Agenda item

To consider a report setting out the officer response to the Call-In relating to Off Street Car Park Charges.

Paul Fishwick, Executive Member for Highways and Transport, addressed the Committee in response to the Call-In.

Councillor Fishwick stated that the Council had not increased off street car park charges for five years. The previous administration had considered increases in 2021, but this did not materialise. Regular budget monitoring this year had indicated a significant shortfall in parking income. This meant that urgent steps had to be taken to address this issue. If the shortfall was not addressed by measures to increase income there were potential impacts on key frontline services.

In relation to consultation, it was confirmed that changes to fees and charges could be made by a variation order and could be linked to the fees and charges review process. However, changes to hours of operation and other restrictions were made using the TRO process. This would provide 21 days of public consultation. This would be supported by extensive communications, including signs in each of the public car parks. Blue Badge holders would not be affected by the proposed changes.

In relation to options, it was confirmed that other options were considered including higher charges and a “do-nothing” scenario. The latter would have resulted in a funding gap of £600k to £800k. The Executive decided to agree proposals at the lower end of the funding gap. Changes were also made to reflect feedback received, e.g. the introduction of a two-tier system for Wokingham and locations outside Wokingham. This reflected feedback received from residents and businesses in Woodley. Consideration would be given to any points arising during the TRO process.

It was estimated that the proposals would generate additional income of £540k, which was still below the lower estimate of the funding gap.

In the ensuing discussion, Members raised the following points and questions:

In relation to car parking revenue for 2022/23, what were the issues contributing to the budget shortfall? It was confirmed that car park footfall was at 90% of pre-Covid levels but park and ride income was only at 25% of pre-Covid levels. In addition, the Covid support grant had ended this year.

What other steps could be taken to address the car parking budget shortfall? It was confirmed that one option could be to reduce the levels of reactive maintenance on the Borough’s roads.

If the TRO generated issues requiring further changes to the proposals, what process would be followed? It was confirmed that any proposed changes would be submitted to the Executive or would be subject to an Individual Executive Member Decision.

The new administration had made a commitment to increase levels of consultation with residents and stakeholders. Should something as significant as the proposed changes to car park charges not have been subject to wide consultation. It was confirmed that the reasons for urgency had been outlined. The TRO process did enable consultation and would be backed up by a communications exercise. Feedback from the TRO process would be given detailed consideration.

Imogen Shepherd-Dubey outlined the financial pressures facing the Council. At the time of the Executive decision, the overall budget gap was estimated at £2.2m. Work was ongoing to find savings or increase income across all service areas. Graham Ebers confirmed the difficult financial position. The use of balances to fill the financial gap was not advisable. In addition, around 80% of the Council’s services were statutory, which meant that there was limited scope to achieve further savings. The 2023/24 Budget process was currently being scrutinised by the Community and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Executive report did not contain a business case with estimates of the impact of the changes on demand - footfall and income. How would the impact of the proposals be measured? It was confirmed that monthly monitoring of car park usage data would be used to measure the impact. The proposed changes were felt to be reasonable bearing in mind that charges had not increased for five years. It was also noted that neighbouring authorities were increasing their charges. If the projected additional income was not generated, further savings would be required from other areas.

In relation to the Executive Forward Programme, Andrew Moulton confirmed that the Council had met its legal requirements under the 2012 regulations by publishing the programme on the Council’s website. It was accepted that a technical breach had occurred in that a copy of the Forward Programme had not been circulated to Members. However, this was not a legal requirement. The impact of this technical breach was a matter for the Committee to consider.

Following the proposed increases, how would the Borough’s charges compare to neighbouring authorities? It was confirmed that, after the proposed increases, the Borough’s car parking charges would still be at the lower end of the scale compared to neighbouring authorities such as Bracknell and Reading.

What was the rationale behind the introduction of evening and Sunday charges? This was a fundamental change that would impact on local communities. It was confirmed that the introduction of evening and Sunday charges would lessen the impact on daily charges, i.e. these charges would not have to increase as much.