Disabled Parking Bay Outside Homes Proposed For Blue Badge Holders

Blue Badge holders in Wrexham may soon be able to apply for a designated disabled parking space outside their home.

The proposals to introduce the new parking measures for Blue Badge holders were put forward by the Labour Group as part of a ‘Notice of Motion’ submitted to Full Council.

The motion put before the Council said: “The Council calls on the Executive Board to consider adopting a Disabled Parking at Home Policy within the electoral term of office of this Council and in line with enforceable policies adopted by Leicestershire County Council and Portsmouth City Council, thus prioritising the most vulnerable residents within our communities.”

Under the proposals blue badge holders across the County Borough would be able to apply for a disabled parking space / bay outside, or near to their home.

Speaking at yesterday’s meeting, Leader of the Labour Group, Cllr Dana Davies said the motion had been brought to Full Council as ‘all 52 members should have a voice on the issues that directly affect people in our communities’.

She said: “When researching this what was shocking to me is that I could visualise many of the residents that this policy would help and see their faces and how this would benefit them in their day to day lives.

“We have close to 9,000 blue badge holders in this county who have disabilities and mobility issues. Many are at risk of social isolation as they experience difficulty in getting from their home and to their car and back.”

Cllr Davies added: “Many councils from south to north have adopted the policy thats why just two listed in the motion. The policy allows anyone who is a holder of a blue badge disk to make an application to the council for a disabled parking bay outside their home or close to it.

“It is self financing. There is a fee on application and if that application is successful there is a fee on the bay outside the home.

“We feel this shouldn’t be income generation for this council. The fee should reflect the cost of the unit of the disabled parking bay outside the home.

However there were calls for such proposals to go through the scrutiny process first before going before the Executive Board for a final decision.

Cllr David Griffiths, who is disabled said the proposal ‘needs looking at properly so it covers all angles’.

He added: “I support what the idea is, but think it needs full and proper scrutiny and I don’t think the Executive Board can do this.”

Cllr Rob Walsh also proposed the matter was discussed by scrutiny, noting it would be important to know what the Highways and Social Services department thought before such policy was enforced.

An amendment to the motion was put forward by Council Leader, Mark Pritchard, who proposed that the ‘relevant Scrutiny Committee be requested to consider potential development of such a policy prior to any reference to the Executive Board’.

Cllr Pritchard added: I am surprised to see the motion in front of us. The reason why is we have a very good track record in this authority of when we roll out policy, they go through scrutiny and are meticulously scrutinised them to make sure they are fit for purpose.

“We have improved the scrutiny process by supporting a topic request form. I feel that’s the way this debate and discussion should go.

It is a very difficult area for us to get right. We need to take the politics out of this and deliver a policy which is fit for purpose for the disabled people within Wrexham and beyond.”

But Cllr Davies questioned the role of scrutiny with regards to the proposals put forward, saying: “There is a lot of policy on this Council that doesn’t get scrutinised.

“We feel the scrutiny process would add delay to a process that would benefit people the minute it is introduced. It demonstrates what we are trying to achieve in our council plan and we need to put that into action.”

She added: “The Executive Board make a decision on what is policy. Why can’t we refer to the Executive Board for them to consider adopting the policy?”

Cllr Pritchard’s amendment was backed by councillors, with 32 councillors supporting that the proposals go before scrutiny. Three councillors voted against the amendment eight abstained form the vote.