Coventry Residents Parking Schemes 40BDRAFT REPORT ON CONSULTATION. Earlsdon & Cheylesmore

Transcription

1 Coventry Residents Parking Schemes 40BDRAFT REPORT ON CONSULTATION Earlsdon & Cheylesmore 16/10/2014

2 Quality Management Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Draft Date 01/09/14 Prepared by Signature Checked by Signature Authorised by Signature Project number Report number 001 File reference Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

3 Draft Report on Consultation Earlsdon & Cheylesmore 16/10/2014 Client Coventry City Council Consultant Basingstoke RG21 4HJ UK Tel: Fax: Registered Address WSP UK Limited WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF WSP Contacts 3

4 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary Introduction Methdology Consultation Findings Other Issues Raised During Consultation Summary Appendices Appendix A: Consultation Material Appendix B: Consultation Plots Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

5 To follow Executive Summary 5

6 1 Introduction 1.1 Background to study Earlier this year, Coventry City Council (CCC) appointed WSP to assist with a review of residents parking across the city The review has been driven by a number changes in the city, such as the introduction of on-street parking charges around the city centre, which have put further pressure on on-street parking in residential areas around the edge of the city, causing conflicts between residents, businesses, their visitors and commuters. CCC recognises the importance of local residents and their visitors being able to park close by and for local businesses to have parking available for their staff and customers As a result the Council has been exploring the need to introduce a series of new and amended residents parking schemes across the city to address problems of commuter parking in these residential areas. These schemes would introduce a series of parking controls designed to provide flexibility for the local users of the area and its facilities, whilst discouraging commuter parking The first stage of this review has been in the Earlsdon and Cheylesmore areas. The three areas are referred to throughout this report as follows: Earlsdon (Zone 1) Cheylesmore West (Zone 2) Cheylesmore East (Zone 3). These areas are shown in Figure 1-1 below. Figure 1-1: Scheme areas considered in consultation Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

7 1.1.5 The work that WSP has undertaken to date includes: Technical review of existing parking restrictions Draft design of new parking restrictions Consultation on the draft proposals for new parking restrictions In July 2014, WSP assisted CCC with consultation on the draft parking proposals for the Earlsdon and Cheylesmore areas. The consultation comprised circulation of a leaflet and questionnaire and holding a series of drop-in sessions This report sets out the approach employed and the findings of the consultation. The results of the exercise will inform the Council s decision on i) whether or not to proceed with the proposed residents parking schemes in Earlsdon and Cheylesmore, and ii) if they are to be progressed, to confirm whether the proposals should firstly be amended in any way If the schemes are to be progressed, the next steps would include refinement of the designs, advertisement of and statutory consultation on the traffic regulation orders, and subsequent implementation of the schemes. 1.2 Structure of report Following this brief introduction, Chapter 2 sets out the methodology employed for the consultation, and Chapter 3 presents the findings for each area in turn (Earlsdon, Cheylesmore West and Cheylesmore East, respectively). Chapter 4 provides a brief overview of the concerns raised at the drop-in sessions and in more detailed correspondence received during the consultation period. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a summary of the key findings Supporting information, including copies of the consultation leaflet/ questionnaire and maps illustrating some of the key findings, is provided in the appendices. 7

8 2 Methodology 2.1 Consultation Approach The consultation was designed to be inclusive and accessible to all local residents and businesses in the Earlsdon and Cheylesmore areas. The approach was refined and agreed following discussions between WSP and CCC officers The aims of the consultation on the draft proposals were as follows: Offer an accessible consultation such that anyone with an interest in the proposals has the opportunity to comment; Capture feedback on the proposals that is of value to and meaningful for the design development process; Ensure that all areas under consultation were provided with equal opportunities to learn more about and comment on the proposals The consultation took place throughout July 2014 and comprised: Cabinet Member briefing. Distribution of a leaflet / questionnaire to all properties within the Earlsdon and Cheylesmore study areas. The leaflet was designed as a Street News publication, containing introductory text about the proposals, a map of the area under review (with different versions produced for the three separate areas), some Frequently Asked Questions about residents parking schemes and a tear-off response form containing the questionnaire. A copy is provided in Appendix A. The short questionnaire provided residents with the opportunity to give their feedback on the proposals in a structured manner. It contained just six questions to encourage a high response rate. The leaflet and questionnaire were distributed to 2613 households overall and to libraries and civic buildings, with a total response (including online responses) of 818 returns. A breakdown of responses by area is provided in Table 2-1. Table 2-2 shows that the vast majority of responses submitted (88%) were in hard copy format. The Coventry City Council website provided information about the consultation, including the leaflet and an electronic version of the questionnaire. There were 713 page views (by 485 unique users) in July to the residents parking section of the website and 95 questionnaires (of the 818 total responses) were submitted electronically. Three drop-in surgeries (held on 8, 9 and 14 July) provided residents with the opportunity to view the proposals and discuss any concerns or outstanding issues with the project team. Overall, it is estimated that approximately 215 visitors attended the drop-in surgeries. The sessions were manned by a combined team of CCC and WSP staff. The details of the sessions are shown in Table 2-3. A press release was issued to the media in advance of the consultation in order to raise awareness of the exercise. CHECK An address and telephone helpline were provided to respond to queries and concerns from the public. All enquiries were logged and subsequently responded to during the consultation period. Overall, 12 calls, 32 s, 2 letters and 1 petition were handled. Four questionnaires were also returned by (Table 2-4). Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

9 Table 2-1: Distribution of and response to consultation leaflet & questionnaire Area Leaflets/ questionnaires distributed Responses received Response rate* Earlsdon % / 27% Cheylesmore West % / 45% Cheylesmore East % / 26% Outside consultation areas - 11 Not stated - 10 Total % / 29% * Two response rates are provided the first value is calculated as the total number of responses received / total number leaflets distributed; the second value takes into account multiple responses and is based on total responses from unique addresses. Table 2-2: Response type Type of questionnaire response Number received Paper questionnaire 719 (88%) Online 95 (12%) By 4 (0%) Total 818 Table 2-3: Details of and attendance at drop-in sessions Details of drop-in session Approximate attendance Tuesday 8 July, 3.30pm to 7.00pm - The Welcome Centre 32 Wednesday 9 July, 3.30pm to 7.00pm - Quinton Road Baptist Church 99 Monday 14 July, 3.30pm to 7.00pm - Coventry Resource Centre for the Blind 84 Total 215 NB: it is not possible to give an exact attendance figure as some periods were very busy and it was not possible to count every individual. Note that all three sessions were open to residents from any area, so the attendance figures do not necessarily reflect the level of interest in the proposals for one particular area. Table 2-4: Responses by other means Other responses Number received Telephone calls 12 s 32 Letters 2 Petitions 1 9

10 2.2 Analysis Approach As interested parties could potentially share their opinions on the draft proposals by several means (telephone, , in person at the drop-in surgeries, as well as through the questionnaire), those who submitted enquiries by and phone and those who attended the drop-in sessions were strongly encouraged to also complete the feedback questionnaire. As such, the analysis of questionnaire responses provides the mainstay of this report to ensure that views expressed by multiple means are not unduly overemphasised. However, care has been taken to highlight issues that were raised by other means (i.e. at drop-in sessions, by telephone or in written correspondence) that were not identified in the questionnaire responses CCC will use the outputs of this report to inform its decision on whether or not to proceed with implementing residents parking schemes in Earlsdon and Cheylesmore. This report therefore pays particular attention to residents opinions on the proposed scheme, primarily: Do residents currently encounter parking difficulties in their street? Is a residents parking scheme supported? Is the proposed residents parking scheme supported? If not, would a different type of scheme be supported? Representation & Response Rate Given that the findings of the consultation presented in this report are based on just a sample of residents in each of the three areas consulted (i.e. those who responded to the consultation); the context of the responses must firstly be considered. It goes without saying that a parking consultation will not appeal to everyone. Responses to any consultation exercise typically do not equally represent all ages, genders and social groups. A parking consultation will attract most responses from car owners and/or those with a particular interest in parking or transport An effective consultation should give those who wish to express their views the chance to do so, while those who are not interested in the topic will not respond. Respondents are therefore selfselecting and because of this, they tend to express strong opinions to demonstrate either objection to, or support for, the proposals put forward. It is often the case that those strongly opposed to or strongly in favour of a proposal will respond, while those without a strong opinion, or with little interest in the subject, seldom do so It is not possible to calculate an exact total level of response from the various elements of consultation: one individual may well have completed a questionnaire, visited an exhibition, and submitted comments by while another may just have completed a questionnaire. For this reason, the response rates specified in Chapters 2 and 3 are based solely on the return of completed questionnaire feedback forms Overall, the 818 completed questionnaires equate to a 31% response rate (i.e. nearly a third of all households are represented in the results presented). This falls slightly to 29% when multiple responses from individual households are excluded (as there was no limit on the number that could be submitted per household, in some instances several members of a household responded). However, the response rates vary quite considerably for the three areas consulted (45% in Cheylesmore West, and around 26% in Cheylesmore East and Earlsdon), and to an even greater extent by street (e.g. 77% of properties in Orchard Crescent are represented in the findings presented in Chapter 3, compared to just 33% of properties in Townsend Croft) As demographic data was not collected, there is no means of comparing the profile of respondents with the overall demographic profile of the three areas. Therefore the results presented in this report Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

