To consider the Motion on Notice received from Councillor Beer:
Sudbury/Hadleigh and other parts of Babergh district are growing: There are already parking problems at times in our towns and other places throughout Babergh, there is substantial new housing planned for our towns and in nearby communities. In Sudbury in particular, through the Vision for Prosperity and Economic Development Strategy, Babergh is committed to several regeneration projects in the town and encouraging business growth. There will also be increased tourism to the towns and District as a whole. Civil Parking Enforcement and the remodelling of the Market Hill will soon result in much less on-street parking, with an extra demand for off-street parking places.
Alternative parking will be needed for residents of Cross Street, a designated Air Quality Management Area, to reduce pollution and improve the traffic flow. As a result of all these things, there will be increasing pressure on parking in the town, which needs to be addressed before the current capacity is exhausted.
This Motion calls for the Council to review parking provisions in Sudbury, Hadleigh and other areas of Babergh and identify what extra capacity will be needed to make the current shortfall and any additional demand in the years to come and where this should be placed, nothing should be ruled in or out, all options should be looked at working with our partners Suffolk County Council and the Town/Parish Councils, it will identify parking needed to support the following:
1. SCC’s imminent measures to restrict parking in Cross Street.
2. The implementation early next year of Civil Parking Enforcement Regulations.
3. SCC’s and STC’s proposals for the remodelling of the Market Hill.
4. The Hamilton Road development, which is planned to include a new Cinema.
5. The additional residents that will be living in the towns and nearby communities.
6. Hadleigh growth and other areas of Babergh.
7. The extra visitors that will be coming to the town as a result of the Gainsborough’s House and St. Peter’s Church projects.
Proposer – Councillor Beer
Seconder – Councillor Newman
Minutes:
188.1 The Deputy Monitoring Officer informed Members that the Motion was related to a Cabinet Decision and therefore once the Motion had been duly moved, seconded and debated the Motion would be referred back to Cabinet for decision.
188.2 The Chair invited Councillor Beer to move the Motion.
188.3 Councillor Beer MOVED the Motion as detailed in the Agenda and said that this motion provided Members with the opportunity to get involved and to call on the public to come up with suggestions and solutions as to how the Council should go forward, He said that he may be a voice for the motorist, but that the voice of the Green agenda, other road users and safety organisations were required as there were issues with the District’s major town of Sudbury. Improvement to air quality had been achieved in Cross Street, but considerations had to be made for future parking provision as visitor numbers would increase as a result of the work of the ‘Growth and Visitors’ projects. Loss of parking spaces would generate issues with parking in side streets and residential areas. He also thought that other parts of Babergh District were likely to require new parking areas due to housing developments and increased tourism in some parts of the District.
188.4 He asked Members to have a fresh approach and an open mind to investigate all aspects of opportunities for parking options and also set up a small group to report back to Council. He then read out the motion:
“This Motion calls for the Council to review parking provisions in Sudbury, Hadleigh and other areas of Babergh and identify what extra capacity will be needed to make the current shortfall and any additional demand in the years to come and where this should be placed, nothing should be ruled in or out, all options should be looked at working with our partners Suffolk County Council and the Town/Parish Councils, it will identify parking needed to support the following:
1. SCC’s imminent measures to restrict parking in Cross Street.
2. The implementation early next year of Civil Parking Enforcement Regulations.
3. SCC’s and STC’s proposals for the remodelling of the Market Hill.
4. The Hamilton Road development, which is planned to include a new Cinema.
5. The additional residents that will be living in the towns and nearby communities.
6. Hadleigh growth and other areas of Babergh.
7. The extra visitors that will be coming to the town as a result of the Gainsborough’s House and St. Peter’s Church projects.”
188.5 Councillor Newman SECONDED the Motion.
188.6 Councillor Lindsay then asked to MOVE an amendment to the Motion as detailed in the tabled papers and said that although he agreed that a review of parking was required, he thought there were a couple of assumptions in the Motion, one of which was that extra capacity for parking would solve the issues. However, car drivers could not be considered in isolation, and he referred to a study from 2011, which detailed figures for parking issues in Sudbury. For instance, that 43% of people driving to work lived in Sudbury and Great Cornard and did not need to drive to work. There was a requirement to encourage people to take alternative transport such as buses, cycling or walking. A need for cycle parking at the station in Sudbury had been identified already in 2011 and nothing had been done to resolve this issue. Parking spaces and electrical charging points would be required to be part of the review and would encourage the use of electrical cars.
188.7 He urged Members to accept the amendment as detailed in the tabled papers:
Sudbury/Hadleigh and other parts of Babergh district are growing: There are already parking problems at times in our towns and other places throughout Babergh, there is substantial new housing planned for our towns and in nearby communities. In Sudbury in particular, through the Vision for Prosperity and Economic Development Strategy, Babergh is committed to several regeneration projects in the town and encouraging business growth. There will also be increased tourism to the towns and District as a whole. Civil Parking Enforcement and the remodelling of the Market Hill will soon result in much less on-street parking, with an extra demand for off-street parking places.
Alternative parking will be needed for residents of Cross Street, a designated Air Quality Management Area, to reduce pollution and improve the traffic flow. As a result of all these things, there will be increasing pressure on parking in the town, which needs to be addressed before the current capacity is exhausted.
