Agenda item

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risks

Option 1: Do Nothing

No additional costs.

Evidence indicates that existing on street parking capacity is sufficient to meet short stay shopper’s parking.

No additional car parking.

Remnants of play area remain detracting from quality of open space and boundary wall continues to provide cover for nefarious activities

Missed opportunity to evaluate need for car park.

Option 2: Formal Pay & Display Car Park

This option provides 38 additional parking spaces (but this might not necessarily be an advantage, as evidence indicates sufficient capacity exists already).

The creation of off-street parking areas could help the regeneration of the West End.

Formal off street parking can be promoted and signed.

Significant costs of £65K capital and £10K revenue annually is greater than the funds potentially available.

Survey data does not indicate a need for additional off street parking.

Unless they can be incorporated this proposal would see the loss of 9 mature trees that provide amenity value.

Invest proves to be a waste of resources in absence of demand.

Pay and Display charges may lead to car park being unused as vacant free short stay on street parking is utilised instead.

Option 3: Low Cost Temporary Car Parking Area

Lower capital and revenue cost that could be met by available Empty Shops Funding.

Provides 14-17 additional parking spaces (As with option 2, however, the above points might not necessarily be advantages, as evidence indicates sufficient capacity exists already).

Enables demand from shoppers and traders to be confirmed, albeit at a cost – subject to results this could lead to consideration of establishing a permanent car park.

Retains all the street trees.

Positive action to promote the retail area through the use of Empty Shops Funding.

14-17 parking spaces may be viewed as too few by traders.

Temporary car parks often become permanent and it would, in time, require some of the features and associated costs of a more formal permanent car park.

Boundary wall remains in place and will continue to provide cover for nefarious activities.

Investment proves to be a waste of resources in absence of demand.

If proved to be needed, no guarantee that council could find resources to formalise car park. It would be hard to manage expectations once temporary car park has been provided.

Without parking controls it may be abused. It may also discourage purchase of residents’ parking permits. Residents not entitled to a permit Clarendon Road may also take advantage of these spaces.

Option 4: Temporary Car Park

Lower capital and revenue cost than a formal car park.

Provides an additional 33 parking spaces.

Again though, these may not prove to be advantageous.

Parliament Street entrance to car park makes for easy access to a car park from Regent Road.

Positive action to promote retail area through use of Empty Shops Funding.

Minimises the loss of street trees.

Temporary car parks often become permanent and it would, in time, require the features and associated costs of a more formal permanent car park and therefore presents a future cost liability.

Higher capital cost means that it would not be possible to include a means of control to the parking with the available funding.

Investment a waste of resources in absence of demand.

If proved to be needed no guarantee that council could find resources to formalise car park. It would be hard to manage expectations once temporary car park has been provided.

Without parking controls it may be abused. It may also discourage purchase of residents’ parking permits. Residents not entitled to a permit Clarendon Road may also take advantage of these spaces.

Future costs to formalise car park if proven to be needed.