Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources.

The Leader, Councillor Bialyk, presented the report.

During debate Councillor Wetenhall stated felt there had been a failure to consider alternatives to using the bus station as a car park. The space provided opportunity for a range of uses, and no discussion had been had with an interested party. Would like to note the failure to consider funding for the climate change team outside of building a car park.

Councillor Vizard agreed that this was the only idea that had been brought forward and came forward as part of budget discussions. The Net Zero Team were carrying out great work across a huge number of different areas. The report stated that there would be a loss of 500 parking spaces following the sale of the Mary Arches carpark, and this proposal would add 50 spaces. We do need to provide for business and make sure the city centre is accessible. He would like to see an alternative but at present it was lying empty.

Councillor Hughes welcomed the potential for accessible parking near St Sidwell’s Point as they had heard from the petitioners for Northbrook Pool that parking at SSP was an issue for them. It would be great if there were some disabled parking spaces;

Councillor Patrick considered this a pragmatic use of the space. Transitional processes were required whilst the public moved to active travel and public transport. This was a short term, temporary use and low cost to implement and did not prohibit other ideas for the future.

Councillor Moore raised that there was already a car park near the site and stated that in December 2024 the Executive agreed that in early 2025 a proposal would be brought forward for the development of this site. General Fund Report highlighted costs associated with the demolition of the bus station, roughly £46,000 spare. There was money available to turn it into a meanwhile use car park and meanwhile use gives up opportunity to explore other things on the site.

Councillor Ketchin asked if there was potential for different uses at weekends to week-day use.

Councillor Wright reiterated that she was an advocate for people and businesses in the city, who have concerns about the amount of parking in the city. Losing 500 parking spaces would have a knock-on effect on businesses in the city. She was not comfortable with the route taken by an interested party in raising their business plan.

Councillor Read raised her concern about using a car park to fund net zero. There was a car park nearby that wasn’t always full, and officer assessment said it was under capacity. There was no demonstrable need for another car park. Other councils such as Frome, and Barnstaple, have covered markets and she wondered why Exeter did not have one. Once the car park was established, there would be no way of guaranteeing that it would be a meanwhile use. If disabled spaces were needed, these should have been provided when SSP was built. She felt that there had not been enough scrutiny of this decision.

Councillor Holland stated his belief that there was an unmet demand for parking spaces in the centre and he hoped that this car park would be ready for use in time for the Christmas period. This was a golden opportunity to provide parking for those with disabilities to be able to use SSP.

Councillor Palmer spoke against the establishment of a car park at the former bus station. She stated that the ECC does brilliant work for the environment but this proposal would undo all the good work. People living in deprived areas had poor quality air, more pollution, and less access to green spaces and by building a car park at the former bus station this would be worsened. She stated that personally, if car parking spaces were such a concern perhaps Mary Arches car park should not have been sold.

Councillor Knott spoke in favour stating that the Council’s Estates Team did an excellent job at drawing-in additional revenue from spaces, and he referred to Matford, where the space was being used 7 days a week. He stated his belief that it was very much a meanwhile use and temporary. It would provide a safe space and allow the area to be developed properly in the long term.

Councillor Parkhouse spoke in support of the proposal but noted a contradiction regarding car parking but Net Zero was important to the council and this proposal put action on the table to fund this. It was also of note that the Council was heavily reliant on car parking revenue, and this would support the aims of the council.

In response the Leader made the following points:

• the site had been in its current state for over a year now;
• the £200,000 needed for the Net Zero team was identified by the Section 151 officer, no alternatives had been brought forward;
• Councillor Ketchin made a good suggestion regarding the multi-purpose use of the space;
• ECC was one of the few councils in Devon who did not charge blue badge holders for parking;
• there were major challenges in the city, but ECC were trying their best;
• all information regarding Northbrook would go to the Scrutiny meeting on 23 June, and all Portfolio Holders would be asked to attend;
• 35 spaces would be lost in Newtown to bring forward the Live and Move programme;
• the council wanted to encourage people into St Sidwell’s Point.

The Leader moved, seconded by Councillor Wright the recommendations and following a vote were CARRIED.

The meeting was paused at 19:54 and reconvened at 20:08