7
Cabinet received report ES/0286 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport who reported that East Suffolk Council had completed a thorough review of its parking services, and alongside projects its economic development service was undertaking, had developed a modern approach to parking services which considered the requirements and travel patterns of visitors, residents and businesses. The report before Cabinet provided some detail of the considerations and data analysed in order to achieve some radical improvements in its parking service delivery. These included a simpler tariff structure, better use of technology, the introduction of a free half hour for parking in many of the Council's car parks where on-street parking opportunities were limited, the introduction of on-street enforcement patrols, and a new parking administration system. The details of all of the proposed changes were outlined by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport, and the Parking Services Manager, who gave a detailed presentation.
The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport advised Members that, in response to concerns which had been raised, and following further thought, he would be making a change to the recommendations within the report. This was in respect of the introduction of a free half hour for parking in many of the Council's car parks. He, with officers, was working on a system whereby a ticket could be retrieved from the pay and display machine as well as through RingGo.
Councillor Brooks also referred to errors within the report, in respect of paragraph numbering, which were duplicated within the recommendations. As such, his recommendations would be amended to reflect the correct paragraph numbering.
In response to a question from the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health relating to parking non-compliances, the Parking Services Manager advised that consultants, where regulations existed, had determined frequencies for patrols. That work had been further developed to produce a schedule of patrols; that schedule would be the starting point. Some areas had more regulations in place than others and that would highlight the areas that would require more attention than others. Using the system, there would be a record of where officers had been and where penalty charge notices had been issued. This would be reviewed, monthly initially, in order to understand where drivers were parking in contravention of the regulations.
Clarification was provided that the new charges, if approved, would come into effect on 6 April 2020; at the same time as civil parking enforcement.
The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing stated that he welcomed the proposals in respect of the half hour's free parking in 34 selected car parks across East Suffolk. However, he sought clarification in respect of a situation where somebody went over the half hour and whether or not the payment could be retrospectively paid. It was explained that this was one of the advantages of using RingGo in that they would not have to return to their vehicle to pay but, equally, they could alternatively pay using a pay and display machine.
The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health asked for clarification in respect of disabled parking. In response to this, Cabinet was advised that tariffs varied a little bit but, essentially, blue badge holders had to abide by the rules and regulations of the parking place the same as all drivers. Clarification was provided in that the blue badge itself applied only for the highway. If they parked in a car park then they received an enhanced service in the form of priority location together with accessibility bays that were safer to manoeuvre in and out of. It was explained that Blue Badge holders would pay for the time needed; further consideration was necessary regarding a grace period for overstay.
The Leader stated that disabled parking was very important and it was absolutely right to consider the impact of any changes. He understood that for some people with a disability it may take them longer to reach one place from another but he was of the view that the Council also needed to take into account fairness across the board, eg a person with children and a buggy may also take longer to reach one place from another and the Council did not offer a concession in those circumstances.
In response to a question regarding the promotion of RingGo, it was confirmed that large signage would be used together with a relaunch of the service.
In response to a further question regarding RingGo, and potential problems with connectivity, it was confirmed that, through officers, connectivity would be checked.
Councillor Deacon sought clarification in respect of the current free half hour parking slots, for example in Felixstowe town centre, he asked if they would still remain that way. The Leader responded, saying that they would not, he added that they were not actually in the town centre. The Leader stated that if one looked at Felixstowe town centre and examined the number of half hour restricted bays, which were at the moment abused, the proposed changes would generate churn on those bays and so the half hour free bays that would be in existence in Felixstowe would be freed up on a regular basis because of the enforcement taking place.
Councillor Elliott stated that, within the report, he could not see any differences between evening and weekend charges. It was confirmed that the regulations would apply between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm so, for the evening economy, there would be free parking. Councillor Elliott felt that this was not clear within the report and he asked that it be made clear for residents and visitors; he stated that a proper advertising campaign would be required.
Councillor Elliott stated that it would have been useful, within the report, and indeed within other reports such as the fees and charges report, to be able to compare previous year's figures; he asked that, in future, both existing and proposed figures be included. The Leader, in response, stated that he acknowledged and understood this, but felt that the reality was that it made reports confusing, his view was that the public knew what they were currently paying and they wanted to know what was being proposed. Councillor Elliott responded stating that he would welcome simplification; he requested that if there was a review in 2021, that the report be more straightforward. The Leader confirmed that it would be.