This Motion calls for the Council to review
car and cycle parking provision in
Sudbury, Hadleigh and other areas of Babergh and identify what
level of capacity will be needed
to make the current shortfall and any additional demand in the
years to come and where this should be placed, nothing should
be ruled in or out, all options should be looked at working with
our partners Suffolk County Council and the
Town/Parish Councils, it will identify parking needed to support the following:
1. SCC’s imminent measures to restrict parking in Cross Street.
2. The implementation early next year of Civil Parking Enforcement Regulations.
3. SCC’s and STC’s proposals for the remodelling of the Market Hill.
4. The Hamilton Road development, which is planned to include a new Cinema.
5. The additional residents that will be living in the towns and nearby communities.
6. Hadleigh growth and other areas of Babergh.
7. The extra visitors that will be coming to the town as a result of the Gainsborough’s House and St. Peter’s Church projects.
8. The uptake in use of electric vehicles
188.8 Councillor McCraw SECONDED the amendment.
188.9 The Chair asked if Councillor Beer accepted the proposed amendment.
188.10 Councillor Beer responded he accepted the proposed amendment and apologies for not including cycling in the Motion. However, he was concerned of the removal of the word of ‘extra’ demand for off-street parking places and asked Councillor Lindsay to reconsider this, as he was sure extra parking places would be required.
188.11 Councillor Lindsey maintained that the word ‘extra’ should be removed.
188.12 Councillor Beer re-considered and stated to get the review moving he would accept the Amendment as tabled.
188.13 Councillor Newman accepted the Amendment.
188.14 Members then debated the amended Motion and Councillor Ward said the he shared Councillors Lindsay’s wish to see a reduction of cars in Sudbury and that work was being undertaken for cycle storage in Kingfisher car park in Sudbury. In terms of cycling lanes and bus routes, it was necessary to work with Suffolk County Council, who were responsible for highways. He thought that extra parking capacity was required in Sudbury and Hadleigh to encourage residents to support business and commerce. This included other areas such as Pin Mill and other villages in the District.
188.15 Councillor Malvisi asked Members to consider that villages such as Lavenham and Long Melford contributed to the local economy. Visitors would be using cars and parking provision would pose a problem as these villages were conservation areas with restriction. Civil parking enforcement should be able to manage inconsiderate drivers.
188.16 Councillor Cresswell thought that parking enforcement was a problem in Sudbury and until this was resolved it would be difficult to assess how much parking was required. Parking enforcement would solve the issues with drivers staying longer than the designated parking time which he thought was part of the parking problem.
188.17 Councillor Fraser welcomed the Motion and thought that a review of the parking requirements in Hadleigh which needed to be assessed not just for cars but also for cyclists. New developments in Hadleigh created more traffic and the loss of parking places at Corks Lane was an opportunity to align parking allocation in Hadleigh. He looked forward to involving Hadleigh Town Council in the review to move this forward.
188.18 Councillor Hardacre did not agree that the only way to get to Pin Mill was by car, he thought that improved cycling paths would be a better solution and encourage cyclists to visits place of interests in the area.
188.19 Councillor Hurren thought Suffolk County Council needed to provide a steer on cuts in bus services and school transport which only forced people to drive rather than taking public transport. An increase in car use created a rise in the use of parking places and on street parking.
188.20 Councillor Gould said that parking problems in Pin Mill had encouraged residents to car share, cycling and walking in the village.
188.21 Councillor Busby said that new developments generated more traffic and the Council could not wait until Suffolk County Council came up with a solution. Babergh District Council would need to resolve parking issues now and deliver a better transport system.
188.22 Councillor Jan Osborne informed Members that Suffolk County Council and Babergh District Council were working together to solve some of the issues raised. However, she felt that Cabinet should come up with some creative ideas, including solutions for rural locations as they suffered from parking allocation issues too.
188.23 Councillor McCraw supported the amendment and noted that parking places had been closed down to improve pollution levels. He reminded Members that recently the Council had adopted various environmental strategies and policies and he was surprised that the Council now sought to increase parking provision. He felt that the Council had not examined all possibilities and reminded Members that planning applications included transport plans which could include alternative transport such as car sharing. The point was that fewer car movements was the central issue around parking provisions.
188.24 He continued that it had been proven that health issues and depression was directly related to pollution and traffic fumes and he hoped that when the review comes back to Council all possibilities had been considered not just those mentioned in the Motion.
188.25 Councillor Dawson supported the Amendment, as recently parking places had been lost to developments. Further, she asked that parking permits would be considered for residential parking as non-residential parking on side streets in Hadleigh was already causing concerns for residents.
188.26 Councillor Lindsay summed up a few points and said that there was no reason for why the Council could not provide public transport solutions for residents in places such as Sudbury and Hadleigh. He detailed several advantages by considering alternative solutions and finally he reminded Members that the Council had just passed a Motion for Climate Emergency to achieve zero carbon by the year 2030 and he urged Members to support the amendment.
188.27 Councillor Beer, in his summing up, clarified that the Motion did not include work around parking fees. He thought that people would continue to drive but that alternative solutions and forms of transport should be encouraged. He still believed that parking provision would be part of the solution. However, the Council needed to deliver on this Motion and move this review forward.
188.28 The Chair thanked Members for their comments and advised that the amended Motion along with the comments from this meeting would be passed to Cabinet for decision.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the amended motion and comments made at the Council meeting on the 22 October 2019 be forwarded to Cabinet for decision.
The business of the meeting was concluded at 7:01 pm.
Supporting documents: