Decision details

7.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report on the findings of initial investigations into possible alterations to the existing permit parking scheme at Falding Street, Chapeltown, following a petition received from local residents. The report set out the likely implications of making the suggested changes and gives the recommendations accordingly.

7.2

RESOLVED: That:-

(a)

the Falding Street permit parking scheme remain in place as existing for the time being; and

(b)

the lead petitioner be informed of the findings of the initial investigations.

7.3

Reasons for Decision

7.3.1

No funding is available to cover the costs of design, consultation, legal procedure, or of amending or removing signs and road markings associated with the request.

7.3.2

Currently, the Council’s priority for the investigation of new or revised permit parking schemes is the area adjacent to the City Centre. Changes at Falding Street would not contribute to this priority.

7.3.3

Due to excessive residential parking demand, alterations to the hours of operation of the scheme are unlikely to bring about an improvement in the availability of kerbside parking space. Whilst removal of the scheme would alleviate residents of the need to buy exemption permits, it may result in deterioration in parking conditions on Falding Street, although parking surveys conducted elsewhere in the town suggest any influx of non-residents is unlikely to be significant.

7.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

7.4.1

The potential removal of the then temporary scheme was consulted upon with local residents in 2010. The majority view at that time was to make the scheme permanent.

7.4.2

Introducing rationing of permits has been considered, so as to improve the parking situation by addressing the identified excess residential demand. Of the 20 valid issued permits, 3 are for the second vehicles. No permits have been issued to a household’s third vehicle. Limiting permits to one per household would, at the present levels, reduce parking demand from 105% of capacity to 89% of capacity.

7.4.3

This approach would, at present demand, manage numbers of residents’ vehicles that could be accommodated on street, although space would still be at a premium. Residents would still need to be careful to park in a space-efficient manner, without leaving excessive gaps, to ensure all resident’s vehicles can be accommodated.

7.4.4

It is worth noting that 20 permits currently issued represents an increase of 33% from the peak permit holders’ parking demand observed during on-street parking surveys conducted in October and November 2009. Whilst this apparent increase in residents’ car ownership may not predict future trends, there may be merit in limiting the issue of permits to the available capacity (i.e. 19) to prevent over-subscription arising as a problem in the future. Once 19 permits are issued, further applicants for permits would be placed on a waiting list, with new permits issued on a first-come first-served basis only when existing permits are surrendered, withdrawn, or expired and not renewed.

7.4.5

Permit rationing has not, however, been recommended as it differs considerably from suggestions made by the petitioners. Such a proposal would also appear unlikely to be supported by those households who wish to park multiple vehicles on street. It also does not take into account the use of visitor permits.

7.4.6

Removal of the permit parking restriction has been considered as an option. Although this would be beneficial to residents in so far as they would no longer need to purchase exemption permits, it has not been recommended on the grounds that no funding has been allocated to cover the costs of removing the scheme, and that such changes would not contribute to the Council’s priorities with respect to the investigation of permit parking schemes.

7.4.7

If there is external demand for parking in the vicinity, removal of the existing permit scheme may result in worsened conditions for parking on Falding Street as anyone would be able to park there. Further investigations would be required to assess how far this might be an issue.

7.4.8

Extending the hours of operation of the scheme has been considered. This would require a change to the traffic order, for which no funding is presently available. Given that the numbers of permits in issue exceeds the kerbside parking capacity, extending the operating hours of the scheme may not materially improve the parking situation on the street.

7.4.9

Reducing the cost of permits has been considered. In the interests of equality, the changes for permits are fixed throughout the City (outside of the City Centre). Reducing the standard permit charge would have a considerable financial implication; the financial viability of permit parking schemes is dependent on income received from the sale of permits, which presently cove approximately one third of the operational and enforcement cost of permit parking schemes throughout the City.

7.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

7.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

7.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

7.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing