Portsmouth City Borough Council
Councillors:
42
Wards:
14
Committees:
37
Meetings (2026):
11
Meetings (2025):
117
Meeting
Cabinet Member for Transport - Portsmouth City
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 19th June 2025
4:00 PM
Thursday, 19th June 2025
4:00 PM
End:
Thursday, 19th June 2025
8:00 PM
Thursday, 19th June 2025
8:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
19 Jun 2025
19 Jun 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - The Guildhall, Portsmouth
Council Chamber - The Guildhall, Portsmouth
Meeting Attendees
Opposition spokesperson
Group Leader
Opposition spokesperson
Cabinet Member
Cabinet Member for Transport
Opposition spokesperson
Deputy Group Leader
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
There were no apologies for absence.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
3
TRO P012 - 25: Proposed Bus Stops, Southsea Terrace
Purpose
To consider the public response to the proposed parking restrictions in two locations in Portsmouth, and to determine whether or not the proposals should be brought into effect.
RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member
1. Approves the introduction new bus stop clearways along the South and North side of Southsea Terrace;
2. Notes that any proposals approved following this report will be brought into operation under TRO P012 - 25.
To consider the public response to the proposed parking restrictions in two locations in Portsmouth, and to determine whether or not the proposals should be brought into effect.
RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member
1. Approves the introduction new bus stop clearways along the South and North side of Southsea Terrace;
2. Notes that any proposals approved following this report will be brought into operation under TRO P012 - 25.
Attachments:
- Document TRO P012 - 25: Proposed Bus Stops, Southsea Terrace 11 Jun 2025
Minutes
Lisa Cook, Passenger Transport Manager, introduced the report.
Councillor Candlish read out a deputation from Marc Reddy, Managing Director, Stagecoach, who was unable to attend the meeting, in favour of the proposal. Councillor Candlish said that ideally deputations should be in person but he would consider requests for them to be read out on a case-by-case basis. Written comments could usually be submitted in advance as part of the TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) process.
In response to questions from members, officers explained they could not start a consultation on a replacement disabled parking bay before today's meeting as it could seem as if the decision was pre-determined. If the proposal was approved officers would start work on the consultation, which was usually for 21 days, to take place as soon as possible, and then consider next steps. There was no data on how much the bay was used.
The majority of businesses in the area had responded positively to the proposal, especially those accessed by public transport. A number of objections were not against the proposed bus stop itself but more about loss of the disabled parking space. Councillor Heaney had received an email from a resident making the same point.
Barbara Thomas, TRO Team Lead, explained that "general purpose" disabled bays were intended for any Blue Badge holder; "residential" Disabled bays were primarily intended for use by a nearby resident, although can be used by any Blue Badge holder. Officers were looking to relocate the general purpose disabled bay in the locality. They recommended that if a disabled resident required a disabled bay for their own use, that they make an application. If the application was approved the proposed disabled bay would be advertised as part of a disabled bays TRO. TROs for disabled bays were processed about six to eight times a year and if there were no objections they would be implemented as soon as practicable. Any objections would be considered at a portfolio meeting. A general purpose disabled bay could be added to a "various roads" waiting restrictions TRO or prioritised as a standalone TRO.
With regard to road safety and visibility concerns, officers had carried out a safety assessment and were quite satisfied with the proposed location. They would always consider standard safety concerns before proceeding with proposals. Officers noted that disabled people were more likely to use bus services and a stop in this particular location was a mitigating factor as it increased access to the seafront for disabled people.
Summing up, Councillor Candlish noted that many comments related to the pressure on parking, which would be particularly acute this summer because of space taken up by work on the sea defences. However, he supported the proposal as it improved access to the bus network, especially for elderly and disabled people. It was a trade-off in an area where parking was a real issue. However, once the bus stop was implemented there could be a consultation on parking. He noted that access to kerb space was a theme of today's meeting.
DECISIONS
The Cabinet Member:
1. Approved the introduction new bus stop clearways along the South and North side of Southsea Terrace;
2. Noted that any proposals approved following this report will be brought into operation under TRO P012 - 25.
Councillor Candlish read out a deputation from Marc Reddy, Managing Director, Stagecoach, who was unable to attend the meeting, in favour of the proposal. Councillor Candlish said that ideally deputations should be in person but he would consider requests for them to be read out on a case-by-case basis. Written comments could usually be submitted in advance as part of the TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) process.
In response to questions from members, officers explained they could not start a consultation on a replacement disabled parking bay before today's meeting as it could seem as if the decision was pre-determined. If the proposal was approved officers would start work on the consultation, which was usually for 21 days, to take place as soon as possible, and then consider next steps. There was no data on how much the bay was used.
The majority of businesses in the area had responded positively to the proposal, especially those accessed by public transport. A number of objections were not against the proposed bus stop itself but more about loss of the disabled parking space. Councillor Heaney had received an email from a resident making the same point.
Barbara Thomas, TRO Team Lead, explained that "general purpose" disabled bays were intended for any Blue Badge holder; "residential" Disabled bays were primarily intended for use by a nearby resident, although can be used by any Blue Badge holder. Officers were looking to relocate the general purpose disabled bay in the locality. They recommended that if a disabled resident required a disabled bay for their own use, that they make an application. If the application was approved the proposed disabled bay would be advertised as part of a disabled bays TRO. TROs for disabled bays were processed about six to eight times a year and if there were no objections they would be implemented as soon as practicable. Any objections would be considered at a portfolio meeting. A general purpose disabled bay could be added to a "various roads" waiting restrictions TRO or prioritised as a standalone TRO.
With regard to road safety and visibility concerns, officers had carried out a safety assessment and were quite satisfied with the proposed location. They would always consider standard safety concerns before proceeding with proposals. Officers noted that disabled people were more likely to use bus services and a stop in this particular location was a mitigating factor as it increased access to the seafront for disabled people.
Summing up, Councillor Candlish noted that many comments related to the pressure on parking, which would be particularly acute this summer because of space taken up by work on the sea defences. However, he supported the proposal as it improved access to the bus network, especially for elderly and disabled people. It was a trade-off in an area where parking was a real issue. However, once the bus stop was implemented there could be a consultation on parking. He noted that access to kerb space was a theme of today's meeting.
DECISIONS
The Cabinet Member:
1. Approved the introduction new bus stop clearways along the South and North side of Southsea Terrace;
2. Noted that any proposals approved following this report will be brought into operation under TRO P012 - 25.
4
Electric Vehicle On-street Residential Chargepoint Scheme (ORCS): Parking proposals under TRO 1/2025
Purpose
To consider the public responses to the statutory public consultation with regards to TRO 1/2025, proposed designated electric vehicle charging bays in 59 locations.
RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member
1. Approves the implementation of Electric Vehicle charging bays (EV bays) as advertised in Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Reference P044/1-2024, with the exception of the following:
1.1 EV bays proposed outside 55 Kirby Road and 74 Inhurst Road, which are recommended not to proceed; and
1.2 EV bay proposed adjacent to Lamp Column No 8 in Locarno Road, which is recommended to be relocated 0.5 metres eastwards from the position proposed.
To consider the public responses to the statutory public consultation with regards to TRO 1/2025, proposed designated electric vehicle charging bays in 59 locations.
RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member
1. Approves the implementation of Electric Vehicle charging bays (EV bays) as advertised in Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Reference P044/1-2024, with the exception of the following:
1.1 EV bays proposed outside 55 Kirby Road and 74 Inhurst Road, which are recommended not to proceed; and
1.2 EV bay proposed adjacent to Lamp Column No 8 in Locarno Road, which is recommended to be relocated 0.5 metres eastwards from the position proposed.
Attachments:
- Document Electric Vehicle On-Street Residential Chargepoint Scheme (ORCS): Parking proposals under TRO 1/2025 11 Jun 2025
- Document Appendix A - Draft Traffic Regulation Order 11 Jun 2025
- Document Appendix B - Integrated Impact Assessment 11 Jun 2025
- Document Appendix C - Consultation report on TRO 11 Jun 2025
- Document Electric Vehicle On-Street Residential Chargepoint Scheme: Addendum 11 Jun 2025
Minutes
Bethan Clemence, Transport Delivery Manager, introduced the report and outlined the 222 objections to electronic vehicle (EV) charging bays that had been received together with officers' responses. She drew attention to the addendum which had been published on 18 June as a supplementary agenda. The title had been amended so that the reference number was the same as the legal draft order so there would be no misinterpretation. There was an additional recommendation that five of the proposed chargepoint locations did not proceed as they warranted further investigation. This was because since publication it was realised that kerbside infrastructure needed to be at least five metres from junctions to allow for safety, functionality and compliance with the Highway Code. There were also some amendments for clarification.
Councillor Bosher was concerned that publishing the addendum in the afternoon (12.18 pm) of 18 June affected democracy as deputations had to be made by midday of the working day before the meeting. Therefore, if someone had wanted to make deputation they could not have done so. Officers should be mindful in such situations as the council could be challenged.
In response to concerns that the cost of charging EVs was very expensive at 63p per kilowatt hour (kwh) and could deter people from using them, Councillor Candlish said it was dangerous to give a specific rate as it was subject to market forces. The aim was to be at an appropriate level with similar charging devices; the council was not aiming to be a price leader nor a price cutter. Officers were working with Zest (the chargepoint scheme operator) to have a charge of 49p per kwh.