11 should be interpreted as indicative only as they are based on a sample of residents in each of the three areas Throughout this report, responses have been considered as follows: As a proportion of all responses from a particular area and street; and As a proportion of all households within an area Process Questionnaires were entered electronically into an Excel spreadsheet 1 allowing the closed questions to then be analysed using SPSS (a package specifically designed for the analysis of social survey data) and GIS mapping software. Open comments were thoroughly read and subsequently coded thematically, a process which allows similar responses to be grouped together for reporting The results in Chapter 3 are presented for each of the three areas in turn (Earlsdon, Cheylesmore West and Cheylesmore East). For each question, there is some variation in the size of the sample (i.e. the number of responses a percentage is based upon) as respondents did not necessarily provide an answer to every question. 1 Spot checks were performed to verify the accuracy of the data entry 11

12 3 Consultation Findings This chapter presents the findings of the consultation exercise. Results from the feedback form are presented first, followed by a summary of the issues raised at the drop-in sessions and in the comments submitted by other means ( , telephone, and letter). Results are presented for each scheme area in turn and on a street by street basis. 3.2 Zone 1: Earlsdon Overall, 287 questionnaire responses were received from residents of Earlsdon, with the largest number of responses per street coming from Spencer Avenue and Davenport Road (41 responses from each), as shown in Table 3-1. In addition, three responses were received from residents of nonadopted roads in Earlsdon, and five from residents outside but relatively close to the consultation zone. It should be noted that these eight responses have not been included within the remainder of the analyses presented within this section The location of respondents has been mapped (see Figure 1 in Appendix B) which shows that responses have been received from almost all streets within Zone While it is not possible to calculate an exact response rate as some properties submitted multiple responses 2, an approximate response rate for each street has been calculated based on the total number of residential and business addresses listed in CCC s Addresspoint data and the total number of responses received from unique addresses. The overall response rate for the zone is 27% As shown in Table 3-1, the response rate for Spencer Road is very low (only 1 response from a possible 26 properties). Response levels from Huntingdon Road, Dalton Road and Pinewood Grove are also low (<20% of properties are represented in the results). In contrast, around half of the properties in Morningside, Spencer Avenue and The Firs are represented in the analyses presented in this chapter. Table 3-1: Number of respondents from or near to Earlsdon (Zone 1) Street Number of respondents No of uniquely responding properties Number of properties in street Approximate response rate Zone 1 Belvedere Road % Berkeley Road North % Broadway % Dalton Road % Davenport Road % Earlsdon Avenue South % Huntingdon Road % Mayfield Road % Mickleton Road % 2 Where multiple responses from the same property number were received, generally just 2 or 3 responses from the same property number were recorded. However, it should be noted that there were 6 responses from one particular address in Davenport Road. Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

13 Street Number of respondents No of uniquely responding properties Number of properties in street Approximate response rate Morningside % Pinewood Grove % Spencer Avenue % Spencer Road % Stanway Road % The Firs % Total % Zone 1 (un-adopted streets) Bishops' Walk % Broadwater % Total % Outside but near Zone 1 Albany Road 1 Beechwood Avenue 1 Berkeley Road South 1 Earlsdon Street 1 Styvechale Avenue 1 Total Parking Difficulties in Earlsdon Overall, three-quarters of Earlsdon respondents (76%) believe that there is a parking problem in their street (Figure 3-1, Table 3-1); with this feeling being particularly acute in Belvedere Road (where all 17 respondents consider their street to have a parking problem, Huntingdon Road (9/10 believe there is a parking problem), Morningside (21/22 respondents), and Spencer Avenue (40/41 respondents) The results have been mapped (Figure 2, Appendix B) to examine any geographical relationships in the data. Analysis shows that views on whether there is a parking problem tend to be more mixed on streets in the centre of the parking zone, including Earlsdon Avenue South and Stanway Road, compared with surrounding streets where views are less polarised. 13

14 Figure 3-1: Perceived parking difficulties in Earlsdon area Q1 "I think there is a parking problem in my street" 5% 19% Yes No No response 76% Base: all Earlsdon respondents (n: 287) Overall, a fifth (19%) of respondents do not consider there to be a parking problem in their street. While there is a general feeling that there are parking difficulties in most streets, views are more polarised in Stanway Road (12 consider there to be parking difficulties while 10 have the opposite view), while there are several respondents in Mayfield Road, Mickleton Road and Davenport Road who do not consider their street to suffer from parking problems. Response rates are too low on some streets to determine any notable findings, but the one respondent from Spencer Road does not consider the street to have a parking problem. Table 3-2: Perceived parking difficulties in Earlsdon area by street Q1 I think there is a parking problem in my street" Yes No No response Total Belvedere Road Berkeley Road North Broadway Dalton Road Davenport Road Earlsdon Avenue South Huntingdon Road Mayfield Road Mickleton Road Morningside Pinewood Grove Spencer Avenue Spencer Road Stanway Road The Firs Total 219 (76%) 55 (19%) 13 (5%) 287 (100%) Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

15 3.2.9 Principle of Residents Parking Controls in Earlsdon Given the strong feeling that there are parking difficulties in Earlsdon, it is not surprising to find that 74% of those who responded are in favour of some form of residents parking (Figure 3-2, Table 3-3.) Analysis by street shows that support for residents parking is particularly strong in Belvedere Road (all 17 respondents are in favour), Dalton Road (6/6) and Spencer Avenue (40/41), followed by Morningside (20/22) and Huntingdon Road (9/10). The results have been plotted in Figure 3 (Appendix B) Respondents from Stanway Road are least likely to be in favour of residents parking (11 are in favour and 11 are not). Additionally the one respondent from Spencer Road is not in favour of residents parking. Views on Mickleton Road, Mayfield Road, Davenport Road and Broadway are more varied, where around a third of respondents from each street are not in favour of the principle of residents parking. Figure 3-2: Support for residents parking controls in Earlsdon area Q2 "I'm in favour of resident parking" 5% 22% Yes No No response 74% Base: all Earlsdon respondents (n: 287) When considering the responses in relation to the total number of properties in each street, it is apparent that there are only two streets in which around half of all properties are in favour of residents parking controls (Morningside and Spencer Avenue highlighted in blue in the table). The proportions of households in each street that are in favour of residents parking have also been plotted in Figure 5 (Appendix B). Overall, across the zone, around a fifth (20%) of properties supports the notion of residents parking. Table 3-3: Support for residents parking controls in Earlsdon area by street Q2 I m in favour of resident parking" Proportion of Households in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Belvedere Road % 0% Berkeley Road North % 7% Broadway % 5% 15

