Agenda and minutes

There were no disclosable pecuniary interests.

(a)  To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 11^th March 2026

(b)  Matters Arising

The minutes of the meeting held on 11^th March 2026 were agreed and signed as a true record. There were no matters arising.

Report of the Interim Director of Economic Growth

The objectors and supporters have been invited to attend the meeting

Variation 14 to the City of Coventry Consolidation Order 2016, contains numerous changes to the current parking restrictions. These changes comprise new restrictions and amendments to existing restrictions affecting 43 streets and were advertised on 11th December 2025.

5 objections were received, which related to 4 proposals.  There were also 15 responses of support in relation to two proposals.  Objectors have been contacted as per the legislative framework and, as a result, 2 objections have been withdrawn.

Coventry City Council’s procedure for dealing with objections to the making of Traffic Regulation Orders is to submit a report to the Cabinet Member for City Services so that a decision on how to proceed can be made.

The cost of introducing the proposals, if approved, will be funded from the Local Network Improvement Plan allocation from the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS)

Having considered the issues raised by the objectors, together with the contents of the report, the Cabinet Member supported the proposed waiting restrictions as detailed in Variation 14.

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member for City Services:

1)  Considered the Objections to the proposed Waiting Restrictions.

2)  Subject to Recommendation (1) above, approve the proposals for Acacia Avenue (St Michaels Ward) and Shire Close (Longford Ward) be implemented as originally proposed.

3)  Subject to Recommendation (1) above, approve that the proposal for Chester Street (Sherbourne Ward) be abandoned in its entirety.

4)  Subject to Recommendation (1) above, approve that the proposals for Rowington Close (Sherbourne Ward) be abandoned in their entirety and that a new proposal is determined be advertised as part of the upcoming Variation 15 proposals.

5)  Noted that proposals within Variation 14 which received no objections will be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme of delegation.

Report of the Interim Director of Economic Growth

To consider the above petition bearing 80 signatures. The Petition Organiser has been invited to the meeting for consideration of the item.

The Cabinet Member for City Services considered a report of the Interim Director of Economic Growth, that responded to a petition requesting that the Council require Costco to take measures to prevent vehicle queues from their car park extending onto the A45. The Petition Organiser attended the meeting on behalf of the petitioners. A representative from Costco also attended on the companies’ behalf.

The petition contained 80 signatures and in accordance with the City Council’s procedure for dealing with petitions, those related to road safety were heard by the Cabinet Member for City Services. The Cabinet Member had considered the petition in advance of the meeting and requested that the petition be dealt with by Determination Letter rather than a formal report being submitted to a meeting of Cabinet Member for City Services. The Petition Organiser subsequently requested that a report be submitted to a meeting.

The determination letter outlined actions already underway, including agreed mitigation measures with Costco and improvements to lane markings approaching the car park to support traffic flow. Whilst the additional measures requested through the petition were noted, including pre?booked entry slots and penalties for non?compliance; these could not be enforced by the Council. However, officers would continue to work with Costco to manage traffic and minimise queues extending onto the A45. Petitioners’ suggestions were to be shared with Costco for consideration.

The Petition Organiser spoke in support of the petition and raised their concerns, including:

• That a significant proportion of the Costco clientele were not residents of Torrington Avenue or the immediate area.
• That Christmas and international events that significantly increased traffic were regular and, in some cases, predictable and should not be used as excuses as they can be prepared for.
• That monitoring needs to continue long term and cannot be halted once the petition debate closes.
• That issues arise not only for those going to Costco as the traffic spreads it causes safety issues and obstructions in surrounding roads.
• Although petitioners appreciate Costco’s effort and engagement, there is clearly more effective methods Costco won’t implement as it would negatively impact their profit.

Officers and the representative from Costco responded to questions, concerns and queries as follows:

• That Costco recognised the disruption, and increased traffic would likely remain for the foreseeable future, and their strategy would be calibrated accordingly with a long-term approach.
• There were limits to Costco and the Councils powers that prevented and slowed certain solutions, however there were more long-term strategies and engagement, particularly with West Midlands Police, that would provide solutions further down the line.
• There are ongoing discussions to secure offsite parking that could provide significant alleviation to the traffic issues.
• Better signage and internal policing were being implemented, and this is expected to improve traffic management and address driver behaviour issues.
• That officers will liaise with the petition organiser and his existing links within the community to communicate updates to the community.
• That Costco staff face abuse and risk injury from careless driving and angry customers,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Report of the Interim Director of Economic Growth

To consider the above petition bearing 125 signatures. The Petition Organiser has been invited to attend the meeting for consideration of the item.

The Cabinet Member for City Services considered a report of the Interim Director of Economic Growth, that responded to a petition requesting that waiting restrictions be introduced on advisory disabled bays. The Petition Organiser did not attend the meeting in support of their case but asked that a statement be read on their behalf.

The petition contained 125 signatures and in accordance with the City Council’s procedure for dealing with petitions, those related to road safety were heard by the Cabinet Member for City Services. The Cabinet Member had considered the petition in advance of the meeting and requested that the petition be dealt with by Determination Letter rather than a formal report being submitted to a meeting of Cabinet Member for City Services. The Petition Organiser subsequently requested that a report be submitted to a meeting.

The determination letter advised that on-street residential disabled bays are installed as an advisory marking, as it allows the bay to be installed without the need for a formal Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This allows the Council to introduce them much more quickly and at significantly lower cost than mandatory disabled bays introduced by order.

While advisory bays rely on public cooperation rather than enforcement, they are widely respected and effective in most locations. Introducing them quickly often provides immediate relief to residents who would otherwise wait many months or years for a formal bay.

Introducing enforcement would require converting advisory bays into mandatory bays, which involves a full legal TRO process and additional signing and road markings. However, recognising the concerns raised in this petition, the Council will continue to promote public awareness that advisory disabled bays are installed for residents with genuine mobility needs, review locations where misuse is persistent and consider whether a formal TRO may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances, working with residents to assess alternative or additional parking solutions where advisory bays are proving ineffective.

The objector’s statement was read in full. Officer responded that they believed their approach would not put restrictions on parking and instead offered a balanced and proportionate solution. Their aim was to strike a balance by delivering at scale but still providing a tailored solution on a case by case basis.

The Cabinet Member for City Services suggested a focus on the district centres going forward.

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member for City Services:

1)  Noted the petitioners’ concerns.

2)  Endorse the actions which have been agreed and set out in the determination letter to the petition organiser as detailed in paragraph 2 of the report.

Report of the Interim Director of Economic Growth

The Cabinet Member for City Services considered a report of the Director of Regeneration and Economy in respect of petitions received relating to the portfolio of the Cabinet Member.

In June 2015, amendments to the Petitions Scheme, which formed part of the Constitution, were approved in order to provide flexibility and streamline current practice. This change had reduced costs and bureaucracy and improved the service to the public. These amendments allowed for a petition to be dealt with or responded to by letter without being formally presented in a report to a Cabinet Member meeting.

In light of this, at the meeting of the Cabinet Member (formerly Cabinet Member for Public Services) on 15 March 2016, it was approved that a summary of those petitions received which were determined by letter, or where decisions were deferred pending further investigations, be reported to subsequent meetings of the Cabinet Member, where appropriate, for monitoring and transparency purposes.

Appendix A to the report set out petitions received and how officers proposed to respond to them.

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member for City Services endorses the actions being taken by officers as set out in Section 2 and Appendix A of the report, in response to the petitions received.

There are no outstanding issues

There were no outstanding issues.

Any other items of public business which the Cabinet Member decides to take as matters of urgency because of the special circumstances involved

There was no other public business.