Officers explained that several factors had to be taken into account when choosing possible chargepoint locations. Although resident requests for a chargepoint were part and parcel of identifying locations, along with technical factors, the main factor was reducing the impact on general parking by placing locations at the end of roads. If a resident who had requested an EV chargepoint was found to have off-street parking the request would be rejected. It should be noted that EV bays did not belong to a particular resident.
As a result of members' queries, officers agreed to investigate two of the proposed locations in case they had off-street parking and were therefore ineligible for a chargepoint:
· Next to 1 King Arthur's Court, on Copsey Close
· Next to Arabella Court, on Thurbern Road
In response to questions about enforcement, officers were trying to find the information by looking at the number of penalty charge notices issued for misuse of bays. With regard to "fake charging" (where a vehicle looks as if it is charging but is just using the parking space), the Parking Enforcement Team (PET) were doing spot checks, for example, to see how often a car was plugged in and charging. Zest machines made an automated annoying beeping noise if a car was plugged in and not charging so residents could either contact the council or Zest directly and the PET would go out. Officers acknowledged there were issues but said they would be fewer when people realised they could not get away with misusing EV bays.
Councillor Candlish said EVs were a significant change and had moved from the pioneer stage to mass adoption. The city would have to learn to deal with them. Councillors could perhaps educate residents on EV usage. Members agreed there would be a tipping point as EV usage increased. With regard to the five-metre rule, the increasing number of TROs showed that more consistency was needed across the city, especially when there was more kerbside infrastructure like Voi bike and scooter stands. Initially there would be a light touch internal review and then perhaps a more formal consultation might be needed. The issue had reached a peak, causing the council to take action.
Members thought the layout of the report meant it was difficult linking schemes to roads and could perhaps be easier to follow with objections related to specific roads. Officers explained there would be a TRO consultation on the next batch of chargepoints, including those postponed from the current batch. It was not known yet which chargepoints would be replaced.
In response to concerns that there could be dangerous obstructions in very narrow roads, particularly those modified to allow parking with two wheels on the pavement, officers said they had to obtain certain permissions to check suitability, then looked at possible locations and then created batches of proposed locations. In the current batch one road was tight but none of them had pavement parking.
Officers said some chargepoints accepted payment by debit or credit card and others used apps, depending on the infrastructure. Larger ones usually accepted contactless payment. Members thought this information would be useful for FAQs on the council's website.
Councillor Candlish read out points from a deputation by Maxine Jennings-Patrick against the proposed chargepoint in Laburnum Grove and reiterated that written deputations should be encouraged as part of the TRO process; otherwise meetings could be very long. Summing up, he said there was strong evidence of growing demand for EVs and overall the council supported the programme. About one in 25 cars was an EV and the figure was expected to be one in seven by 2030. Alternative solutions like frames for keeping leads off pavements might be needed. Funding had been granted for the ORCS project so unfortunately money had to come from a separate pot for chargepoints in locations like schools. Residents' biggest concern was about parking. However, there was a ministerial direction to improve air quality and care was taken to find the best on-street locations for chargepoints. Any measure could be discriminatory, for example, cycle lanes discriminated in favour of cyclists. He accepted the challenge and realised there might be a negative impact on individual residents but it was the right thing for the city.
Councillor Candlish apologised for the short notice of the addendum. However, there would be an opportunity to comment on the deferred locations and there had also been the opportunity to comment on the general programme. The council was constantly learning as the programme progressed. It was looking to encourage EV use but with regard to costs if an external organisation was investing they needed to see returns.
DECISIONS
The Cabinet Member:
Approved the implementation of Electric Vehicle charging bays (EV bays) as advertised in Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Reference P044/1-2024, with the exception of the following:
1. EV bays proposed outside 55 Kirby Road and 74 Inhurst Road, which are recommended not to proceed;
2. EV bay proposed adjacent to Lamp Column No 8 in Locarno Road, which is recommended to be relocated 0.5 metres eastwards from the position proposed.
3. EV bays proposed at the following locations which are recommended not to proceed:
· Next to 138 Laburnum Grove, on Burlington Road
· Next to 8 Monckton Road, on Dartmouth Road
· Next to 120 Kensington Road, on Domum Road
· Next to 59 Inhurst Road, on Randolph Road
· Next to 20 Monckton Road, on Vernon Road
· Next to 1 King Arthur's Court, on Copsey Close
· Next to Arabella Court, on Thurbern Road
Councillor Bosher was concerned that publishing the addendum in the afternoon (12.18 pm) of 18 June affected democracy as deputations had to be made by midday of the working day before the meeting. Therefore, if someone had wanted to make deputation they could not have done so. Officers should be mindful in such situations as the council could be challenged.
