AGENDA ITEM 5
BOROUGH OF POOLE
CALL-IN OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
27 FEBRUARY 2014
STRATEGIC CAR PARKING REVIEW
1.PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1To consider call-ins in respect of certain decisions made at Cabinet 14 January 2014 in relation to the Strategic Car Parking Review.The details of the Call-ins areattached in Appendix A.
2.RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1In consideration of the points covered in sections 4.1 and 4.2, it is recommended that the following decisions are confirmed:
a)The independently proposed pricing strategy for District Car Parks
b)To agree to the principle of a project involving on-street summer charging in residential roads adjacent to the beaches, including the Sandbanks peninsula
2.2Members to note that option 2.1a is estimated to generate additional income of £84,000 in a full year and that this extra income has been built into Transportation’s Services budgets for 2014/15. A decision to set aside the proposal will therefore generate an £84,000 pressure on Transportation’s budgets which the Unit would then have to try and offset by service reductions and/or efficiencies elsewhere.
2.3Members to note that if recommendation 2.1b is agreed then, subject to adequate design resource being identified, a proposal having included for appropriate consultation would be reported to Transport Advisory Group for further member consideration.
3.BACKGROUND
3.1The outcome of the Independent Strategic Car Parking Review was reported to 5 December 2013 Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee, report attached as Appendix B.
3.2The recommendations from the Chairman of the Economy O&S Committee were considered at 14 January 2014 Cabinet, report attached as Appendix C
3.3The two specific decisions called-in are considered separatelyin moredetail with officer comment provided in section 4.1 and 4.2 below
3.4In response to Member requirement officers from both Transportation and Financial Services considered the content, assumptions and recommendations of the consultant’s independent review. In taking into account key member concerns and Star Chamber recommendation officers then provided recommendation for ECOS consideration. Members should note that the recommended change to district-based tariffs were those from the original review.
3.5 Officers are already progressing with work related to previously approved recommendations. If a decision to proceed with District based charging is taken then this would be included in a subsequent advertisement for implementation as soon as possible in the new financial year.
4.DETAILED CONSIDERATION
4.1District Car Park Charges
4.1.1Decision Taken
“That Cabinet approve the adoption of the proposed Pricing Strategy as set out in the Report to Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet, including the District Car Parks(Sections 4.14 to 4.18 of the Report)".
4.1.2
Reason / Officer Response1 / It is contrary to the recommendation from the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee / It is clear that Members of Economy O&S committee agreed to amend the original recommendation of the independent consultants in order to remove the District related pricing proposal. The voting for the substantive motion was then tied with the Chairman declining to use a casting vote, preferring to provide an explanation in his report to Cabinet. The subsequent discussion at Cabinet is shown under CA97.14 “Reasons For Decision” in Appendix C. The Cabinet decision taken reversed this motion with the District based tariff change reintroduced.
2 / There has been no consultation with relevant Chambers of Trade and, in the case of Broadstone, with the Neighbourhood Forum, which is a statutory consultee / Members defined the original governance and strategic scope of the review as well as agreeing to the programme for local engagement/ Consultation. At the end of phase one EcOS itself then reviewed progress including results from consultation and agreed to the programme for phase two with the addition of a Member Reference Group to assist with progress thereafter.
The consultation programme was undertaken by the BoP Corporate Research Team during a six week period in autumn 2012. This included for a questionnaire distributed to 1500 members of Poole opinion Panel; an on-line feedback form; workshop groups; a business Group Engagement meeting; face-to-face sessions and user interviews within some of the car parks. The consultation report is included in Appendix D. It is clear that local business and the public in general were included with the conclusion of the Consultant being that the exercise was reasonably representative of the views of residents and business community of Poole.
At the time of the consultation Neighbourhood Fora did not exist within Poole. The review itself allowed for key progress reports to both EcOS andthe Member Reference Group to help steer the project through Phase Two.
3 / There has been no Impact Study into the consequences of increased car park charges on local businesses, essential since the Council has, as one of its aims, maintaining the vitality of local high streets. / The consultants were employed as independent experts to consider the following key aims as required by Members:
- To revitalise the town centre by encouraging an increase in footfall;
- Improve the service for residents and visitors;
- Enhance the parking assets;
- Provide a level of parking that supports the use of sustainable modes of transport; and
- Ensure the robustness and certainty of existing and new revenues.
An Officer Steering Group involving the Strategic Director also provided timely input to ensure that the aims were understood at the outset.
The Officer Steering Group and Member Reference Group met periodically to help monitor progress and to ensure that the Consultancy effort were aligned to Poole need and key objectives.
In making the District based recommendation the Consultants did consider the market in terms of local affordability of our public (Section 7.3.3 of their report), car parking demand and associated supply as well as defining the likely scale in demand impact through use of price elasticity. For each parking area the match between future demand and supply were also considered.
The technical financial assumptions and outcomes of the Consultant’s workwere double-checked by Financial Service colleagues before our reporting to Committee. It is clear that the recommendation of the Consultants was based on assessing overall impact on an area-by-areabasis.
The strategic conclusion on district parking provision was that the general supply was about right for future demand. They noted that the demand and supply match differed by locality with quantification given for each parking area. A few areas showedthat car parks were likely to be oversubscribed in the future but most were not so.
The recommendation for a minor priceincrease as well as charging at those “leisure based” car parks that are currently free of charge were devised to assist the Council in redressing its maintenance liability and to help ensure a better quality of future provision.
The estimated revenue from the approximate 10 pence per hour increase in charges was reported as £84,000. Members should note that the changes (approved) to town centre charging create an anticipated financial pressure of £102,000.
A full assessment of impact was not defined in the original scope of the strategic review. If adequately concerned about the future vitality specific to any high street location then the consultant would have been likely to have highlighted such an impact for further consideration. They have however noted that higher charges in district parking areas would make them relatively less attractive than the town centre. However they also noted that the proposed charge increase still resulted in charges remaining more affordable for all time periods than in Bournemouth and Christchurch.
4 / There has been no assessment of the impact on traffic movements and parking in side streets as a result of the accepted decrease in car park usage. / The review is strategic in nature. The consultants have considered displacement impactswhere they felt these would be an issue. They also used elasticity calculations to help identify the scale of potential reduction in demand into the future. Their conclusion was that for District car parks the impact of the price change was that occupancy would be slightly lower than with existing charges. However, they state that the differences are likely to be very small and are not likely to have any operational significance.
Many district-based areas (but not all) have alternative free on-street parking available within reasonable walking distance for those not willing to pay the increased charge.
Elsewhere in the report they do mention this issue when considering the change from free “leisure” based car parking to district based charges(recommendation since rejected). For this scenario they stated that the removal of free car parks will inevitably lead to a displacement of vehicles to cheaper locations, such as nearby residential roads. In recommending such they suggested that BoP may have to focus CEO beats on these areas to enforce existing parking restrictions and so reduce the potential negative impact for residents.
From the above it is assumed that some consideration has been made of these issues and that the Consultants did not see that the impact would be significant due to such minor changes in price.
4.2Summer Charging on Residential Roads Adjacent to Beaches, Including Sandbanks Peninsula.
4.2.1Decision Taken
That Cabinet approve the principle of a further “invest to save” project involving summer charging on residential roads adjacent to the beaches, including the Sandbanks peninsula.
4.2.2
Reason / Officer Response1 / This decision is contrary to the recommendation from the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee. / Agreed.
2 / There has not been public consultation and gives the perception of being “rushed through”. / It is correct that there has not been any public consultation on the yet to be defined scheme.
The Cabinet decision involved Cabinet Member approval of the principle for such an intervention in order to allow officers to investigate the potential for such a schemein further detail.
Other than initial feasibility work in terms of potential scale based on the layout of the road network no design work has been progressed.
If approved to investigate the potential then officers would ensure that early work would involve proposals for appropriate engagement/ consultation.
3 / This is an exercise to raise revenue with no evidence of the need for charging to help control traffic flow. / The Consultant report is very clear on how the higher season demand for beach related parking exceeds supply. Given the high quality beach related offer within Poole a pricing increase was recommended with signage improvements to help manage such demand into the future. In reality VMS and other traffic management messaging methods used during the 2013 summer period provided considerable easing of traditional traffic related delays. Further signage is planned for before next summer. In identifying the potential additional income financial service colleagues have assessed the likelihood of take up to provide a range of income potential. These figures are highly provisional and were provided as input into the Star Chamber for initial MTFP consideration. If not progressed then this would create a future pressure within Transportation Services.
4 / Establishing the principle of having parking charges in residential roads thereby setting a precedent for this to be extended to other areas in the Borough to make up for shortfall of parking revenue as this proposals demonstrates. / Meter based on-street parking charges are already widely operated elsewhere in Poole and are listed in the Consultant report.
The on-street parking locations are as follows: Banks/Shore/SandbanksRoad adjacent to the harbour wall; Ferry Way; Deer Hay Lane; West Quay Road; Serpentine Road; Catalina Drive; Labrador Drive; Newfoundland Drive; Kingland Road/ Park Lake Road and Parkstone Road. Some of these roads are residential in nature.
No other proposal for on-street charging has been considered. As in the past, any other schemes would need to be considered by Members based on their merit and through the proper approval process. No plans exist at present for any other scheme assessment.
5 / Sandbanks Peninsula was included when it was not part of the recommendation presented by Councillor Clements. / Correct. The officer proposal to investigate this project showed an outline of the potential scale to EcOS having excluded the Sandbanks Peninsula.
An original proposal for on- street car park charges related to parts of the Sandbanks Peninsula was tabled at Transport Advisory Group back in 2011 but did not gain approval.
6 / Proposal encompasses roads parked up mainly by local residents as opposed to visitors/tourists as suggested. / At present there is no detailed evidence of who actually parks at these locations as this would need a detailed survey of users. Low response rates would be of some concern unless an interview-based technique was to be used. Further consideration would be needed if such a scheme were to be progressed.
In reality there is likely to be a mix of parking use i.e. between those visiting the area; more local Poole-based locals and indeed residents of the roads themselves. This mix is likely to vary based on the weather and may also vary by time of day. In general though there are off-road parking facilities available for many residents and on-street demand generally only exceeds supply during periods of better summer weather or when events are being held in the locality.
5.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1The proposed District Car Parks tariff increases are estimated to generate £84,000 of additional income in 2014/15. This £84,000 has been built into Transportation’s Services base budget for that year. A decision to set aside these proposed tariff increases – as per the call-in - would therefore generate an £84,000 pressure on Transportation Services budgets. The Unit would then have to try and offset this pressure by service reductions and/or efficiencies elsewhere.
5.2At this stage the proposal to introduce on-street summer parking charges on residential roads adjacent to the beaches is tentatively expected to generate additional income in the region of £93,000 to £208,000. During the MTFP process this proposal was flagged up for further investigation only so nothing has yet been built into Transportation’s budgets for this item. The anticipated investigation of the proposal would allow the estimates to be refined and built into the Council’s budget plans in a subsequent MTFP.
6.RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Members requested an independent review of Car Parking to assist in dealing with the objectives set out for the Consultants. In defining the scope of the work ahead the key risks were considered with the expectation that the recommendations if approved would in turn improve the service as well as its financial position, reducing the pressure on the Council to cover such risks at the expense of other service delivery.
7.EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The Consultants assessed the market and user impact in coming to their recommendations on District pricing for the future.
Equality implications would be considered if investigation of further on-street parkingadjacent to the beaches were to progress.
8.CONCLUSION
It is clear that despite the clear aims of the review itself some Members are concerned over the potential impact of increasing District based charges.
The consultants addressed the issues raised in varying detail but did make their recommendation after assessing the market itself as well as the relative affordability of local people. District prices are relatively low when compared to neighbouring authorities, even with the proposed increase.
The financial position of the Council has in part led to officers being asked to consider investigating ways of improving income where the market could allow in order to safeguard other front line services into the future.
Julian McLaughlin
Head of Transportation Services
Name and Telephone Number of Officer Contact:
Steve Tite (01202 262020)
Appendix A- Call-in Cabinet Decisions 14 January 2014
Appendix B- Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee 5 December 2013
Appendix C- Cabinet 14 January 2014
Appendix D - Summary Report of Consultation
Appendix A
CALL-IN OF CABINET DECISIONS: 14 JANUARY 2014
CA99.14STRATEGIC CAR PARKING REVIEW:
DECISION TAKEN
(i)“That Cabinet approve the adoption of the proposed Pricing Strategy as set out in the Report to Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet, including the District Car Parks (Sections 4.14 to 4.18 of the Report)”.
For – Unanimous
Decision “Called-In” by Councillors Brooke, Clements, Mrs Slade, Eades,
Mrs Moore, Mrs Le Poidevin, Meachin, Godfrey, Brown,
For the following reasons:
- It is contrary to the recommendation from the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee;
- There has been no consultation with relevant Chambers of Trade and, in the case of Broadstone, with the Neighbourhood Forum, which is a statutory consultee;
- There has been no Impact Study into the consequences of increased car park charges on local businesses, essential since the Council has, as one of its aims, maintaining the vitality of local high streets;
- There has been no assessment of the impact on traffic movements and parking in side streets as a result of the accepted decrease in car park usage.
DECISION TAKEN
(iv) That Cabinet approve the principle of a further “invest to save” project involving summer charging on residential roads adjacent to the beaches, including the Sandbanks peninsular;
For – Councillor Ms Atkinson, Mrs Butt, Mrs Dion, Mrs Rampton,
Mrs Walton and White
Abstained – Councillor Sorton
Decision “Called-In” by CouncillorsBrooke, Burden, Clements, Mrs Haines, Parker, Mrs Stribley and Woodcock
For the following reasons:
- This decision is contrary to the recommendation from the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
- There has not been public consultation and gives the perception of being "rushed through".
- This is an exercise to raise revenue with no evidence of the need for charging to help control traffic flow.
- Establishing the principle of having parking charges in residential roads thereby setting a precedent for this to be extended to other areas in the Borough to make up for shortfall of parking revenue as this proposal demonstrates.
- Sandbanks Peninsular was included when it was not part of the recommendation presented by Councillor Clements.
- Proposal encompasses roads parked up mainly by local residents as opposed to visitors/tourists as suggested.
Additional reasons submitted by Councillor Clements (NOTE: not supported by signatories to the original Call-in)