The Cardiff Council's Environmental Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the City Parking Plan and the 9th Local Development Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). Councillors discussed the details of the parking plan, including concerns about the implementation timeline, surcharges for certain vehicles, and the impact on commuters and residents. The committee also reviewed the AMR, noting progress in job creation and housing completion, while raising questions about affordable housing, greenfield site development, and accommodations for Gypsy and Traveller communities.

City Parking Plan

The committee deliberated on the final City Parking Plan before it goes to cabinet, focusing on the principles of the policy and its practical implementation. Councillor Dan Deyaf, Cabinet Member, Climate Change, Strategic Planning and Transport, summarised the plan's core as allowing residents to park anywhere on their street and nearby zones, while non-residents would face a two-hour limit in non-restricted bays, with new permits available for those needing longer parking.

Key points of discussion included:

• Consultation Feedback: Chris Hansen, Principal Engineer, Transport, Vision Policy and Strategy, noted that the consultation received almost 6,500 responses, with 54% overall support for rolling out parking zones across the city. There was also support for 24-hour parking controls in permit bays in the city core, as well as for professional carer permits, personal carer permits, tradesman's permits, daily visitor permits, and a surcharge for large vehicles.
• Objectives: The plan aims to support the transport strategy, manage parking and curb space, support residents and local businesses, and ensure parking charges cover administration of the schemes.
• Zonal Structure: The proposal includes a zonal structure with three types of parking management areas: the core city centre, the inner area (historical central parking area), and the outer area.
• Permit Amendments: Amendments were made to the initial permit proposals based on consultation feedback, including retaining the hourly visitor permit option, opening up business permits for operational vehicles, and introducing a new student parking permit.
• Implementation Timeline: Councillor Mike Ash-Edwards raised concerns about the 10-year implementation period, which he felt was too long given the urgency of the issues.
• Vehicle Surcharges: Councillor Ash-Edwards also requested more information on the charges for large and polluting vehicles. Councillor Deyaf clarified that the surcharge would be based on weight, targeting heavy, American-style cars, and that the exact charge amount was still under consideration. Councillor John Lancaster, Leader of the Conservative Group, disagreed with the safety aspect of the surcharges, arguing that larger cars generally have higher Euro NCAP ratings and are safer in crashes.
• Student Permits: Councillor Lancaster raised concerns about students needing vehicles for placements, suggesting modifications to the student parking permit restrictions. Councillor Deyaf responded that the changes would not apply city-wide initially, and that the policy would be reviewed regularly.
• Cost and Income: In response to Councillor Lancaster's question about costs, it was clarified that the plan was not primarily for income generation, and any additional income would be ring-fenced for transport projects.
• Business Permits: Councillor Bob Derbyshire asked if business permits would include owners' cars parked outside their shops. Chris Hansen clarified that the permits were intended for operational vehicles, not for commuting.
• Commuter Impact: Councillor Daniel Waldron raised concerns about the impact on commuters and the need for supporting transport infrastructure. Councillor Deyaf responded that the plan would be implemented over a 10-year period, during which public transport options would improve.
• Enforcement: Councillor Andrea Gibson asked how the success of the zones would be monitored and how displacement of parking would be addressed. Chris Hansen explained that the zonal nature would help, and that comments would be reviewed and surveys conducted.
• Smart Cities Initiative: In response to a question from the Cardiff and Vale Residents Association, it was confirmed that the zones would not be linked to the Smart Cities Initiative or involve camera monitoring of movement.

9th Local Development Plan Annual Monitoring Report

The committee considered the 9th Local Development Plan (LDP) Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), which highlights progress over the last year and assesses progress against a number of indicators. Councillor Jeff, did not make a lengthy statement, but did mention that the information gathered was heavily informed of the RLDP.

Key findings and discussion points:

• Overall Progress: Stuart Williams, Group Leader Policy, reported that 82 of the 107 indicators were green, indicating positive implementation of policies, while 25 were yellow, indicating areas needing improvement.
• Employment Data: There has been an increase of 24,000 jobs since the first AMR in 2016, meeting the LDP target for 44,000 jobs during a 20-year plan period.
• Transportation Data: There has been a 1% increase in sustainable modes of transport over the year, up to 53% against a target of 50%.
• Housing Completions: 1,480 homes were completed last year, with over 2,000 homes under construction. Since 2016, over 2,800 new build affordable homes have been completed, representing 23% of all homes.
• Greenfield vs. Brownfield Sites: Councillor Gibson asked why greenfield sites were not progressing as fast as brownfield sites. Andrew Gregory, Director, Planning, Transport and Environment, explained the complexities of developing greenfield sites and the impact of new legislation and economic conditions.
• Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation: The replacement deposit plan identifies a temporary site at Penguin Green for 80 pitches to meet the need for 117 pitches in the city. The council has recently purchased the site and is planning a master plan exercise. Councillor Gibson asked about the possibility of the temporary site becoming permanent. Andrew Gregory explained the complexities of the land and the need for further assessments. Councillor Waldron asked about the timescale for the master plan and how well it would address the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities. Stuart Williams stated that the long-term need to 2036 is 117 pitches, and the site at Penguin Green will deliver 80 pitches, meeting the short-term need.
• Housing Targets: Councillor Darbyshire asked how the deficit in housing completions would be addressed in the new LDP. Stuart Williams explained that the sites would be rolled forward into the new LDP.
• Affordable Housing: Martha Lewis, Youth Council Representative, asked if the 23% of completed housing being affordable housing had reached the proposal set out for affordable housing, and if there were currently more affordable housing projects underway. Stuart Williams clarified that the LDP had a target for 6,646 affordable homes between 2016 and 2026, and that the lag in housing sites coming forward had affected the delivery of affordable homes.
• Economic Growth: Councillor Lancaster questioned whether using house building as a way of economic growth was overstated, given that job creation had exceeded targets while housing completion had not. Andrew Gregory clarified that the LDP supports growth by providing stability and a long-term view, but that job growth is largely private sector driven.
• Social Housing: Councillor Lancaster also asked why the rate of completion of social housing lags behind the rate of completion of private housing. Andrew Gregory explained that the development system in the UK requires private sector housing to be built first to generate funding for affordable housing and infrastructure.