Agenda item

To consider issues within the Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning Portfolio area, including the following report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 16 December 2020:

• BCP Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the report and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability.

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

BCP Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document - The Portfolio Holder for transport and Sustainability introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘I’ to the Cabinet minutes of 16 December in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     Parts of the Twin Sails regeneration area were designated as zone B but were within good walking distance and within the regeneration zone which should itself have good community facilities. A Councillor felt that these parts should be within zone A as was part already across the water. It was also noted that the Port was designated as zone c and it was suggested that this should be an area where we were reducing traffic. The Portfolio Holder advised that it wasn’t expected that this would be completely right from the beginning and there were options for reviewing the zones. However, it was also noted that the difference in requirements between zone b and zone a were minimal and only in reference to 2-bedroom houses and family size, 3-bedroom flats.

·     A decision to move coach parking by the previous Christchurch Council from the Town Centre to a more remote location. A Councillor asked if there was anything more on coach issues on this report. The Portfolio Holder advised that this policy related solely to new development parking provision and did not address any normal car parks or on street parking provision.

·     Many bus companies were now working with very tight margins in the provision of some routes and in light of this the Portfolio Holder was asked about the timescales for when it was anticipated that the bus services would meet the needs of the community. The Board was advised that the Council needed to work with the bus companies and that they had been involved with this policy. The major changes from previous policies were in zone A and B which were areas which were already well served by bus routes. Some routes were just on the margin of viability should in theory be helped by the parking standards policy. The overall timescale for this would need to work itself out.

·     A Board member commented that parking was major contributor to BCP finances and there was a need to support retailers and the hospitality sector particularly at the moment. It was suggested to delay proposals to allow for natural erosion following Brexit and Covid to take its course. The Portfolio Holder responded that he couldn’t see anyway in which the policy would work against businesses in town centres and reiterated that there was no change to public car parking or on street parking under the policy.

·     A Councillor asked about the previous proposals for constructing future properties with car parking which could be converted to other uses as the need for car parking reduces. It was noted that this was now unlikely to be required as there was no onsite parking proposed within zone A.

·     Employers do not have to have parking provision for staff but it leads to certain roads getting clogged up with on street parking. It was noted that there was a Government consultation on on-pavement parking which could make the issue worse. The Portfolio Holder explained that he understood that there would be opportunities for local authorities to specifically permit pavement parking in places where it was suitable and providing that there was full accessibility. A review of town centre parking going ahead at pace but was not connected to this report.

·     A Councillor commented that they were pleased to see this come forward and asked about residents parking and different zones. They were aware of several roads who wanted residents parking but there were concerns about costs raised by residents. It was noted that very few areas qualified for residents’ parking schemes, but it was expected that charging for residents parking would be very reasonable, in order to cover administrative costs and enforcement.

·     Public car parking in Town Centres. It was notes that residents buy parking permits for nearby car parks thus blocking all spaces for visitors. It was noted that there were long term discounted permits available, but these were not necessarily there in perpetuity. It was noted that there may be an opportunity to issue evening permits for areas that were predominately in commercial use during the day, but it was important that the number of cars did not increase as the number of houses did.

·     A Board member asked about the relationship between sustainable transport corridors and parking zones. It was noted that sustainable transport was governed with Traffic Regulation Orders rather than parking. These were part of predecessor local plans. These were related to transport corridors but were not quite the same thing.

·     Equalities issues – The Portfolio Holder was asked what would happen if someone became disabled or was elderly and the equalities issues around this. The Councillor also asked what the legal implications would be when a property was sold on with regards to not being able to park a car. It was noted that the restriction on car parking would move with the lease or deeds of a property. However, for someone eligible for a blue badge an exception would be made.

·     It was suggested that it was human nature for someone to want to own a car and the streets were already full. It was suggested that the requirements for particularly zone A and B should be reviewed.