16 Q2 I m in favour of resident parking" Proportion of Households in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Dalton Road % 0% Davenport Road % 12% Earlsdon Avenue South % 5% Huntingdon Road % 1% Mayfield Road % 7% Mickleton Road % 12% Morningside % 5% Pinewood Grove % 0% Spencer Avenue % 1% Spencer Road % 4% Stanway Road % 12% The Firs % 4% Total 212 (74%) 62 (22%) 13 (5%) 287 (100%) 20% 6% Proposed Parking Controls in Earlsdon However, it is interesting to note that fewer respondents are in favour of the actual scheme proposed for their street. Overall, 59% of all who responded to the consultation, which equates to 168 individuals, are in favour (Figure 3-3). Conversely, 34% of Earlsdon residents (99 individuals) are not in favour of the proposed scheme, while 7% (20) did not express a view. Figure 3-3: Support for proposed parking controls in street (Earlsdon) Q3 "I'm in favour of the proposal for my street" 7% Yes 34% 59% No No response Base: all Earlsdon respondents (n: 287) Support for the actual scheme proposed for their street is particularly strong in Spencer Avenue (where 36 of the 41 respondents are in favour of the proposals and just four are not), Morningside (18/22 are in favour), Belvedere Road (12/17 are in favour) and Broadway (18/27 are in favour). Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

17 Though the response rate is lower, all 6 respondents from Dalton Road are in favour of the proposed scheme. These results have been plotted in Figure 4 (Appendix B) Greater opposition than support for the proposals is evident in some streets, in particular, Mickleton Road (where 15 respondents are not in favour of the proposed scheme compared with 7 who are), Mayfield Road (10 opposed and 6 in favour) and Stanway Road (12 opposed, 10 in favour) Views are polarised in some streets including Berkeley Road North (where 7 respondents are in favour and 7 are not), Davenport Road (17 in favour, 16 opposed, 8 did not give a response) and Earlsdon Avenue South (14 in favour, 11 opposed). Table 3-4: Support for proposed residents parking controls in Earlsdon area by street Q3 I'm in favour of the proposal for my street Proportion of Households in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Belvedere Road % 8% Berkeley Road North % 10% Broadway % 9% Dalton Road % 0% Davenport Road % 14% Earlsdon Avenue South % 7% Huntingdon Road % 4% Mayfield Road % 12% Mickleton Road % 18% Morningside % 11% Pinewood Grove % 0% Spencer Avenue % 5% Spencer Road % 4% Stanway Road % 13% The Firs % 12% Total 168 (59%) 99 (34%) 20 (7%) 287 (100%) 16% 9% When considering the responses received in relation to the total number of properties in each street, overall, across the zone, 16% of properties in Earlsdon support the proposed scheme while 9% do not. This indicates a degree of apathy in the local community as the majority have not participated in the consultation. The results indicate that the best level of support is amongst Spencer Avenue and Morningside residents, followed by The Firs: In Spencer Avenue, there are 80 properties. The 41 respondents represent 40 unique addresses. Only one respondent indicated objection to the proposed scheme for the street (a combination of permit holders only, a section of pay and display, no parking at any time). Bearing in mind the response rate for the street, around 45% of all Spencer Avenue properties are in favour of the proposals for their street. In Morningside, there are 37 properties. Responses were received from 22 unique addresses, of which only four do not support the proposed scheme (permit holders only). Nearly half of all Morningside properties are in favour of the proposals for their street. The Firs has 26 properties and responses were received from 12 unique addresses. Of these, 8 support the proposed scheme (permit holders only, shared use (two hours limited stay), no parking at certain times) while 3 object and one respondent did not express an opinion. Nearly a third (31%) of all The Firs properties are in favour of the proposals for their street. 17

18 The proportions of households in each street that are in favour of the proposed scheme have been plotted in Figure 6 (Appendix B) Days & Hours of Control in Earlsdon When asked when the scheme should operate, those respondents who are in favour of the proposed scheme are most likely to be in favour of a scheme which operates 8am-6pm Monday to Saturday (47%, or 79 respondents), with slightly fewer (39%, or 65 respondents) opting for a scheme that operates between 8am-6pm Monday to Friday (Figure 3-4). A further 13% (22 respondents) suggest alternative hours of operation. These are discussed below Analysis by street (Table 3-5) indicates strongest support for a weekday (Monday-Friday) scheme on Belvedere Road (8 respondents prefer this option, while 4 support a Monday-Saturday scheme) and Morningside (12 of the 18 respondents). In contrast, there is stronger support for a six day/week scheme than a weekday scheme to operate on Earlsdon Avenue South, Spencer Avenue, The Firs, Mayfield Road and Dalton Road. Views amongst respondents from Davenport Road and Broadway are mixed. Figure 3-4: Preferred hours of control in Earlsdon Q4 "I think the scheme should operate..." 13% 1% 39% 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Mon-Sat 47% Other No response Base: all Earlsdon respondents who are in favour pf the scheme proposed for their street (n: 168) Table 3-5: Preferred hours of control in Earlsdon area by street Q4 I think the scheme should operate No. of respondents 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Mon-Sat Other No response Total Belvedere Road Berkeley Road North Broadway Dalton Road Davenport Road Earlsdon Avenue South Huntingdon Road Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

19 Q4 I think the scheme should operate No. of respondents 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Mon-Sat Other No response Total Mayfield Road Mickleton Road Morningside Pinewood Grove Spencer Avenue Spencer Road Stanway Road The Firs Total 65 (39%) 79 (47%) 22 (13%) 2 (1%) Where alternative days of operation were suggested (by 22 respondents), the most commonly stated response was for the controls to be permanent, i.e. operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week (24-7). Eleven respondents would prefer the scheme to be Five respondents requested controls to operate all week (i.e. including Sunday). One requested additional evening controls and one respondent expressed the need for additional weekend and evening controls Where other hours of operation were suggested, various solutions were proposed though all recommended earlier start times and later finish times, e.g. 8am-10pm (2 responses), 8am-7pm (1 response), 8am-8pm (1 response), 7am-7pm (1 response) and 6am-10pm (1 response) Amendments to Proposed Scheme in Earlsdon Where respondents stated that they are not in favour of the proposal for their street, many explained their responses and gave suggestions of alternative arrangements which they would support Further analysis, looking at the detailed responses given in relation to Q3, suggests that of those who object to the scheme proposed for their street (99 respondents), a third (32%) would support the scheme proposed for their street if the proposals were altered in some way, though a larger proportion (45%) would not (Figure 3-5) Where amendments to the scheme would be supported, these include: On Davenport Road, there is a strong view that there should be no parking at any time, with double yellow lines along the entire street to operate 24-7, as properties have off-street parking and the road is busy with traffic, children crossing to access King Henry VIII School, etc (5 responses though it is noted that all are from the same address). Two respondents believe that all of the road, including the top section from Spencer Road to Bishop s Walk, should be shared use limited stay (rather than pay and display). One respondent indicated that due to the number of residents in Chandler Court requiring carers, a time limited rather than pay and display scheme is required. In Earlsdon Avenue South, there is: some feeling that controls should be on both side of the street (2 responses); demand for shared use rather than permit holder only controls (2 responses); demand for controls to operate 24-7 (2 responses); and in the evening (1 response). On Broadway, three respondents requested shared use instead of permit holder only controls (though for longer than the two hour period proposed elsewhere) and one respondent requested longer scheme operating hours. On Belvedere Road, three respondents expressed concerns about the proposed shared use section at the northern end of the street (one feels that the entire street should be permit holder 19

20 only, another that parking should only be allowed on one side in this area due to the busy nature of the junction/ congestion/ bus route), and another that the shared use bays could be better sited on the side roads accessed from Belvedere Road (Huntingdon Road, Mickleton Road, Stanway Road) as each has approximately 30m on each side which are along the sides of gardens of houses in Belvedere Road. One feels that the whole area should be shared use (permit holders + two hour limited stay). On Mayfield Road, two respondents would support shared use controls throughout the area, while one requested permit holder only controls to operate On The Firs, one respondent requested permit holder only controls while one requested shared use. On Berkeley Road North, one respondent indicated support for a permit holder only scheme that operates 24-7, while another suggested that it should be shared use during the day and permit holder only in the evening. One respondent from Mickleton Road called for shared use controls instead of permit holder only. One respondent from Spencer Avenue would support pay and display controls due to perceived ease of enforcing such a scheme (opposed to time limited controls). Figure 3-5: Whether residents would support amended proposals for their street Q3 Analysis of detailed responses 45% 32% 5% 5% 12% Indicates that would support the scheme if amended Would not support the scheme if amended Indicates that would support different type of scheme Not directly stated No response Base: all Earlsdon respondents who are not in favour of the proposals for their street (n: 99) Other Comments The final question in the feedback form invited respondents to provide details if they wish to see a different scheme implemented in their area. Overall, 153 respondents from the Earlsdon area provided a response to this question, making over 250 individual comments. These comments have been read thoroughly and grouped into a series of themes for analysis, as shown in Table 3-6. While some specifically commented on types of controls they would like to see in Earlsdon, others used the opportunity to express their concerns about the proposed scheme, or provide further detail about existing parking issues The most common response was that the current system works well and no new parking controls are required (as mentioned by 28 respondents). Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

