Agenda item

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment & Highways, and Phil Whitfield, Head of Network Management, have been invited to present a report on Parking Permits.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

 

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment & Highways, and Phil Whitfield, Head of Network Management, were invited to present a report on Parking Permits.

 

The Cabinet Member opened the discussion on parking permits, noting that the committee had previously reviewed the issue in September and was now returning for a more substantive discussion. He explained that main parking permits had been digital for three years, with the visitor system moving online the previous December.

 

Paul Fermer and Phil Whitfield presented the item, highlighting that the report addressed all previously raised concerns, particularly the proposal to extend the current contract by two years. This extension would allow time for due diligence and a thorough procurement process for a new system. Improvements had already been made to the system based on committee and user feedback, focusing on user-friendliness and efficiency. Ongoing discussions aimed to review and challenge the system’s performance, ensuring it met expectations for the remainder of the contract. Both officers stressed the importance of continuous improvement and responsiveness to user concerns.

 

Concerns were expressed about the Council’s travel permit websites, which were described as unintuitive, text-heavy, and confusing in terms of login steps. Members questioned the use of email notifications instead of SMS and suggested that a more intuitive website would reduce the need for guides and drop-in sessions. Officers responded that improvements had been made based on feedback, but some limitations stemmed from integration with the main civil enforcement back-office system. While emails were currently used for notifications, the system’s capabilities and user experience remained under constant review. Officers confirmed that a more user-friendly system would be a priority in future procurement and that ongoing discussions aimed to address these issues for the remainder of the contract.

 

The possibility of shortening the contract extension for the digital permit system to one year, rather than two, was discussed. Officers explained that the contract allowed for a 1+1 year extension, so a shorter extension was possible. However, a longer extension would provide sufficient time for market engagement, encourage competition, and ensure a better system could be procured. Officers emphasised the need for due diligence and market engagement but confirmed that a shorter extension could be considered if circumstances allowed.

 

The removal of physical paper permits raised concerns about how residents could check if a vehicle’s registration had a valid permit for the correct controlled parking zone (CPZ). Officers explained that, under the digital system, the public could check if a vehicle had a permit, but not whether it was valid for a specific CPZ, due to data protection (GDPR) considerations. Enforcement officers could be called to check permits, and officers indicated they would explore whether trusted community volunteers could be given special access to help address this issue.

 

Members requested data on the number of permits issued in each category, the number of paper scratch cards issued, ease of obtaining them, revenue generated, and the contract’s cost or profit margin. Officers acknowledged these requests and committed to providing the details in the minutes or in writing after the meeting, ensuring councillors would receive the requested breakdowns and financial information for further scrutiny.

 

Risks associated with having two major systems, such as the parking permit system and another key service, delivered by the same provider were discussed. Officers noted that while there were risks in relying on a single provider, using one system could offer consistency for residents and avoid confusion. The balance between risk and user experience was acknowledged, and officers confirmed that these considerations were being managed as part of ongoing procurement and service delivery.

 

Clarification was sought on the breakdown of where Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) were being issued, as the report stated that 26% were issued in CPZ areas and 12% in contravention of shared bays, accounting for only 38% of the total. Officers committed to supplying the full breakdown in writing after the meeting to allow councillors to understand the distribution of PCNs across different categories and locations.

 

The extent to which the current software’s capability was being fully utilised was questioned, with some criticisms attributed to either software limitations or the council’s implementation. Officers responded that some issues had resulted from the council’s implementation, and improvements had been made where possible. The software still had more potential, and the team was confident it could support additional or different permit types if required, though some architectural limitations remained.

 

Anecdotal evidence suggested that email enquiries about permits had decreased considerably and calls to the customer service centre were now being met within service level agreements, with the complexity of queries also reducing. Improvements in speed for visitor permits had led to more straightforward queries and fewer complaints. Officers noted that official statistics would be needed to confirm these trends and offered to provide figures after the meeting.

 

Members sought a statistical breakdown of the reasons for PCNs, noting that current reporting tools did not allow for detailed quantitative assessment and relied on qualitative information from enforcement officers. Officers explained that the system provided some breakdown, but its configuration limited the level of detail available, particularly for PCNs issued in CPZ areas. For future contracts, it would be possible to require a greater level of breakdown, such as using drop-down lists for enforcement officers to select reasons, improving data collection and reporting. Further information would be provided after the meeting.

 

GDPR’s impact on residents’ ability to check whether a vehicle was legitimately parked in a CPZ was discussed, as paper permits had been replaced by digital ones. Officers explained that, after consulting with data protection colleagues, the public did not have a legitimate need to access this information due to GDPR. However, options such as giving certain community volunteers access would be explored.

The procurement process was described as muddled and not joined up, with issues arising from different procurement timelines for the back-end database and the permit system. Officers explained that the congestion charge had not influenced the timing, and the permit system had always been planned to support traffic filters. Challenges became more apparent after the introduction of visitor permits, and the complexity of aligning multiple contracts and incremental extensions contributed to the lack of synchronisation.

 

Future procurement would prioritise customer interaction and usability, with officers endorsing the committee’s recommendation to make quality a key criterion. Lessons learned indicated that quality, particularly user experience, should be prioritised over price, and the intention was to explore the market for better solutions to address current usability concerns.

 

The scheme’s financial position was clarified, with the council aiming for a break-even point rather than generating a significant surplus. Income and costs were roughly balanced, with any revenue generated primarily used to cover operational costs.

 

Consideration of the application system in decision-making was questioned, given known complexities and potential difficulties. Officers rejected the suggestion that decisions were made knowing they would cause problems, emphasising that the move to a digital system was necessary as the previous paper-based approach was unsustainable. While difficulties existed, it was asserted that the system worked overall and decisions were not made to worsen known issues.

 

The Committee AGREED to recommendations under the following headings:

 

• Extend the current contract by one year instead of two.

 

• Involve committee members in reviewing the IT system to identify and resolve faults.

 

• Explore the potential for super users to check on CPZ permit areas.

 

• Review the timing and interaction of enforcement contracts, especially regarding resident impact.

 

• Ensure residents without email receive letters about permit expiry. Engage with GPs about their role in supporting unregistered carers.

 

• Prioritise quality over price in future procurements. 

 

• Review and share quality measures for front-end software.

 

• Embed software decisions into policy design from the earliest stage.

 

• Revisit the CPZ and parking strategy.

 

The Committee AGREED to the following actions:

 

Written answer to questions raised by the Committee in relation to statistical breakdown of number of permits issued, type of permits issued, and the financial impact of the cost and revenue of the permit system.