Agenda item

Councillor SarahFeeney stated that she did not get an answer when she asked why it is £63 per resident, it was implied that some of it was because of enforcement but this was legally impossible. Without seeing the benefits of the financial data, it looked like the council would make £850,000 out of the scheme. She stated that this implied a lot of staffing for a simple scheme. EV (electric vehicle) charging points cannot be put on terraced streets so those residents cannot charge their car at home; the discount was being offered for something that could not be provided. The increase in pricing did not consider the residents' ability to pay and the areas that have parking permits were struggling to pay for fuel and food already. Councillor Feeney said that a lot of residents in her area had to own a car because there was no public transport to their places of work. The equality impact assessment did not consider residents paying more who earnt less. There was not enough space on people’s streets to park outside their house; all residents that she spoke to in her area complained about parking. She suggested that needs being met, and numbers should have been looked at before increasing permit prices. Residents stated that they did not want to be in the scheme if parking outside their house could not be guaranteed. Councillor Feeney concluded that as the permits were electric, residents were confused with how to issue their visitor permit to different visitors. The price increase should be explained before implemented.  

Councillor Wallace Redford stated that the working group’s recommendations were amended by Cabinet and the price increases were postponed for 12 months. As well as the statutory consultation responses on the permit changes, the additional issues which have been raised will be considered in the report back to Cabinet for them to consider all the issues raised. He stated that if most residents on a street wanted to leave the parking permit scheme, then they could.  

Councillor Jerry Roodhouse reminded that committee about his statement at March’s Cabinet regarding the cost of living increasing. The working party was not a good one and did not address the issues presented like scrutinising the cost. The compulsory consultation will be part of a TRO (traffic regulation order) but this was not clear in the Cabinet meeting. He queried whether the issues raised at the Cabinet meeting would be implemented in the consultation. Councillor Roodhouse said that assurances would be needed, that the TRO consultation would not just be a ‘blanket approach’ to parking. HMO (houses of multiple occupation) residents had issues with finding a car parking space and there should be an appeal for people who could not pay the price increase. Councillor Roodhouse concluded that the price increases could have been done better to support vulnerable residents and still meet corporate objectives.  

Councillor Izzi Seccombe stated that the parking permit system was first implemented in 2007 and there had only been one price increase in 2015. They always considered the costs and consequences that price increases had on people. Cabinet thought about the affordability of on-street parking and this was why it was delayed by 12 months. It was also delayed because of the cost of living increases and Covid-19’s impact on the town centres. She continued that parking permits were brought in when residents requested them so they would have a place to park on or near their street. The electronic permit system is being introduced to improve accessibility so that residents and visitors could access the parking permit system when they need to. Cabinet approved their decision after agreeing on an extra consultation to look at issues not included in the TRO consultation. Councillor Seccombe noted that even with the increase, Warwickshire County Council’s permit prices were low compared to other local authorities. She concluded that the permit price was to manage parking county-wide.   

Councillor Tim Sinclair noted that the report stated that the £2 million surplus in the parking account came from other funding streams and not just on-street parking permits; the resident parking scheme was running at a loss. All working group members agreed that the permit scheme should cover itself, they debated how much the increase should be by. He stated that the EV discount was good as it promoted greener travel. The price increase would equal to 14p a day for car parking. The consultation would include residents to investigate the consequences for the price increase for them. Councillor Sinclair noted that the call-in requested a ‘full parking survey’ but he issued one in this own division looking into on-street parking, that cost him £6000 from his delegated budget and he was still waiting for the results after four months. Councillor Sinclair suggested that Councillor Feeney could use some of her delegated budget to do an on-street parking survey in her area instead of a county-wide one which could be a waste of time and money. He reiterated that Councillor Redford said that residents could leave the permit scheme if they wanted to and no evidence had been shown that residents would struggle with the electronic system for visitor permits.    

Councillor Feeney stated that the call-in focused on the £850,000 that the permit scheme produced then the £2 million surplus. There had never been any documents that showed what the scheme costs; lines and signs had been put in as part of the cost, but the lines had not been repainted for a while. She reiterated that parking enforcement paid for itself and the point of parking permit schemes was so residents could park outside their house; however, residents were not getting what they were paying for. Councillor Feeney said that it was not clear what the consultation will look at. The concern with the electronic system and visitor permits was aimed at residents who do not have access to the internet e.g. older people.    

Councillor Jonathon Chilvers informed the committee that he advocated for a different pricing structure with a cheaper first permit and more expensive second one so on-street parking could be managed as this was a scarce resource. He agreed that there should be clarity on the cost of things in the scheme to provide clarity to members and the public.  

The Chair noted that the working group asked for a breakdown of the figures which said that each permit was £63. The group agreed that the lower charge should be for the first permit and a higher charge for the second one. £50 annually equated to less than £1 a week.   

In response to Councillor Sinclair, David Ayton-Hill stated that they were trying to make the spreadsheets from the consultant more presentable and understandable for members and the public to understand. This will be shared when done.   

Councillor Chilvers said that the price per permit each came from: the appropriate part of NSL’s costs plus Warwickshire County Council staff costs divided by the amount permits issued (roughly 13,000).  

In response to Councillor Chilvers, Ian Marriott stated that any of the cost of enforcement could be considered that related to on-street parking under the resident parking scheme. Information regarding money going to NSL would need to be obtained for the scheme’s accountant, but any costs expended by the council for the purpose of enforcement could be taken in when calculating the charges that can be recovered.  

Following a supplementary from Councillor Chilvers, David Ayton-Hill That some assumptions with the amount of enforcement needed would need to be made because of the different sizes of permit areas. Work was being done to show how these assumptions were made. 

In response to Councillor Roodhouse, Ian Marriott stated that there was no restriction in the legislation on what matters can be raised by consultees during that statutory consultation. Therefore, it could cover anything relevant to the proposals in the report and in the meeting, excluding the opt-out of the scheme which would need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as the relevant district/borough would need to remove the order on street. This will include the key worker/EV discounts, HMO parking, the removal of the third permit, the impact on town centres etc. Consultees could say that the evidence supporting the proposals needed to be improved/examined and all of this would have to be considered by Cabinet when they consider the consultations outcome.  

Following a supplementary from Councillor Roodhouse, Ian Marriott stated that the council could voluntarily choose to widen the scope of the consultation so it could invite members of the public to request to opt-out option. 

In response to Councillor Sinclair, Ian Marriott confirmed that the cost breakdown should only include what the council pays NSL. 

The Chair noted that most resident parking schemes were brought in at the request of residents to manage parking on their street. Too many residents opting out could mean that more cars would be parking in street that they do not live in/near. 

Councillor Feeney said that her residents only saw NSL on weekends and they only checked yellow lines and disabled parking spaces. She had been requesting the breakdown of figures in the scheme since late February. Her residents said that just advertising the consultation the in the paper would not be enough. She reiterated her residents’ frustrations with the scheme.  

In response to the Chair, Jon Rollinson said that all statutory consultations get advertised in local papers, the local library, on the street itself and on the council website. Sometime there were letter drops but this was not compulsory.  

In response to Councillor Feeney, Jon Rollinson confirmed that translations of these notices were available in other languages for non-English speakers. 

Councillor Richard Baxter-Payne reiterated that there would be no increase in charges for 12 months and a consultation would be done so residents could opt out of the scheme if they wanted.  

In response to Councillor Baxter-Payne, Ian Marriott stated that if a street opted out of the resident parking scheme, officers would investigate the request. If there was local support, then an individual revocation order would be made for that street which would then go through a statutory consultation process. At the end of this the Portfolio Holder or Cabinet would grant it or not. Anybody requesting an opt-out would only start a process of an investigation order. However, residents could request this at any time.     

In response to the Chair, Councillor Redford informed the committee that over 1000 care workers receive free parking permits from Warwickshire County Council and expanding this to other additional other NHS key workers was a matter for discussion. Central government recently removed the entitlement to free parking for NHS workers in hospitals. 

In response to Councillor Sinclair, the Chair said that recommendations or observations could go back to Cabinet or the committee could take no further action with or without the committee sharing the comments made in this meeting.  

Councillor Sinclair stated that the committee looked at every aspect of the call-in and the delay on implementing these prices by 12 months had been welcomed by everyone. All the other recommendations made would be part of the public consultation. 

Councillor Sinclair formally proposed that the Communities OSC:

1. Welcome the delay of resident permit prices increasing by 12 months
2. Welcome that the other points raised in the meeting would be addressed as part of the public consultation
3. Propose no further actions because of the reasons stated in the first and second recommendations

This was seconded by Councillor Jack Kennaugh.

The Chair proposed that the comments made in the meeting be passed onto Cabinet for their information and considerations.

Six members voted for this, two voted against and one abstained.

Resolved

That the Communities OSC:

1. Welcome the delay of resident permit prices increasing by 12 months
2. Welcome that the other points raised in the meeting would be addressed as part of the public consultation
3. Propose no further actions because of the reasons stated in the first and second recommendations
4. That the comments made in the meeting be passed onto Cabinet for their information and consideration

The Chair stated that they tried to represent all resident’s needs

The meeting rose at 15:12 

…………………………. 

Chair