(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)
The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report informing members about the future options for Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE), previously known as Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) after the expiry of the current Agency Agreement with Lancashire County Council in September 2009.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:
These are the options considered by the County’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the options from which the districts have been asked to indicate their preferred option by 1st October:
Option 1 a
This option is to continue with the current arrangements. This would build on the success of the current operation and would provide a sound basis for the future of parking enforcement across Lancashire. The County Council believe this option is not sustainable owing to the overall accumulated deficit despite the recent improvement in the financial position. It is therefore not their preferred option. Lancaster has demonstrated that it can deliver effective parking enforcement from both an operational and financial point of view and this originally represented the best option for the City Council. This is where effective parking enforcement could continue under the current operational and financial arrangements.
Option 1 b
This option would again build on the success of the current operational arrangements but requires the majority of the districts to sign up to accepting capping arrangements that would limit the cost of providing the on-street element of the parking enforcement. Detailed information is not available at present on how the capping limits would be applied but these would be linked to ensuring the ongoing cost effectiveness of the current arrangements.
This option does not represent a significant risk for the Lancaster operation due its good performance within the current partnership arrangements that resulted in a small deficit in 2007/08. Furthermore, there is no longer a financial issue with this option as funding any deficits from on-street pay and display surpluses has been agreed in principle. As previously mentioned this option is the preferred option of the Lancashire Leaders Group and the majority of the districts.
Option 2
Under this option the County Council would undertake the on-street enforcement and the district councils would carry out the enforcement of restrictions and charges on their own car parks. The City Council would be able to utilise the County Council’s enforcement contractor and have the ability to increase or decrease these resources to suit local operational arrangements. The Council would also be able to use the back office function that deals with PCN processing, correspondence, telephone calls and payments. The City Council would still undertake the issuing authority statutory functions required by the Traffic Management Act 2004. It is likely that SLAs would be prepared for the districts requesting these services from the County Council.
This option does not allow an integrated approach to local parking enforcement which contributes to the wider management of parking and traffic within the district. There would be duplicated client arrangements and possibly two groups of CEOs working for the same enforcement contractor depending on the final arrangements and whether CEOs could be “dual badged” to represent two issuing authorities. This option would also create confusion with the public in terms of which authority is responsible for particular aspects of parking enforcement. This option is a significant move away from the successful operational approach of the current arrangements.
Option 3
This option is to externalise all parking functions and enforcement within the county and district councils. Some authorities have a contractor undertaking the back office function but this is usually where there is no existing operation and there have been time restraints at the implementation stage. Outsourcing would require an element of duplication and a monitoring team would be required to ensure the required standard of service is delivered. Also some functions must be undertaken by the issuing authority in accordance with legislation e.g. dealing with formal representations, adjudicator appeals and progressing debts. Undertaking these remaining functions would still require a significant number of staff. Inevitably all authorities would still receive direct contact from the public resulting in further duplication of work.
This option is not considered to be beneficial for the above reasons and is not supported by the County Council and the CPE Project Board.
Option 1b is the preferred option building on the success of the current operational arrangements, providing an integrated approach to parking enforcement and contributing to the wider management of parking and traffic in the district. This is also likely to be the County Council’s preferred option based on the latest legal advice and the revised financial position. This option is also supported by the majority of districts.
Option 1b is likely to allow Lancaster to continue the CPE operation within the budget framework, subject to further information regarding capping limits and the utilisation of on-street pay and display surpluses being available. Should Option 1b be the implemented option and assuming it can be delivered within financial limits, it is recommended that the decision to enter into the next agreement be delegated to the Corporate Director (Regeneration).
It was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Charles:-
“(1) That the City Council’s preferred option for the management of Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) after September 2009 is Option 1b subject to:
a) The County Council confirming that it will honour the current financial commitments made by the Lancashire Local including providing the necessary resources and funding to complete the schemes.
b) That further discussions be commenced with the County Council with regard to the funding and provision of similar schemes in future and the future allocation of on-street pay and display surpluses.
c) That the County Council encourages other districts to introduce on-street pay and display parking where appropriate and will introduce the necessary traffic regulation orders to support the schemes.
(2) That, subject to the above and Option 1b being approved by the County Council, and its operation being within the budget framework, the decision of entering into the next agreement be delegated to the Corporate Director (Regeneration).”
Members then voted as follows:-
Resolved unanimously:
(1) That the City Council’s preferred option for the management of Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) after September 2009 is Option 1b subject to:
a) The County Council confirming that it will honour the current financial commitments made by the Lancashire Local including providing the necessary resources and funding to complete the schemes.
b) That further discussions be commenced with the County Council with regard to the funding and provision of similar schemes in future and the future allocation of on-street pay and display surpluses.
c) That the County Council encourages other districts to introduce on-street pay and display parking where appropriate and will introduce the necessary traffic regulation orders to support the schemes.
(2) That, subject to the above and Option 1b being approved by the County Council, and its operation being within the budget framework, the decision of entering into the next agreement be delegated to the Corporate Director (Regeneration).
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Corporate Director (Regeneration)
Head of Property Services
Reasons for making the decision:
The decision will build on the success of the current operational arrangements, providing an integrated approach to parking enforcement and contributing to the wider management of parking and traffic in the district. Option 1b is also likely to be the County Council’s preferred option based on the latest legal advice and the revised financial position. This option is also supported by the majority of districts. It is also likely to allow Lancaster to continue the CPE operation within the budget framework, subject to further information regarding capping limits and the utilisation of on-street pay and display surpluses being available.