21 A number of respondents (23) took the opportunity to highlight the difficulties they have with parking in the evening (i.e. outside the operating hours of the proposed scheme). Nine respondents commented that parking is difficult at the weekend. A number (11 respondents) expressed the view that the parking difficulties are caused by residents vehicles, particularly multiple vehicle ownership, suggesting that the proposed scheme would not alleviate the difficulties A number of respondents (14) expressed concerns about visitor access (residents visitors) and the impact on businesses, local amenities and schools (13). There were a number of requests (18 respondents) for shared use/limited stay parking (as opposed to permit holder only controls). At the same time, there were six requests for permit holder only controls Some respondents (10) requested changes to the proposed scheme in terms of length of stay, hours and days of operation. A number (9) requested changes to the proposed double yellow lines, while six expressed concerns that extending double yellow lines will reduce the amount of parking space available. Ten respondents mentioned other amendments to the proposed scheme, which primarily included topics such as the layout/design of parking bays (in specific locations) and concerns about the proposed shared use controls on Mayfield Road and Belvedere Road The subject of permits occurred in a number of responses, including concerns about cost (8 respondents stated that they should be provided free of charge) and eligibility (6 respondents) A number of comments (14) referred to highway design issues that are no directly related to the residents parking scheme and others (13) described existing parking and highway issues. Table 3-6: Other comments Comments given in response to: I would like to see a different scheme implemented in my area No. of respondents Current system / controls work well / scheme is not required / no problem at present 28 Evenings are difficult 23 Other suggested amendment to proposals 20 Allow limited stay / shared use 18 Concern about / need to consider visitor access (residents visitors) 14 Other suggested changed to highway layout / TROs / bus gates (not directly related to parking scheme) 14 Concern about impact on / need to consider the needs of local businesses / amenities / schools 13 Description of existing parking / highway issues 13 Residents vehicles are the issue / multiple vehicle ownership 11 Suggested change to hours / days of operation of the scheme / length of stay 10 Weekends are difficult 9 Suggested change to double yellow lines (reduce / extend) 9 Other 9 Permits should be free / residents should not be charged 8 Support for principle of scheme but with some alteration 6 Should be permit holders only 6 General opposition to proposals 6 Extending double yellow lines will reduce amount of parking spaces available 6 Query or question about the scheme operation 6 Suggested change to eligibility criteria for permits / cost of permit / number of permits 6 21

22 Comments given in response to: I would like to see a different scheme implemented in my area No. of respondents issued General support for the proposals 5 Remove pay and display 4 Controls should be 24 / 7 3 Need to address / concern about impact of school parking on residents 3 Additional areas should be included in scheme 3 Should be cheaper / free to park in city centre / make it easier to park in city centre (including train station) to address the problem 2 Need to address the impact of Friargate 2 Suggestion for pay and display Zone 2: Cheylesmore West In total, 182 questionnaire responses were received from residents of Cheylesmore West, with the largest number of responses per street coming from The Hiron (32 responses), Stoney Road (31) and Orchard Crescent (30), followed by Asthill Road (25) and Humphrey Burton s Road (23), as shown in Table The location of respondents has been mapped (see Figure 1 in Appendix B) which shows that responses have been received from across Zone 2, with the greatest number of responses coming from streets within the central area of the zone An approximate response rate for each street has been calculated based on the total number of residential and business addresses listed in CCC s Addresspoint data and the total number of responses received from unique addresses. Overall, responses were received from around 45% of all properties in the zone As shown in Table 3-7, there is a good representation of several streets within the zone, in particular Asthill Croft (responses were received from 6 of the 7 properties in the street), followed by Orchard Crescent (responses were received from 30 of the 39 properties). Around half of the properties in Asthill Grove, Humphrey Burton's Road, Stoney Road and The Hiron are represented in the data collected. In contrast, the response rates for Michaelmas Road and Adare Drive are much lower (~20%). Overall, there was a good level of interest in the consultation, and around 45% of the households within the zone responded. Table 3-7: Number of respondents from or near to Cheylesmore West Zone 2 Street Number of respondents No of uniquely responding properties Number of properties in street Approximate response rate Zone 2 Adare Drive % Asthill Croft % Asthill Grove % Hiron Croft % Humphrey Burton's Road % Michaelmas Road % Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

23 Street Number of respondents No of uniquely responding properties Number of properties in street Approximate response rate Orchard Crescent % Stoney Road % The Hiron % Townsend Croft % Townsend Road % Not stated 2 2 Total % Outside but near Zone 2/3 Baginton Road Parking Difficulties in Cheylesmore West Around 80% of Cheylesmore West respondents believe that there is a parking problem in their street (Figure 3-6, Table 3-8), with this feeling being particularly acute in Asthill Grove (where 23 of the 25 respondents consider their street to have a parking problem), Asthill Croft (6/6 believe there is a parking problem), Humphrey Burton's Road (21/23 respondents), Orchard Crescent (28/30 respondents) and Stoney Road (26/31). The results have been mapped (Figure 2, Appendix B) to illustrate results geographically. Figure 3-6: Perceived parking difficulties in Cheylesmore West area Q1 "I think there is a parking problem in my street" 16% 3% Yes No No response 81% Base: all Cheylesmore West respondents (n: 182) Overall, a sixth (16%) of respondents do not consider there to be a parking problem in their street. This is a view held in particular by a number of respondents from The Hiron (11 of the 32 respondents do not consider there to be parking difficulties) and Adare Drive (3/6 respondents). Response rates are too low on some streets to determine any notable findings, but three of the four respondents from Townsend Croft do not consider the street to have a parking problem. 23

24 Table 3-8: Perceived parking difficulties in Cheylesmore West area by street Q1 I think there is a parking problem in my street" No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Adare Drive Asthill Croft Asthill Grove Hiron Croft Humphrey Burton's Road Michaelmas Road Orchard Crescent Stoney Road The Hiron Townsend Croft Townsend Road Not stated Total 147 (81%) 29 (16%) 6 (3%) 182 (100%) Principle of Residents Parking Controls in Cheylesmore West Given the strong feeling that there are parking difficulties in Cheylesmore, it is not unexpected to find that 86% of those who responded are in favour of some form of residents parking (Figure 3-7, Table 3-9). Interestingly, the proportion in favour of a parking control scheme (86%) is greater than the proportion that considers there to be a parking problem in their street (81%) Analysis by street shows that support for residents parking is strong in all streets, but particularly so in Adare Drive, Asthill Croft, Asthill Grove, Humphrey Burton's Road, Orchard Crescent and Townsend Road. These results have been plotted in Figure 3 (Appendix B) Respondents from The Hiron are least likely to be in favour of residents parking (8 are not in favour though 23 are). Figure 3-7: Support for residents parking controls in Cheylesmore West area Q2 "I'm in favour of resident parking" 11% 3% Yes No No response 86% Base: all Cheylesmore West respondents (n: 182) Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

25 When considering the responses received in relation to the total number of properties in each street, it is apparent that there is very strong support for residents parking on Asthill Croft and Orchard Crescent, where the majority of all properties support the principle. There is also a good level of support on Asthill Grove, Humphrey Burton s Road and The Hiron (42%). The proportions of households in each street that are in favour of residents parking have also been plotted in Figure 7 (Appendix B) Overall, across the zone, around 40% of properties in Cheylesmore West support the notion of residents parking. Table 3-9: Support for residents parking controls in Cheylesmore West area by street Q2 I m in favour of resident parking" Proportion of Total Households in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Adare Drive % 0% Asthill Croft % 0% Asthill Grove % 4% Hiron Croft % 0% Humphrey Burton's Road % 5% Michaelmas Road % 3% Orchard Crescent % 3% Stoney Road % 5% The Hiron % 15% Townsend Croft % 8% Townsend Road % 0% Not stated Total 157 (86%) 20 (11%) 5 (3%) 182 (100%) 40% 5% Proposed Parking Controls in Cheylesmore West However, respondents in general are not supportive of the actual scheme proposed for their street. Far fewer respondents are in favour of the scheme proposed than are in favour of residents parking schemes in principle. Overall, just 38% of all who responded to the consultation, which equates to 70 individuals, are in favour (Figure 3-3), while 54% of Cheylesmore respondents (98 individuals) are not in favour of the proposed scheme, and 8% (14 respondents) did not express a view. 25

26 Figure 3-8: Support for proposed parking controls in street (Cheylesmore West) Q3 "I'm in favour of the proposal for my street" 8% 38% Yes No No response 54% Base: all Cheylesmore West respondents (n: 182) The only streets where over half of all respondents support the proposed scheme are Asthill Croft where five of the six respondents from the street are in favour of the proposed permit holder only controls, Townsend Croft (3/4 are in favour), Townsend Road (2/2), The Hiron (22/32) and Michaelmas Road (8/15). Interestingly, with the exception of Michaelmas Road, the proposed controls in all these streets are permit holder only parking, for which it is apparent that there is a good level of support. These results have been plotted in Figure 4 in Appendix B In contrast, over half of all respondents from Asthill Grove, Orchard Crescent, Humphrey Burton's Road and Stoney Road, where shared use (permit holders + 2 hour limited stay) controls are proposed, are not in favour of the proposed scheme. This is a direct contrast to the results presented in Table 3-9 which indicate strong support for the principle of a residents parking scheme. Table 3-10: Support for proposed residents parking controls in Cheylesmore West area by street Q3 I'm in favour of the proposal for my street Proportion of Total Households in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Adare Drive % 0% Asthill Croft % 14% Asthill Grove % 43% Hiron Croft % 12% Humphrey Burton's Road % 40% Michaelmas Road % 5% Orchard Crescent % 64% Stoney Road % 30% The Hiron % 16% Townsend Croft % 8% Townsend Road % 0% Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

27 Q3 I'm in favour of the proposal for my street Proportion of Total Households in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Not stated Total 70 (38%) 98 (54%) 14 (8%) 182 (100%) 18% 25% When considering the responses received in relation to the total number of properties in each street, overall, across the zone, just 18% of Cheylesmore West properties support the proposed scheme for their street, while around a quarter (25%) do not. The proportions of households in each street that are in favour of the proposed scheme have also been plotted in Figure 8 (Appendix B) There is a good level of support for the proposed scheme from Asthill Grove (71%) and some support in The Hiron (40%): In Asthill Croft, there are 7 properties. Responses were received from 6 unique addresses and only one respondent indicated objection to the proposed scheme for the street (permit holders only). In The Hiron, there are 55 properties. Responses were received from 31 unique addresses and 22 respondents support the proposed scheme (permit holders only) while 9 do not and one respondent did not express an opinion. It should also be noted that while responses were submitted by residents at properties all along the street, there is a cluster of support for controls around numbers 2-30 and on the opposite side Low response rates in Townsend Croft and Townsend Road make it difficult to gauge the opinion of the street as a whole but where responses have been received, they are more likely to be in favour of than opposed to the proposed permit holder only controls At the same time, around two-thirds of all properties in Orchard Crescent and 40% of those in Asthill Grove and Humphrey Burton s Road object to the proposed scheme Days & Hours of Control in Cheylesmore West When asked when the scheme should operate, the 70 respondents who support the proposed scheme are most likely to be in favour of a scheme which operates 8am-6pm Monday to Saturday (43%, or 30 respondents), while slightly fewer (31%, or 22 respondents) would prefer a scheme that operates between 8am-6pm Monday to Friday (Figure 3-9). A further 24% (17 respondents) suggest alternative hours of operation. These are discussed below Analysis by street (Table 3-11) indicates stronger support for a Monday to Saturday scheme on most streets, but due to a low response, consideration must be given to the other answers discussed below. 27

28 Figure 3-9: Preferred hours of control in Cheylesmore West area Q4 "I think the scheme should operate..." 1% 24% 31% 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Mon-Sat Other 43% No response Base: all Cheylesmore West respondents who are in favour pf the scheme proposed for their street (n: 70) Table 3-11: Preferred hours of control in Cheylesmore West area by street Q4 I think the scheme should operate No. of respondents 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Mon-Sat Other No response Total Adare Drive Asthill Croft Asthill Grove Hiron Croft Humphrey Burton's Road Michaelmas Road Orchard Crescent Stoney Road The Hiron Townsend Croft Townsend Road Not stated Total 22 (31%) 30 (43%) 17 (24%) 1 (1%) 70 (100%) Where alternative days of operation were suggested (by 17 respondents), the most commonly stated response was for the controls to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week (24-7) as stated by nine respondents. Five respondents requested controls to operate all week (i.e. including Sunday) Where other hours of operation were suggested, various solutions were proposed, including an 8am- 6pm scheme which operates 7 days/week as mentioned by four respondents, while one requested controls to operate 8am-10pm and another 7am-7pm. Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

29 Amendments to Proposed Scheme in Cheylesmore West Where respondents stated that they are not in favour of the proposal for their street, many explained their responses and gave suggestions of alternative arrangements which they would support Further analysis of the detailed responses given in relation to Q3 suggests that of those who object to the scheme proposed for their street (98 respondents), the vast majority third (82%, or 80 individuals) would support the scheme proposed for their street if the proposals were altered in some way (Figure 3-10) In most cases, amendments to the scheme that would be supported are for permit holder only parking, operating permanently (i.e. 24-7): On Asthill Grove, there is a strong feeling that controls should be permit holder only parking, operating 24-7 (15 responses). In addition, one respondent requested 24-7 controls and another permit holder only parking. In Humphrey Burton's Road, there is also a strong demand for permit holder only parking (7 responses) and permit holder only 24-7 controls (6 responses). On Orchard Crescent, respondents urged the need for permit holder only controls (10 responses) and permit holder only 24-7 controls (11 responses). On Stoney Road, respondents again stressed a desire for permit holder only parking operating 24-7 (8 responses) and permit holder only controls (4 responses). On Hiron Croft, 2 respondents requested no parking at any time controls. Several respondents from Michaelmas Road stated that they would support a scheme if it would operate 24-7 (2 respondents) and be for permit holders only (3 respondents). On The Hiron, one respondent requested shared use instead of permit holder only parking. Figure 3-10: Whether residents would support amended proposals for their street 82% Q3 Analysis of detailed responses 9% 1% 2% 6% Indicates that would support the scheme if amended Would not support the scheme if amended Happy with current controls Not directly stated No response Base: all Cheylesmore West respondents who are not in favour of the proposals for their street (n: 98) Other Comments The final question in the feedback form invited respondents to provide details if they wish to see a different scheme implemented in their area. Overall, 91 respondents from the Cheylesmore West 29

30 area provided a response to this question, making over 140 individual comments. These comments have been read thoroughly and grouped into a series of themes for analysis, as shown in Table The majority of comments focused on the proposed shared use controls, calling for the scheme to be redesigned to incorporate permit holder parking only (52 respondents). The need for controls to operate 24-7 was reiterated by 23 respondents Aside from these areas of comment, few respondents mentioned other types of scheme they would like to see implemented in Cheylesmore West. Ten respondents commented on the need to address the parking implications of the Friargate development. Seven respondents expressed the view that the current scheme/system works well. Table 3-12: Other comments Comments given in response to: I would like to see a different scheme implemented in my area No. of respondents Should be permit holders only 52 Controls should be 24 / 7 23 Need to address the impact of Friargate 10 Current system / controls work well / scheme is not required / no problem at present 7 Description of existing parking / highway issues 7 Other suggested amendment to proposals 6 Permits should be free / residents should not be charged 5 Query or question about the scheme operation 4 Other suggested changed to highway layout / TROs / bus gates (not directly related to parking scheme) 4 Concern about / need to consider visitor access (residents visitors) 3 Other 3 General support for the proposals 2 Concern about impact on / need to consider the needs of local businesses / amenities / schools 2 Need to address / concern about impact of school parking on residents 2 Allow limited stay / shared use 2 Additional areas should be included in scheme 2 Suggested change to hours / days of operation of the scheme / length of stay 2 Suggested change to double yellow lines (reduce / extend) 2 Support for principle of scheme but with some alteration 1 Should be cheaper / free to park in city centre / make it easier to park in city centre (including train station) to address the problem 1 No point in consultation / decision already made 1 Dropped kerb outside property required 1 Suggestion for pay and display 1 Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

31 3.4 Zone 3: Cheylesmore East Overall, 325 questionnaire responses were received from residents of Cheylesmore East, with the largest number of responses per street coming from Benedictine Road (34 responses), The Martyrs' Close (31 responses), The Mount (29) and Thomas Landsdail Street (27), as shown in Table The location of respondents has been mapped (see Figure 1 in Appendix B) which shows that responses have been received from almost all streets within Zone 3, with the exception of Baron s Croft. Response rates were also low (<20%) in Lollard Croft, St. Christian's Croft, The Monk's Croft, John Grace Street, Baron's Field Road and Hockett Street. As shown in Figure 1 in Appendix B, the geographical spread of responses is such that the streets in the north west of the zone (i.e. close to Zone 2) are fairly well represented, but those in in the south and east, and in the extremities of the zone, are less so An approximate response rate for each street has been calculated based on the total number of residential and business addresses listed in CCC s Addresspoint data and the total number of responses received from unique addresses. Overall, responses were received from around a quarter of all properties within the zone (26%) As shown in Table 3-13, there is a fairly good representation of several streets within the zone, in particular Franciscan Road and Joan Ward Street, where responses were received from nearly half of the properties within the street. Overall, around a quarter (26%) of the households within Zone 3 responded to the consultation. 31

32 Table 3-13: Number of respondents from or near to Cheylesmore East Zone 3 Street Number of respondents No of uniquely responding properties Number of properties in street Approximate response rate Zone 3 Baron's Croft % Baron's Field Road % Benedictine Road % Carthusian Road % Cornelius Street % Franciscan Road % Galey's Road % Glover Street % Hermit's Croft % Hockett Street % Joan Ward Street % John Grace Street % Lichfield Road % Lollard Croft % Mile Lane % Purefoy Road % Queen Isabels Avenue % Quinton Road % Silksby Street % St. Christian's Croft % St. Christian's Road % The Martyrs' Close % The Monk's Croft % The Mount % Thomas Landsdail Street % Wrigsham Street % Total % Parking Difficulties in Cheylesmore East Around two-thirds (65%) of Cheylesmore East respondents believe that there is a parking problem in their street (Figure 3-11, Table 3-14) Analysis shows that views within the Cheylesmore East zone vary considerably, with the vast majority of respondents in several streets (particularly those in the western side of the zone and closest to the railway line and Zone 2) feeling that there is a parking problem - including The Martyrs Close (where 30 of the 31 respondents consider their street to have a parking problem), Joan Ward Street (where 20 of the 22 respondents consider their street to have a parking problem), Thomas Landsdail Street (25/27 respondents), Lichfield Road (12/13 respondents), Mile Lane (15/16 respondents), Quinton Road (12/13 respondents), Wrigsham Street (11/11 respondents) and Hockett Street (5/5 respondents). The results have been mapped (Figure 2, Appendix B) to illustrate these findings geographically. Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

33 Figure 3-11: Perceived parking difficulties in Cheylesmore East area Q1 "I think there is a parking problem in my street" 2% 34% Yes No No response 65% Base: all Cheylesmore East respondents (n: 325) Overall, one-third (34%) of respondents do not consider there to be a parking problem in their street. This is a view held in particular by a number of respondents from Benedictine Road (26 of the 34 respondents do not consider there to be parking difficulties), Purefoy Road (9/10 respondents), The Mount (22/29 respondents) and Carthusian Road (5/6 respondents). Response rates are too low on some streets to discern any notable findings. Table 3-14: Perceived parking difficulties in Cheylesmore East area by street Q1 I think there is a parking problem in my street" No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Baron's Field Road Benedictine Road Carthusian Road Cornelius Street Franciscan Road Galey's Road Glover Street Hermit's Croft Hockett Street Joan Ward Street John Grace Street Lichfield Road Lollard Croft Mile Lane Purefoy Road Queen Isabels Avenue Quinton Road Silksby Street St. Christian's Croft

34 Q1 I think there is a parking problem in my street" No. of respondents Yes No No response Total St. Christian's Road The Martyrs' Close The Monk's Croft The Mount Thomas Landsdail Street Wrigsham Street Total 210 (65%) 109 (34%) 6 (2%) 325 (100%) Principle of Residents Parking Controls in Cheylesmore East The proportion of respondents in favour of some form of residents parking controls (66%, as shown in Figure 3-12, Table 3-8) is similar to the proportion that considers there to be parking difficulties in their street (65%) Analysis by street (Table 3-15) shows that support for residents parking is greatest in those streets where respondents consider there to be a parking problem, including The Martyrs' Close (30 out of 31 respondents are in favour of residents parking), Thomas Landsdail Street (25/27 are in favour), Quinton Road (12/13 respondents), Glover Street (10/12 respondents), Joan Ward Street (18/22 respondents), Mile Lane (13/16 respondents) and Wrigsham Street (11/11 respondents). These results have been plotted in Figure 3 (Appendix B) Respondents from The Mount are far less supportive of the principle of residents parking (21/29 respondents are not in favour), as are those from Benedictine Road (21/34 respondents are not in favour) and Purefoy Road (6/10 do not support the notion). Figure 3-12: Support for residents parking controls in Cheylesmore East area Q2 "I'm in favour of resident parking" 2% 32% Yes No No response 66% Base: all Cheylesmore East respondents (n: 325) When considering the responses received in relation to the total number of properties in each street, it is apparent that there is not particularly strong support for residents parking in any of the streets consulted. The Martyrs Close, Joan Ward Street and Thomas Landsdail Street have the largest overall response in favour of residents parking (e.g. 36%- 40% of all properties are in favour). Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

35 However, overall, across the zone, just 17% of properties in Cheylesmore East support the notion of residents parking while 9% do not The proportions of households in each street that are in favour of the proposed scheme have also been plotted in Figure 9 (Appendix B). Table 3-15: Support for residents parking controls in Cheylesmore East area by street Q2 I m in favour of resident parking" Proportion of Total Properties in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Baron's Field Road % 14% Benedictine Road % 22% Carthusian Road % 15% Cornelius Street % 8% Franciscan Road % 15% Galey's Road % 11% Glover Street % 3% Hermit's Croft % 11% Hockett Street % 0% Joan Ward Street % 6% John Grace Street % 3% Lichfield Road % 0% Lollard Croft % 7% Mile Lane % 4% Purefoy Road % 13% Queen Isabels Avenue % 11% Quinton Road % 2% Silksby Street % 9% St. Christian's Croft % 8% St. Christian's Road % 10% The Martyrs' Close % 1% The Monk's Croft % 5% The Mount % 20% Thomas Landsdail Street % 3% Wrigsham Street % 0% Total 213 (66%) 104 (32%) 8 (2%) 325 (100%) 17% 9% Proposed Parking Controls in Cheylesmore East Respondents demonstrated a similar level of support for the actual scheme proposed for their street. As shown in Figure 3-13, just over 60% (62%; 200 individuals) are in favour of the scheme proposed, while a third (35%) of Cheylesmore East respondents (114 individuals) are not in favour of the proposed scheme, and 3% (11 respondents) did not express a view. 35

36 Figure 3-13: Support for proposed parking controls in street (Cheylesmore East) Q3 "I'm in favour of the proposal for my street" 3% 35% 62% Yes No No response Base: all Cheylesmore East respondents (n: 325) Again, the strongest support for the proposed scheme is from residents of The Martyrs' Close (29/31 respondents support the proposed scheme), Thomas Landsdail Street (23/27 respondents), Joan ward Street (18/22 respondents), Mile Lane (13/16 respondents), Quinton Road (12/13 respondents), Wrigsham Street (11/11 respondents) and Lichfield Road (12/13 respondents), as shown in Table Generally, the proposals for these streets are permit holder only parking, with an area of shared use (pay and display) controls on Quinton Road In contrast, respondents from The Mount are more likely to object to than support the proposals for their street (22/29 respondents are not in favour), as are those from Benedictine Road (22/34 respondents), Purefoy Road (6/10 respondents), Galey s Road (4/6 respondents).and all four respondents from Baron s Field Road. Again the proposals in these streets are generally permit holder only parking. These results have been plotted in Figure 4 (Appendix B). Table 3-16: Support for proposed residents parking controls in Cheylesmore West area by street Q3 I'm in favour of the proposal for my street Proportion of Total Properties in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Baron's Field Road % 19% Benedictine Road % 23% Carthusian Road % 15% Cornelius Street % 8% Franciscan Road % 19% Galey's Road % 14% Glover Street % 5% Hermit's Croft % 11% Hockett Street % 0% Joan Ward Street % 9% John Grace Street % 5% Lichfield Road % 2% Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