Councillor Green referred to the Council's communications to drivers using East Suffolk Council car parks; she stated that she would like to see the Council's website have a page for each car park, with information in respect of access and exit roads, the number of spaces, disabled spaces, information in respect of the free 30 minutes, businesses served by the car park, etc. Councillor Green also referred to the glossary of terms and said that there were a lot of abbreviations within the report; she asked that if these were used on penalty notices etc they needed to be clear. Councillor Green requested that this be actioned before April 2020. The Leader, in response, stated that there were ambitions in respect of the website, but, bearing in mind other related work, these would not be achieved, in full, by April 2020. In respect of the glossary, the Leader agreed, stating that the Council needed to ensure that all information was clear and understandable.
Councillor Fisher referred to parking fines and asked what collection rates were achieved. The Parking Services Manger explained that there was a legislative process in place, and collection rates at different stages in the process varied; they were not 100% but the fines, eventually, would be passed to the bailiffs, now known as enforcement agents.
Moving into debate, the Leader spoke of the opportunity to take parking forward for the next 100 years. He stressed that this was not just about parking, it was about moving forward the Council's whole vision, ie digital transformation / solution; the environment, reducing the number of trips that people took in their cars and making those trips more useful. Also, the dwell time in a town was important for economic development and opportunities for businesses. The dwell time needed to be improved for those people going into East Suffolk towns.
The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing stated that he welcomed civil parking enforcement; it would, he said, be positive for town centres.
The Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment reminded Members that the Council had declared a climate emergency and this was a really positive change which would encourage people to make fewer journeys, but spend more time at their destinations. He reminded Members that small changes would, over time, make a big difference.
The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development, referring to the digital transformation, spoke of the welcome convenience factor. He referred to having renewed his passport, and how good that service was, and he stated that people should be able to expect those kinds of transformations in East Suffolk towns.
Councillor Elliott stated that, broadly, he welcomed civil parking enforcement, but he was concerned at the lack of town centre parking for some residents; Bungay was, he said, a big concern, and he said that there would be many towns with the same issues. Councillor Elliott thought that simplification of the tariffs was welcome; however, he took issue with the proposed Beccles charges, which were in the higher of the two main bands. Smaller towns, he said, were in the lower band. Councillor Elliott asked Cabinet to re-consider this.
In response to Councillor Elliott's points, the Leader stated that the Council should balance the needs of residents and visitors. He added that in a number of towns within east Suffolk it was becoming impossible for people to park. For each town, he said, the Council could start to look at residents' parking schemes. In response to the proposed charges for Beccles, the Leader said that it would not be appropriate to make a change at this point; he commented that many other ward councillors were not in attendance, but may wish to see changes to their wards. There would be a review in the future where such changes could be considered.
Councillor Deacon referred to proposed charges of £1.50 in the towns of Lowestoft, Felixstowe and Aldeburgh, and asked if it was possible that these could be reviewed over a period of time, to see if there were any adverse effects on footfall. The Leader confirmed that this would be considered as part of the overall review process.
Councillor Deacon referred to what he said was in problem in Felixstowe whereby people could not park; he hoped, going forward, that when this was looked at, the affected residents would be consulted. The Leader responded stating that if there were not regulations in place, this could not be addressed through civil parking enforcement; as such, the Council's enforcement officers could not take any action.
Councillor Deacon stated that Felixstowe was a resort; he referred to the town centre of Felixstowe and said that it was difficult to reach that from the resort area. Councillor Deacon asked if it would be possible to have transferable parking tickets so that people could more easily move from one area to the other. The Leader, in response, stated that the Council was trying to collect and measure data in respect of parking. Referring to the RingGo App, he said that this needed to give information in respect of space availability. This would not work with transferable tickets being used. In conclusion, the Leader referred to parking charges being set a reasonable cost.
Councillor Deacon referred to Garrison Lane car park in Felixstowe and said that it was currently free to park in for a reason; this related to traffic congestion. There was now a proposed charge and Councillor Deacon hoped that this would not have a detrimental effect. The Leader, in response, referred to a bus station that used to be in existence, but was no longer. However, he confirmed that this would be monitored going forward.
RESOLVED
1. That the parking demand management approach discussed in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.10 and 4.12 to 4.15 be approved.
2. That the RingGo 20 pence ‘convenience fee’ be incorporated in the cost of parking services delivery (paragraph 4.12).
3. That the tariffs set out in Appendix A be approved.
4. That the 30 minutes free parking can be accessed by RingGo and by use of pay-and-display machines.