Agenda and minutes

Special Meeting, Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday 5 April 2022 2.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 2, Shire Hall. View directions

Contact: Isabelle Moorhouse  Democratic Services Officer


No. Item


General pdf icon PDF 640 KB

Additional documents:



Additional documents:


Councillor Jackie D’Arcy who has been substituted by Councillor Sarah Feeney

Councillor Dave Humphreys who has been substituted by Councillor Jack Kennaugh

Councillor Jenny Fradgley


Disclosures of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Additional documents:




Public Speaking

Additional documents:


Councillor John Holland who was one of the members who initiated the call-in made the following statement:

“We had caused a lot of changes after the election last May and many people may not be aware that we had a massive consultation about so resident parking schemes under the previous council. That led the Cabinet to decide but just before the election that there will be no increase in the resident parking charges.

I think if you go into an election on that basis that after the election, as a matter of trust and honour that you should honour that decision that you went into the election on. But my main point is the reason we have resident parking schemes, came about after the recession of the 1980s and the need to revitalise our town centres and to encourage people to live in the town centre, and there are several reasons for that. Obviously, they people become customers of town centre businesses

but perhaps more importantly residents look after the place and they don't put up with any disturbance or hooliganism, they call the police get sorted out and town centres then become a very safe place in the evening; so that as well as a daytime economy you can develop an evening economy and it clearly has worked in many town centres now to encourage people in on the basis that there would be resident parking permits of reasonably priced and to then ‘jack’ the prices up in my view is a breach of trust and very counterproductive.

I think that we should therefore honour the charges that we went into the election and honour the major point that the town centres limited parking, obviously as contested space, the spaces for customers of business are for residents but not for people who park all day who can use the car parks provided by district and borough councils. What we actually need is a joined-up parking strategy jointly between the districts and boroughs and the County Council and resident permits being available for parking in either place. We have moved backwards on this we used to have one set of traffic wardens in forcing both car parks and street now we have two rival teams and are really think that what we need now is rather than the proposers of went through Cabinet which were a bit muddled and confused,

discounts for electric cars when you can't charge an electric car in the street and so on, I think we need a proper to end up parking strategy with the districts and boroughs and ourselves and we need to honour the prices that we told town centre residents they would expect to pay.”


Mr Bob Reeve spoke against the report and made the following statement:

I am here representing Concerned Rugbeians against Parking Permit Proposals. As such, I wish to place on record at the outset, that Rugby residents strongly object to the proposed increases to parking permit charges. After  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.


On-street Parking Management - Cross Party Working Group Recommendations pdf icon PDF 289 KB

Additional documents:


Councillor SarahFeeney stated that she did not get an answer when she asked why it is £63 per resident, it was implied that some of it was because of enforcement but this was legally impossible. Without seeing the benefits of the financial data, it looked like the council would make £850,000 out of the scheme. She stated that this implied a lot of staffing for a simple scheme. EV (electric vehicle) charging points cannot be put on terraced streets so those residents cannot charge their car at home; the discount was being offered for something that could not be provided. The increase in pricing did not consider the residents' ability to pay and the areas that have parking permits were struggling to pay for fuel and food already. Councillor Feeney said that a lot of residents in her area had to own a car because there was no public transport to their places of work. The equality impact assessment did not consider residents paying more who earnt less. There was not enough space on people’s streets to park outside their house; all residents that she spoke to in her area complained about parking. She suggested that needs being met, and numbers should have been looked at before increasing permit prices. Residents stated that they did not want to be in the scheme if parking outside their house could not be guaranteed. Councillor Feeney concluded that as the permits were electric, residents were confused with how to issue their visitor permit to different visitors. The price increase should be explained before implemented.  


Councillor Wallace Redford stated that the working group’s recommendations were amended by Cabinet and the price increases were postponed for 12 months. As well as the statutory consultation responses on the permit changes, the additional issues which have been raised will be considered in the report back to Cabinet for them to consider all the issues raised. He stated that if most residents on a street wanted to leave the parking permit scheme, then they could.  


Councillor Jerry Roodhouse reminded that committee about his statement at March’s Cabinet regarding the cost of living increasing. The working party was not a good one and did not address the issues presented like scrutinising the cost. The compulsory consultation will be part of a TRO (traffic regulation order) but this was not clear in the Cabinet meeting. He queried whether the issues raised at the Cabinet meeting would be implemented in the consultation. Councillor Roodhouse said that assurances would be needed, that the TRO consultation would not just be a ‘blanket approach’ to parking. HMO (houses of multiple occupation) residents had issues with finding a car parking space and there should be an appeal for people who could not pay the price increase. Councillor Roodhouse concluded that the price increases could have been done better to support vulnerable residents and still meet corporate objectives.  


Councillor Izzi Seccombe stated that the parking permit system was first implemented in 2007 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.