Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We are joined by Ms Laura Irvine, head of parking policy in the Department for Infrastructure (DFI), and Mr Mark White, who is from the Department's parking policy team.

Are members agreed that the evidence be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Laura and Mark, you are welcome to the Committee. We appreciate your taking time to come to talk to us on this issue, which can be controversial in local areas but merits discussion by the Committee. We have the information that you provided, so, if you do not mind, I will give you five minutes in which to brief the Committee, and we will then go to members' questions.

Ms Laura Irvine (Department for Infrastructure): Thank you, Chair and members, for providing us with the opportunity to brief you on the Department's proposed approach to residents' parking schemes. Following officials' briefing to the Committee at the end of January this year on the outcomes and recommendations of the residents' parking review, we have been developing an application and assessment process for residents' parking schemes. We have also been considering where amendments to the current process could address some of the challenges that have been faced over previous years when delivering against the policy.

As members are aware, while the residents' parking review found that the scheme in the Rugby Road and College Park Avenue area of Belfast had worked well, a number of challenges were identified that had resulted in other schemes not being taken forward. The challenges included the resource-intensive nature of the current departmental process and the inability to secure the level of buy-in required from residents and businesses.

Currently, the first stage of the residents' parking process is initial consultation and design. As outlined in the review findings, the process is resource-intensive, especially in staff time. Committing to undertake that initial stage for every scheme request is no longer feasible, especially given the demand for schemes across Northern Ireland. In addition, the inability to secure the required buy-in from residents has directly impacted on cost. Significant resource has been focused on schemes that have failed to secure the necessary buy-in from residents, whether that be at initial design and consultation phase or at formal consultation. Ensuring residents' buy-in from the outset and, indeed, at each stage of the process will therefore be fundamental in ensuring the successful delivery and implementation of future schemes.

As a result, as you will have seen, we propose to introduce three new stages to the current residents' parking review process in a bid to address some of the challenges that I have outlined. We seek to introduce an application process for demand-led schemes, which we have titled "stage 1"; an assessment process for all schemes, which is stage 2; and a review process at stage 8.

In addition, whilst the fundamental principles of the residents' parking policy will remain unchanged, there are elements based on the residents' parking review where amendments to the current process could address some of the previous challenges that we faced. Solutions that the Department has identified include introducing a higher percentage buy-in from residents at the feasibility and design stage; not amending scheme designs at the design and formal consultation stage unless there are fundamental issues to be addressed; and not considering a further application for the same area or street until after five years unless there has been a significant change in circumstances. It is envisaged that those solutions will ensure that resources are dedicated to schemes with a high probability of successful delivery and implementation.

Detail of the proposed process has been provided to members, but I will pass to Mark, who will give a bit more detail on stage 1 and stage 2.

Mr Mark White (Department for Infrastructure): The proposed application process for demand-led schemes at stage 1 has been introduced to address the significant level of requests for residents' parking schemes across Northern Ireland and to provide the Department with the means to ensure that requests can be appropriately and fairly considered. An application form will be made available on nidirect and the Department's website, supported by an overview of what a residents' parking scheme is, how it works and a "frequently asked questions" section. Those resources will provide potential applicants with as much information as possible to allow them to consider whether a scheme is suitable for their area before submitting an application.

To ensure the effective management of the application process, we propose that it will be time-bound annually and that any stage 1 application must meet the following criteria: that there is evidence of commuter parking or other nuisance parking impacting on residents and that it could be addressed by a residents' parking scheme, with the applicant providing details including times and days to support their application; that levels of parking conflict in the area are ongoing for a sustained period and are not just a short-term variation in parking patterns; that all streets proposed for a scheme must be adopted; that a significant number of residents do not have off-street parking available to them; and that evidence is provided by the applicant to demonstrate that there is support from those in the area for a residents' parking scheme. Demand-led applications must meet the stage 1 criteria in order to progress to stage 2, which is the initial consultation and assessment stage. Applications that do not meet the criteria will be informed that their request has been unsuccessful and advised of the reason why.

The assessment process being proposed at stage 2 will be applicable to all potential residents' parking schemes: demand-led schemes that have met the criteria outlined in stage 1 and any potential schemes identified by the Department in the development of parking strategies in support of local transport plans.

Currently, the first stage of the residents' parking scheme process is the consultation and design phase. However, given the demand for residents' parking schemes, the Department is not in a position to consult on and design a concept for every request that it receives from residents. It is therefore envisaged that the assessment process at stage 2 will ensure that schemes can be assessed and prioritised going forward.

Under the proposed assessment process, the Department will issue a letter, including key information and frequently asked questions on residents' parking, to all residents within a proposed scheme to ascertain whether there is evidence of significant support for a scheme in that area. It is proposed that a response rate of over 50% of those balloted being in support of a residents' parking zone for the area be required for the scheme to progress any further. Where there is over 50% support from residents for a scheme, the Department will carry out an initial assessment of the proposed scheme to determine that, within the area of the scheme, not more than 50% of properties have off-street parking available and that there is sufficient available parking to implement a workable scheme.

Following confirmation that the scheme satisfies that assessment, the Department will undertake initial engagement with the PSNI and the relevant local council to confirm that they support a potential residents' parking scheme for the area proposed. Subject to agreement and following wider engagement with the relevant stakeholders of the scheme, the Department will procure and arrange the necessary traffic and parking surveys to confirm the viability of the scheme before commencing to the design stage, as per the current policy at stage 3.

For any applications that do not meet the required criteria at any stage of the process or fail to garner the necessary residents' support at stage 2 or stage 3, it is proposed that, as with the approach taken elsewhere, the Department will not reconsider a scheme for the area for another five years unless there has been a significant change in circumstances in that area.

Ms Irvine: Thank you, Mark. As well as the additional stages that Mark has outlined, the Department proposes introducing a review stage to the process. That will allow the Department to review schemes periodically to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, that they are still supported by residents and that they remain value for money. If, following a review, any of the objectives outlined are no longer applicable, the scheme will be removed. In those cases, the Department will not reconsider a scheme for another five years or at all, depending on the findings of the review.

I stress that what has been shared with members today is very much a proposal. We are also mindful that the introduction of any new process, especially one such as this, will need to be reviewed periodically to ensure that it is working and that lessons can be learned and the process altered if necessary.

We very much welcome the Committee's consideration of the Department's proposed approach and any questions or suggestions that members may have. Your feedback will help to shape and inform the process going forward.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you very much. We appreciate that update on what has been happening on residents' parking.

I will kick off. The last time that we discussed the issue at the Committee, the figure quoted was around 230, which was a huge figure for a small team working on the issue. Has a review begun of those 230-odd applications in the system to try to work through where there might be strategically identified schemes or a demand for them?

Ms Irvine: No, Chair. We have 305 requests in at the moment. The difficulty for us in the Department is that we are issued with a request with no additional information. We are not resourced to look at all the requests, undertake site visits and identify the parking issues or pressures in that area. It is therefore proposed that any previous schemes, other than those that the Department has already committed to, will have to go through the new process, whether that is stage 1 for demand-led schemes or stage 2 for those already under consideration by the Department and those that make it successfully through stage 1.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. The other thing that I think about, particularly when it comes to a review process is this: what discussions happen internally among colleagues in DFI when a new road scheme is being developed, as might be the case with some of the 305 that are in your system at the minute? You are looking at them from a strategic point of view: "OK, two years down the line, there may be a road realignment scheme or something happening in the area that might have a helpful impact on parking". Will that be included or looked at? Are there discussions on things that might streamline the process?

Ms Irvine: Yes, very much so. At the moment, with any major infrastructure project, we look at potential displacement and the impacts of parking pressures not just in residential areas but more widely. We are also working through the transport plans. Those look at what parking pressures may look like over a number of years as certain schemes and different policies are brought forward. They will look at areas with potential for a scheme but will not necessarily determine specific streets where residents' parking might be beneficial.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Obviously, this is resource-intensive: you have to go out to different areas, and there is constant community engagement work. In those scenarios, are you proactively going out to the community and saying, "We are aware of a road project that could happen in x number of months or years in this area and that could impact on parking here"?

Ms Irvine: Yes, and, for anything that the Department undertakes, there is always significant level engagement. Active travel is another good example of where we consider the wider implications of projects and schemes that are being looked at.

For the residents' parking process that we envisage, we help residents in areas where there is not necessarily demand to understand that they may be impacted on. Again, in this process, the ballot may not necessarily reflect where an area might be in four or five years' time. However, in allocating resources, we need to ensure that there is consensus among residents. We do not want to impose this on residents, especially in areas where permits will not be free and there will be a charge. We need to be mindful of that. One of the fundamental principles of the policy is that there is consensus and that we do not force a residents' parking scheme on areas that do not want it.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Just to be clear, in scenarios where there is the potential for a future scheme, does that automatically knock a request out of the system, or does it still have to go through stage 1 and stage 2, just to —?

Ms Irvine: I am sorry to cut across you. Any schemes that have been identified, whether strategically by the Department or through infrastructure projects, will automatically go into stage 2. The residents of those areas will be balloted, and failure to obtain the necessary buy-in from that area will mean that the request is knocked out and will not progress further.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am sorry if I am not getting this correct. If, for example, you have a road scheme or something that will help in a particular area, a request will still go to stage 2.

There will still be a consultation of members of the public. Technically, if more than 50% decide to go for a parking scheme in that area, that will continue through the process, even though the Department may know that there will be a road scheme. Will that not incur more costs for the Department in the meantime? Do you know where I am going with this? Five years later, you could have a scenario where the Department has spent money creating a road scheme but has also spent money creating a parking permit scheme.

Ms Irvine: Yes. Sorry, I was thinking of it the other way: people not necessarily realising the impact that something might have on their area. Yes, 100%. That is why the process that we propose will look at all of this holistically, which will enable us to look at the impact of potential schemes going forward and at the fact that, while certain areas may need intervention now, there will be other areas in the future that need it. It is about how all of those link up.

It is a complicated puzzle for us to work around in addressing the issues. A really good example is the Iveagh area of Belfast, where, we know , there are parking pressures. There have been changes to parking at the Royal Victoria Hospital, and we know that pressures will mount in that area. Therefore, it is about being mindful not just of departmental projects but of policies across other Departments and the impact that those might have on areas going forward.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Evidence that we received from the Department references strategically identified schemes under stage 2. What strategic schemes have been identified to date and by whom?

Ms Irvine: The Glider is an example of a potential scheme. The impact that the Glider might have on certain areas was identified. Another is the expansion of Magee campus in Derry/Londonderry. That was also identified as an area that the Department needs to consider, and it is the same with Ulster University's Belfast campus. Those are schemes that the Department has already identified and committed to looking at. Those are examples of the schemes that we will consider.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): What role, if any, do councils play in highlighting those strategic schemes and other schemes?

Ms Irvine: As well as the engagement on the scheme or the project, separately there is currently engagement with councils on residents' parking. They are one of the key stakeholders to ensure that anything that we as a Department look at or propose does not impact on anything that they are considering or taking forward. That is already built into the current process, and we are looking at building on that in the new process to have earlier engagement before we progress into the more resource-intensive steps in the policy process.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Before I bring in other members, may I double-check what your numbers are for resourcing in the team? The previous time that we had officials up to brief us, they said that a new team would be in place in a matter of weeks. A huge amount of work needs to be done on this, so can you give me some updated figures?

Ms Irvine: Yes, of course. Mark and I and are in the small, bijou parking policy team, and we have two other members. It is important to stress that, whilst we are looking after the policy, policy development and changes to the process, other divisions in the Department will be responsible for taking the work forward. We will be heavily reliant on the roads divisions in the Department for design and implementation. We also have parking enforcement colleagues who look after the residents' parking permit process and the enforcement. Whilst we may be the policy team, there are an awful lot of other individuals involved in this.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK, thank you. I do not relish the task. [Laughter.]

