Skip to content

Agenda item

Parking Services Income

Report of the Executive Director, Place

Decision:

9.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report setting out how the Council uses income from parking in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The report also set out the parking prices and tariffs which it is proposed will be applicable in the City during the 2014/15 financial year and sought approval to progress a range of improvements to parking delivery.

 

 

9.2

RESOLVED: That the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development:-

 

 

 

(a)

formally endorses the Council using income from parking in accordance with Section 55 (4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 on the type of scheme highlighted in paragraph 4.7 of the report

 

 

 

 

(b)

approves the continued use of the tariffs outlined in paragraph 4.3 of the report and Appendices A1 and A2 and endorses the proposal not to raise tariffs in 2014/15;

 

 

 

 

(c)

approves the continued use of the costs of residents and business permits, as set out in paragraph 4.5 of the report;

 

 

 

 

(d)

approves the rollout of the RingGo phone payment system Citywide and the ceasing of the transaction fee, as set out in paragraph 4.8 of the report; and

 

 

 

 

(e)

approves the further investigation of parking improvements, set out in paragraph 4.10 of the report.

 

 

 

9.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

9.3.1

Although the Council are already following the legislation in terms of using parking income, recent high profile cases nationally underline the need to have the decisions and actions taken by the Council formally recorded as having political support.

 

 

9.3.2

It is proposed to develop an initiative for Smart Parking and to revise the RingGo payment system to improve convenience for motorists seeking to park in Sheffield. The Cabinet Member agreed with the principle behind the scheme but wished to defer the approval of the terms and conditions of the system pending further discussions.

 

 

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

9.4.1

Alternative options do not exist for utilisation of parking income, as the use of this income is specified by legislation.

 

 

9.4.2

The Council could maintain its current parking operation but this would not take advantage of developing technology to offer more customer focussed parking facilities in the City.

 

 

9.4.3

The Cabinet Member could have approved the change in terms and conditions in relation to pay and machine breakdown but requested that this be deferred until an evaluation of the outcome of the Citywide roll out of the RingGo payment system was provided.

 

 

9.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

 

 

 

None

 

 

9.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

 

 

 

None

 

 

9.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

 

 

 

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

 

 

9.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

 

 

 

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

 

Minutes:

9.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report setting out how the Council uses income from parking in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The report also set out the parking prices and tariffs which it is proposed will be applicable in the City during the 2014/15 financial year and sought approval to progress a range of improvements to parking delivery.

 

 

9.2

Councillor Jillian Creasy made representations to the Cabinet Member and asked why a report on the petition on permit charges had been delayed? She welcomed the report but stated that many people were questioning how much money was raised in individual zones from permits and meters and where the money was spent. Many residents believed that more money was raised than was spent on the cost of maintaining the scheme.

 

 

9.3

Councillor Leigh Bramall commented that he had given a detailed response to the petition at Full Council when it was presented but the reason that a report had not yet been submitted was that more detailed information was required and this would be submitted in due course.

 

 

9.4

Councillor Bramall then commented that he supported the recommendations but that he wished to defer recommendation 7.5 to give further consideration to the terms and conditions of the RingGo scheme.

 

 

9.5

RESOLVED: That the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development:-

 

 

 

(a)

formally endorses the Council using income from parking in accordance with Section 55 (4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 on the type of scheme highlighted in paragraph 4.7 of the report

 

 

 

 

(b)

approves the continued use of the tariffs outlined in paragraph 4.3 of the report and Appendices A1 and A2 and endorses the proposal not to raise tariffs in 2014/15;

 

 

 

 

(c)

approves the continued use of the costs of residents and business permits, as set out in paragraph 4.5 of the report;

 

 

 

 

(d)

approves the rollout of the RingGo phone payment system Citywide and the ceasing of the transaction fee, as set out in paragraph 4.8 of the report; and

 

 

 

 

(e)

approves the further investigation of parking improvements, set out in paragraph 4.10 of the report.

 

 

 

9.6

Reasons for Decision

 

 

9.6.1

Although the Council are already following the legislation in terms of using parking income, recent high profile cases nationally underline the need to have the decisions and actions taken by the Council formally recorded as having political support.

 

 

9.6.2

It is proposed to develop an initiative for Smart Parking and to revise the RingGo payment system to improve convenience for motorists seeking to park in Sheffield. The Cabinet Member agreed with the principle behind the scheme but wished to defer the approval of the terms and conditions of the system pending further discussions.

 

 

9.7

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

9.7.1

Alternative options do not exist for utilisation of parking income, as the use of this income is specified by legislation.

 

 

9.7.2

The Council could maintain its current parking operation but this would not take advantage of developing technology to offer more customer focussed parking facilities in the City.

 

 

9.7.3

The Cabinet Member could have approved the change in terms and conditions in relation to pay and machine breakdown but requested that this be deferred until an evaluation of the outcome of the Citywide roll out of the RingGo payment system was provided.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: