(a)

priorities for Councillor Vincent’s portfolio included refuse collections (specifically removing waste bins from the road), Waterfront improvements and street furniture replacement. The aim was to improve the look of the city by 2020 in order to attract visitors and businesses;

(b)

priorities for Councillor Coker’s portfolio included maintaining the impetus from the Transport Board and the Local Enterprise Partnership, working with colleagues in Devon, Torbay and Somerset to get the maximum funding for transport issues in Plymouth, overseeing the contract for highways maintenance due in 2017 and overseeing the development of the Plymouth Plan.

(c)

recycling in the city was currently at a 38% collection rate; the Council was looking to encourage schools and outlets such as restaurants to increase their recycling;

(d)

the Fort Side Business Park was a major development currently under proposal; Councillor Coker confirmed that he was due to have a meeting with the Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure to discuss the long term objectives for the area. The traffic modelling for this scheme would be shared with Working Plymouth once it was available.

(a)

a review upon On Street Parking was undertaken in September 2010 to assess residents parking, business permits and ‘forced rotation’; three main changes included increased residents parking in specific areas, pay and display bays in under-utilised areas as well as duel use sites;

(b)

forced rotation was implemented in certain sites in Crownhill and Union Street whereby the machine would issue a ticket for a specific period of time

making people unable to park there again once the ticket had run out;

(c)

a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) was a defined area requiring vehicles to display a valid permit during prescribed hours in order to restrict non-residential use;  there were 51 Controlled Parking Zones in Plymouth with 22 variations. The first zone was implemented in 1974;

(d)

the review was undertaken because there was a lack of a defined criteria to determine requests for CPZs; the review started in December 2013 and heard evidence from MPs, Councillors, Neighbourhood Liaison Officers, the Chamber of Commerce, Plymouth Community Homes and transport and planning officers. The review was concluded in April 2014 and approved by Cabinet in July 2014;

(e)

as a result of the review it was determined that the trigger to instigate a CPZ was to determine if 20% or more of residents parking was regularly occupied by non-residential vehicles; residents were also required to inform elected members of challenges experienced when parking and members would work with the community to help address issues. A ballot would then be undertaken whereby a 30% response was required to assess if a CPZ should be implemented – 51% or more of those having responded to the ballot would need to be in support of the CPZ for it to be successful;

(f)

the review determined that all future CPZ’s should apply 7 days a week, that the minimum intervention to address the problem should be used, restrictions should apply for 3, 6, 12 or 24 hours a day, hours of operation of a CPZ should be determined co-operatively between members and residents and vehicles exceeding 5.5m should be excluded;

(g)

since the review officers had supported Members at community meetings, created a ‘polling card’ to support consultation and supported members balloting in four wards; three ballots had achieved the required return rate and new CPZ schemes were now being implemented in St Judes, Crownhill and Stoke.

(h)

parking spaces were approximately 5.5m in length therefore would not exclude traditional transit vans;

(i)

it was the role of Members to work with their local community to assess the needs of residents and establish if there was a perceived need for a CPZ;

(j)

officers were not aware that people were parking in residential areas across the city and then getting a taxi to the train station as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(a)

initially in 2013 there was a small budget set aside for highways schemes in the city that could be requested by the police, MPs, local Councillors and local residents; there were approximately 2000 requests per year of which it was considered that only 1200 applications were valid;

(b)

the valid schemes would be judged alongside a set criteria to ensure they were of benefit to the city; out of the 1200 valid applications, officers considered they could only realistically deliver 10 requests;

(c)

Councillor Coker, as Cabinet Member for Transport, amended the scheme to the Living Streets budget whereby ward councillors were allocated a sum of money, approximately £4000 per ward, to help prioritise works via consultation with local residents;

(d)

the programme was designed for small highways schemes that, when implemented,  could benefit the quality of life for local communities;

(e)

the Living Streets scheme was introduced as a pilot and mistakes had occurred due to miscommunication, but the workings of the scheme had improved;

(f)

it was considered that local Councillors were best placed to advise on priorities for their local community. Once a scheme had been submitted it was the job of officers to develop initial costs and design the scheme; this could take up to six weeks;

(g)

schemes relating to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) or works involved with underground services could take up to a minimum of six weeks to progress due to the requirement to advertise; planned traffic or highways works to be undertaken in the area would also be considered;

(h)

scheme costs were continually reviewed to ensured that Councillors were provided with the most accurate information available; the Council was only charged for the cost of work incurred;

(i)

schemes involving TROs including double yellow lines, controlled parking zones or speed limits had to be advertised due to a statutory requirement; this added costs and time to the scheme;

(j)

90 schemes had been delivered through the Living Streets programme;

(k)

Councillors had been provided with their Living Streets information packs for 2015/16 and had been invited to meet with officers to discuss options;

(l)

officers fell behind with schemes in the last quarter of the financial year as several applications were committed during this period and Officers were not prepared for this;

(m)

applications linking to white bar markings or disabled parking bays should not be submitted through the Living Streets budget as these were subject to separate rules and regulations.

(n)

pedestrian crossings were included within the scope of the Livings Streets scheme;

(o)

the Living Streets table of schemes did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.