In response to concerns that the cost of charging EVs was very expensive at 63p per kilowatt hour (kwh) and could deter people from using them, Councillor Candlish said it was dangerous to give a specific rate as it was subject to market forces. The aim was to be at an appropriate level with similar charging devices; the council was not aiming to be a price leader nor a price cutter. Officers were working with Zest (the chargepoint scheme operator) to have a charge of 49p per kwh.
Officers explained that several factors had to be taken into account when choosing possible chargepoint locations. Although resident requests for a chargepoint were part and parcel of identifying locations, along with technical factors, the main factor was reducing the impact on general parking by placing locations at the end of roads. If a resident who had requested an EV chargepoint was found to have off-street parking the request would be rejected. It should be noted that EV bays did not belong to a particular resident.
As a result of members' queries, officers agreed to investigate two of the proposed locations in case they had off-street parking and were therefore ineligible for a chargepoint:
· Next to 1 King Arthur's Court, on Copsey Close
· Next to Arabella Court, on Thurbern Road
In response to questions about enforcement, officers were trying to find the information by looking at the number of penalty charge notices issued for misuse of bays. With regard to "fake charging" (where a vehicle looks as if it is charging but is just using the parking space), the Parking Enforcement Team (PET) were doing spot checks, for example, to see how often a car was plugged in and charging. Zest machines made an automated annoying beeping noise if a car was plugged in and not charging so residents could either contact the council or Zest directly and the PET would go out. Officers acknowledged there were issues but said they would be fewer when people realised they could not get away with misusing EV bays.
Councillor Candlish said EVs were a significant change and had moved from the pioneer stage to mass adoption. The city would have to learn to deal with them. Councillors could perhaps educate residents on EV usage. Members agreed there would be a tipping point as EV usage increased. With regard to the five-metre rule, the increasing number of TROs showed that more consistency was needed across the city, especially when there was more kerbside infrastructure like Voi bike and scooter stands. Initially there would be a light touch internal review and then perhaps a more formal consultation might be needed. The issue had reached a peak, causing the council to take action.
Members thought the layout of the report meant it was difficult linking schemes to roads and could perhaps be easier to follow with objections related to specific roads. Officers explained there would be a TRO consultation on the next batch of chargepoints, including those postponed from the current batch. It was not known yet which chargepoints would be replaced.
In response to concerns that there could be dangerous obstructions in very narrow roads, particularly those modified to allow parking with two wheels on the pavement, officers said they had to obtain certain permissions to check suitability, then looked at possible locations and then created batches of proposed locations. In the current batch one road was tight but none of them had pavement parking.
Officers said some chargepoints accepted payment by debit or credit card and others used apps, depending on the infrastructure. Larger ones usually accepted contactless payment. Members thought this information would be useful for FAQs on the council's website.
Councillor Candlish read out points from a deputation by Maxine Jennings-Patrick against the proposed chargepoint in Laburnum Grove and reiterated that written deputations should be encouraged as part of the TRO process; otherwise meetings could be very long. Summing up, he said there was strong evidence of growing demand for EVs and overall the council supported the programme. About one in 25 cars was an EV and the figure was expected to be one in seven by 2030. Alternative solutions like frames for keeping leads off pavements might be needed. Funding had been granted for the ORCS project so unfortunately money had to come from a separate pot for chargepoints in locations like schools. Residents' biggest concern was about parking. However, there was a ministerial direction to improve air quality and care was taken to find the best on-street locations for chargepoints. Any measure could be discriminatory, for example, cycle lanes discriminated in favour of cyclists. He accepted the challenge and realised there might be a negative impact on individual residents but it was the right thing for the city.
Councillor Candlish apologised for the short notice of the addendum. However, there would be an opportunity to comment on the deferred locations and there had also been the opportunity to comment on the general programme. The council was constantly learning as the programme progressed. It was looking to encourage EV use but with regard to costs if an external organisation was investing they needed to see returns.
DECISIONS
The Cabinet Member:
Approved the implementation of Electric Vehicle charging bays (EV bays) as advertised in Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Reference P044/1-2024, with the exception of the following:
1. EV bays proposed outside 55 Kirby Road and 74 Inhurst Road, which are recommended not to proceed;
2. EV bay proposed adjacent to Lamp Column No 8 in Locarno Road, which is recommended to be relocated 0.5 metres eastwards from the position proposed.
3. EV bays proposed at the following locations which are recommended not to proceed:
· Next to 138 Laburnum Grove, on Burlington Road
· Next to 8 Monckton Road, on Dartmouth Road
· Next to 120 Kensington Road, on Domum Road
· Next to 59 Inhurst Road, on Randolph Road
· Next to 20 Monckton Road, on Vernon Road
· Next to 1 King Arthur's Court, on Copsey Close
· Next to Arabella Court, on Thurbern Road
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in