Agenda item

6.1

The Committee considered the following decision of the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport made on 30th May 2017:-

Proposed tariff changes set out in the report will help to better manage parking demand in areas and times when demand is demonstrably and dramatically outstripping supply.

The Cabinet Member therefore resolves that:

·                     The hourly tariff within the Non-City Centre Parking Zone be increased to 70p per hour, with a maximum daily charge of £4.50 where time limits allow;

·                     In the Highfield Controlled Parking Zone only, tariffs be reduced to a maximum of £2.80 for the full charging period of 8am to 6.30pm in the current 10 hour maximum stay bays and that the 10 hour maximum stay restriction be removed in these bays;

·                     The free parking period available to motorists in the Non-City Centre Parking Zone be extended to 20 minutes;

·                     These tariff changes above, which are detailed in Appendix B of the report, be implemented as soon as practicable and these revised pay and display tariffs be kept in place until any future amendment be agreed;

·                     Any increased surplus parking income which may arise from the tariff changes proposed in this report are to be used in developing proposed parking initiatives which will be the subject of further reports; and

·                     No changes to the city centre tariffs or parks car parks tariffs are made.

6.2

Signatories

The Lead Signatory to the call-in was Councillor Ian Auckland, and the other signatories were Councillors Adam Hanrahan, Sue Auckland, Shaffaq Mohammed and Martin Smith.

6.3

Reasons for the Call-In

The signatories confirmed that they wished to further scrutinise the decision and examine the financial implications and the  underpinning research.

6.4

Attendees

·                     Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability).

·                     Paul Fell, Transport, Traffic and Parking Services Business Manager.

·                     Ben Brailsford, Parking Services Manager.

6.5

As lead signatory and co-signatory for the call-in respectively, Councillor Ian Auckland and Councillor Adam Hanrahan were invited to explain their reasons for the call-in. Councillor Auckland began by congratulating the Cabinet Member on his recent appointment, before both Councillors raised concerns regarding the lack of clarity in the budget for this additional income, the rationale for the decision, the lack of Sheffield-specific research, and around consultation.

6.6

Councillor Jack Scott responded, confirming that any income in future years would be spent on addressing the approximate 14,000 requests for parking and traffic improvements. He stressed that the decision was not taken to raise additional income, but was made in-line with traffic management principles as outlined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

6.7

He advised that the decision had been made after further reflection since the matter had initially been considered by the previous Cabinet Member for Infrastructure  and Transport. He acknowledged that it was difficult to consider one change in isolation from the broader issues regarding parking, and advised that a wider transport strategy was scheduled to be considered by Cabinet in October.

6.8

With regard to research, Councillor Scott stated that the data to hand was sufficient for the decision. He was unconvinced that additional research would have made a vast difference and would have added significant delays. The London-based research referred to in the decision was widely used nationally, as it was the most robust examination any Council could afford to do.

6.9

Finally, in terms of consultation, the Cabinet Member advised that, with the call-in, the public had been given ample time to provide feedback but none had been forthcoming. He advised that the average annual cost of running a car was £3,500 and, in that context, an additional 20p per hour for parking was minimal.

6.10

Members of the Committee raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·                     Reducing the price of resident parking permits would not be a suitable option for this additional income owing to the shortfall from the income they raised when compared with the cost of maintaining the system and enforcing the permitted zones.

·                     The Cabinet Member was supportive of reviewing charging structures, specifically around low emission vehicles and a dynamic pricing structure to reflect variation in demand over the course of the day, and advised that the reduction of tariffs and time restrictions in the Highfield Controlled Parking Zone would encourage movement of cars out of higher pollution areas and reduce the levels of congestion in the City Centre.

·                     Permitted zones secured benefits around priority, ensuring more parking was available closer to the permit holder’s home or business and reducing the need to drive around looking for spaces. In previous consultations, the vast majority of residents had supported the implementation of permitted zones with relatively low numbers complaining about the cost.

·                     Implementing new permitted schemes had been suspended owing to issues around capacity, but new schemes were being assessed. The reduction of costs for visitor parking permits was not currently under consideration.

·                     The additional funds arising from this decision, if enacted from October, were not highlighted in the 2017/18 budget as they had originally been identified in the 2016/17 budget. However, as these changes had not taken place, the part-year income in 2017/18 would address that shortfall.

·                     It was accepted that a broader discussion was required regarding transport in the City Centre in general. A wider transport strategy was scheduled to be considered later this year but this decision was consistent with the principles of that strategy.

6.11

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made and the responses to the questions raised; and   

(b)       agrees to take no action in relation to the called-in decision.

The votes on the resolution were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

For the resolution (7)

-

Councillors Denise Fox, Mike Chaplin, Neale Gibson, Dianne Hurst, Helen Mirfin-Boukouris, Ben Miskell and Paul Wood.

Against the resolution (4)

-

Councillors Ian Auckland, Adam Hanrahan, Robert Murphy and Colin Ross.

(NOTE: Prior to the passing of the above resolution, an alternative Motion was moved by Councillor Ian Auckland and seconded by Councillor Adam Hanrahan, as follows:-

“That this Committee requests that the decision be referred back to the decision making body or individual for reconsideration in light of:

(1)       the emerging transport plan, growth strategy, and clean air strategy;

(2)       the need to consult further with businesses affected; and

(3)       the need to conduct current research on the impact of different travel modes on businesses and residents situated in the areas under consideration at this meeting.”

The votes on the alternative Motion were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

For the alternative Motion (4)

-

Councillors Ian Auckland, Adam Hanrahan, Robert Murphy and Colin Ross.

Against the alternative Motion  (7)

-

Councillors Denise Fox, Mike Chaplin, Neale Gibson, Dianne Hurst, Helen Mirfin-Boukouris, Ben Miskell and Paul Wood).