NOTES OF TRAVEL TO WORK IMPLEMENTATION GROUP MEETING

Tuesday 30 January 2001

2.00 pm Elton Room, Senate House

Present:Professor R Hodder-Williams (Chair)

Mr T Macdonald

Mr K Yarwood

Mr M Belcher

Miss K Lanham

Mr J O Bailey

Miss K England

Professor R Little

Mrs B Calder

In Attendance:Mr J J Cole, Mr C Primrose, Mrs C Hall, Miss N Smith, Mr W Liew

Apologies:Mrs N Daniels, Mr R Bartlett, Mr C Starr, Miss C Willmore, Dr H Bradley, Dr A Williams, Mrs M Dunderdale

Action

1. /

Progress Report on University Transport Plan

Mr Primrose commented that he believed the new scheme was working well. He explained that the volume of complaints in general had reduced. Mr Primrose commented that typical comments received by Security Services were about the abundance of Category ‘A’ spaces, the lack of Category ‘B’ spaces and why was it so easy to park in Category ‘C’ car parks. Mr Primrose reported that most of the complaints received were from Category ‘B’ permit holders not being able to find a space close to their place of work. He commented that he believed Category ‘B’ permit holders felt disadvantaged. In general comments being received in the Security Office were of a less contentious nature.
Professor Hodder-Williams asked about the car parking software. Mrs Hall commented that the software was performing as expected and that feedback received from Finance Department was good. Mr Liew reported that there was still a large number of staff purchasing coupons one by one instead of batches. Mr Starr had asked Mr Liew to bring to the attention of the group possible methods of encouraging staff to purchase more than one coupon at a time. Mr Liew also commented that he had received a number of comments from staff wishing to see or to be provided with more details of coupon purchasing on their pay slips as well as the deductions.
Mr Macdonald asked if it was, still, not possible to edit the software for an incorrect entry. Mr Cole confirmed that this was correct although there were plans to make a number of amendments to the software in the future. Mr Macdonald commented that it would be beneficial to be able to see and check the entry made before it was accepted. Mr Cole reiterated to the group that the desired method of purchasing coupons was via the web.
Mr Primrose commented that there were still a number of staff who did not know how to use the coupons, although the number was reducing daily.
Mr Yarwood asked for an update on the HUBS. He had received comments from colleagues relating to times of running, music playing whilst on the bus and early departures from Bristol Temple Meads. Mr Cole explained that there was a fundamental problem at Bristol Temple Meads with parking and that although the drivers were advised to wait, if they arrived early this was not always possible. Mr Cole had been in recent discussions with UBHT.
Mr Yarwood asked if the HUBS timetable was up-to-date. Mr Cole explained that the timetable on the web was current. He further commented that extensions to the service were being discussed with UBHT. Mr Liew asked who had set up the service. Mr Cole commented that it was set between UBHT and the University. Mr Liew commented that he had experienced some difficulty with the shuttle bus times.
Mr Yarwood commented on the Car Parking signs, and had received feedback from colleagues that these were confusing. One particular example was given in Drama where there could be misleading signs of both Category ‘A’ and Category ‘C’. Mr Macdonald agreed with the comment and affirmed the confusion.
Mr Macdonald commented on the number of Category ‘C’ spaces gradually filling up. Mr Primrose commented that where there had originally been a large number of spaces there were less now. He commented that a large number of staff had been parking on the road. Miss England commented that staff on the higher end of the salary scale may find it more convenient to park on the road.
Mr Cole commented that with the loss of Senate House car park this would decrease the number of Category ‘C’ spaces and this would increase competition for both on and off-street parking.
Mr Primrose commented that it was favourable that the University had implemented a car parking policy ahead of the Controlled Parking Zone scheme being implemented by Bristol City Council.
Mr Yarwood commented on the bicycle facilities near Engineering and that push-bikes were now being parked where space had been allocated for motorbikes. Miss Lanham confirmed that the bike facilities were still accessible. Mr Belcher commented that staff at 8-10 Berkeley Square were still parking their bicycles inside the building, when a number of keys had been provided for the secure bicycle parking at 35 Berkeley Square. Mr Cole commented on the high number of spaces available for Berkeley Square cyclists.
2. /

Summary of Estates Committee Paper

Mr Cole outlined briefly his paper which had recently been submitted to the Estates Committee on the long-term strategy for the University car parking. Mr Cole commented that he had made a number of recommendations, but that he felt the most important recommendation was that the University should keep and maintain about 1,000 car parking spaces. Mr Cole explained this had not been accepted by the Committee who felt it could have cost and resource implications for the future. Mr Cole added that it was now on record that the Committee should view car parking at the University as a whole, rather than looking at specific car parks in isolation. Professor Hodder-Williams commented that the Estates Committee gave no commitment to a fixed number of spaces. Mr Cole explained that there would be a reduction in the number of spaces by 2005/6 with 250 spaces being lost in the near future.
3. /

Appeals

Mr Cole commented to the Group that he had received three appeals since the previous meeting which he felt was a very positive sign.