Mr Dunne: Thank you for the presentation and the update on what has happened since you were last here in January. It is disappointing that we still have only one active scheme, at Rugby Road, in over 18 years. I am sure that you are aware of the frustration at that. It has been talked about in the Assembly for a long time — about 15 years. Hopefully, this can kick-start things a bit more, and I welcome the streamlined approach.

I wanted to pick up on one of the Chair's points. Given the resource challenges that you have, how confident are you that you have the resources in place to get schemes moving and rolled out across Northern Ireland?

Ms Irvine: From the Department's perspective, whilst resource will be a fundamental challenge going forward, especially in terms of how many schemes progress through the stages, the main challenge will be securing a level of buy-in from residents to allow schemes to progress. It is about being able to meet the different stages in the proposed process and allocating and prioritising resources on the basis of those schemes. Scheme costs will differ depending on their size and complexity and how their location links up with our current enforcement areas. There are quite a few factors that we need to consider.

Mr Dunne: You are working with your own local engineers, who have a great knowledge of the issues that exist. That is certainly the case in my area. We have pushed for many years for schemes in Holywood and Bangor in my constituency, and residents are keen to see them. I am keen to know about the role of businesses in any consultation. That has been a factor in some parts of Belfast in the past.

Ms Irvine: Businesses have the opportunity to respond in the same way as a resident. A resident and a business are considered on an equal footing in the ballot process. In responses to the Department, businesses have an equal vote. There has been and continues to be a lot of engagement with businesses, especially on parking issues that they may face. There is flexibility in the current policy and guidance to recognise not just businesses but churches and schools where considerations need to be made and to ensure that, whatever parking restrictions are put in place, the need to have access is recognised, whether that is for businesses, churches or schools. Access for mechanics is a really good example as well. Businesses have the opportunity to respond, and their responses are just as valued as those of residents. There are opportunities throughout the process right through to formal consultation to put forward any objections that they may have to a scheme.

Mr Dunne: OK, that is interesting. There are differences in the demand for parking from Monday to Friday and the demand on a Sunday, for example. I presume that there is flexibility, or is it seven days a week?

Ms Irvine: No, not at all. There is flexibility. Parking restrictions would be put in place to reflect the parking pressures in the area. That is where the complexity lies in delivering the schemes. Each area has specific issues, and it is about making sure that we put in restrictions that address the parking pressures at whatever time that may be and do not apply a blanket restriction that then causes parking issues outside certain hours.

Mr Dunne: OK, finally, is there any update on a time frame for the application process to go live?

Ms Irvine: The Minister is considering our proposals. The feedback that we receive today will also be used to inform that decision. We are hopeful that that will happen in the coming months, but I cannot commit to that until we have received the feedback and worked through that in the Department.

Mr Dunne: OK. Thanks, folks.

Mr Boylan: Thanks very much. You are welcome. I am just trying to get my head around this. I take it that this is not a one-size-fits-all process. That said, how confident are you in the process? Further to that, you talked about being proactive with the new schemes, but I want to go back to the reactionary stuff of requests and percentages. Where are we with that? There have been requests down through the years for certain schemes, and they have not gone ahead.

Ms Irvine: Buy-in is a fundamental problem. When we lowered the buy-in threshold in 2017, we had one of the lowest thresholds across England, Scotland, Wales and the South. That was in a bid to get more schemes up and running, and we hoped to be able to do so. Having such a low threshold, however, meant that there was not the buy-in in residential areas, so a lot of time and resource were going into developing and designing schemes that, ultimately, were never getting the necessary buy-in from residents in the first place when it came to having confidence in the process. It is very much the case that we propose over 50%. If we find that it is not working or that we are failing to garner that level of response or interest in the schemes, we will revisit that. Nothing will be set in stone. We want to make sure that we are reactive to how the process starts to embed and goes forward.

Mr Boylan: That is the threshold that you are going with at the moment, however, and time will tell.

Ms Irvine: That is our proposed threshold.

Mr Boylan: No, sorry, 100%. Chair, just make sure that that is recorded properly — "proposed, proposed". It is key that there is a fit. We need to make sure that the issues are dealt with properly and the process given an opportunity to work. When do you propose to carry out the review process? It has to be cost-effective and fit for purpose, let us be honest, so how do you see that process working out?

Ms Irvine: It is probably dependent on how many schemes we are able to roll out and implement. We need to be given enough time for a scheme to embed in an area similar to Rugby Road and see what the costs associated with that area are over a certain time. On Rugby Road, for example, in the first year of roll-out, an awful lot of penalty charge notices (PCNs) were issued as people started to get used to the process. That potentially gives an unfair indication that the income from that will be sustained, and it will not be. We have proposed a periodic review process; we are not committing ourselves to four or five years. It will be dependent on resources in the Department, how many schemes need to be looked at and representations from residents or from councillors or MLAs, if they have concerns. We want to have the ability to look at that sooner rather than later.

Mr Boylan: OK. This is my final question, Chair. If a scheme is not deemed appropriate, you will still get the issue of councillors and MLAs being contacted. You will still have those ongoing problems. Have you given any thought to how to address that as part of the new process, other than by the PCNs or whatever other measure, because that will still be an issue?

Ms Irvine: In looking at areas for residents' parking, the Department always looks at other measures that we could implement, such as double yellow lines and waiting restrictions. Residents' parking is one of the tools in our toolbox. We would require evidence to support the need to take a residents' parking scheme away, and that evidence and the surveys would indicate any issues, including any that we may be able to address. I want to make it clear that we would not do that lightly. It would be evidence-based, and there would be significant engagement before a decision was made to remove a scheme from an area.

Mr Boylan: Just finally, Chair. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Never say "finally".

Mr Boylan: Those are Keith Buchanan's words — "finally, finally". You mentioned the Glider, which, you know, will have a serious impact on parking. How will that work? Will you impose the scheme? You flagged the example of the Glider, because you know that it will cause major problems. I am not saying there is a vetting process, but will such a scheme be part of the process and be subject to the agreement of residents?

Ms Irvine: Yes, it will. Consensus and majority are a fundamental premise of current policy. We would not impose a scheme because it is not just a case of putting in place waiting restrictions; there are potential cost implications for residents, so we need to be mindful of that. That is why consensus is so important.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Consensus is key in everything.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Laura and Mark, for the update. It is clear that there is no simple fix to a lot of the issues that residential communities face. We herald progress of sorts on residents' parking schemes. People who live with the problems of commuter parking on their doorstep are probably a long way from seeing the benefits of that progress. To progress a scheme, agreement from over 50% of the residents balloted, not 50% of respondents, is required. Will they be reconsulted when the scheme is designed, or will it be a case of, "You said yes, and this is what you're getting"? Areas will have different challenges, but is there scope for residents to be provided with options for schemes? At that stage, are 100% of residents reconsulted or just the 50%-plus who responded positively?

Ms Irvine: Thank you, Mark. We propose to introduce consultation and engagement at every stage of the process, so all residents in the area will be balloted. We propose to ballot residents again on the Department's proposed design, which will be very much based on evidence about the infrastructure of the area and what it can support. In the past, we have constantly redesigned a scheme to address the concerns of residents and businesses in certain areas. That is where we have fallen down in the past, and it has led to a perpetual cycle of redesign. Whilst we will please some residents and businesses by doing that, we will displease others.

We are looking at best practice elsewhere, especially in Dublin, and propose to develop a scheme design and put it out to ballot. That scheme design will be based on our work and surveys on what an area can support for residents' parking. Once we have received feedback and reached that 50% response rate, we will go out to formal consultation on the scheme design. We have built in the ability to reconsider scheme designs, if there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. For example, there may be a need for more disabled parking bays, if situations in certain areas change, or coach parking or the loading and unloading of vehicles may need to be reconsidered. Those are the sorts of circumstance in which we will reconsider the scheme design, but we are trying to stop the perpetual cycle of redesign to try to gain the consensus that we have really struggled to get in certain areas.

Mr Durkan: That will mean more and more work for you, and I know that questions have been asked about your resourcing. However, I am also acutely aware of the resource challenges faced by your colleagues in the traffic management division across the local offices. Those people, through their time in such locales, will already be acutely aware of the issues and will, hopefully, be well placed to propose, maybe in the absence of a residents' parking scheme, the alternative tools that are at your disposal.

Cathal said that it is not one-size-fits-all process, and I alluded to that too. I think of one the schemes that you have mentioned: the strategic scheme in the university area in Derry, which is an area that I know well. That will be particularly complex, given the different streetscapes and styles in that small area: there are driveways on some streets but not on others, there is different topography in different parts of the area and there are other things going on there. You have said that that scheme is one that, dare I say it, has been prioritised, but it will almost require a few different schemes.

Ms Irvine: A number of residents' parking schemes?

Mr Durkan: Yes, because there are different challenges. It is not an area that has solely terraced housing; there are detached houses with driveways, semi-detached houses, some of which have driveways and some of which do not, and there are terraced houses. The different streets will have different difficulties, but they all have difficulties. What works for someone in Aberfoyle Crescent will not work for someone in Argyle Street. The scheme that you have prioritised will be difficult and, one would imagine, labour-intensive, although it is important that the scheme progress.

Ms Irvine: Yes. There is a lot of engagement, especially by our Roads colleagues in that area, with local residents to find out what streets and areas could be captured in a residents' parking scheme. There are very different streets and issues to be addressed up there, but the fundamental principles of the residents' parking scheme will be to prioritise individuals who do not have access to off-street parking and give people who are struggling due to either commuter or nuisance parking the ability to park in close proximity to their residence.

Mr Durkan: Finally, houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are an issue in university areas. Derry City and Strabane District Council, in its local development plan, has determined that a HMO with over four bedrooms will not be allowed. DFI has assumed that a four-bedroom will have 2·4 cars. How will HMOs figure in the consideration and progression of the schemes? Will they just be counted as ordinary homes that have 2·4 cars, when they could have more because there could be four adults living there, as there could be in any house, who each have a vehicle?

Ms Irvine: The current process for an HMO is that, if it is one rateable household, it will have one vote. Regardless of how many individuals live in the residence, the household will have one vote in the ballot. We do not necessarily work on the basis of how many vehicles are linked to a household when we consider the creation of a workable scheme. Whilst we request that information, we look more at how many parking spaces we can facilitate in the area to address each resident with 1·2 spaces. We work on the basis that there will be one permit for everyone who does not have off-street parking available to them. Depending on the scale and size of the area, we will allocate additional permits, but it is one permit per household for those who do not have off-street parking.

Mr Durkan: OK. Thank you.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you for coming in today. I connect with residents' parking schemes by going to Rugby Road in south Belfast. I go there regularly, and it has been really successful in providing access to parking. I have not heard many complaints from colleagues about the scheme.

Do you have a rough figure for how much it costs to explore a residents' parking scheme? Stephen has alluded to the 305 that are already in the system. What does one look like, tangibly, when it goes into the system? How many hours are put in by the staff member who goes to an area to do the research and compiles a report on what a scheme would look like there? Do you have a figure for how many hours it would take? Having 305 requests still in the system going back to 2007 is huge, given that we have returned only the Rugby Road scheme. How does that impact on, I would say, an under-resourced Department? Can you give us more information on finance and hours?

Ms Irvine: Yes and no is probably the best answer. One of the principal ideas behind our proposed process on bringing forward stage 1 and stage 2 is to reduce the resource-intensive nature of the process from design stage. We believe that we have the resources to do that as we sift through applications. We cannot determine with any great certainty the impact that it may have on timings, because the more applications we have, the greater the time it will take us to work through them. We want to be able to look up all of the requests holistically in case individuals have asked for similar schemes in similar areas.

