gibson addressed the Committee on the proposals. He explained that there had been three years of very hard work from Hanover & Elm Grove Local Action Team (HEGLAT) to try and find a solution. Councillor Gibson stated that it was this work that had meant an area that had rejected a controlled parking scheme a number of years ago was now broadly, but not entirely, in favour of a scheme. Councillor Gibson congratulated officers who had responded well to high engagement from residents and had been flexible on the detail of the scheme. Councillor Gibson noted that there would be a forthcoming amendment moved and he urged the committee to support the actions in that amendment in order to respond to residents wishes and make the scheme better. Councillor Gibson explained that the amendment would mitigate issues such as those highlighted by the residents of Pankhurst Estate and the ‘Top Triangle’ and address the issues raised by local businesses.

74.3      Councillor Daniel addressed the Committee on the proposals. Councillor Daniel thanked officers who had worked on the proposals as she had found them to have listened to the all the ideas put forward by residents and had put in a great deal of effort. Councillor Daniel also thanked HEGLAT for their work especially the Chair. Councillor Daniel noted that the outcome of the two-stage consultation that demonstrated support from the majority of residents for the proposals in the report. Councillor Daniel stated that the proposals set a good balance between the voice of residents and the needs of businesses and even some of those residents entirely against a scheme had found the proposals to be fair. Councillor Daniel stated that it would be irresponsible to leave selected areas out of any controlled parking zone as it would only cause misery to those residents living in those areas. Furthermore, a new school had been identified for area toward the top of Elm Grove that would only bring further pressure on parking. Councillor Daniel urged the Committee to accept the report recommendations.

74.4      Councillor Miller noted that he had raised the issue of parking consultations conducted on the basis of individual residents rather than households at the previous meeting and asked if any update on that was available.

74.5      The Parking Infrastructure Manager stated that the matter had been discussed and he would circulate the detailed written text to Members subsequent to the meeting.

74.6      Councillor Theobald asked how many spaces would be lost should the proposals be agreed.

74.7      The Parking Infrastructure Manager stated that it would be extremely difficult to give an accurate figure at this stage due to the high amount of illegal parking in the area. 4,500 spaces would be created in the scheme and it could be estimated that up to 1,000 spaces could be lost due to parking on crossovers, junctions, pavements and with some roads losing parking on both sides of the roads.

74.8      Councillor Janio stated that businesses in the Fiveways area had reported a reduction in income since the introduction of a parking scheme in their area. Councillor Janio asked if there was an established method of actively monitoring such issues.

74.9      The Parking Infrastructure Manager stated that subsequent to any scheme being in place for one year, a survey was carried out with residents and businesses to assess how they felt the scheme was progressing and amendments to the scheme could be considered.

74.10   Councillor Greenbaum moved a motion on behalf of the Green Group as set out in bold italics below:

2.1      That the Committee approves:

(a)       That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Sunday 9am-8pm) be considered within the area South of Elm Grove (including the southern section of Elm Grove) and for those streets in the North West section (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment

(b)       That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Sunday 9am-8pm) be considered within the Craven Vale area (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment.

(c)       That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Friday 11am-12 Noon & 6pm-7pm) be considered within the remainder of the roads (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment subject to e), f) and g) as set out below

(d)      That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Friday 11am-12 Noon & 6pm-7pm) be considered within the remainder of the roads for the following coherent area:

Bonchurch Road, Whippingham Road, Whippingham Street, Shanklin Road, Bembridge Street, Sandown Road,  Totland Road, Brading Road, Bernard Road, Bernard Place, Hartington Place; Hartington Terrace and the stretch of Hartington Road, starting at the end of proposed full scheme and ending at the bottom of Sandown Road and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment.

All remaining roads and half roads included in the proposed area for the Hanover & Elm Grove light scheme will be removed and not progressed further

(e)      That the proposed shared parking on Freshfield Road be amended to resident permit only to give residents in the Pankhurst area more opportunities to park; with further consideration given to accommodating some parking in Firle, Glynde and Clayton roads respectively and a report brought back to the next committee.

(f)        That officers arrange a meeting with representatives of the residents associations in the Pankhurst area and the ‘Top Triangle’ area to discuss any refinements to the scheme available with the Elm Grove Residents Action Group ahead of the traffic order being advertised with outcome reported back to the next ETS Committee.

