Agenda item

The attached papers were specified as “to follow” on the Agenda previously distributed relating to the above mentioned meeting.

 

The Assistant Director of Environmental and Housing Property Services presented the Strategic Parking Review and firstly apologised for the delay in the report for Member’s consideration.

 

Waterman Infrastructre and Environment were commissioned by Bromsgrove District Council to undertake the Strategic Review. The proposal was based on a brief that was discussed in consultation with the Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) on 8th May 2024 and included three key deliverables:

 

• A review of existing and future parking requirements, including supply and demand carried out on a site-by-site basis with options to address existing parking issues.  The review was also required to be linked to the wider Worcestershire Transport Strategy due to regeneration objectives to increase town centre living and footfall to support retention of the existing traders. The review was also to include Leisure Centre users and the Shopmobility service.

 

• A review of car park management arrangements with solutions identified to reduce the need for off-street parking enforcement including an outline of costs, together with operational and enforcement issues.  Also to be included were recommendations for time and day of restrictions to address existing parking issues and assess enforcement requirements for identified parking management design options.

 

• Review of on-street enforcement to be carried out to address member and resident concerns around coverage of activities.  A review to concentrate on enforcement and hotspots for law breaking and nuisance was to be undertaken, focusing on repeat offences.

 

As part of the strategic parking review, car parks were assessed across several factors including capacity, condition, usage, proportions of blue badge parking and Electric Vehicle (EV) charging bays, safety and security, accessibility, convenience and usability.

 

As part of the discussions through CAG on 8th May 2024 and at the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting held on 12th February 2024, there was a clear desire expressed by Members to ensure a more equitable balance in patrols across the whole District. The Service Level Agreement (SLA) with Wychavon District Council (WDC) included a 10% provision for out-of-town centre patrol time. To assist with on-street enforcement, the review of off-street enforcement was included.

 

On-street parking enforcement, together with off-street enforcement was contracted to WDC to administer the service with 5.5 Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) spread across the mainly rural District, which in turn, lead to coverage issues based on the geographical nature of the District.  Through the course of the review, Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) Officers had been working closely with WDC Officers to review patrols based on the feedback given by Members, regarding the volume of time spent within the parishes versus the town centre.  In the initial version of the SLA, there was an indication that 10% of patrol time should be spent outside of the town centre. As a consequence of the reviews of patrols, the proportion of time spent outside Bromsgrove town centre had increased.

 

Across most of the ward-based engagement with Members, issues around parking outside schools at peak times was frequently raised.  There was no uniform approach to addressing these concerns based on the different stakeholders that had a role to play in achieving more considerate and compliant parking.

 

Examples of both ‘softer’ and ‘harder’ measures were highlighted in the report such as a social media and community engagement campaign targeted at drivers to encourage considerate parking outside of shops and schools, as a “softer measure” behavioural change campaign. Further investigation and action were required to review and amend “harder measure” parking restrictions and increase coverage of signing and lining options (i.e. double yellow lines and designated parking areas).  A key element of delivery was to ensure a clear partnership working amongst the various stakeholders. It was therefore recommended that a Parking Task Group be established including representatives from BDC, WDC and Warwickshire County Council (WCC) to work through the various options pertinent to each organisation.

 

To assess how car parking enforcement may be delivered in the medium and long term, an options appraisal identifying the positives and negatives of the three key options had been undertaken which included maintaining the SLA with WDC, tender out to external contractors and delivery with internal resources.

 

The publication of the English Devolution White Paper on 16th December 2024 had provided uncertainty on the impact that this would have on BDC over the forthcoming two to four years.  As such, continuity of service for parking enforcement was recommended by an extension to the period of the services delivered by WDC. This continuity would ensure compliance of service delivery during the period of the extended SLA and would also allow officers the time and capacity to deliver the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) solutions for the three car parks identified.

 

Whilst the review of patrols was ongoing, as part of the review and working with the Parish Councils, an investigation into whether it would be viable to purchase additional time for patrols within their locations could be undertaken.

 

The Shopmobility Service had five customers with one customer being a regular user (once a week). The other customers used the service on an ad-hoc basis, typically once every few months and others who may have considered using the service a few times per year. Pre COVID, there were more customers using the service; approximately 12-15 customers per week, however, since COVID the demand had been low, which was possibly due to several factors, including the closure of the multi-storey car park and more people owning their own mobility equipment.

