Green councillors reacted angrily to the discovery that the Council took five years to act on a petition for a residents' parking scheme.

The scheme for 400 houses in the Heslington Road area, was put to a residents' vote. The five years' delay is in spite of a pledge in 2003 (when ResPark charges were doubled) that the additional funding would enable all existing requests from across the city to be investigated within the following twelve months.

I spoke to residents who were incandescent that the scheme proposed to remove half of existing parking from most of the streets affected in order to comply with the formula for road widths agreed with the Fire and Rescue Service.

If only the officers had talked to us before drawing up these plans they could have saved their time and council money - it's so obviously a non starter. Even the person who collected signatures for the petition in favour of ResPark in 2003 told me she has voted against the scheme proposed. ResPark is supposed to stop commuters and tourists parking in residential streets but no one will vote for a scheme which would remove half the parking. If it takes five years for the Council to propose a scheme that is not viable, then the whole process needs an overhaul. It is simply not fit for purpose.

My colleague Cllr. D'Agorne wants an investigation of how the additional ResPark money was spent. A similar scheme proposed for Grange Garth/Grange St in 2004 was aborted after residents rejected the plan. This also would have meant a massive reduction in on-street parking and was circulated without prior consultation with ward councillors. ResPark was a great idea when Labour introduced it but it is less popular now because of the restrictions and the high cost. This is a shame because the parking chaos continues to cause aggrovation for the residents of these areas.

We also support residents' objections to the fact that only one person per household was permitted to vote in the ballot. Everyone on the electoral register in the area should get a ballot paper, as couples may hold differing views and otherwise people in houses of multiple occupation may be disenfranchised.