(g)      That the Council’s Road Safety Team investigates options to deter potential speeding along Pankhurst Avenue in response to concerns raised by residents and consider concerns raised by residents about speeding in Firle, Glynde and Clayton Roads, should the proposed double yellow lines be installed and report back to the next ETS Committee.

(h)      That a trial scheme should be piloted allowing businesses to buy a number of visitor permits, in order to help offset potential adverse impacts of a CPZ

(i)        That an order should be placed for any required pay and display equipment to ensure implementation of the new proposed parking scheme (if agreed at a further committee meeting) is undertaken as programmed. 

74.11   Introducing the motion, Councillor Greenbaum stated that the amendments were an attempt to accurately reflect resident’s views and the hard work of ward councillors who had engaged with the community.

74.12   Councillor Deane formally seconded the motion.

74.13   Councillor Wares commented that he had found it unhelpful that a large and complex amendment had been tabled such a short time ahead of the meeting. Councillor Wares stated that he was especially concerned that amendment (d) had not been put to residents and many were unlikely to know about it due to the lateness of the motion.

74.14   Councillor Atkinson stated that the introduction of a scheme was a complex issue as demonstrated that two rounds of consultation had been undertaken. Councillor Atkinson noted that he felt the recommendations provided a way forward for residents in the area and repeated the concerns regarding amendment (d) put forward by the Green Group expressed by Councillor Wares.

74.15   Councillor Janio observed that whilst he appreciated the efforts of the ward councillors in trying to do the best for their residents, the Green Group amendment was very late and very complex although he found the proposals for a pilot for businesses to buy resident permits imaginative. Councillor Janio stated that debate caused upon each introduction of a scheme demonstrated the need for a wider review of parking in the city.

74.16   Councillor Deane stated her appreciation of the considerable work put in by officers in a very complex and very wide area. Councillor Deane stated that the matter had received considerable debate and consultation and it was clear that the majority of people in the area wanted a controlled parking scheme. However, some areas were decidedly against a scheme or elements of the scheme and that a resolution for that was reflected in the Green Group amendment. Councillor Deane stated that it had been made clear to those residents that if a scheme was not taken forward at this point then it was unlikely that the council would return to the issue for a number of years. Councillor Deane urged the Committee to support the motion.

74.17   Councillor Wares stated that if a scheme was to be approved, the committee could not leave elements out as it would cause enormous displacement and pain for those areas outside the scheme.

74.18   The Deputy Head of Law stated that Brighton & Hove City Council had a clear, established method of consultation with residents and residents would therefore have legitimate expectation that process would be followed. In the case of recommendation 2.1 (d) of the motion, residents might argue that the council had not followed its established procedures.

74.19   The Chair then put the Green Group motion to the vote. Recommendation 2.1 (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) were carried and recommendation 2.1 (d) failed.

74.20   The Chair then put the recommendations as amended to the vote that were agreed.

74.21   RESOLVED- That the Committee approves:

(a)          That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Sunday 9am-8pm) be considered within the area South of Elm Grove (including the southern section of Elm Grove) and for those streets in the North West section (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment

(b)          That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Sunday 9am-8pm) be considered within the Craven Vale area (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment.

(c)          That a new resident parking scheme (Monday to Friday 11am-12 Noon & 6pm-7pm) be considered within the remainder of the roads (Appendix G) and that this proposal be progressed to the final design with the Traffic Order advertised to allow further comment subject to e), f) and g) as set out below

(d)          That the proposed shared parking on Freshfield Road be amended to resident permit only to give residents in the Pankhurst area more opportunities to park; with further consideration given to accommodating some parking in Firle, Glynde and Clayton roads respectively and a report brought back to the next committee.

(e)          That officers arrange a meeting with representatives of the residents associations in the Pankhurst area and the ‘Top Triangle’ area to discuss any refinements to the scheme available with the Elm Grove Residents Action Group ahead of the traffic order being advertised with outcome reported back to the next ETS Committee.

(f)           That the Council’s Road Safety Team investigates options to deter potential speeding along Pankhurst Avenue in response to concerns raised by residents and consider concerns raised by residents about speeding in Firle, Glynde and Clayton Roads, should the proposed double yellow lines be installed and report back to the next ETS Committee.

(g)          That a trial scheme should be piloted allowing businesses to buy a number of visitor permits, in order to help offset potential adverse impacts of a CPZ

(h)         That an order should be placed for any required pay and display equipment to ensure implementation of the new proposed parking scheme (if agreed at a further committee meeting) is undertaken as programmed.