The Chief Officer: Planning and Transport gave
a presentation on the Residents’ Parking Scheme Consultation
in relation to the town centre.
The town centre regeneration would bring an
expanding construction workforce, an additional 2,800 jobs, a
predicted 8 million shoppers each year, and would involve an
inevitable change in parking patterns. There was a need to protect
residents living close to the town centre from increased parking
pressures.
The scheme needed to be simple for residents
to use, accommodating of differing needs (residents / communities),
fair in its rules of operation, enforceable by Parking Attendants
and cost effective to operate.
The timetable for the scheme was as
follows:
By year end:
- Conclude informal stakeholder
consultation & analysis;
- Establish principles of a
scheme;
- Interim feedback to residents.
Spring 2014:
- Decision to consult formally on a
detailed scheme;
- Formal consultation process.
Summer 2014:
- Conclusions from formal
consultation;
- Decision on scheme
implementation.
Autumn 2014:
- Scheme implementation and
operation.
The Panel considered questions regarding, for
example, the benefits of a residents’ parking scheme, whether
there should be a charge for permits and / or a limit on the number
of permits issued, the operating hours of the scheme, and the days
of the week the scheme would operate.
As a result of the ensuing
discussion, the following points were raised by some
members:
- The scheme was a good
idea generally, but residents should not be disadvantaged from
their current position.
- A charge would
probably be needed, as in other areas with similar schemes. If
there was no charge, the scheme would need to be paid for another
way, for example, via revenue funding.
- There should be a
limit on the number of permits issued otherwise there would not be
enough spaces for people to park in. A permit would be linked to a
person’s vehicle licence plate and property address and would
need to be changed if people changed their vehicle licences or
addresses.
- It there was not a
charge for permit changes, the initial charge for a permit might
need to be slightly higher to cover administration costs of
changing permits.
- The range of permits
requested per household was likely to be in the region of 0-7, but
was expected to be approximately 3 on average. Considerations
included multiple ownership and occupancies, businesses run from
home, possibly the number of bedrooms, and the need for
visitors’ passes.
- It was queried
whether certain areas could be used for additional
parking.
- It was felt that more
parking spaces, would mean more cars in the area and potentially
more problems surrounding parking.
- It was suggested that
every resident who could drive and had a car could be issued with a
permit with increased charging for further permits requested, i.e.
graduated charging.
- It was queried what
people with permits would do if they were unable to
park.
- It was suggested that
a residents’ parking scheme would need to compliment existing
schemes and policy.
- The scheme would be
enforced to specified hours. The days and hours of enforcement
needed further debate and would need to reflect when people were
expected to use the town centre, for example.
- It was felt that it
would be unfair to residents if they had greater difficulty parking
as a result of the scheme.
- Specific parking bays
would not be outlined, i.e. with white lines, as this would
restrict the number of cars which could park in an area and was
felt to be too prescriptive.
- It was suggested that
bus services would need to be improved if parking in the town
centre was going to be more restricted.
- Whilst the current
consultation arose for additional parking pressure near Bracknell
town centre, no other parts of the Borough should be excluded from
the Council’s policies.
The Panel concluded that there
were many policy issues to explore and resolve before decisions
could be taken on a residents’ parking scheme.