 

During consideration of the item, Members raised the following discussions:

 

• Enforcement Officers should be more prevalent in the outer areas of the District.
• Why the Council were suggesting an extension to the Service Level Agreement (SLA) when considering the English Devolution White Paper.  In-house would be a preferred option for the Council to gain better control and to leave a legacy.

·         The proposal  to amend the SLA for parking enforcement to include a minimum of 25% of patrol time to be undertaken outside the town centre was discussed by Members as follows: 

o   The proposal was not considered to be adequate.  Members requested an explanation of how the calculations had been measured and what the evidence had been based on.  Members also expressed the view that the review had been more of a broader consideration and not and in-depth evaluation. – In response it was explained that the proposal was to ensure further coverage of the District, including the recommendation that ANPR could free up time for additional CEOs.  Analysis was required to understand where and how the Council could redesign the patrols in ward areas where there were major concerns.  Members were also advised to note that the minimum of 25% was based on the 5.5 post efficiency rating in relation to the introduction of ANPR.  It was also explained that if the Board’s proposed recommendation was to increase the number of CEOs as opposed to the introduction of ANPR, there would be risk that additional funding would required due to the loss of revenue from the PCNs to fund the posts required.  Members also noted that WCC had advised that with the recommended introduction of ANPR, income was considered adequate and therefore WCC would not be contributing further funds.

·         Parking around school areas was also discussed and Members requested an explanation regarding the lack of coverage of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) outside some schools should be addressed.  – In response it was explained that TROs around certain problem hotspot areas was a considered approach as BDC did not receive the revenue for carrying out enforcement (which was carried out on behalf of WCC).  It was also explained that areas arounds schools were difficult to enforce due to waiting times which required observation, prior to issuing tickets. 

·         Members raised a concern regarding BDC social media and community engagement campaign, targeted at drivers, to encourage considerate parking outside of shops and schools, as a “softer measure”behavioural change campaign.  It was considered that this approach was inadequate, and a harder approach was required as some areas within the District was becoming an increasing concern.

• Clarification was requested regarding the full administration service including general enquiries, challenges, appeals and adjudication for 2.5 posts. – Members were advised that this was in relation to back-office administration duties carried out on behalf of the Council.
• Members suggested that the Council should retain cash payment options for car parks within the District, which was only considered as a general recommendation within the report.  Members also queried if there were any specific security issues regarding the cash machines within the District. – In response it was agreed that this would be carried out as an action and would be reported back accordingly.

·         Members suggested the need to expand the provision of CEOs should be funded to operate in the District as opposed to introducing an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) service. – In response the Board were advised to consider that the introduction of ANPR was a significant income stream, along with the added value of ensuring legal parking requirements across the District.

·         Due consideration was requested for the provision of the Shopmobility Service to ensure individuals could live independently, specifically for those who relied regularly on the service.

·         The Business Case and Service Review for the strategic parking review be deferred for 6 months until the issues had been addressed by Members as it was not fit for purpose and did not cover bringing the service in house.

·         Discussions regarding the implementation of ANPR were discussed by Members as follows:

o   Clarification of what was defined as the Town Centre for the introduction of ANPR. – In response Members were informed that ANPR was a more up to date solution, with a point of entry.  There was also a traffic management system included when a vehicle enters the car park which would assist with long queues, avoiding less accidents.  Town Centre car parks were where the implementation of ANPR was most concentrated.

o   Discussions continued and Members expressed concerns that the introduction of ANPR implemented within other areas had caused frustration for some residents, in particular, when receiving Parking Charge Notices (PCN).  Members also felt that complaints were not always being actioned which caused further frustration for residents.

o   Members felt that the use of ANPR outside school areas was not a viable option.

o   Some Members did view the option that ANPR could be considered a solution to free up CEO resources, but that further information would need to be provided before this would be a consideration.

o   If ANPR could be considered to pay on exist to encourage residents to stay in local areas for a longer period as opposed to the inconvenience of paying on entry. -In response the Executive Director advised Members that enforcement of ANPR would be carried out by the Council and not by a private company.  The Council were unable to issue PCNs via the post and would be issued on a car which is why barriers were required on Council car parks rather than just cameras on the way out.

·         Members expressed their gratitude that the technical and legal issues had been reported well within the report, however, were disappointed that it had taken so long for fruition, with only five working days available to scrutinise and evaluate such a complex report.

