(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 it was cheaper than parking however agreed to look into this issue;

(k)

officers were not aware when the contract for the privately operated car park in Mutley  was due to run out however would confirm and report back to Members;

(l)

of the four CPZ ballots that had been undertaken recently, only three were successful;

(m)

officers were assessing if ‘forced rotation’ parking would be beneficial at the Royal William Yard to help ease parking issues;

(n)

officers were aware that new housing developments and the variation of houses to HMOS (houses of multiple occupation) were causing increased pressure on the highway network; the Cabinet Member for Strategic Transport and Planning was continuing to work on this issue;

(o)

officers agreed to provide the CPZ presentation to Members.