Agenda item

4.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report providing an update on investigations subsequent to the decision of 12^th June 2014 regarding a petition received considering the proposed pay and display parking scheme on Ecclesall Road at Banner Cross district centre, and seeking a decision on the petition and the scheme.

4.2

RESOLVED: That a decision on the scheme be deferred pending further work investigating journey patterns in the area and the impact on local trade and a further report be submitted to a future Session in the new financial year.

4.3

Reasons for Decision

4.3.1

There was a difficult balance in the area of the needs of traders for customers to park outside their shops and local residents who wished to park their cars outside their house. Further work needed to be undertaken to assess both sides needs and the impact on local trade and parking in the area before a decision could be taken.

4.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

4.4.1

To approve the recommendation not to implement a scheme in the area. Local traders had emphasised the importance of a scheme being introduced to ensure a vibrant, thriving shopping area in Banner Cross. Further work needed to be undertaken to assess their needs as well as the wish of local residents to park their cars near their houses.

4.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

4.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

4.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

4.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

4.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report providing an update on investigations subsequent to the decision of 12^th June 2014 regarding a petition received considering the proposed pay and display parking scheme on Ecclesall Road at Banner Cross district centre, and seeking a decision on the petition and the scheme.

4.2

Viv Lockwood, Secretary of the Banner Cross Neighbourhood Group, attended the Session to make representations to the Cabinet Member. He commented that the Group had taken a neutral position on the proposals from the beginning as they were aware that they were contentious.

4.3

At the last Session a local resident had stated that the majority of traders were not in favour of the proposals. This was not true and the Group had sought comment from both traders and local residents.

4.4

The economy of Banner Cross was fragile and a number of shops had recently closed or were in danger of having to close. The area had seen a drift of customer footfall down the hill from up the hill. Mr Lockwood had visited local traders to ask if they were in favour of the proposals. A number had commented that they were overwhelmingly in favour. This was because they had been losing trade as a result of vehicle movements. After 9:30 a.m. when waiting restrictions had finished a number of people were bringing their cars down and parking in front of the shops resulting in a loss of trade as potential customers often went elsewhere if they saw that they couldn’t park near the shop.

4.5

Some of the comments from traders was that they hoped that the bus lane restrictions could operate in a different way. However, they hoped that something could be done to resolve the problem. Those traders who had supported the proposals often had their own car parks so the issues were not as apparent.

4.6

Mr Lockwood was concerned by the steady decline in the economy of Banner Cross and he was frightened that the area would be left with a dead economy. It would only take another three or four shops to close down for it to be the final straw.

4.7

In respect of the residents’ petition, the Banner Cross Neighbourhood Group had 270 members and it was not Mr Lockwood’s experience that there was a large body of resident opinion against the proposals. He believed the scheme addressed many of their concerns. When a number of residents had been told of the possibility of installing a parking meter in the area their instinctive reaction was to oppose it. However, when the reasons for its introduction were clearly explained to them they often changed their view.

4.8

In conclusion, Mr Lockwood commented that he hoped the Cabinet Member could support the original proposal and requested that this be approved on an experimental basis to assess its impact.

4.9

Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, commented that this was a very difficult issue. He understood the views of residents that they wanted to park near their homes but also that a thriving district centre was vital and this presented a conflict which was difficult to resolve.

4.10

Councillor Bramall commented that he be believed more work should be done on this. There was currently an issue of funding. He was minded to request more work be undertaken on investigating journey patterns and the turn over of traders. He requested that this be undertaken and a further report be submitted to this Session in the new financial year.

4.11

RESOLVED: That a decision on the scheme be deferred pending further work investigating journey patterns in the area and the impact on local trade and a further report be submitted to a future Session in the new financial year.

4.12

Reasons for Decision

4.12.1

There was a difficult balance in the area of the needs of traders for customers to park outside their shops and local residents who wished to park their cars outside their house. Further work needed to be undertaken to assess both sides needs and the impact on local trade and parking in the area before a decision could be taken.

4.13

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

4.13.1

To approve the recommendation not to implement a scheme in the area. Local traders had emphasised the importance of a scheme being introduced to ensure a vibrant, thriving shopping area in Banner Cross. Further work needed to be undertaken to assess their needs as well as the wish of local residents to park their cars near their houses.