To note any requests to speak on any items that are on the agenda in accordance with the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme (see footnote to this agenda).

Councillor Izzi Seccombe welcomed two public speakers to the meeting.

1) Bob Reeve, speaking regarding agenda item 2 stated,

Rugby residents, on the whole, welcome the revised parking permit proposals, as detailed in today’s Agenda Item 2, but wish to make the following observations/comments:

Para 1.5 States · broad agreement with the move away from paper-based permitting to digital virtual permits. · agreement to control visitor permit misuse through the introduction of online virtual permitting We challenge the accuracy of these two statements as being ‘broad agreement’, bearing in mind that at paragraph 1.2 you state: with a response rate of close to 15%. (i.e. 85% of those contacted did not respond). No inference of acceptance of the proposed changes is taken from this.

Para 2.3. States Other civil parking enforcement income effectively subsidises the permit scheme. We contend that parking permit schemes in Rugby were introduced to force non-residents to utilise the pay & display car parks / Parking meters in the town itself and therefore the income generated from the parking meter charges should be taken into account when analysing the cost of the parking permit schemes.

Para 2.4. States The proposed price rises should be considered therefore against both local and national charges. ….. Likewise at para 2.10 you state……..benchmarking with other Local Authorities, We question as to WHY should other national charges be considered, as this is not mandated in The Government’s Guidance for Local Authorities on Enforcing Parking Restrictions.

Para 2.19. States It is proposed to formally consult upon the introduction of the online digital permitting system. The introduction would be from the start of the next financial year 2021/22. Likewise….Proposals – Visitors Permits We would like to know who will be consulted and we question the time-frame in which this can be properly conducted if the proposal to implement this proposal remains as April 2021.

Para 2.25. States We intend to address any concerns over ease of use with detailed communication before the new system goes live. We will also monitor usage of the online and phone systems and review as necessary.

We would like to know how you intend to provide detailed communication, how you intend to monitor usage and how you intend to communicate the findings of any review.

Para 2.26. States The current system of one visitor vehicle at a time will be reflected in the new online virtual permitting process. We seek confirmation that as per current practice in our neighbourhoods, as and when a resident is expecting more than 1 visitor they borrow a visitor’s pass/passes from their neighbours, that this can be implemented using the online system?

Para 2.28. States The registration of visitor’s vehicle details will go a small way to reducing the misuse of visitor’s permits We question the validity of this statement. The online system will not prevent an unscrupulous resident from entering the VRN details of another person’s vehicle to whom they currently are supposedly providing a visitors permit to! The actions of an extremely small number of alleged offenders should not be used a sledge hammer to crack a nut! WCC, in conjunction with NSL should be taking proactive measures to identify and cancel any such permits.

Para 2.50. Proposals – Cross-Party Working Group

We request that if the Cross-Party Working Group is formed, that the Rugby Borough Council representative undertakes dialogue with representatives from our group (via Zoom Online) in order that he/she can better represent Rugby residents’ views to the Working Group.

2) Michele Kondakor, referencing agenda item 12 welcomed that investment is being made in Nuneaton but counselled that it should be wisely spent. She stated that the proposals for the A444 in Nuneaton that were subject of the report to be considered at the meeting run contrary to government guidance on walking and cycling. The County Council had declared a Climate Emergency but the proposals to be considered would result in little modal shift; missing the target set out in the Local Plan. Cabinet was informed that the local cycling forum had not been consulted on the proposals. The proposal would see the demolition of property currently occupied by businesses. This would cause disruption to them at a time when trading conditions are challenging. Mrs Kondakor noted that severe congestion is encountered at the Asda roundabout and yet there are no proposals to improve the highway at that point. It was noted that there is a need for good public transport in Nuneaton. In closing, Mrs Kondakor observed that the proposals before Cabinet run contrary to the stated objectives of the transport plan.

Councillor Seccombe thanked the speakers for their contributions.