Minutes:
Councillor John Holland who was one of the members who initiated the call-in made the following statement:
“We had caused a lot of changes after the election last May and many people may not be aware that we had a massive consultation about so resident parking schemes under the previous council. That led the Cabinet to decide but just before the election that there will be no increase in the resident parking charges.
I think if you go into an election on that basis that after the election, as a matter of trust and honour that you should honour that decision that you went into the election on. But my main point is the reason we have resident parking schemes, came about after the recession of the 1980s and the need to revitalise our town centres and to encourage people to live in the town centre, and there are several reasons for that. Obviously, they people become customers of town centre businesses
but perhaps more importantly residents look after the place and they don't put up with any disturbance or hooliganism, they call the police get sorted out and town centres then become a very safe place in the evening; so that as well as a daytime economy you can develop an evening economy and it clearly has worked in many town centres now to encourage people in on the basis that there would be resident parking permits of reasonably priced and to then ‘jack’ the prices up in my view is a breach of trust and very counterproductive.
I think that we should therefore honour the charges that we went into the election and honour the major point that the town centres limited parking, obviously as contested space, the spaces for customers of business are for residents but not for people who park all day who can use the car parks provided by district and borough councils. What we actually need is a joined-up parking strategy jointly between the districts and boroughs and the County Council and resident permits being available for parking in either place. We have moved backwards on this we used to have one set of traffic wardens in forcing both car parks and street now we have two rival teams and are really think that what we need now is rather than the proposers of went through Cabinet which were a bit muddled and confused,
discounts for electric cars when you can't charge an electric car in the street and so on, I think we need a proper to end up parking strategy with the districts and boroughs and ourselves and we need to honour the prices that we told town centre residents they would expect to pay.”
Mr Bob Reeve spoke against the report and made the following statement:
I am here representing Concerned Rugbeians against Parking Permit Proposals. As such, I wish to place on record at the outset, that Rugby residents strongly object to the proposed increases to parking permit charges. After a residents meeting held on 16th March 2022, I wrote to David Ayton-Hill (who attended our meeting) highlighting 10 specific areas of contention / objections to the details/conclusions in the Working Group report. To date we are still awaiting a response to that letter.
I am also aware that Mr Tim Roberts a resident in Claremont Road has written a lengthy letter challenging the methodology used by the Working Group in order, it would appear, to simply justify the recommended pricing structure. Since our meeting on 16th March I have spent some considerable time reviewing the documentation that was provided to the working group, upon which it is assumed that they had to make their recommendations and I wish to make the following comments:
Your report refers to the on-street parking orders pursuant to sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, I draw your attention to Sub section (3): In determining what parking places are to be designated under this section the authority concerned shall consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining property,
Question: What consideration did the Working Group give to the fact that the parking permit scheme was originally encouraged by Rugby Borough Council to address the issue of visitors to the town or train commuters using the side streets to park free of charge, rather than using the train station parking facilities or town centre car parks. There was never any suggestion that the permit scheme was in in way providing an unfair parking advantage over other car users, as alluded to in the report. RBC encouraged residents to adopt the parking scheme in order to provide parking for the residents, where in most cases there is no alternative off-road parking at the rear of their predominantly terraced houses within the Benn Ward.
Your report also provides details of when a local authority may keep the money raised from parking charges, which in summary states: They may only use the surplus that results as a by-product of setting the level of charge that is necessary for “relieving or preventing congestion of traffic”.
The Act further states: Any charges must be based on evidence and reasoning as to why that level is necessary to relieve or prevent congestion of traffic. We therefore strongly object to the proposed increases for parking permits, when:
a. no evidence has been provided to prove such measures will relieve or prevent congestion,
b. the recommended permit cost uplift would result in a revenue increase of approximately £450,000, and
c. it is also noted that there is already a substantial surplus sum reflected in Warwickshire County Council accounts.
We also contend that WCC would be acting illegally if the Cabinet endorses the recommendations made by the Cross-Party Working Group in sections 2 and 3 and further contend the recommendation at 2.12.
For the reasons already discussed, inflation alone cannot legally be used as a reason to increase parking permit charges.
In summary, there is an ever increasing concern by Rugby residents that the scope and level of parking permit charges appears to be driven more by the need for council to raise money, rather than by the proper management of parking, and despite the legal limitations that they must comply with and we are also particularly frustrated by the apparent lack of any proper management and scrutiny by the council regarding the quality of service that NSL is supposed to contractually provide. Thank you.
Mr Richard Harrington spoke against the Cabinet report and made the following statement:
Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I represent the residents of Benn Ward as well as speaking on behalf on concerned Rugbeians Against Parking Proposals. I would like to talk about the cost of the permits and how this will affect residents in Rugby and Warwickshire. During my speech today, I will be asking questions which we are still waiting to be answered as well as explaining why residents are frustrated by the amount of parking permits have gone up by.
So firstly, why is the cost of the permit £63 to administer? This seems very high when Coventry is only charging £20 per permit and it’s all electronic. This figure seems so high. On this figure you’re saying this scheme costs around £850,000 a year to run. Also, when speaking to David Ayton-Hill this cost was worked out to £70 but when a consultant was employed to check this, they advised you £63. How much was the consultant to the taxpayers in Warwickshire? The biggest question is how much profit is NSL making out the council and residents of Warwickshire as part of the Marson Group, the company made £271 million pounds. This is a scandal. This scheme is meant to protect residents against people parking outside their houses as we live near train stations or town centres. The Council made a surplus of £2 million last year. This need to be brought back into local control to like Rugby Borough and things like that because we are going to get the money back into local residents. Also, in the Rugby Observer in 2014, they said there was going to be a £500,000 saving for the council when NSL took over. Where has this money gone? Currently inflation is 6.1%, energy prices increased by 54%, food prices have gone up by 5.4%. There’s people out there choosing between heating and eating.
The local council is supposed to represent our interests, to increase it by 100% for the first car and for the second cars and visitors 200%, I don’t think anyone gets that sort of pay rise. It seems to council doesn’t want to increase prices within inflation but just wants big figures instead. I know you have delayed the increases for 12 months which will help so thank you, but this increase needs to be scrapped altogether. Another issue to raise is the council’s lack of communication and joined-up thinking. Last time you tried to increase it to 220% via sending out information out via postcards which people threw away. If it wasn’t for the campaigning against the ‘unfair stealth tax’, you might have got increase through first time.
In conclusion price rise needs to be scrapped as you make £2 million profit from the whole scheme, why do you need any more out of residents? I feel there’s too many questions unanswered. There’s no transparency on prices and costs. It feels the council is out of touch with residents. So answer these questions today if possible, there needs to be more communication between residents and Council. It seems the Council on making the same mistakes as last time. Hopefully can make the right decision today for residents of Warwickshire by scrapping the price rise. Thank you for your opportunity speed say thank you for listening.
The Chair thanked the public speakers for their comments.