(a)

as contained within the report, the flow chart provided set out the process followed by officers when casework was raised regarding parking issues. Stage two of the flow chart was introduced in 2018 to allow the team to build historical data with parking records. Stages 1 – 5 was the listening, developing and proposal stages;

(b)

in current CPZ areas, healthcare assistants and business permits were available;

(c)

one of the challenges encountered with regards to CPZ was engagement from residents, specifically trying to get an outcome that everyone agreed upon. Sometimes the numbers needed to progress through the CPZ process were not met meaning plans could not be taken forward;

(d)

officers were still trying to assess the impact of Covid 19 with regards to people’s habits, specifically were they working from home more/ commuting more – both having an impact on parking and controlled parking zones;

(e)

Plymouth had 54 CPZ with three legacy one hour zones, and three legacy two hour zones – the current policy introduced in 2018 introduced a minimum of three hour zones;

(f)

the report prepared set out the background to CPZ, the challenges identified alongside the background of support that the team had been able to provide over numerous wards as well as an outline suggestion of areas of discussion for the committee.

(g)

with regards to capacity, it was acknowledged that the team had worked in a different way in the last 18 months due to the pandemic, however there were  still areas of the city that still experienced commuter parking issues. It was queried what was the capacity of the team to look at CPZ currently requested as well as new applications, especially considering different areas’ parking issues may have changed during the pandemic;

(h)

when officers considered the implementation of CPZ, were they also looking at the potential overspill (displacement) of parking problems in neighbouring streets and the impact the CPZ may have overall and not just for the street/s applied for?

(i)

did the update take into consideration manifesto commitment 71 (“we recognise that residential parking is an issue so we will provide funds and work with communities to create additional neighbourhood car parking spaces to be reconfigured in areas to allow diagonal and perpendicular parking”) ? – had cost implications been considered? When would officers be in a position to commence and complete this manifesto commitment?

(j)

what sort of accountability and checking system was there with regards to the approval of business parking permits? It was considered by some Peverell ward residents that people were applying and being automatically approved for business parking permits who shouldn’t be eligible, or for social/ leisure use?

(k)

it was questioned how manifesto commitment 62 (“to assist residents living near the dockyard to park near their homes by encouraging Babcock and the Royal Navy to provide more onsite parking”) was to be completed, how it fitted in with larger employers and their travel to work schemes, and that it didn’t fit in with the Council’s climate change agenda to reduce commuter parking and encourage the use of sustainable transport?

(l)

was there a commitment to look at the travel to work scheme of several large employers in the city to ease the pressure on residential parking issues in communities across the city?

(m)

how many motorcycles (2 wheels) were using residential parking permits and had paid for it? Were officers in a position to progress manifesto commitment 63 (“we will exempt all motorcycles, 2 wheels, from having to have a residential parking permit, currently £30 per annum”) as under the old system, vehicle types were not asked for on application. Was the new system, whereby vehicle type was specifically monitored, properly advertised on the Council’s website? It was considered that this commitment couldn’t be met until everyone with a permit under the old system, had applied under the new system – was there a timescale or costs for this? When could this manifesto commitment be implemented?

(n)

what safety measures were in place to prevent someone renewing a parking permit if they were no longer entitled?

(o)

when considering CPZ and the impact on residential parking and car use, were officers also reaching out to bus companies and employers to look at bus timetables and routes? It was considered that one reason why some residents weren’t using buses was because the timetable meant that they would arrive 5 minutes later than their shift started – if this could be considered and amended then it would support more sustainable travel and the impact on CPZ in the city;

(p)

how did the profit and loss system currently work with regards to CPZ and what was being done to ensure its profitability or that operational costs were covered? Was the Cabinet aware of the full financial implications of the CPZ scheme? It was requested that information would be provided to Members regarding the impact of people working at home, and the number of manifesto commitments which had an impact on the scheme, should be reflected in the review;

(q)

would officers consider amalgamating controlled parking zones which were currently stretched or being shared? If there were gaps between these zones how quickly could these be dealt with? What resources were there available to make quick fixes?

1.      

to request that that a written response would be provided to Members on the results of the review of the of the charging for CPZ and costs and timescales associated with it, as well as costings and timescales relating to parking manifesto pledges and the implications of those on the CPZ policy and budget;

2.      

to note the Controlled Parking Zones Update report.