To discuss the proposed Residents Parking Scheme in the area. An officer from the City Council will be in attendance to outline proposals and to answer questions from residents.
(45 minutes, including questions)
Minutes:
Andy Thomas, Head of Traffic Management, Leicester City Council attended the meeting to outline the background leading up to the implementation of the experimental Residents Parking Scheme in the South Highfield Area. The scheme had been implemented under legal powers and the ability to amend the scheme slightly. Five changes were about to be made to the scheme, advertised in the Leicester Mercury, to relate to schools , places of worship, businesses etc. As an experiment the City Council were looking to make the scheme work, if it did not work then the scheme would be removed.
A member of the public stated that, since the scheme had been brought in on Saxby Street the community had been partly destroyed, as some people were now finding it difficult to use the Community Centre, it was difficult for funerals to take place and businesses were suffering. Andy responded by stating that the City Council would endeavour to ensure that funerals etc. could take place as a ‘smart card’ system could be implemented.
A member of the public queried the basis for the experimental scheme and of the fact that residents were being expected to pay a £25 fee per vehicle in one of the most deprived areas of the city. Andy stated that the scheme had been implemented to ascertain whether residents, businesses etc. could make more effective use of the parking sopaces available. Free passes would be introduced for the over 60’s.
At this point in the meeting a number of local residents made it very clear that they felt the experimental residents parking scheme was not wanted in the area.
The Chair stated that there were people who did not want the scheme but that the City Council were aware of those that did want the scheme.
The City Mayor, who attended the meeting for this item, stated that he was not at the meeting to defend the experimental scheme but that at the time the residents had been asked a majority had responded in favour of a scheme, compared to those that did not. In other areas of the City where Residents Parking had been introduced a majority of people had welcomed the schemes and had stated that they did not want the schemes removed.
The City Mayor gave an assurance that the experiment in the area would be monitored closely and that after a period of time the results would be reported back and, should the majority want the scheme removed then this would be removed. In the meantime the experiment would go ahead because that is what people wanted.
Some people attending the meeting became disruptive, but eventually calmed down following several requests.
The Office Manager at Medway Community Primary School requested members of the public to respect that they were in a school and allow Members and officers, and other members of the public, to speak. As a suggestion she suggested that comments on the experimental residents parking scheme be written down and left at the school where they would be forwarded to the City Council for responses to be forwarded.
The meeting continued to be disrupted and the Chair made every effort to keep the meeting under control.
A member of the public stated that earlier in the meeting the City Mayor had made reference to a survey that had been undertaken to ascertain whether a scheme was required, but was completed prior to the City Mayor coming into power. From looking at the Council website it appeared that not all residents voted so that the result was not true. Andy responded by stating that he was glad the website had been accessed but that it was true that not all residents had voted, in the same way that not everyone who was eligible voted at the City Council elections for instance. It was acknowledged that there was some doubt in the area about the scheme, hence the experimental approach being taken.
The City Mayor reiterated that the scheme was experimental and would be closely monitored and removed if it proved not to be wanted by a majority of local people.
A member of the public, representing a group of local people in the area, made reference to the on-line questionnaire that had not made any reference to 1 car ownership, and stated that in his opinion the results of the questionnaire had been massaged. Andy responded by stating that he had responded to earlier correspondence with the member of the public and tried to give assurances that the results of the questionnaire had not been massaged and that the member of public and others had also objected to an earlier residents parking scheme for the area that had then subsequently been abandoned. Discussion then took place at the City Council around implementing an experimental scheme.
The same member of the public then stated that the Council clearly wanted to use the scheme to raise revenue from local residents and criticised the way the Council had been dealing exclusively with local organisations such as Highfields Association of residents and tenants (HART). Andy responded that the purpose of the scheme was to try and address the concerns of a number of residents around commuter parking and car parking in general. The City Council had spoken with HART, together with a number of other local groups, during the consultation phase and he stated that he did not see a problem with this. From the number of votes received it as believed that a majority was actually in favour of a residents parking scheme.
The meeting continued to be interrupted by a number of residents but following further pleas for order the meeting continued.
The City Mayor summed up discussions by stating that he was not defending the scheme in any way, but reiterated that the scheme would be going ahead as an experimental scheme. The City mayor promised to return to the Community Meeting and inform residents of how the scheme was being monitored and gave an absolute commitment that a proper investigation would be carried out as to how the experimental scheme was running.
There was further disruption at this point. The Chair adjourned the meeting to allow the situation to settle, allowing the remainder of the business to be transacted.
The meeting adjourned at 7.28 pm.
The meeting re-convened at 7.45 pm.