Skip to content

Agenda item

Changes to Prices for Paperless Visitor Parking Vouchers

Report of the Executive Director, Place

Decision:

7.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report seeking approval to offer electronic paperless visitor parking vouchers at a lower rate than the current paper visitor parking vouchers.

 

 

7.2

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

 

(a)

paperless parking visitor vouchers be introduced at £10 per batch of 25, 25% less than the current cost of paper booklets; and

 

 

 

 

(b)

a contingency of paper parking visitor booklets be maintained to support customers with additional needs.

 

 

 

7.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

7.3.1

As part of the Customer Experience programme, introducing paperless permits improves customer ability to access vouchers quickly rather than be reliant on manual processing of an online request, which is subject to loss or delay in the post.

 

 

7.3.2

Paperless visitor vouchers will offset future costs increases for staff required for manual processing.

 

 

7.3.3

Allowing paperless vouchers to be issued in half day segments reduces risk of customers being adversely disadvantaged from the current transferable paper method.

 

 

7.3.4

Reducing costs of paperless virtual visitor vouchers means that the risk of customers being adversely affected if they do need to purchase more vouchers is reduced.

 

 

7.3.5

The maximum potential loss by introducing paperless permits at less than the current costs is £13,140.  The actual loss is likely to be less than this as some customers may have to purchase more books than they currently do.

 

 

7.3.6

Support for people with additional needs or lack of internet access is still available via customer services, and a contingency of maintaining paper permits can be considered.

 

 

7.3.7

The council will gain a better understanding of visitor vouchers use, which can support any future review of parking permit policy.

 

 

7.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

7.4.1

Do nothing – continue to implement paperless permits, but leave visitor vouchers as paper books.

 

Implications of this are increased cost to Parking Services and Sheffield City Council of continuing to have a paper system.  This is an indicative cost of £10k per year based on needing additional staff to process paper permit application checks.

 

 

7.4.2

Change to paperless visitor vouchers but maintain current cost

 

Implications – Paperless permits require the vehicle registration to be entered into the database.  This will mean that vouchers cannot be transferred between vehicles in the way they currently can be. Introducing a half day voucher at half the cost, for example 5hrs parking for £0.25 would provide greater flexibility for shorter stay visitors and reduce the risk of it costing the resident more than it currently does. However there is some risk of dissatisfaction at the perceived “extra cost” if customers currently transfer the voucher more than once.

 

 

 

7.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

 

 

 

None

 

 

7.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

 

 

 

None

 

 

7.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

 

 

 

Laraine Manley, Executive Director, Place

 

 

7.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

 

 

 

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

 

Minutes:

7.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report seeking approval to offer electronic paperless visitor parking vouchers at a lower rate than the current paper visitor parking vouchers.

 

 

7.2

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

 

(a)

paperless parking visitor vouchers be introduced at £10 per batch of 25, 25% less than the current cost of paper booklets; and

 

 

 

 

(b)

a contingency of paper parking visitor booklets be maintained to support customers with additional needs.

 

 

 

7.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

7.3.1

As part of the Customer Experience programme, introducing paperless permits improves customer ability to access vouchers quickly rather than be reliant on manual processing of an online request, which is subject to loss or delay in the post.

 

 

7.3.2

Paperless visitor vouchers will offset future costs increases for staff required for manual processing.

 

 

7.3.3

Allowing paperless vouchers to be issued in half day segments reduces risk of customers being adversely disadvantaged from the current transferable paper method.

 

 

7.3.4

Reducing costs of paperless virtual visitor vouchers means that the risk of customers being adversely affected if they do need to purchase more vouchers is reduced.

 

 

7.3.5

The maximum potential loss by introducing paperless permits at less than the current costs is £13,140.  The actual loss is likely to be less than this as some customers may have to purchase more books than they currently do.

 

 

7.3.6

Support for people with additional needs or lack of internet access is still available via customer services, and a contingency of maintaining paper permits can be considered.

 

 

7.3.7

The council will gain a better understanding of visitor vouchers use, which can support any future review of parking permit policy.

 

 

7.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

7.4.1

Do nothing – continue to implement paperless permits, but leave visitor vouchers as paper books.

 

Implications of this are increased cost to Parking Services and Sheffield City Council of continuing to have a paper system.  This is an indicative cost of £10k per year based on needing additional staff to process paper permit application checks.

 

 

7.4.2

Change to paperless visitor vouchers but maintain current cost

 

Implications – Paperless permits require the vehicle registration to be entered into the database.  This will mean that vouchers cannot be transferred between vehicles in the way they currently can be. Introducing a half day voucher at half the cost, for example 5hrs parking for £0.25 would provide greater flexibility for shorter stay visitors and reduce the risk of it costing the resident more than it currently does. However there is some risk of dissatisfaction at the perceived “extra cost” if customers currently transfer the voucher more than once.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: