Agenda item

Call-in of the Individual Cabinet Member Decision on Parking Fees and Charges

Report of the Policy and Improvement Officer

Minutes:

7.1

The Committee considered the following decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport made on 5th March 2019:-

 

 

 

(i)       No changes to the pay & display tariffs in the parking zones outside the city centre are made;

 

 

 

(ii)      City Centre Zone Pay and Display tariffs are increased, as detailed in Appendix A of the report, and that these are implemented as soon as practicable;

 

 

 

(iii)      Changes to the permit pricing structure, as detailed in Appendix B of the report be approved and be implemented from 1 April 2019;

 

 

 

(iv)     The changes to the type of vehicle that are eligible for a ‘Green’ permit, as detailed in Appendix C of the report, be approved and be implemented from 1 April 2019;

 

 

 

(v)      Changes to the dispensation and bay suspension charges, as detailed in the report, be approved and be implemented from 1 April 2019; and

 

 

 

(vi)     Authority be delegated to the Director of City Growth, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, to make future changes to pay & display tariffs, where this supports effective management of demand for parking and contributes to wider traffic management objectives (provided they are not increased by an amount greater than the rate of Retail Price Index plus 1% from the date they were last increased).

 

 

7.2

Signatories

 

 

 

The lead signatory to the call-in was Councillor Ian Auckland, and the other signatories were Councillors Penny Baker, Gail Smith, Vickie Priestley and Martin Smith.

 

 

7.3

Reasons for the Call-in

 

 

 

The signatories wanted to examine the predicted environmental, financial, commercial and retail impacts of the proposals in the report.

 

 

7.4

Attendees

 

 

 

·             Councillor Lewis Dagnall (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport)

 

·             Tom Finnegan-Smith (Head of Strategic Transport and Infrastructure)

 

·             Ben Brailsford (Parking Services Manager)

 

 

7.5

Councillor Ian Auckland, as Lead Signatory to the call-in, stated that he wanted to know how the proposals fitted in with the Council’s overall transport strategy, specifically whether it would assist in terms of air quality, retail offer and events held in the City Centre.  Councillor Auckland made reference to the recent move to relax parking charges on Sundays, which he believed had helped boost footfall in the City Centre, and stated that, in his opinion, free parking did not mean uncontrolled parking.  He considered that, as well as a need for an integrated, reliable transport system for the City, there was also a requirement for a sensible parking strategy, and he considered that the control of car movements rarely commenced in neighbourhoods.  Councillor Auckland stated that, in his opinion, the proposed increases represented an opportunity for money-making, which could ultimately deter drivers from visiting the City Centre, thereby having an adverse effect on the commercial and retail offer in the City Centre.  He referred to Sheffield’s rankings in terms of its City Centre retail performance, indicating that it currently stood at 22nd, and with several other Core Cities having higher parking charges, he believed Sheffield’s prices should be comparable to cities with a similar retail offer.  He questioned whether any consideration had been given to introducing more flexibility in terms of parking charges, believing that there was the ability to do this with the new payment machines recently installed, referring to the possibility of offering the first hour of parking free.  Councillor Auckland also made reference to the practice of offering all-day parking for commuters, at a lower rate, and questioned whether a review of residents’ parking schemes had been considered, as part of the decision.  He concluded by stating that there was a need to look into the reasons behind the decision in more detail.

 

 

7.6

Councillor Lewis Dagnall stated that, given some of Councillor Auckland’s comments relating to the wider issues regarding the City’s transport strategy, there was a need to focus specifically on the decision regarding parking fees and charges.  He believed it represented only a modest increase in City Centre parking, and was the first such increase since 2013.  Councillor Dagnall also referred to the other elements of the decision, namely the rise in the residents’ parking permit fees, which represented the first such increase since 2012, the changes to the types of vehicle eligible for a ‘green’ permit, and free parking permits for carers.  He stated that the decision had been taken based on evidence, and was not simply a ‘money-making’ exercise, and he believed it represented a good way to increase visitors to the City Centre.

 

 

7.7

Tom Finnegan-Smith referred to the Sunday parking charges, indicating that footfall in the City Centre on such days, when it was currently only £1 to park all day, was lower than on Saturdays, when charges were implemented.  He stated that he did not believe the modest increases would have a detrimental effect on footfall in the City Centre.

 

 

 

 

7.8

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

 

 

 

·             It was raised that private companies were making money by leasing areas of land from the Council, constructing car parks and generating revenue from parking charges.  A number of such sites had been declared as development sites, therefore the Council had not wanted to make any long-term commitments in terms of using the land as car parks.  However, officers in Parking Services would work closely with colleagues in Property Services, who lease such areas of land, in connection with possible renegotiations with regard to the leases.  It was suggested, and agreed, that the details of such sites be forwarded to Councillor Lewis Dagnall, for him to discuss the issue with officers in Property Services.

 

 

 

·             The delays in implementing the decision, following the call-in, was likely to result in costing the Council approximately £90,000 in lost revenue. 

 

 

 

·             It was expected that the proposed changes would have a beneficial effect on air quality, mainly as a result of the increasing turnover of parking spaces, in that it was expected that there would be a reduction in the number of drivers seeking spaces.  Another reason for the decision was to try and increase the number of people driving more environmentally-friendly vehicles by improving the green permit offer.

 

 

 

·             It was considered that the best way to provide adequate parking provision was by having a fair charging structure which would encourage people to park for a specific time, then move on, as opposed to having drivers driving around searching for a free parking space.  At present, there was a standard hourly tariff, from Monday to Saturday, and £1 all day on Sunday.  There would be a huge cost, both financially and in resources, in having different time-limited parking, rather than charges and tariffs. The Council would be regularly reviewing its parking tariffs in future in order to address the wider traffic-management issues, and ensure tariffs were appropriate for demand in different areas of the city centre.

 

 

 

·             The charges for off-street parking were lower than those for on-street parking, with the aim being to attract a higher turnover for on-street parking spaces in order to benefit businesses and other facilities in the City Centre area.

 

 

 

·             It was accepted that, due to the fact that there were more Residents’ Parking Schemes in areas with a higher rate of BME residents, such communities could be adversely affected by the proposed rise in parking permit fees. 

 

 

 

·             There had been no increases in the residents’ parking permit fees since 2012 and, in line with inflation, the price of permits had actually got cheaper in real terms over the last seven years.  There would be no increases in the price of Green Permits and Residential Carers’ Permits.  The residents’ parking schemes had been introduced primarily to help residents park as near to their homes as possible, and deter commuters from making this difficult for residents.  The permit charge represented only a small percentage of the total cost of being a car owner. 

 

 

 

·             The Council was currently looking at proposed changes to existing Residents’ Parking Schemes to improve demand issues, and would be submitting some detailed proposals hopefully in the next few months. 

 

 

 

·             Parking permits for Council staff were administered by Facilities Management, with the number of passes being capped, and policies and procedures in place to monitor the numbers. 

 

 

 

·             The costs associated with the administration, maintenance and enforcement of residents’ parking permits was not currently met by income from the permit fees.  It would be possible to calculate how much the City’s parking fees and charges would need to increase to enable the Residents’ Parking Schemes to be operated at no additional cost to the Council, but it would make sense to assess this as part of the forthcoming review of Residents’ Parking Schemes.

 

 

7.9

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;

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(c)      in the light of the concerns raised regarding the funding of Residents’ Parking Schemes in the City, requests the Parking Services Manager to send detailed costings in terms of the funding of the schemes to Members of the Committee.

 

 

 

(NOTE: The votes on the above resolution were ordered to be recorded, and were as follows:-

 

 

 

For the resolution (7)

-

Councillors Denise Fox, Mike Chaplin, Mark Jones, Abdul Khayum, Cate McDonald, Moya O’Rourke and Paul Wood

 

 

 

 

 

Against the resolution (4)

-

Councillors Ian Auckland, Mohammed Mahroof, Robert Murphy and Colin Ross)

 

 

Supporting documents: