Agenda item

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Resources)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Resources) to consider the annual review of fees and charges for 2015/16.

 

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

 

The Council’s general fees and charges policy was last considered by Cabinet a year ago and in broad terms, the main principles are still considered relevant.  During the last year, however, the Authority has adopted new Financial Regulations and also the Scheme of Delegations to Officers has been updated.  The Fees and Charges Policy required updating to reflect these governance changes and the new draft is included at Appendix A to the report for Cabinet’s endorsement.

 

                      Chief Officers have reviewed the fees and charges within their service areas, together with any associated concessions, and any proposals that differ to the general policy principles outlined in the report, or are otherwise outside of the budget, are set out for consideration in the later sections of the report.

 

Where fees and charges are to change in line with policy and/or the budget, these will be amended through existing Officer delegations and therefore no Cabinet decision is required and so no detail is provided within the report, unless any unusual circumstances justify otherwise.  It should be noted that in exercising their delegated authority, Officers may well consider groupings of charges for similar or related activities and within those groupings, they may vary individual fees (or concessions) above or below inflation, for example but as long as in totality, it is reasonable to assume that the relevant income budget will be met and the variances do not go against any other aspect of policy, then no Cabinet decision is required.

 

Should Cabinet support any options contained later in the report that do not meet the draft budget assumptions, then they would need to go forward as growth, for consideration as part of Council’s budget proposals.  However, Members should be aware that in some instances the timescales for gaining Council approval may cause operational difficulties for implementing any new charges by 1st April 2015, taking account of any statutory notice periods required.

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

 

Car Parking

 

This is the only area in which a number of options are presented and therefore for clarity, full information is included in Appendix C to the report. 

 

Option 1A: Increase a range of charges to achieve the budget figure

 

This could be achieved by either a £0.10 increase on the 1hr short stay tariff or by a range of increases across less sensitive tariffs.

 

Advantages	Disadvantages	Risks
Could achieve the Council’s budget figure, and therefore fits with financial strategy.   May help maintain the income base for future years and smooth future years’ increases (or avoid above-inflation price increases).     It requires less savings to be made from other areas.	Because of a number of factors and particularly the upheaval of the United Utilities work it has been difficult to arrive at meaningful analysis of the impact of last year’s charge increase. Which means that whilst the figure can be achieved in theory it won’t necessarily hold in practice.   Increasing some parking charges in Lancaster could discourage shoppers and visitors after the long standing road works.   Increasing parking charges in Morecambe could further discourage usage which is continuing to reduce despite two summers of good weather.   Although parking charges are broadly comparable with surrounding towns increasing charges could create a perception that the Council is continually increasing parking charges.   Increasing parking charges on the 1 hr tariff would remove the main cost differential with on-street parking charges in the event of the County Council not increasing its charges   Unlikely to be welcomed by businesses and their representatives.	The major risk of increasing parking charges would be that usage could reduce as a result.

 

          

Option 1B:  Freeze charges

                      That for the reasons outlined in the report off street pay and display and permit charges are frozen for 2015/16.

This option is presented in light of most parking charges being increased in 2014/15, the extensive works carried out by United Utilities in Lancaster and the ongoing reductions in usage in Morecambe. This option may help promote increased use of car parks in the district and in Lancaster following completion of the United Utilities road works. This option would not meet the inflationary impact already included within the draft revenue budget, however, and therefore results in a growth budget proposal that does not fit with current financial strategy.  However, it is hoped that if promoted positively, usage would be increased to some degree, helping to reduce the overall budget growth needs, and should Members decide upon this proposal then it is estimated that £18,400 would need to be added to the General Fund net position as a consequence  (rather than the full £38,400 inflationary provision).

 

Advantages	Disadvantages	Risks
Not increasing parking charges could promote greater use of car parks and avoid any further negative impacts on businesses and traders.   Not increasing parking charges in Lancaster could encourage shoppers and visitors after the long standing road works.   Not increasing parking charges in Morecambe could encourage greater usage which is continuing to reduce despite two summers of good weather.   Although parking charges are broadly comparable with surrounding towns not increasing charges may help address any concerns about the level of charging.   Not increasing parking charges would maintain the main cost differential with on-street parking charges in the event of the County Council not increasing its charges.	Not increasing parking charges means that estimated income from car parking will be reduced, assumed to be on an ongoing basis to some extent – this goes against current approved financial strategy.   It requires more savings to made from other areas.	The major risk of not increasing parking charges would be that usage might not increase, could remain the same or continue to reduce and the adverse impact on the budget could be greater than the amount that has been allowed for in the 2015/16 draft revenue budget.

           

Option 2

This option is to reconsider the introduction of Bank Holiday parking charges in Lancaster. This was originally considered in view of shopping on Bank Holidays become a regular feature of retailing.  Introducing parking charges on the eight Bank Holidays in Lancaster throughout the year would align parking charges with Morecambe and could raise potential additional income of £5,000 per annum.  

 

Advantages	Disadvantages	Risks
Introducing charges on Bank Holidays would align parking charges with Morecambe.   Introducing charges would adopt consistent charges across the district and avoid customers being unsure of the charging arrangements in Lancaster   In the event of Option 1B (above) being approved also, introducing charges on Bank Holidays would help to offset the adverse impact on the City Council’s budget.	BID are likely to schedule and fund further events etc. in 2015/16 to increase visitor numbers in Lancaster on public holidays.  Introducing charges could be seen as conflicting with that, by some.	Further objections from Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Lancaster BID will be received.

 

Option 3

                      This option is to increase the cost of an annual resident permit in all zones where the charge is less than £40 by £5 for 2015/16 with incremental increases of £5 in future years. This will generate £3,200 in 2015/16 and address the estimated deficit on the cost of administering residents parking on an ongoing basis. Future increases will achieve consistency and ensure the cost of administering and managing the scheme is properly covered. 

           

Advantages	Disadvantages	Risks
Increasing the cost of annual resident permits in some zones (where the current charge is less than £40) will address the deficit in 2015/16 and ensure the cost of administering and managing the schemes is covered.   Future increases will allow a uniformed charge to be introduced across all parking zones in the district, promoting fairness in line with charging principles.	Residents in zones where the charge is currently less than £40 will have annual price increases for permits following a long period of no price increases.	The increases could lead to objections and a decrease in the demand for permits (although if this option is not approved, there would still be the risk of complaints and challenge, linked to inconsistency and unfairness.

 

                      The Officer Preferred Option is Option 1B (freeze off street parking charges in 2015/16), Option 3 (increase costs of some residents permits) and for Cabinet to confirm its policy on the implementation of Bank Holiday parking charges in Lancaster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The officer preferred options, as set out in the report, would generate a net cost of between £13K and £18K depending on the option approved for bank holiday parking.  However, in general, the setting of fees and charges take on board the need to generate income in line with the requirements of the Medium Term Financial Strategy and the Fees and Charges Policy, whilst endeavouring to ensure customer demand for services is not adversely impacted upon.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hamilton-Cox and seconded by Councillor Barry:

 

“That the decision with regard to recommendation (3) in the report be deferred until the report referred to in recommendation (4) had been considered so that the increase in zone charges is brought in at the same time as the increase in visitors permits.”

 

Upon being put to the vote 1 Member (Councillor Hamilton-Cox) voted in favour of the proposition, 6 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Hanson, Leytham, Sands and David Smith) voted against and 1 Member (Councillor Barry) abstained, whereupon the Chairman declared the motion to be lost.

 

Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

 

“(1) That the updated Fees and Charges Policy as set out at Appendix A to the report be endorsed.

 

(2) That it be noted that Cabinet agrees not to explore other areas of income generation for future years at this time.

 

(3) That information be sent out to estate agents etc. to confirm that the bins and recycling boxes are the property of the City Council and request that they make tenants/housebuyers aware of the need to regard these items as part of the fixtures and fittings.

 

(4) That for the reasons outlined in the report, Cabinet approves that off street pay and display and permit charges be frozen for 2015/16, subject to consideration by Council as part of the budget process.

 

(5) That Cabinet agrees not to introduce a charge for off street car parking on public holidays in Lancaster for 2015/16.

 

(6)  That with regards to resident parking zones, it be noted that:

-          the cost of managing and administering them is broadly the same in each zone;

-          some of the older zones have, however, benefitted from a long period of no price increases;

-          in all the more recent zones the price of an annual resident permit is £40;

and therefore to achieve consistency and to ensure that the cost of administering and managing the schemes is properly covered, it be approved that in zones where the charge is currently less than £40:

 

a.    the charge for 2015/16 be increased by £5

b.    that incremental increases of £5 be made in future years (until consistency is achieved); and

 

c.    that Cabinet requests the County Council to amend the Traffic Regulation Order to achieve these changes.

 

(7)    That Officers bring back a further report, following consultation, setting out how visitor parking should be best managed in the future.”

 

By way of a friendly amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Hamilton-Cox and agreed as a friendly amendment that the following wording be added to recommendation (7):

“and that officers give consideration to how parking permits aimed at commuters can be made easier to obtain including on a monthly basis, by telephone or online.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1) That the updated Fees and Charges Policy, as set out at Appendix A to the report ,be endorsed.

 

(2) That it be noted that Cabinet agrees not to explore other areas of income generation for future years at this time.

 

(3) That information be sent out to estate agents etc. to confirm that the bins and recycling boxes are the property of the City Council and request that they make tenants/housebuyers aware of the need to regard these items as part of the fixtures and fittings.

 

(4) That for the reasons outlined in the report, Cabinet approves that off street pay and display and permit charges be frozen for 2015/16, subject to consideration by Council as part of the budget process.

 

Resolved:

 

(6 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Hanson, Leytham, Sands and David Smith) voted in favour, and 2 Members (Councillors Barry and Hamilton-Cox) voted against.)

 

(5) That Cabinet agrees not to introduce a charge for off street car parking on public holidays in Lancaster for 2015/16.

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(6)  That with regards to resident parking zones, it be noted that:

-          the cost of managing and administering them is broadly the same in each zone;

-          some of the older zones have, however, benefitted from a long period of no price increases;

-          in all the more recent zones the price of an annual resident permit is £40;

and therefore to achieve consistency and to ensure that the cost of administering and managing the schemes is properly covered, it be approved that in zones where the charge is currently less than £40:

 

         a. the charge for 2015/16 be increased by £5

b.   that incremental increases of £5 be made in future years (until consistency is achieved); and

 

c.   that Cabinet requests the County Council to amend the Traffic Regulation Order to achieve these changes.

 

(7)    That Officers bring back a further report, following consultation, setting out  how visitor parking should be best managed in the future and that officers give consideration to how parking permits aimed at commuters can be made easier to obtain including on a monthly basis, by telephone or online.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Officer (Resources)

Chief Officer (Environment)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

Fees and charges form an integral part of the budget setting process, which in turn relates to the Council’s priorities.  Under the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), income generation is a specific initiative for helping to balance the budget.