Agenda item

This report reviews the progress of the current Parking Management Programme and proposes additions to the programme for the financial years 2026/27.

Recommendation:

That:

1.        Members note the report and approve the proposed additions, as detailed in section 7 of this report, to the Parking Management Programme;

2.        Officers continue to develop the Parking Management Programme as outlined in this report into financial year 2026/27 with a further full report being bought in early 2027 to determine the 2027-2029 Parking Management Programme;

3.        once the programme has been set it shall be adhered to as the current Parking Management Programme, with any significant additions being limited to exceptions to the prioritisation procedure requested by the Lead Member, to be delegated to the Director of Finance;

4.        the programme will be progressed in line with all relevant current practice, policy and standards; and

5.        decisions on schemes, including the consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders developed through this programme of works and to any items remaining from earlier programmes of works, be delegated to the Director of Finance in consultation with the Lead Member.

The Principal Sustainable Travel Planner and Transport Officer presented the report, which reviewed the progress of the current Parking Management Programme and proposed additions to the programme for the financial years 2026/27.  The Committee heard that following a budget increase there had been additional recruitment to the parking team, in order to allow some of the schemes to be expedited.  Eight schemes remained on the programme following the last report to the Committee in January; a further two schemes (Bedmond and Kindersley Way) had been added by the Lead Member in the interim; and two new items were proposed (Various Schemes and Review of Chorleywood Bottom) as set out in the report.

Committee Members welcomed the programme and the proposed additions.  Officers were also thanked for their work in progressing the schemes as outlined in the report, particularly given that prior to the recruitment of additional officers there had been limited resources within the parking team.

Committee Members commented on the schemes within their individual wards.  Discussions included the following:

·       A Committee Member suggested that improved use of GIS mapping may be beneficial, both in terms of identifying problem areas and targeting consultations.  Officers responded that they continued to look at GIS solutions, for example, in mapping out parking management requests.  However, GIS mapping had been used for the LCWIP consultation and had not proved to be intuitive, so that consideration was also needed towards the ease of use by members of the public, as well as the ease of use by officers in collating the data.

·       Time was needed for the Chorleywood Bottom scheme to ‘bed in’ before review, to allow for any potential issues to become apparent.   The timescale for the review to start was therefore 6-12 months.

·       Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) were focussed on public safety.  It was considered to be very difficult for the Council to meet the threshold for public safety to be considered to be impacted by parking, and therefore PSPOs were not generally considered to be a suitable mechanism for parking control. A Committee Member suggested that there were other ways in which anti-social parking could be criminalised (such as a Community Protection Notice) and this may be suitable for situations such as the pavement parking outside the garage in Bedmond.

·       Restrictions had been reviewed on Garden Road and Breakspeare Road and a report had been sent to the Ward Councillors and the Lead Petitioner.  That project had therefore closed.  However, officers had separately committed to doing a site visit with Councillors and the Lead Petitioner (and potentially other residents).  Any further concerns would now be treated as a new request.

·       A Committee Member requested that Greenbury Close parking, which had been the subject of a petition earlier in the meeting, be looked at quickly so that the outcome of the review could be included in the next report to the committee in February.  Whilst it was noted that there had been a review relatively recently, a notable change in circumstances had arisen from increased commuter parking charges.  Officers undertook to give this consideration but commented that the general approach was that schemes were not revisited within 3 years of a review in order to ensure that there was capacity to look at those schemes which had been on the request list for longer.

The Chair moved the recommendations as set out in the report and on being put to the vote these were agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That:

1.        Members note the report and approve the proposed additions, as detailed in section 7 of this report, to the Parking Management Programme;

2.        Officers continue to develop the Parking Management Programme as outlined in this report into financial year 2026/27 with a further full report being bought in early 2027 to determine the 2027-2029 Parking Management Programme;

3.        once the programme has been set it shall be adhered to as the current Parking Management Programme, with any significant additions being limited to exceptions to the prioritisation procedure requested by the Lead Member, to be delegated to the Director of Finance;

4.        the programme will be progressed in line with all relevant current practice, policy and standards; and

5.        decisions on schemes, including the consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders developed through this programme of works and to any items remaining from earlier programmes of works, be delegated to the Director of Finance in consultation with the Lead Member.