Agenda item

Assembly received and noted the terms of a petition presented by the Lead Petitioner, Mr John Far, requesting that the Council stop proposals to implement controlled parking zones (CPZs) within Ripple Road and Harrow Road.

Mr Far thanked Assembly and said that the residents of Ripple and Harrow Roads were against the CPZ that was proposed to be implemented in that area.  He went on to say that following receipt of a letter from the Council advising that the consensus had been to implement a CPZ, he had been round to a great majority of the residents and only one in Ripple Road and two in Harrow Road had said they were in favour of a CPZ.  He concluded from this that the Council had mis-represented the facts that residents had requested the CPZ.

He further stated that the implementation of a CPZ would:

·  deter customers from coming to shops and businesses in the area;

·  cause difficulties for residents attending the medical centre;

·  cause hardship for residents if they had to pay to park outside their houses.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Kashif Syed spoke in support of the petition, saying that there had been no problems at any time regarding parking.  He also raised concerns as to the cost of permits, explaining that residents had originally been advised that the cost would be about £25 but that now a charge would be imposed depending on the car engine size.  He said he had personally spoken to residents in Ripple Road and that they did not want the CPZ to be implemented.

Assembly received the response to the petition introduced by the Divisional Director of Environmental Services (DDES), Robin Payne, who explained the consultation process and stated that two consultations had been carried out – one in Ripple Road and one in Harrow and adjacent roads.

The DDES referred the Assembly to the consultation tables set out in the report and in particular that 68.29% of the responses from Ripple Road and 60% of the responses from Harrow Road had voted in favour of a CPZ.

Following the commencement in June 2012 of the formal Traffic Management Order stage, and following concerns raised that Ripple and Harrow Roads would be included in it,  the decision was taken not to seal the Order but to conduct further consultation.

In debating the matter Members questioned:

v  the suggestion by the petitioners that there had been no traffic issues in Ripple Road, given how long that road is, and

v  the proposed change to the cost of a parking permit.

Mr Far, the Lead Petitioner, responded to the first point stating that Ripple Road was almost all business orientated.

As to the second point, the DDES advised that when this matter went out for consultation in 2011 a permit would have cost in the region of £22.50.  However, the Fees and Charges Report of February 2012 had introduced a new charging scheme based on engine size, under which a permit could cost up to £70.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Crime, Justice and Communities, Councillor Alexander, stated that she had intended to be brief as there was to be a re-consultation.

Nevertheless, she said that she is a Ward Member in this area and that twelve residents had visited her surgery requesting a CPZ.

Referring to access to the Medical Centre, she stated that disabled or very unwell residents are able to apply for a Blue Badge for their cars. She further referred to one of the residents in Harrow Road who has a disabled bay at her home but is unable to park in it because of the selfishness of people who park in Harrow Road.

The Cabinet Member was concerned to note that the Lead Petitioner had referred to Ripple Road as a business area, particularly as Ripple Road residents were constantly suffering the effects of people parking there and then using the underground station in Upney Lane.

In conclusion she said that:

Ø  the Lead Petitioner could not speak for everyone in Ripple and Harrow Road as he had only consulted a small number of people;

Ø  the Council had acted on the consultation responses that had come back to it

Ø  the Council is doing what has been requested in that a re-consultation will take place.

Assembly agreed for the reasons set out in the report:

1.  that it is unable to support the petition to abandon plans for a Controlled Park Zone in Ripple Road and Harrow Road; and

2.  that it supports proposals for a re-consultation of Controlled Parking in the Ripple and Harrow Road area.