Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillors D G Beaney, M Rose and P Walker.

It was noted that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor P D Jull had been appointed as substitute member for Councillor D G Beaney.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

Please note that in accordance with the agreed Protocol for Public Speaking at Overview and Scrutiny, the right to speak only applies to agenda item 5.

Members of the public wishing to speak must register to do so by no later than 2.00 pm on the second working day (Thursday) before the meeting.

The Democratic Services Manager advised that four members of the public had registered to speak on the Review of On and Off-Street Parking Charges.

John Hawkins spoke for 3 minutes and covered the following points:

·         That in his view the report provided no evidence of the impact of tourism on parking places

·         That the survey in the report was undertaken in January which was a quiet time of year for parking

·         Most residents did not have access to garages or other off-road parking and for many the closest parking to their houses was Beach Street

·         That mobility issues were not just restricted to blue badge holders and that many would struggle if they had to park further away.

·         That the proposals should be abandoned

Jenny Leigh spoke for 3 minutes and covered the following points:

·         That in her view the document did not address the concerns raised by the committee or residents

·         That the number of resident permits had changed from the numbers cited in the original report

·         That the survey of parking spaces needed a full 12 months of data to be meaningful

·         That visitors should be encouraged to travel to Deal by alternative methods such as by train (given the central location of the station) which would alleviate pressure on parking spaces

Jocelyn Marsh spoke for 3 minutes and covered the following points:

·         That the report did not in her view give a proper consideration of the Equalities Act requirements – it was too narrow in its assessment of issues

·         That not everyone holding a residents parking permit would be physically able to walk to their homes from West Street or Union Road

·         That many residents had medical needs that impacted on their mobility and not all were eligible for blue badges

·         That better signage was needed in Deal to ensure that visitors used the larger car parks

David White (Deal Society) spoke for 3 minutes and covered the following points:

·         That in his view the proposals did not solve the problem, they just moved it on to areas in Deal that were outside of the permit parking zones

·         That these proposals would lead to a decrease in the number of resident parking permits purchased with the resulting loss of income to the Council

·         That the report made no reference to the Council’s Deal Parking Strategy

(a)    Items the subject of Call-In

       Decision CAB 112 (h) has been called in by Councillor Linda Keen, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, for the following reasons:

(a)    There is no evidence in the report to support the need for this change of policy or evidence of the impact on tourism and resident parking.

(b)    No thought has been given to alternative options, or the difficulties likely to be experienced by local residents caused by the displaced resident parking.

(c)   The two short paragraphs in the report on this decision were insufficient to enable an efficient and effective decision. No figures were provided about the number of parking spaces lost to local resident permit holders.

       For information, Decision CAB112(h) is as follows:

       “That the removal of Deal seafront as a parking option from the Deal resident permits scheme, as detailed in the report, be approved.”

       This decision will not therefore be implemented until it has been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and will thereafter be referred back to Cabinet for its consideration.

       Decision CAB 112 (a) to (i) excluding (h) were not called in and have therefore been implemented.

       The report of the Head of Commercial Services in respect of the grounds for call-in is to follow. 

The Strategic Director (Operations and Commercial) presented the report produced in response to the grounds given for the call-in of decision CAB112(h) – Review of On and Off-Street Parking Charges.

The Deal Parking Strategy (2015) noted that conflict between residents and visitors parking needs and this conflict remained. There was insufficient visitor parking on the seafront to meet demand and these proposals would help alleviate the pressure. The proposals did not ban residents from parking on the seafront and they could still park there at a charge during the day or at no cost outside of the charging period. In addition, blue badge holders would be unaffected by these proposals.

Members were informed that resident parking schemes had evolved rather than been planned in Deal and there was currently pressure from residents to extend the scheme northwards to include Ark Lane. Residents also had the opportunity, for only £30 more per year than the current Zone H permit, to purchase a Zone 2 permit which covered the 3 town centre car parks and the seafront.

It was acknowledged that the survey undertaken in January would yield different results in the summer. While the number of empty spaces was not covered in the survey, the anecdotal information provided was that there were none.

RESOLVED:   That it be recommended to the Cabinet that the proposal to remove Deal seafront as a parking option from the Deal resident permits scheme (CAB 112(h)) be removed until an assessment of the overall permit parking scheme in Deal has been undertaken. In the event that Cabinet should wish to bring back this proposal, that it be asked to provide evidence to address concerns, and that the case for benefits and harm in such a scheme be set out.