Agenda item

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

(Councillor Archer left the meeting during consideration of this item and before the vote.)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report asking Members to consider the Annual Review of Parking Fees and Charges for 2010/11.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1

This option is not to implement any parking fees and charge increases in 2010/11.

The annual review of parking fees and charges is an opportunity for the City Council to review parking charges in line with budgetary commitments and the aims and objectives of the Parking Strategy. The revenue from parking is an important source of revenue for the Council and it assists with maintaining and continuing to improve the parking service that is provided. Although parking usage and pay and display income has been fairly positive in the present economic climate there is no evidence to suggest that usage and income would increase as a result of not increasing parking fees and charges. This option therefore does not meet the budgetary commitment included in the 2010/11 Draft Budget.

In terms of the budgetary position within the off-street parking service, reductions in excess of £60k have already been included in the 2010/11 draft budget through a combination of efficiency savings and the new CPE arrangements previously approved by Cabinet. Funding the shortfall from the remaining off-street parking budgets is likely to result in no reactive or planned maintenance or minor improvements being carried out during 2010/11 on the 2,900 spaces that are provided on 43 car parks throughout the district, for which there is currently a combined budget totalling £61.4K. This is contrary to the parking strategy that includes an objective to provide a high quality service through a number of objectives that can only be delivered through the proactive management of maintenance budgets. This will also have health and safety implications and increase the risk of accidents and personal injury claims arising from not being able to respond to reported faults and the twice yearly condition assessments that are undertaken. It is not possible to quantify the cost of any additional claims but these could have the potential for exceeding the required budget shortfall/maintenance savings.

It is therefore likely that this option would result in the revenue shortfall having to be met from another Service or function of the Council. As it falls outside of the current budget framework, if taken forward this option would need to form part of Cabinet’s budget proposals, for subsequent consideration and approval by Council.

Option 2

This option is aimed primarily at achieving the budgetary target that has been included in the 2010/11 Draft Budget whilst being consistent with the aims of the Parking Strategy.

This option achieves the budgetary commitment with estimated additional income of £60,000. This option only increases one pay and display tariff and minimises the increases to local parking charges and reduces the risk of adverse customer resistance. The Short Stay up to 2 hour tariff has not been increased since 2006/07 although it was increased briefly to £1.70 in April and May 2008. This supports the Parking Strategy’s hierarchy of firstly residents closely followed by visitors, shoppers and local businesses. This increase is not considered to be detrimental to the strategy’s aim of maintaining 85% occupancy at busy times in short stay car parks.

Option 3

This option is aimed at exceeding the budgetary target that has been included in the 2010/11 Draft Budget whilst still being consistent with the aims of the Parking Strategy.

This option exceeds the budgetary commitment with estimated additional income of £9,500. This option limits the proposed increases to two pay and display tariffs with the additional Short Stay Up to 3 hour tariff that has not been increased since 2006/07, some 4 years ago. This option has a slightly increased risk of customer resistance but this has already been taken into account in the potential income table highlighted in paragraph 3.1 of the report.

            Again this option is not considered to be detrimental to achieving the Parking Strategy’s aim of maintaining 85% occupancy at busy times in short stay car parks. It is logical that short stay tariffs will have to be increased periodically but increasing two tariffs once in 4 years recognises the importance of the parking hierarchy that gives priority to residents closely followed by shoppers, visitors and local businesses.

The officer preferred option is Option 3 as this exceeds the budgetary commitment, limits the number of pay and display price increases and inherent risks whilst also still being consistent with the aims and objectives of the Parking Strategy.   

Members discussed the possibility of a further review in the summer and the portfolio holder with special responsibility, Councillor Thomas, agreed that this could be enabled.

It was moved by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Mace:-

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)       To approve Option 3, as set on in the report, for increased Pay and Display charges for 2010/11.

(2)       That further representations be made to Lancashire County Council regarding increasing on-street pay and display charges for 2010/11 to maintain differential charges as outlined in paragraph 3.4 of the report.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Property Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision made exceeds the budgetary commitment and limits the number of pay and display price increases and inherent risks, yet is still consistent with the aims and objectives of the Parking Strategy.