Venue: Havering Town Hall, Main Road, Romford
Contact: Richard Cursons 01708 432430 Email: richard.cursons@oneSource.co.uk
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Members are invited to disclose any interest in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting.
Members may still disclose any interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.
There were no disclosures of interest.
The report before members detailed the call-in of a Cabinet decision relating to Keep Havering Moving - adoption of the Parking Strategy and the Highways Resurfacing Policy.
A requisition signed by Councillors Ray Morgon and Keith Darvill had called-in the Cabinet decision.
The reasons for the call-in were as follows:
1.The report failed to demonstrate that the changes would deliver less congestion and better parking management. Where would the additional manpower required be coming from to enforce additional parking restrictions? It was also unclear from the draft parking strategy that the proposals enabled the Council to respond positively to the stated pressures.
2. There was no evidence/data to demonstrate that the proposed parking arrangements would meet local need. How do the council know what that need is?
3. Many areas around commuter hubs already had parking restrictions to stop commuter parking. How would compulsory controlled parking zones improve on this?
4. There was a lack of detail on which roads would be impacted by the compulsory CPZs.
5. There were numerous references in the draft strategy to CPZs, but it did not fully explain whether this actually means resident parking permits, as opposed to yellow lines, it needed to be made very clear whether CPZs around commuter hubs were one or the other.
6. Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) proposals should be subject to extensive local consultation on a ward by ward basis rate than a borough-wide imposition.
7. The financial implications suggested that there were none in the strategy, but may be in delivering actions. The financial implications should clearly set out there may be financial implications for residents should they be subject to resident parking permits and the current charges.
8.The financial implications should include the local authority parking accounts (as required by s55 of The Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984) for the last two years to add financial context.
9. How would the council identify those areas that need removal of grass verges to provide additional parking space and how would the conversion work be funded?
10. Conversion of grass verges to hard standing should not necessarily be limited to areas where CPZs were introduced
11. Parking pressures differed widely and were more acute in neighbourhoods of high housing density.
12. How would the lack of parking spaces on new developments be managed to reduce the impact on available parking space outside the development?
13. There should be a review of existing regeneration proposals which currently tended to provide less parking capacity which a knock-on effect of increasing demand will have leading to pressure on areas nearby to the individual regeneration.
14. There was no evidence to demonstrate that parking enforcement was fair,
Transparent, robust and evidence led.
15. There was no evidence to demonstrate that parking arrangements would be consistent around all transport hubs and Town Centres. What impact assessment had been carried out to ascertain the impact on local businesses resulting from the proposed changes.
16. How would increasing parking charges around businesses support ... view the full minutes text for item 18.