·         Alvechurch parking requirements within the report were considered in detail as follows:

o   That after providing parking strategy proposals in December 2023 to address the issues faced in the Village, Members were advised that Alvechurch would form part of the review and would not be considered separately, however not all the issues reported had been considered within the report. 

o   The Average Length of Stay per Car Park detailed within the report was incorrect and misleading as the village car park was considered to be free for up to 30 minutes.

o   Alvechurch Car Park which scored poorly was discussed with  Members expressing the view that “Bicycle Parking” was already available within the village and “General Maintenance” was not a requirement as car parks within the village had been resurfaced.

o   The report suggesting Alvechurch and Catshill being worded as towns was incorrect.

o   In conclusion, it was felt that the parking issues within Alvechurch had not been addressed within the report and that urgent action was required with concerns of the decreased  vitality and economic viability for the village.

·         The upcoming changes to the Local Plan should be considered, with the inclusion of extra houses being built, requiring further car parking requirements.

·         The Market Hall, which was due to open in 2026, would have a considerable impact on parking requirements and should be considered.

·         Car parking usage was discussed by Members who were of the view that using ticket machine data was not the most reliable method to be used as these findings were based on fixed times.  Members suggested that to establish demand the most efficient method was to use beat surveys which studied the duration and occupancy every half an hour.  A visitor survey was also a suggested option which would reveal parking stay preferences. 

·         The use of the TEMPRO tool was considered an inappropriate method to depict parking demand.  Population and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was a more effective solution.

·         Conclusion and Recommendations within the report was discussed by Members as follows:

o   Improve car park directional signage to town centre car parks and associated wayfinding signage to direct visitors to nearby facilities in the town centre would need to be considered as an additional cost to the Council.

o   Investigate a nighttime car parking tariff that can be used as a basis to advertise thenighttime offer in Bromsgrove and encourage the evening economy required further evidence.

o   A business case would be required when considering improvements to town centre car parks, generated by increasing parking tariffs.

o   Investment in redeveloping the School Drive Car Park to make it more attractive to peoplewishing to use the car park required further explanation.

o   Costs implications would need to be considered to place yellow lines on the on-street parking outside of the leisure centre to encourage people to use the paid parking instead of parking for free.

o   Additional cost considerations would be required regarding the aim to get more people to pay for parking charges by using card payments or by the app, with the long-term aim to go cashless.

o   The consideration of bringing in a small charging regime for the village car park, due to its respective locations.  Members felt this would have the adverse effect and possibly deter people from parking in these areas.

·         The Executive Summary was discussed by Members which was included within the report and that BDC involve their legal advisers.  Members expressed the view that costs would need to be considered.

·         Software and back office for the role out of ANPR and PCNs needed to be reviewed in more detail.

·         A detailed explanation should be included in the report of who would fund and implement the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO),

·         If the consultants Waterman had engaged with Warwickshire County Council (WCC), as this was critical? – In response it was agreed that this would be reviewed as an action and would be reported back to Members accordingly.

·         The section on Background within the report was discussed regarding the inclusion of on-street parking enforcement in Churchfields Car Parks.  However, Members were under the assumption that this car park was closed.

·         Members expressed the view that double yellow line considerations in Beoley was not a requirement as these were already present, however, increasing the frequency of CEOs was a necessity.

·         Further clarification was required regarding Option Assessments with the preferred Option 2 – SLA Enhancements in that the SLA should be renegotiated with Wychavon District Council (WDC) to enhance the Service Officer.

·         Recommendations and Next Steps covered in the report were considered regarding increasing the number of CEO’s to include a variety of places to patrol (includingBelbroughton, Clent and Portway).  Was this in addition to the 5.5 posts in place?

·         Enforcement costs for the Lickey Hills area were considered by Members suggesting that the introduction of Birmingham City Council parking charges could have a considerable impact when considering on-street parking around the area.

·         Would extra costs be incurred for Recommendation 2?

·         The legal costs of £100k for Recommendation 8 was considered too low in order to take account of legal and back-office administration costs.

·         The revenue budget cost and date suggested in Recommendation 10 required further consideration.

·         The following wording included in the report was discussed by the Board, “It was suggested that Waterman Infrastructure and Environment were commissioned by Bromsgrove District Council to undertake the Strategic Review. This proposal was based on a brief that was discussed and agreed, in consultation with, the Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) on 8th May 2024 and included three key deliverables was discussed”.  Members expressed the view that the wording “agreed” was misleading as CAG was not a decision making group. 

·         Members also expressed a view that putting the SLA out to tender to possibly reduce any further costs could be a consideration.

·         The report page numbers were not sequential and printing the report in colour when reviewing diagrams would be more useful for Members.

·         The proposals from the Board put forward to Cabinet on 14^th February 2024 had not been addressed within the report.

·         Members expressed the view that the consultancy fees should be

discussed in more detail.  Members expressed the view that the original brief had not been fully considered within the report and that further costs should not be incurred.

 

After consideration of the points raised by the Board the Portfolio Holder made the following comments as follows:

 

·         If the Council, through Devolution, was a single unitary Council, delivery of the Civil Parking Enforcement Service (CPE) would be in-house, however, continuity should be a consideration in the interim period.

·         The Shopmobility service was being reviewed in more detail to accommodate the regular user who required the service once a week.

·         Members were asked to consider that inconsistencies of parking charges in the report were correct at the time of writing.

·         It was difficult to establish what further studies could be carried out for Alvechurch as the land was outside of the Council’s control.

·         It was noted that some proposals put forward to Cabinet had not been addressed and was not an in-depth business case for the back-office administration requirements.

·         It was agreed that in-house delivery of the service had not been addressed in detail as requested by the Board.

 

The following verbatim minutes had been requested by Councillor R. Bailes:

 

Thank you for the apology and thank you for the response.

I am despondent. Please forgive me for reading from my script – I feel too emotional to say my words from the heart today.

The Strategic Parking Review has failed to give any way forward with the complex and real issues in Alvechurch.

Please bear with me – I will explain:

My first week of becoming a Councillor, my fellow Councillor A. Bailes and I met Kevin Hirons and Lyndsey Berry in Alvechurch - the parking areas are in both our wards, as a result they totally understood the complexities of the situation. Repeatedly Alvechurch parking has been raised, or rather attempted to be raised as an urgent issue. No one appeared to really understand our issues. Car parking was also raised in a drop in forum for Regeneration on 25th April 2023.

Fast forward to last year at Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) in May - specifically Car Parking Strategic Review – I attended.

All Members present were asked to give an overview of issues in their wards. I attempted to do this – once again explaining the complex situation – however I was stopped in my very first sentence – literally being shouted down saying “It is a study for on road parking only.” I was not allowed to finish.

The brief of the Strategic Parking Review was decided – this was not stated. It has delivered what essentially the brief asked for – which is an inventory.

At every opportunity Councillor A. Bailes or myself, or sometimes both of us have raised the impending serious situation waiting to happen. The answer has always come back – wait until the study. This was due firstly to be September 2024 – it is now six months later and finally it has arrived.

I did meet with the consultant in Alvechurch. He greeted me with – you don't have any car parks that are Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) in Alvechurch. After a good discussion for my ward – I note that the points I explained are in the study – the points are the things I told the consultant

So, residents in the village and surrounding areas have been waiting.

Businesses in the village have been waiting...

Employees in the village have been waiting...

I have been waiting...

There is nothing in the Strategic Review that resolves the situation within Alvechurch – we are no further forward than when I became a Councillor nearly two years ago.

Thank you to Guy Revans and Simon Parry who now totally understand the whole picture – following a visit in October 2024, however there are no amendments or an additional section included for Alvechurch.

To add to my sleepless nights that this has caused, the study suggests that a parking fee could be introduced for the initial time of parking. This is not a recommendation or a good solution and I would not support. This is insult to injury. I am beyond words...

The Chairman concluded discussions, and it was felt that the Business Case and Service Review should be deferred until Member’s concerns and considerations had been addressed.  Following Members discussions the following were agreed as recommendations to Cabinet.

 

The Board RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that:

 

1)    The Business Case and Service Review for the strategic parking review be deferred for 6 months until the issues have been addressed as not fit for purpose, in that it doesn’t cover bringing the service in house.

 

2)    There should be an increase in the proposed Civil Enforcement

 Officer (CEO) patrol time, greater than 25%, included in the Service Level Agreement (SLA), as the current proposal of 25% is not considered to be adequate.

 

3)    More CEOs should be funded to operate in the District as opposed to introducing an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) service.

 

4)    The Council retain cash payment options for car parks in the District.

 

5)   A study be launched reviewing parking in Alvechurch.