Agenda item

Adrian Friend, Traffic Engineer (Leicester City Council) and Kim Lampitt (Social Research Associates) will give brief presentation and feedback on the results of the recent consultation exercise.  

Councillor Kitterick and Adrian Friend, Traffic Engineer – Leicester City Council, gave a brief verbal presentation on the findings of the recent residents survey into local parking issues and the possibility of introducing a residents parking scheme. Councillor Kitterick confirmed to the meeting that, of the completed surveys received, 364 households voted against the proposals and 281 voted in favour of the proposals. After briefly explaining the results, Councillor Kitterick confirmed to the meeting that the Council had decided, following the consultation exercise, not to introduce a residents parking scheme.

Councillor Kitterick also introduced Adrian Friend (Leicester City Council) and Kim Lampitt (Social Research Associates) to the meeting.

The matter was then opened up to the meeting. Residents raised the following matters/concerns at the meeting, which were responded to by Councillors and Officers:

·        Marked out spaces would help drivers utilise the space better;

·        How many other surveys had been undertaken in the City;

·        What were the results of the other surveys;

·        Concerns regarding the consultation process and how it was conducted, specifically in relation to the seemingly sporadic distribution of the surveys themselves;

·        What sense was there in any discussion at this meeting when the decision had already been taken;

·        What action could have been taken to address the issue of match day parking;

·        Student parking in the area was said to restrict parking in the area if there were a number of students in each property and they all owned a car;

·        The negative emphasis towards residents parking in the survey document;

·        The absence of discussion or compromise options explored;

·        Generalisations drawn from a survey with an overall response rate of 20-25% was flawed;

·        The cost of the parking permit;

·        Observational Surveys would have complemented the process;

·        Increasing volume and number of local planning developments further contributed to the parking issue;

·        Insufficient return to get a reliable response;

·        The money spent on the consultation could have been spent on more essential services; and

·        Whether there were any plans to review the proposals in the near future.

Councillors and Officers responded to the questions/remarks as follows:

• Marked out spaces weren’t practical due to the different size of vehicles;
• A survey was conducted in 2002 and indicated that generally if the scheme was free then people were in favour, but if charges were introduced they were against. In general the results showed people were against a residents parking scheme so the matter was dropped at the time;
• A leaflet drop was conducted and arrangements were made where residents could arrange for redelivery of the survey if the occupants were not in;
• The high cost of consultation exercises prevented the Council from gathering more than one opinion per household;
• Restricting parking to residents across the area prevented people commuting to the area and would affect the businesses;
• Local parking issues have and continue to be raised with the local Universities;
• Compromise arrangements would have been possible if the results had indicated strong favour which was localised to certain areas;
• 20% represented a good return rate;
• Discriminating against certain groups of the population wasn’t fair;
• The proposed parking fee was designed to cover the administration of the scheme;
• Observational surveys were conducted;
• Future park and ride facilities would prevent fans from parking in and around the area; and
• Residents parking would not be reconsidered for the 5/6 years.