Agenda item

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability submitted a report that sought the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on some targeted amendments to both the East Herts District Council’s resident permit parking scheme and the operational guidance which accompanies that policy.

Members were advised that the proposed changes aimed to enhance accessibility, reduce procedural barriers and better align the guidance and policy with the council’s strategic priorities. The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability referred in particular to sustainability, air quality, community wellbeing and economic growth.

Members were advised that the recommendations were based on public feedback from the 2024 parking strategy engagement and an independent review provided by Citisense, who were the architects of the parking strategy and had been instrumental in benchmarking against best practice from comparable local authorities.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that the changes were set out within the paper. He said that there was to be an amendment to the requirement that non-resident parking must be considered in awarding an RPZ scheme, specifically that non-resident parking must exceed 40% occupancy during times of peak period. The recommendation was that this be reduced to 10% to allow some more holistic assessments based on the local context, resident feedback and officer observation.

Members were advised that there was also a provision for Officer discretion which was also recommended to ensure that borderline or exceptional cases could be considered where there was compelling evidence to do so.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that the second recommendation was that the council amend the policy that 75% of households in a proposed zone have on street parking capacity for one vehicle. The proposal was that this requirement be reduced to 50% to reflect the practical constraints in historic mixed use or high-density areas such as constrained street layouts, pre-existing loading restrictions and compelling and competing demands on limited road space.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability summarised the report’s three recommendations and welcomed comments from the Committee. The Parking Services Manager responded to questions from Councillor Jacobs regarding the Citisense report and the recommendations.

Councillor Jacobs requested that officers come back to the committee at some point regarding the Citisense recommendations contained within an appendix to the report.

Councillor E Buckmaster acknowledged the flexibility that was being introduced. He said that many Members dealt with parking and highways on a daily basis and he expressed wariness about introducing resident parking zones. Councillor E Buckmaster referred in particular to urban areas close to transport hubs or sports clubs and the issue of how an RPZ would impact on a wider area and move a problem elsewhere.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that this was a valid concern. He emphasised that RPZs were an imperfect solution to a tricky problem and said that RPZ schemes in Hertford bled into each other, leaving a question mark about the areas in between.

Members were advised that the paper sought to make the situation regarding RPZs more practical and more applicable, and to allow the council to apply the scheme where it was best suited.

Councillor E Buckmaster asked if the officer discretion and change of policy was considered and whether or not further problems would be caused by introducing an RPZ. The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that there had to be some input in terms of expertise from officers if an area met the criteria for an RPZ.

Councillor Horner welcomed the changes in terms of securing more flexibility over the issues with RPZs. He said that there were no ideal solutions to parking issues and RPZs were one way of addressing them. He said that the resulting issues sometimes had to be lived with and that there were downsides to RPZs.

Councillor Horner said that where there was a desire for an RPZ, the Council should not have very prescriptive rules that ruled it out. He said that he welcomed the changes in general terms.

Councillor Swainston also welcomed the increased flexibility and asked if officers were now confident that this would give enough flexibility. She also asked if consideration be given to feedback from residents on the hours of operation of an RPZ.

The Parking Services Manager said that when carrying out informal consultation, officers would absolutely include a range of options for residents to consider and respond to in terms of timings for the operation of an RPZ. This information was taken into account to meet the needs of residents. The Council could then design a scheme based upon the thoughts and responses of the residents.

Councillor Marlow said that the scheme looked very equitable. He said that he had been struck recently by the size of some new cars, and he asked what metrics were being used for measure vehicles to give the figures.

The Parking Services Manager said that, in the context of permit zones, a typical measurement of 5.5 metres was used as a length per parking space in an RPZ area. This was the guide used to calculate the maximum number of spaces in an area. He said that an option in future was to consider increasing this measurement to 6 metres.

Councillor Nicholls broadly welcomed the changes. She highlighted an issue in respect of the prevalence of dropped kerbs meaning that there would not be enough spaces to meet the requirements. She said that this issue was exacerbated by residents not living on roads trying to park there.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability that the reduction from 75% to 50% might help to an extent in that regard. He said that there was limited funding for RPZs, and the schemes needed to be funded, perhaps via Section 106 legal agreements.

Councillor Carter commented on the increased flexibility making it more possible for some schemes to be considered. She asked if there were less spaces than there were people with cars, if there would be competition for permits or if everyone would have a permit and have to find a space to park.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that residents were not renting a piece of the road and finding a parking space would be on a first come first serve basis. He said that there was no guarantee of a parking space within an RPZ.

The Parking Services Manager explained that the Council typically offered two permits per household in the majority of the RPZ schemes. He said that where there was insufficient space on the public highway, the Council would consider reducing this to one permit per household. Members were advised that this was partly to encourage people to move away from car ownership.

The Parking Services Manager said that the standard design methodology was to include the space in front of the driveways as a parking place. He said that this was how the Council had operated since 2005, and where there were bay makings involved, these would be extended across the driveways to maximise the space available on the road.

Councillor E Buckmaster asked if the changes in respect of drop kerbs would link to any future policies around including on street electric charging, and any potential conflict. The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that on street parking would raise a lot of questions about democratising the costs of EVs for residents. He said that lampposts or charging points would not belong to any one resident but would just happen to be available on a particular street.

The Director for Regeneration, Customer and Commercial Services referred to the Citisense appendix - which did pick up some more radical ideas, including some content about EV charging. He said that an original premise of this paper was to consider how to make the whole RPZ process more streamlined, and this included lowering the threshold for implementing an RPZ.

The Director for Regeneration, Customer and Commercial Services said that the paper for the Executive and Council could cover these issues.

Councillor Jacobs said that it was clear that there was broad support for what was being proposed. He commented that reducing the 40% occupancy to 10% felt quite drastic and could be too low. He said that everyone would consider their case for an RPZ as exceptional as no two cases were the same. He made a number of further comments about the criteria and the current and future application process.

The Executive Member for Environmental Sustainability said that Members’ remarks were helpful and the discretion for officers might need to be qualified a little bit more in terms of the parameters for considering an application for an RPZ.

Councillor Horner made a number of comments regarding how an RPZ had operated in an area he had lived in outside of East Herts. He said that it was very important that residents should be made aware that they might not be able to park outside their house, but instead in nearby roads.

Councillor Horner asked if the hours of operation were being considered separately to the proposed changes. The Parking Services Manager explained that when officers initially consulted with residents, a range of times were offered including a 1-hour band within the day. He said that officers would adapt and propose a scheme that was in line with the majority of responses from the residents.

The Parking Services Manager said that officers had considered reducing or removing the majority of residents within a particular road, as per a recommendation from Citisense. He said that the threshold was considered to be an appropriate level to demonstrate a majority mandate by those residents that had engaged with the Council.

Members were advised that dropping this threshold any further could be considered as undemocratic in terms of not providing the necessary mandate to proceed, i.e in a sub majority context.

Councillor Nicholls proposed, and Councillor Cox seconded, a motion that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered and provided comments on the proposed changes within the Resident’s Permit Zone (RPZ) Operational Guidance.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider and provide comments on the following proposed changes within the Resident’s Permit Zone (RPZ) Operational Guidance:

·            That in relation to the requirement that non-resident parking must exceed 40% occupancy at peak times as a condition for implementing an RPZ, this be reduced to 10% of occupancy at peak times;

·            That the requirement for there to be sufficient kerb space to enable 75% of households in a proposed area to park one vehicle on-street as a condition for implementing an RPZ, be removed from the guidance;

·            That in exceptional cases, officers may exercise discretion where local evidence and professional judgement support progression of a scheme.