The only costs for the Rugby Road scheme that we have are the design and implementation costs. The review highlighted the costs associated with the Rugby Road scheme, but, if we were to deliver a similar scheme now — again, I heavily caveat this by saying that each scheme will look different — you would be looking at approximately £300,000.

Mr McReynolds: What about the money that that brings in from people who have to pay to park there? Do you have the annual figures for that?

Ms Irvine: I do.

Mr McReynolds: Brilliant.

Ms Irvine: I got them hot off the press this morning. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Just in time.

Ms Irvine: Just in time. I will read out those figures to make sure that I get them right.

Mr Boylan: We are listening. [Laughter.]

Ms Irvine: For 2024-25, there was income of over £126,000 from Rugby Road and College Park Avenue. The majority of that income — £122,873 — came from pay-and-display charges. Residents in the Rugby Road area pay annually for residents' permits, which cost £30 per permit. Income from those was £3,360. Individuals can buy visitors' permits every quarter. They contain 25 permits to be used within the quarter. Income from those was £737·50. I said "over £126,000" because we did not have time to add all those figures up. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: We will not hold that against you.

Mr McReynolds: I am not a mathematician, but it would take roughly two years to pay off that £300,000.

Ms Irvine: Yes, and, because of the complexities of Rugby Road and the fact that it was our pilot scheme, the costs were probably slightly higher than we would expect them to be for other schemes.

Mr McReynolds: Does the money that is made go back to the Department? Where does it go?

Ms Irvine: It is used for our enforcement services.

Mr McReynolds: It pays for enforcement.

Ms Irvine: Yes.

Mr McReynolds: You mentioned the Glider a couple of times. I take it that you mean Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 (BRT2). I ask this as an East Belfast MLA: are there any learnings from the east-west Glider that can be applied to BRT2?

Ms Irvine: One of the main findings in the review was that greater consideration needs to be given to the impact of parking pressures in the areas. It is similar to what I said previously: residents' parking is one of the tools in the Department's toolkit. It is about being mindful of that and of the displacement that may be created, depending on the interventions that we make.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. I have nobody else on my list, but I want to check something. What was the original buy-in percentage for the schemes?

Ms Irvine: It worked out at roughly 22%.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. That is, obviously, larger now. Is it the hope that having that bigger buy-in from the get-go will reduce the resource required?

Ms Irvine: That is what we hope, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. On the five-year review, I keep going back to the fact that there are 305 requests and the time that it will take for those to go through the system. With the likes of Rugby Road, it took a long time for the scheme to be rolled out. How confident are you that you will be able to go back and review the schemes after five years? Will it take another team to do that? You will still have a lot in the system at that stage — I am only surmising that. My question is about the resource element when it comes to having to go back and review the schemes and why five years was the period chosen.

Ms Irvine: The five-year rule or proposal is based on residents' ability to ask the Department to reconsider and review a scheme. We use the term "periodically" for the departmental review of the schemes that we implement, because we need to understand what the resource implications will be as the schemes progress before we can definitively say whether we need to go in and review a scheme after so many years. It will likely be done on a case-by-case basis, but the decision will be based on the principles for why we would go in to reconsider whether a scheme is viable.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I see your hand is up on the screen, Keith.

Keith? Keith is frozen in time

Mr Boylan: That will be recorded for ever.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I know.

I take it that he is gone. If you are content, we will get Keith's questions and forward them to you.

Ms Irvine: Yes, of course.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I do not think that Committee members have any more questions.

Thank you for your time. Unfortunately, Keith's internet has dropped out, but we will get his questions and send them over to you for a response, if that is OK.

Ms Irvine: Yes, no problem.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Super.

Ms Irvine: We are happy to take any feedback, following the session.

Mr Boylan: Those questions will be about Mid Ulster, by the way. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thanks very much for your time. We appreciate it.