37 Proportion of Total Q3 I'm in favour of the proposal for my street Properties in Street No. of respondents Yes No No response Total Yes No Lollard Croft % 7% Mile Lane % 4% Purefoy Road % 13% Queen Isabels Avenue % 9% Quinton Road % 0% Silksby Street % 9% St. Christian's Croft % 8% St. Christian's Road % 10% The Martyrs' Close % 3% The Monk's Croft % 5% The Mount % 21% Thomas Landsdail Street % 6% Wrigsham Street % 0% Total 200 (62%) 114 (35%) 11 (3%) 325 (100%) 17% 9% When considering the responses received in relation to the total number of properties in each street, overall, across the zone, just 17% of properties in Cheylesmore East support the proposed scheme for their street, while 9% do not. This suggests there is a degree of indifference amongst local residents as the majority have not expressed an opinion by responding to the consultation. The proportions of households in each street that are in favour of the proposed scheme have also been plotted in Figure 10 (Appendix B) The greatest overall support for the proposed scheme is in The Martyrs' Close, Joan Ward Street and Thomas Landsdail Street: In The Martyrs' Close, there are 70 properties. Responses were received from less than half of them (29 unique addresses) but only two respondents indicated objection to the proposed scheme for the street (permit holders only). Around 40% of the street s properties support the proposed scheme. There are 47 properties in Joan Ward Street. Responses were received from over a third of them (22 unique addresses). Only four respondents do not support the proposal for the street (permit holders only). Over a third (38%) of properties supports the proposals. From the 70 properties in Thomas Landsdail Street, responses were received from 27 unique addresses. Only 4 expressed objection to the proposal for the street. In total, a third of all properties support the proposals for the street Geographical analysis (see Figure 4 in Appendix B) again illustrates that support for the proposed parking scheme is greatest in the streets closest to the railway line Days & Hours of Control in Cheylesmore East When asked when the scheme should operate, similar proportions of the 200 respondents who are in favour of the proposed scheme would prefer a scheme which operates 8am-6pm Monday to Saturday (48%) and 8am-6pm Monday to Friday (41%), as shown in Figure A further 10% suggest alternative hours of operation. These are discussed below Analysis by street (Table 3-17) indicates stronger support for a Monday to Friday scheme on Franciscan Road, Glover Street and Quinton Road, with a fairly equal split on The Martyrs Close (15 37

38 respondents would prefer a Monday-Friday scheme while 14 would like controls to operate Monday- Saturday). Respondents from Joan Ward Street, Lichfield Road, Thomas Landsdail Street and Wrigsham Street would prefer a Monday-Saturday scheme. Figure 3-14: Preferred hours of control in Cheylesmore East area Q4 "I think the scheme should operate..." 10% 2% 41% 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Mon-Sat 48% Other No response Base: all Cheylesmore East respondents who are in favour pf the scheme proposed for their street (n: 200) Table 3-17: Preferred hours of control in Cheylesmore East area by street Q4 I think the scheme should operate No No. of respondents 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Mon-Sat Other response Benedictine Road Carthusian Road Cornelius Street Franciscan Road Galey's Road Glover Street Hermit's Croft Hockett Street Joan Ward Street John Grace Street Lichfield Road Mile Lane Purefoy Road Queen Isabels Avenue Quinton Road Silksby Street St. Christian's Road The Martyrs' Close The Monk's Croft The Mount Thomas Landsdail Street Total Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

39 Q4 I think the scheme should operate No. of respondents 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Mon-Sat Other No response Wrigsham Street Total 82 (41%) 96 (48%) 19 (10%) 3 (2%) 200 (100%) Total Where alternative days of operation were suggested (by 19 respondents), the most commonly stated response was for the controls to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week (24-7) as stated by ten respondents. Five respondents requested controls to operate all week (i.e. including Sunday) Where other hours of operation were suggested, various solutions were proposed, including an 8am- 6pm scheme which operates 7 days/week as mentioned by four respondents, while one requested controls to operate 8am-4pm, one that they should begin before 8am and another 9am-5pm Amendments to Proposed Scheme in Cheylesmore East Where respondents stated that they are not in favour of the proposal for their street, many explained their responses and gave suggestions of alternative arrangements which they would support Further analysis, looking at the detailed responses given in relation to Q3, suggests that in contrast to the other consultation areas, very few (7%, or 8 individuals) of the 114 respondents who object to the scheme proposed for their street would support the scheme if the proposals were altered in some way (Figure 3-15) The amendments that were mentioned are as follows: Shared use (permit holders and 2 hours limited stay) 2 respondents (from Francsican Road, The Mount) controls (permit holder only) 2 respondents (from Thomas Landsdail Street, Glover Street). Free permits 1 respondent (from Franciscan Road). Include junctions in the residents parking scheme so as not to reduce the amount of space 1 respondent (from Galey s Road). Longer stretches of parking at any time/ certain times 1 respondent (from St. Christian's Croft). 39

40 Figure 3-15: Whether residents would support amended proposals for their street Q3 Analysis of detailed responses 61% 25% 7% Indicates that would support the scheme if amended Would not support the scheme if amended 4% 2% 2% Indicates that would support different type of scheme Indicates Not directly that would stated support if introduced in wider area No response Base: all Cheylesmore East respondents who are not in favour of the proposals for their street (n: 114) Other Comments Overall, 122 respondents from the Cheylesmore East area provided a response when asked to provide details if they wished to see a different scheme implemented in their area, making over 184 individual comments. These comments have been read grouped into a series of themes for analysis, as shown in Table The most common response was that the current system works well and no new parking controls are required (as mentioned by 31 respondents). Following this, the next most frequently stated topic of response was general opposition to the proposals (17 comments) Fifteen respondents stressed that permits should be provided free of charge, and eight feel that it should be cheaper to park in the city centre to tackle the cause of the parking problems There is some feeling that the parking difficulties are caused by residents vehicles, particularly multiple vehicle ownership Seven respondents expressed concerns about visitor access (residents visitors). Several respondents (6) requested changes to the proposed scheme in terms of length of stay, hours and days of operation. A number (6) requested limited stay/shared use controls (instead of permit holder only), while four respondents stressed that the controls should be permit holder only Sixteen respondents mentioned other amendments to the proposed scheme, which primarily included topics such as the layout/design of parking bays (in specific locations), single and double yellow lines, and types of controls. Table 3-18: Other comments Comments given in response to: I would like to see a different scheme implemented in my area No. of respondents Current system / controls work well / scheme is not required / no problem at present 31 General opposition to proposals 17 Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

41 Comments given in response to: I would like to see a different scheme implemented in my area No. of respondents Other suggested amendment to proposals 16 Permits should be free / residents should not be charged 15 Description of existing parking / highway issues 12 Other 9 Should be cheaper / free to park in city centre / make it easier to park in city centre (including train station) to address the problem Residents vehicles are the issue / multiple vehicle ownership 7 Concern about / need to consider visitor access (residents visitors) 7 Other suggested changed to highway layout / TROs / bus gates (not directly related to parking scheme) Allow limited stay / shared use 6 Suggested change to hours / days of operation of the scheme / length of stay 6 General support for the proposals 5 Query or question about the scheme operation 5 Evenings are difficult 4 Should be permit holders only 4 Extending double yellow lines will reduce amount of parking spaces available 3 Controls should be 24 / 7 3 Off street parking should be provided (e.g. on verges) 3 Suggested change to double yellow lines (reduce / extend) 3 Weekends are difficult 2 Support for principle of scheme but with some alteration 2 Dropped kerb outside property required 2 Concern about impact on / need to consider the needs of local businesses / amenities / schools Suggested change to eligibility criteria for permits / cost of permit / number of permits issued Permits should be cheaper 1 Need to address the impact of Friargate 1 Additional areas should be included in scheme

