Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Gakhal.

Cllr Warren expressed a non-pecuniary interest in the Pedestrian Crossing on Rushall Road petition as he had signed the petition.

[To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.]

Cllrs Rowley and Photay indicated that their apologies for the meeting on 26 June 2015 had not been noted.

Resolved:

1.    That the apologies of Cllrs Rowley and Photay be included in the minutes.

2.    That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2015 be approved as a true record.

[To consider any matters arising from the minutes.]

There were no matters arising.

[To review the outstanding petitions.]

Resolved:

            That the Woodcross Park Extension of Railings petition be closed.

[To endorse a review of signage in the area.]

Mr Singh, lead petitioner, explained that the petition was submitted as the residents were experiencing parking problems in Curzon Street. He noted that the road was very crowded and there were no parking spaces available for households because of shops at the end of the road.

Nick Broomhall, Service Lead, Traffic and Road Safety, presented the report. He explained that the petition expressed difficulty of residents to park outside their houses because of Blakenhall Shopping Centre, Pure Gym Fitness Centre and a dental surgery located at the corner of Curzon Street and Dudley Road. He explained that, in 2012, 19 streets in Wolverhampton were consulted about resident parking schemes. It was agreed at Cabinet (Resources) Panel that these would need to be cost neutral and so an annual permit would cost residents £40. It was agreed that, after a full consultation process, a minimum of 60% of the residents of the streets directly affected should have responded with 85% of those being in favour of the scheme. The Service Lead, Traffic and Road Safety, reported that none of the streets consulted met the criteria agreed. Because of the costs implications, it was resolved that no one street alone could implement a residents parking scheme and that no further consultation should take place. The Service Lead, Traffic and Road Safety, noted that Council employees have recorded that the car park at Pure Gym is well used however the Shopping Centre car park is not well used. It was proposed that shoppers and visitors to the Blakenhall Shopping Centre should be encouraged to use the car park and so more signage to the park should be implemented at the site.

Cllr Rowley explained that parking issues in Blakenhall had been brought to the Council’s attention many times in the past. She explained that when the houses and roads were first designed, there were fewer cars on the roads. She noted that the Council did not want to pave over green spaces as they were vibrantly used. She noted that she had been aware of someone with disability in Goldthorn Park who had a white line painted on the highway in front of their house to reserve a parking space and asked if this was something that could be accommodated.

The Service Lead, Traffic and Road Safety, explained that this was possible for residents who were blue badge holders and met certain criteria. He noted that this would provide an on street disabled bay which could be used by any blue badge holder. He explained that there was a cost implication for the blue badge holder.

Resolved:

That a review of signage to the shoppers’ car parks in the Blakenhall area be endorsed.

[To endorse the proposed action in the area.]

Mr Mehmi, lead petitioner, explained that Malins Road was a very narrow cul-de-sac and that residents believed that non-residents should not use the road. He noted that parking should have been included in the original plans of St Teresa’s Catholic Primary Academy so that it did not interfere with residents. He explained that residents were told that Malins Road would have been a temporary entrance to the school and that access in the future would be to the rear of the school. He informed the committee that he had been advised that the value of properties in the road had been reduced by a minimum of 10%. He explained that there was no signage to the school at the end of the road. He noted that emergency vehicles could not gain access to buildings in the road if necessary. He explained that there was unused ground to the rear of the school which could be converted to a car park. He noted that staff at the school park in the road as there was insufficient parking spaces on the school’s site. He explained that parking restrictions in the road would only move the issues into the surrounding roads which would make crossing for pedestrians difficult and dangerous. The petitioner explained that cars parked in Malins Road meant that cars drive slowly reducing potential accidents.

Nick Broomhall, Service Lead, Traffic and Road Safety, presented the report. He explained that he would only be able to answer questions relating to Transportation but had consulted with colleagues in Education in drawing together the report. He explained that the school had become an academy and so decisions regarding the school were out of the Council’s control. He noted that the proposal to close the school would not be welcomed as there were limited school places in the City. He explained that the suggested revised access to the rear of St Teresa’s Catholic Primary Academy would be through the playground of the former Parkfield High School site, which has recently been leased to a newly established Free School, and so would not be welcomed.

The petitioner noted that residents had been told that access through Malins Road would not be permanent and asked what alternative plans had been discussed.

The Service Lead, Traffic and Road Safety, noted that he was not able to give advice on this matter but noted that St Teresa’s Catholic Primary Academy had been open for a long time.

The petitioner noted that there were a lot of vulnerable people living in Malins Road who receive abuse from parents parking in the road. He explained that there was unused Council space available to the rear of the school which would be a simple solution to the problem. He understood that there would be cost implications to the proposal but noted that this would be a one-off cost.

The Chair explained that land to the rear of the school had been leased. He noted that the cost to transform the area to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

[To note the actions taken and endorse the proposals.]

Andrew Bryant, Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Team Leader, presented the update on the Prohibit Parking of Caravans and Large Vans on Broome Road and Hawksford Crescent petition and reported that the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) was in place. He noted that the ASB team, Environmental Health and Police were working together to enforce the PSPO.

Mrs Kenny, lead petitioner, thanked all of the agencies for the work they have done to put the PSPO in place.

Laura Gilyead, Graduate Management Trainee, presented the updates on the Opposing Increase in Standard Number at Manor Primary School petition and the Lollipop Person on Ettingshall Road petition. The Committee noted the action taken regarding these petitions.

Nick Broomhall, Service Lead, Traffic and Road Safety, presented the update on the Pedestrian Crossing on Rushall Road petition. He noted that the results of the traffic and pedestrian surveys have fallen significantly short (by a factor of ten) of the Department for Transport’s requirements to install a zebra or puffin crossing. He explained that the Council would investigate other options to assist residents in crossing Rushall Road.

Mrs Redmond, lead petitioner, explained that vans parked on the road block the view of pedestrians.

Cllr Warren explained that this had been a long running issue. He expressed his gratitude to the Transportation team for their work in the area.

Resolved:

That the actions taken regarding the following petitions be noted and any proposals be endorsed.

·         Prohibit Parking of Caravans and Large Vans on Broome Road and Hawksford Crescent petition

·         Opposing Increase in Standard Number at Manor Primary School petition

·         Lollipop Person on Ettingshall Road petition

·         Pedestrian Crossing on Rushall Road petition

[To note the actions taken and agree a preferred outcome.]

Cllr Simkins explained that this petition arose due to issues at the park on Dukes Park Estate because of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Karen Samuels, Head of Community Safety, presented the update report. She explained that six young people had been identified as causing issues on the estate and had been issued with warnings. She explained that the Council had been working with the Police and other local partners to divert young people to other activities taking place over the summer period and respond to issues on the site, though this continued level of resource input was not sustainable over the medium term. She noted that the wider area (which includes the play area) was under Barratt Homes ownership and so any resolutions would need to be implemented through liaison with Barratt Homes.

Mr Williams, lead petitioner, explained that the play equipment was put in place without consultation with residents. He explained that after contacting Barratt Homes, he was informed that there would be ‘springy chickens’ not play equipment. He explained that the Council had told residents and police that this was not Council property so the Council could not deal with the issues. He identified that the majority of residents wanted the park to be removed. He noted that as it was not a physical activity park, it would not affect childhood obesity. He indicated that an open space would be more beneficial to reducing childhood obesity as they could run around. The petitioner noted that the Police had logged a further ten incidents at the park since April 2015. He also noted that since the last meeting of the Petitions Committee, the play area’s flooring had been ripped up and thrown around by youths. He explained that families on the estate have young children and do not want the park particularly as it is on a mound and so noise can be heard from resident’s bedrooms.

The Head of Community Safety explained that she had contacted the lead petitioner to discuss his request for a historic review looking into who had provided him with false information; however, as this fell significantly outside of the scope of the petition, she advised him to pursue through the Council’s formal complaints process and provided details of how this could be progressed.

Cllr Rowley explained that planning files were public documents. She enquired as to clarity of the plans presented to the Planning Committee and requested that Planning Officers report to the Petitions Committee on the case.

Mr Coles, a representative from Barratt Homes, explained that the park specification detail would have been provided under a discharge condition. He agreed to look back over sales reservation sheets to clarify what information was provided to residents about the park’s construction.

Cllr Rowley requested to see the original set of plans for the site.

The petitioner explained that residents had been told that no plans were available when they had bought their house and were then told that it was not known what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.