Applicant 1

Mr Cole explained that the applicant had applied for a Category ‘B’ but not achieved the points to warrant the space. The applicant’s circumstances had recently changed to reflect a caring responsibility for an elderly parent and was required to leave the Precinct at lunchtimes. Mr Cole commented that he felt this issue had not been covered in previous appeals. It was agreed by the Group to award a Category ‘B’ permit but that it should be reviewed in the Summer. / Security Services

Applicant 2

Mr Cole explained that this was a member of staff working in Housekeeping in a Supervisory role who was contracted to start work at 9.00 am and needed a car to carry out their work. Housekeeping Department had not been prepared to pay for a Departmental User space and the applicant felt that they should be awarded a Category ‘B’ permit although they did not score enough points. Professor Hodder-Williams commented on the need to differentiate between getting to work and needing a car on site. The Group agreed to award a Category ‘C’ permit. / Security Services

Applicant 3

Mr Cole explained that this was a member of staff who had received a Category ‘B’ space but wished it to be changed to Category ‘A’ as they found it inconvenient to walk approximately 15 minutes to the Vet School. Mr Primrose commented that there might be security implications in this case. Professor Hodder-Williams suggested that the Head of Department be written to for support in this case. Mr Primrose commented that he believed the applicant considered themselves to be at risk when parking at the Vet School. The Group agreed to hear no further appeals from this applicant, as had been previously minuted. /

RWH

At this point Professor Hodder-Williams reported to the Group that he had received, in confidence, another appeal which he wished to bring to the attention of the Group.

Applicant 4

Professor Hodder-Williams explained that he had received additional medical evidence supporting the appeal for the applicant to be awarded a Category ‘A’ space. He commented that he had received a letter from the applicant’s Psychiatrist’s. He asked the Group to trust his decision that he felt this information to be sufficient recognition of the applicant’s physical problems with the existing car parking arrangements. The Group agreed to award the applicant a Category ‘A’ permit. / Security Services
4. / Enforcement Rules Governing the use of University Car Parks
Professor Hodder-Williams commented that it was important the Group look at the text of the rules. Mr Cole commented that the Rules had been agreed by Council but the interpretation was to be discussed by the Group.

Rule 1

Para 1, 3rd Sentence
Should read .. a scratch card coupon should be displayed between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm /

NBS

Para 1, 5th Sentence
Should read .. so that both can be clearly seen /

NBS

Interpretation

Para 1, 1st Sentence
Should read .. Permit holders parking anywhere else than in a Category ‘A’ space or a Category ‘B’ space will be issued with a warning / NBS
Para 1, 2nd Sentence
Should read .. on a second or subsequent failure to park /

NBS

Rule 2

Para 1, 1st Sentence
Should read .. Non permit holders are forbidden to park in a University car park unless .. /

NBS

Para 1, 2nd Sentence
Should read .. however, central facilities /

NBS

Interpretation

Para 1
Should be divided into two sentences as follows:
Any vehicle parking in the Hawthorns visitor car park without a booking will be issued with a warning.
Any visitor parking in a space other than the Hawthorns or a Departmental Visitor space will be issued with a warning. /

NBS

Mr Primrose commented that if vehicles were not registered on the software, Security Services would make enquires.
Miss England commented on an example of an external Supervisor visiting trainees at a number of locations on the Precinct and that they had found it somewhat inconvenient to travel back to the Hawthorns car park after each visit.

Rule 3

Interpretation

Para 4, 1st Sentence
Should read .. on the first occasion in a fixed penalty fine /

NBS

It was agreed by the Group that a fixed penalty fine be issued rather than a warning and that second or subsequent offenders would be clamped. / Security Services
Mr Yarwood asked if Mr Primrose/Security Services had the ability to remove offending cars from the Precinct. Mr Primrose that the provision to remove cars was available.

Rule 4

Item d)
Should read .. Roving Departmental permit holders may park. The Group agreed to review the wording of this rule. /

NBS

Item g)
Mr Madonald asked if staff wished to move their cars after 4pm whether there would be spaces elsewhere to move to. Mr Cole commented that there would be Category ‘B’ spaces available on the Precinct somewhere. / NBS

Interpretation

Para 1
Should be removed. /

NBS

Contractors

The Group agreed that the word ‘Regular’ be placed before Contractors to distinguish the category. Professor Hodder-Williams suggested that the definition of ‘contractor’ be defined. / JJC
Mr Primrose commented that where Contractors were carrying out electrical and telephone work on a regular basis it was feasible to award them an annual permit rather than a permit for each day.
It was recognised that it would be difficult to fine Contractors working for the University but the Group agreed that they should be subject to and comply with the same rules as others. There was some discussion as to whether car parking regulations could be entered onto contracts at the time of issue. Professor Hodder-Williams commented that he found this acceptable.Mr Primrose felt this would be difficult to implement in practice.
Mr Liew commented that an extract from the car parking rules could be included. Mr Primrose commented that he felt the long term and short term Contractors would be happy to have rules included.
Mr Liew commented that in Finance they received a number of Auditors and sought clarification on how they should be categorised. Mr Cole commented that maintenance personnel carrying equipment onto the Precinct in order to carry out their work were classed as Contractors. In Mr Liew’s case the Auditors would be classed as visitors and would be required to park at The Hawthorns. The Group agreed.