42 4 Other Issues Raised During Consultation 4.1 Drop-in Surgeries As mentioned in Chapter 2, over 200 visitors attended the drop-in surgeries. The approximate home locations of attendees have been plotted and are shown in Figure 11 (Appendix B). This shows there was good attendance from across the three consultation areas Visitors were given the opportunity to view the plans and raise any concerns and questions about the proposals with a member of the study team. Attendees visited the drop-in surgeries primarily to find out more information about the proposals, discuss their concerns, share their local knowledge to the benefit of the proposals and express their views on the scheme During the discussions, the staff manning the surgeries took detailed notes using specially designed response forms to provide a consistent record of any issues/concerns raised. These will be considered by the study team if the proposals are progressed to the detailed design stage The vast majority of the views expressed and concerns raised at the drop-in sessions are similar to those presented in Chapter 3 of this report. Above all, the two most commonly occurring themes were as follows: Concerns about shared use proposals, particularly in Cheylesmore West (desire for permit holder only controls). Concerns about proposed operational hours of the scheme (desire for scheme to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week/ address evening parking issues) Other comments raised on a smaller scale included aspects such as: Objections to and support for the proposed scheme (and reasons). Objections to requirement to pay for permits. Queries about permit eligibility and scheme operation. Concerns about impact on businesses. Requests for proposed permit holder only controls to be changes to shared use. Requests for the same controls to apply throughout an area (e.g. Mayfield Road not having the only shared use parking). Requests for changes to the proposed scheme (e.g. duration of stay, slight amendments to hours of operation). Requests to reconsider proposed double/single yellow lines in specific locations (desire for them to be extended for safety reasons/ removed where not deemed to be necessary and to create additional parking). Requests for different type of scheme, (e.g. residents only parking between am only to prevent all day commuter parking and remove the need for visitor permits). Suggestions to include additional streets in the zone/ remove streets from the zone. Queries about parking on verges / service roads/ in spaces adjacent to but not on the public highway. Comments and queries about enforcement. Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

43 4.2 Written & Telephone Correspondence A review of the written correspondence ( s, letters) and telephone calls received during the consultation period has identified similar areas of comment, the following being the most frequently recurring issues: Objections to and support for the proposed scheme (and reasons). Queries about the consultation process/ period. Concerns about the impact on businesses. Queries about permit eligibility and scheme operation. Requests for changes to the proposed scheme Detailed design issues were recorded and will also be passed to the study team for further consideration if the proposals are progressed to the detailed design stage In addition a petition (containing 20 signatures) was received, asking Coventry City Council to reconsider the parking scheme for Earlsdon and Cheylesmore. 43

44 5 Summary In July 2014, residents in three areas in Earlsdon and Cheylesmore were consulted on proposed residents parking schemes. The consultation was designed so as to offer an accessible and inclusive exercise to which all residents and businesses in the Earlsdon and Cheylesmore areas could contribute The consultation received a good level of response, including 818 completed questionnaires, 215 attendees at the drop-in surgeries and in excess of 700 hits to CCC s relevant webpages. The data gathered during the consultation period has been analysed and presented in this report to guide the next steps of the study As stated in Chapter 2, CCC will use the outputs of this report to inform its decision on whether or not to proceed with implementing residents parking schemes in Earlsdon and Cheylesmore. This report has therefore paid particular attention to residents opinions on the proposed scheme, primarily: Do residents currently encounter parking difficulties? Is a residents parking scheme supported? Is the proposed residents parking scheme supported? If not, would a different type of scheme be supported? A further question we have posed having completed the analyses is: Are the questionnaire findings likely to be representative of the wider area (i.e. how robust is the response rate)? By means of a summary, the table below sets out the key findings for the three areas consulted. Earlsdon Cheylesmore West Cheylesmore East Number of responses (% response rate) 290 (27%). Only two streets with a response rate of at least 50% (Morningside & Spencer Avenue). 182 (45%). A good response with at least 50% of properties represented in six streets. 325 (26%). Response rate for every street is <50% of households but some streets better represented than others. Do residents currently encounter parking difficulties? Yes, according to respondents 76% believe that there is a parking problem in their street. Yes 81% of respondents believe that there is a parking problem in their street. Yes, according to respondents 65% believe that there is a parking problem in their street. Is a residents parking scheme supported? Respondents support it 74% are in favour of residents parking (22% are not). But this equates to just 20% of all households in the area. Due to the low response rate there are only two streets where at least 50% of households have demonstrated their support (Morningside & Spencer Avenue). Yes - 86% of those who responded are in favour of some form of residents parking, while 11% are not. This equates to 40% of all households in the area. Respondents support it 66% are in favour of residents parking. But this is equivalent to just 17% of all households in the area. There is considerable variation by street. The Martyrs Close is the only street in which it is supported by more than 40% of households. Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

45 Earlsdon Cheylesmore West Cheylesmore East Is the proposed residents parking scheme supported? Respondents support it - 59% are in favour (but 34% are not). But this equates to just 16% of all households in the area The greatest support is in Morningside & Spencer Avenue, where 49% & 45% of households are in favour. No 38% of respondents are in favour of the proposed scheme while 54% are not. Only 18% of all households in the area support the proposed scheme (and 25% do not). Respondents support it 62% are in favour (but 35% are not). But this equates to just 17% of all households in the area. There is considerable variation by street. The greatest support is in The Martyrs Close, where 40% of households are in favour. Response rates are too low in other streets to reach a conclusion. If not, would a different type of scheme be supported? No. Some minor changes to specific streets have been requested. Yes. There is a strong feeling that the controls should be residents only rather than shared use, and operating 24/7. No. Some minor changes to specific streets have been requested The consultation has shown that while there is a good level of support for parking controls amongst respondents from some streets in Earlsdon and Cheylesmore, there is by no means unanimous support. The low level of response from some streets is a concern as it is important that a scheme be supported by the majority of residents (and not just the majority of consultation respondents) Earlsdon Whilst respondents indicate some support for a residents parking scheme in Earlsdon, the response rate for the area is relatively low, meaning that just 16% of households have demonstrated support for the proposed scheme. Only two streets (Morningside and Spencer Avenue) indicate a strong level of support (45-49%), with no street demonstrating support from a majority (i.e. over 50%) of households Given the varying degree of support across the consultation area, it is suggested that if CCC wishes to progress this scheme, they may wish to consider a smaller scheme boundary focusing on the area of greatest support and/or where parking difficulties are most pronounced, or to re-consult the entire area, stressing the importance of responding to the consultation. If the former approach is taken, it would be sensible to inform residents outside the boundary that the scheme being progressed is much smaller than initially anticipated, as there may be concerns about displacement issues Cheylesmore West There appears to be a good level of support for a residents parking scheme in Cheylesmore West, with the exception of Adare Drive, Hiron Croft, Michaelmas Road, Townsend Road and Townsend Croft. However, residents have expressed a strong view that the controls should be permit holders only throughout the area and not shared use If CCC wishes to progress this scheme, they may wish to consider redrawing the scheme boundary to exclude the outlying streets listed above, though it would be prudent to inform residents in these 45

46 five streets to confirm whether or not they wish to be included within the boundary, as there may be concerns about displacement issues Cheylesmore East Like Earlsdon, while respondents have indicated a desire for a residents parking scheme, the low response rate means that just 17% of households have demonstrated support for the proposed scheme. Only one street (The Martyrs Close) has demonstrated a strong level of support (40%), with no street demonstrating support from a majority (i.e. over 50%) of households It is suggested that if CCC wishes to progress this scheme, they consider either re-consulting the entire area (stressing the importance of responding to the consultation) or progressing with a smaller scheme boundary focusing on the streets with the greatest support for the scheme and/or the most pronounced parking difficulties. 5.2 Next Steps The results in this report will be presented to Lead Member later this month and a decision will be taken on whether or not to proceed with the parking schemes. Any approved proposals would be advertised as Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) in early Objections received at this stage would be reviewed and accepted or rejected by member committee. Any finally approved proposals would be implemented from March 2014 onwards. Project number: Dated: 16/10/ Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.

47 Appendices

48 Appendix A: Consultation Material Project number: Dated: 16/10/2014 Revised:

49 Appendix B: Consultation Plots

50 WSP UK Limited Mountbatten House Basingstoke RG21 4HJ UK Tel: Fax: