Agenda item

With reference to article 7 of the minute of its meeting of 16 January 2024,  the Committee had before it a report by the Executive Director – City Regeneration and Environment which advised on the outcomes of the Strategic Car Parking Review.

The report recommended:-

that the Committee –

(a)      note the outcomes of the updated Strategic Car Parking Review, as per Appendices 1 and 2; and

(b)      agree that the findings and recommendations of the Strategic Car Parking Review be considered in the development of the refreshed Local Transport Strategy and the Aberdeen Rapid Transit Outline Business Case.

During discussion of the report, there was mention of NHS Grampian, and the Convener stated for reasons of transparency that he was a member of NHS Grampian Board but did not consider that this required to be a declaration of interest and that he would be participating in the remainder of the item.

The Convener, seconded by the Vice Convener, moved the recommendations as set out in the report.

Councillor Tissera, seconded by Councillor Ali, moved as an amendment:-

that the Committee –

(a)      notes the report;

(b)      recognises that the Virtual Parking Permits system outlined within the report had benefits however those benefits were impractical for residents who do not have ready internet access because of the requirement to update registration details for every visiting vehicle, therefore instructs the Chief Officer - Governance to report back to Committee in the next six months with suggestions as to how these virtual parking permits can more fully benefit the whole community;

(c)      notes that the report highlights comparisons of parking charges across other local authorities which highlights Aberdeen parking permits for both residents and business were higher than 4 out of 5 of the other comparable Councils; and

(d)      notes the SNP administration’s continued delay in moving forward with a Strategic Car Parking Review and instructs the Chief Officer – Strategic Place Planning to report back to the Committee in the next six months on how the findings and recommendations of the Review could be taken forward in advance of the Local Transport Strategy development.   

Councillor Brooks, seconded by Councillor Nicoll, moved as a further amendment:-

that the Committee –

(a)      notes the report and its contents in relation to the Low Emission Zones (LEZ): “not significantly impacting on the city centre car park accessibility.”

(b)      notes that the report states the “the city centre traffic management changes do not preclude the ability for people to access car parks in the city centre.”

(c)      notes the visible reduction in footfall in the city centre and the reduced use of carparking facilities since the 5% administration increase in parking charges as part of the 2025 Budget process;

(d)      further notes that the Air Quality Annual Progress report (Table 2 in Item 9.10) shows that these features (LEZ and Traffic Management changes) are barely making any changes to the air quality; and

(e)      therefore, instructs the Chief Officer – Strategic Place Planning to report back to this Committee within the next six months on the options and implications of relaxing the Low Emission Zone and City Centre Bus Priority Measures at certain times of the day to increase footfall in the city centre. 

There being a motion and two amendments, the Committee first divided between the two amendments.

On a division, there voted:- for the amendment by Councillor Tissera (2) – Councillors Ali and Tissera; for the amendment by Councillor Brooks (2) – Councillors Brooks and Nicoll; declined to vote (5) – the Convener, Vice Convener and Councillors Henrickson, Hutchison and van Sweeden.

As there was a tied vote, in terms of Standing Order 32.7, the Convener had the casting vote, however in terms of Standing Order 32.7.1, the Convener chose not to exercise his casting vote, therefore the Clerk advised that a lot would be drawn to decide the outcome of the tied vote. Following which, the amendment by Councillor Brooks was successful and would be put to the vote against the motion.

On a division, there voted:- for the motion (5) – the Convener, Vice Convener; and Councillors Henrickson, Hutchison and van Sweeden; for the amendment by Councillor Brooks (2) – Councillors Brooks and Councillor Nicoll; declined to vote (2) – Councillors Ali and Tissera.

The Committee resolved:-

to adopt the motion.