Agenda item

Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet (see item 7).

5.1    Ralph Wilkinson (Director of Public Services) introduced the report. He provided an overview of the consultation and set out an overview of the key changes that were going to be proposed to Mayor and Cabinet. He reported that the consultation had received the highest number ever of responses to a Council consultation and that consultees were broadly in agreement with the changes that had been proposed (with some exceptions).

5.2    Ralph Wilkinson and Seamus Adams (Parking Services Manager) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         There was a process for Lewisham Hospital to request permits for members of staff.

·         There was a type of parking permit that could be issued by London Councils for healthcare staff.

·         There were 126 parking permits issued to Lewisham Hospital.

·         Officers recognised that more work needed to be carried out with the hospital in order to encourage sustainable forms of travel.

·         Any surplus generated by the parking service had to be spent on parking and highways related activities.

·         In order to limit the ability of people to bypass the controls on short-term parking bays (by using mobile payment to pay for parking remotely) officers were intending to change some two hours bays to ‘one hour’ no return operation.

·         Plans were being developed enable carers to easily access short-term parking permits to enable them to carry out their duties.

·         The proposed charges for carers’ permits would be met by the Council and the NHS. The new system would allow for the better capture of data in relation to the use of carer permits – and better targeting for those in the most need.

·         The future roll out of technology for short term parking would enable the collection of useful data. Eventually, this would enable differential emissions based charging for short term parking. It would also allow for the setting of different charges in different areas of the borough.

·         It was agreed that a balance needed to be struck between a number of different issues. It was recognised that the implementation of fifteen minute parking slots might encourage drivers to make more regular (and possibly unnecessary) short journeys. The collection of data would provide more information about the extent of short journeys and allow the Council to focus future enforcement and policy changes.

·         There were proposals to make improvements to the Holbeach carpark in Catford – it was intended that these would include: new lighting and CCTV as well as an enhanced cleaning schedule.

·         Officers had consulted on a range of charges for an hour’s parking - on a scale from nothing to £2. The most popular response was £1.20. A charge of £2 an hour was being proposed (with the ability to pay in fifteen minute slots).

·         It would be difficult to predict the income from the changes to the parking policy. This was because the proposals were designed to bring about change in behaviour (encouraging drivers to opt for less polluting vehicles) and it could not be predicted how quickly that behaviour would change.

·         The expansion of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone into the borough in 2021 would force substantial changes to people’s behaviour.

·         The issue of parking was emotive – finding a balance between competing issues was a difficult balance to find. Nonetheless, officers believed that they had managed to find that balance in the current proposals.

·         There were plans to review the Council’s parking pages on the website.

5.3    In Committee discussions the following key points were also noted:

·         The Chair recognised the quality of the report and the high quality of the consultation process that had been carried out.

·         There was a disagreement in the Committee about the appropriate charge for parking in the borough. Some members believed that the prices for parking should be higher (in order to encourage people to use public transport or other more sustainable forms of transport) – other members were concerned about the potential impact of increasing charges on the viability of high streets as well as on people who had become reliant on using cars (the examples of people with limited mobility; women concerned about safety at night time and; parents with young children were given – as well as the resultant equalities issues).

·         Members would welcome work with neighbouring boroughs to encourage car club usage (through flexible controlled parking zone permits).

5.4    Councillor Sophie McGeevor (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport) addressed the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         It was recognised the people had deep psychological connections to the cars – some of the issues (such as those around safety) might be unfounded. There had been a ‘car lobby’ for most of the 20^th century – telling people that they needed cars and that their cars kept them safe. However, 50% of households in Lewisham did not own a car – which might be through choice – but it might also be due to affordability. It was the Council’s responsibility to ensure that the public realm was also safe for those residents- and that there was good quality public transport as well as options for sustainable travel.

·         It was not possible to support car use at the same time as public transport and sustainable travel gains. This is the issue that the Council was trying to deal with.

·         As much as the Council had tried to encourage non-car drivers to complete the consultation – the vast majority of responses had been received from car drivers.

·         The group of people most impacted by car usage – and the associated issues of pedestrian/cyclist safety and pollution had not been consulted – and that was children.

·         The Council had committed to considerably reducing emissions over the next ten years – and this consultation was just the start of the work that would be needed to bring about significant change.