Departmental Discretion

It was noted by a member of the Group that the use of Departmental User spaces by other members of the Department, not listed as users, could be open to systematic abuse of the space. The Group welcomed the maximisation of the space and recognised that the space could, only, be used on an ad-hoc basis by other members of the Department. Mr Primrose commented that if a vehicle was parked regularly in a space which was not a Departmental User then it would be investigated. Mr Primrose commented that he felt that the Departments would advise Security Services of mis-use of the space allocated to them as each Department was paying £500.00 for the space (£300 for2000/01).
Penalties for Breach of Rules
Mr Primrose handed out copies of a draft Fixed Penalty Fine to the Group for comment. Mr Cole outlined the procedure for issuing the fine which was to be entered onto the software and if not cancelled within 21 days (appeal period) it would be sent to payroll for the appropriate deduction from salary. Security Services to amend the document to reflect the changes. / Security Services
Mr Bailey asked if the deduction would be from gross or net salary. Mr Liew commented that it will be from net income.
Mr Bailey commented that he thought it useful to remind colleagues that under the terms of the scheme staff had the right to appeal under the University Grievance Procedure as well as to Security Services. Mr Bailey felt that Mr Primrose would be put in a difficult position if he had imposed the fine and was hearing the appeal against the fine.
Miss England commented that the University Grievance procedure existed through the Line Management structure.
Professor Hodder-Williams suggested the wording on the fine to reflect that staff wishing to appeal should contact the Chief Security Officer in the first instance. The Group agreed.
The Group also felt that if a further appeal was felt necessary then it would be dealt with by TWIG and then Council. It was agreed to put such wording into a standard letter from Security Services. / Security Services
Security Services
Mr Liew asked if the Group thought that Council would be inundated. Professor Hodder-Williams commented that he thought this would remain to be seen.
Comments were made regarding the transfer of coupons to other users earlier in the meeting. Professor Hodder-Williams clarified that the coupons were not transferable and was indicated under Rule 3. He commented that there were three clear categories regarding the mis-use of permits and coupons as follows:
a)alterations
b)unauthorised transfers
c)failure to display
The Group agreed to these categories.
Miss Smith was given a marked up version of the Rules to amend as necessary. /

NBS

5. /

Other Minor Car Parking Issues

Visitor Parking

Professor Hodder-Williams commented that he had received comments on the ‘inflexibility’ of the booking system. For a visitor to park for one hour they would have to pay for ½ day parking. Mr Cole explained that most spaces were being booked on behalf of visitors and to avoid overrun of meetings or late arrivals, for example, it had been deemed more satisfactory and controllable to make one split, either ½ day or full day. Mr Primrose commented that in previous circumstances such arrangements had been very difficult to monitor due to the number of people. It was noted that additional spaces had been provided at The Hawthorns to alleviate this situation.
Mr Cole commented that another category could be considered for those parking between the hours of 12 pm and 2 pm. Professor Hodder-Williams felt that no immediate changes should be made. Mrs Hall commented that there was a certain degree of flexibility in the system at present.
Professor Hodder-Williams commented that he had received correspondence relating to the payment of visitor parking spaces by members of Council. He asked the Group whether they considered that the Secretary’s Office should pay for the parking. Mr Cole felt that this should be treated in the same way as Finance who absorbed the cost of the Auditors to park at The Hawthorns. Professor Hodder-Williams commented that if the Secretary’s Office did not pay who else would pay in the University. Mr Liew commented that the Secretary’s Office had budgets set up for costs relating to Council and that parking could be treated in the same way. Professor Hodder-Williams commented that if the Auditors paid so should Council.
Professor Hodder-Williams asked what bookings had been taken to date for Council. Mr Primrose commented that he had received requests for spaces on 10 or 11 dates. It was agreed by the Group that the Secretary’s Office would pay for Council parking. Mr Primrose would obtain a charge code for the spaces. Professor Hodder-Williams to speak to the University Secretary. /

RWH

Number of Spaces at the Hawthorns

Professor Hodder-Williams commented on the number of spaces at the Hawthorns. He felt that the existing number of spaces should be kept until the end of the year. Mr Primrose commented that on one occasion a visitor had not realised there was additional parking at the rear of the building.

Category ‘A’ spaces