|
Return
to Agenda
ITEM CA9
CABINET
– 19 SEPTEMBER 2006
Oxford
Controlled Parking and Residents’ Parking Zones
Report by
Head of Transport
Introduction
- This report gives
the results of the recent consultation on the proposal to introduce
charges for residents and visitors parking permits in Oxford City. Because
the introduction of charges would require changes to existing parking
orders the consultation was carried out in conjunction with the publication
of the draft amendments to those orders.
- Consideration
is given to the issues raised by those responding to the consultation.
The points made have resulted in the recommendation of significant changes
to the advertised charging proposals for visitors parking permits and
of commitment to actions that will provide a better, more flexible service
for permit holders, reduction of the nuisance caused by car boot sales
in the zones around the Kassam stadium, and early reviews of the controlled
parking zones with the greatest pressure on the available parking space.
The report concludes that nothing in the consultation reveals significant
flaws in the case for introducing charges.
- The consultation
and the draft traffic orders also covered the introduction of a revised
permit scheme for issuing discretionary authorisation to contractors’
vehicles to park in permit parking spaces. The report concludes that
these new controls be introduced as proposed.
Summary of Consideration
of the Issues to Date
- Residents and
visitors parking permits in Oxford have been free since the first schemes
were introduced in the 1970’s. The Executive and then the Cabinet have
on three occasions considered charging for parking permits as provided
for in the Council’s policy on residents’ parking schemes and as happens
in other Oxfordshire towns (21 September 2004; 17 February 2005 and
6 December 2005).
- In September 2004,
the Executive resolved that it was minded to bring in charges for permits
in Oxford but wanted first to clarify if Oxford City Council would be
prepared to meet all or some of the cost of operating residents parking
schemes bearing in mind it had once done so and the County Council’s
policy provision that costs be met by District Councils if they want
the permits to be free. Subsequent meetings considered the response
from Oxford City Council to this resolution and on 6 December 2005 the
Cabinet resolved to confirm the intention, subject to the outcome of
consultation, to introduce charges for residents and visitors parking
permits and, noting that Oxford City Council were unwilling to contribute
to the cost of the schemes, authorised consultation on the charging
as proposed.
Policy Background
- The Council has
a long standing policy first adopted in 1986 and confirmed again on
21 September 2004, that the cost of operating residents permit schemes
be recovered by charges for permits, or met by contribution from a District
Council, or by a combination of both. The charges would be determined
by the particular circumstances of each case.
- Charges are made
for residents parking schemes in Abingdon and Henley, and are proposed
for a new scheme in Bicester. When first introduced into Oxford, the
City Council met the cost of the residents parking schemes as envisaged
in the County Council’s policy. However, the ending of the City Council’s
traffic management agency and the change to civil enforcement has resulted
in considerable costs now being borne by the County Council in operating
the residents parking schemes contrary to its agreed policy.
- The Local Transport
Plan (LTP), states in Chapter 4 – Supporting Strategies (page 103);
"Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) in residential areas protect local
streets from intrusive long-stay commuter parking. They also have a
strategic importance in keeping down the overall level of peak hour
traffic. The introduction of a charge to cover the full costs of administration
and enforcement would bring the city zones into line with existing zones
elsewhere in the county and ensure that existing resources are not deflected
away from implementing new necessary zones."
- The LTP text goes
on to say the County Council will:
- Accelerate its
programme to deliver new CPZs to protect local streets and achieve
the strategic management of traffic, especially in the Headington/Marston
area;
- Consult on the
introduction of a permit charge to cover costs and limit unrestrained
demand.
The Case for Introducing
Permit Charges
- The case for introducing
charges was set out in the report to the Executive on 21 September 2004.
Briefly re-stated, the case is as follows:
- In the interests
of fairness, the Council should operate its long-standing policy to
charge for permits consistently;
- The Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 gives Councils the power to charge for parking
permits, a power that is widely used across the country. Permit charges
made in other historic towns with similar traffic problems and strategies
to Oxford are generally higher than proposed here as shown in Annex
1 (download as .xls file), which
gives updated research on 79 towns with residents parking schemes;
- It is recognised
that parking permit schemes confer a particular benefit to residents
by excluding others and that the benefit has a value based on costs
of running the scheme which is the basis for a charge;
- The existence
of a surplus on the Parking Account for Oxford is not a bar to introducing
charges for permits, the level of pay-and-display charges being set
for traffic management reasons;
- The proposed
permit charges are based on cost recovery for the schemes and, for
the higher charges, encouraging some restraint on car ownership in
Oxford which has doubled in the past twenty years;
- Times and circumstances
change – a review of the arrangements is entirely reasonable bearing
in mind that the situation has changed considerably from that which
applied some 30 years ago when controlled parking zones and residents
parking schemes were first introduced and that large costs now fall
on the County Council in operating residents parking schemes.
The Proposed Permit
Charges as Advertised and Consulted on
- All zones except
those around the Kassam Stadium:
Residents
Permits
£40
a year for each of the first two permits per household in any zone.
In
zones where more than two permits per household can be held – £80 a
year for a third permit and £120 a year for a fourth and any further
permits.
Visitors
Permits
60p
a permit, to be paid as one amount of £15 for each pack of 25 permits.
Contractors’
permits
£15
for a permit valid for one week anywhere in the zone for which it is
issued.
Kassam
Stadium Event Day only zones;
Residents
Permits
£10
a year for each permit
Visitor
Permits
No
charge
Contractors’
permits
As
above
- In all cases refunds
would be given for unexpired portions of residents’ permits if they
are surrendered during the year they are current, and for unused visitor
permits.
- Controlled parking
zones include the provision for business permit holders and hotel/guest
house permit holders to use certain of the designated parking spaces.
These permits are already charged for and the draft orders make no changes
to these arrangements.
The On-Street Parking
Account and the Basis for the Proposed Charges
- All expenditure
and income relating to on-street parking in Oxford is held in the On-Street
Parking Account. The Parking Account for 2005/06 as reported to Cabinet
on 21 June 2006 in the Revenue and Capital Outturn Report shows an overall
surplus for Oxford City of £931,367. The reason for the surplus is the
income from pay-and-display parking. The residents parking zone operations
show a loss of £125,724. The figures are similar to those in previous
years.
- Each year any
surplus on the Parking Account is transferred to the On-Street Parking
Reserve Account. This Reserve Account is used to fund transport related
capital projects and for other transport purposes in accordance with
Section 55 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as now amended by Section
95 of the Traffic Management Act 2004). This legislation controls the
use of any surplus generated by the parking account and means that it
cannot be used to support the general revenue budget (other than to
repay any past deficit on the parking account that had been met from
the general revenue fund). All the surpluses have been used for Oxford
transport schemes.
- However, the Road
Traffic Regulation Act is not a fiscal measure. Its purpose is to secure
the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic and the provision
of suitable and adequate parking facilities so the potential use of
any surplus is not a relevant consideration in deciding whether or not
to bring in permit charging.
- The basis of the
residents’ permit charge proposed in 2004 is the elimination of the
deficit on the residents parking operations. The proposed charge of
£40 has been checked and confirmed by reworking the calculation using
2005/06 Parking Account figures and more reliable information on current
and future permit numbers than was available in 2004. The calculation
cannot produce a precise figure because it involves forecasts of as
yet unknown circumstances but sensible estimates of various risks can
be made and the proposed £40 permit charge lies between the upper and
lower limits of the risk evaluation. If the estimates are borne out
in practice, the position at the end of 2009 would be a balance of expenditure
and income of £480,000.
- The charge for
third and fourth permits, where allowed, is a judgement of what might
provide some restraint in car ownership. A similar pattern of increasing
charges as the number of permits goes up is used in some other authorities
as shown in Annex 1 (download
as .xls file).
- The charge for
residents parking permits in the four zones around the Kassam stadium
is based on a pro-rata rate for the days the scheme operates plus an
allowance for the extra costs of signing the zones for each event.
- The charge for
contractors’ permits is as recommended in the report to the Executive
on 6 December 2005 and reflects the typical time spent in dealing with
an application for a discretionary permit.
The Consultation Arrangements
- The proposals
are essentially straightforward being whether there should be charging
for permits and if so how much - they do not involve any physical on-street
measures. Therefore it was decided to have one consultation stage in
conjunction with the publication of the proposals in accordance with
the regulatory requirements. The Regulations require draft traffic orders
to be available for public inspection throughout the consultation period
and beyond. Thus publication of the draft orders does not imply any
inevitability that the provisions will be brought in, a decision can
always be made not to proceed or to vary the provisions of the order
provided they are not substantial changes. Publication of the draft
orders at the same time as the general consultation ensured that the
full details of the proposals were available to anyone who wanted to
look at them and key elements of the details were incorporated into
the consultation packs to ensure full, accurate and fair consultation
was undertaken.
- The consultation
period started on 9 June with the advertisement of the draft traffic
orders and ended on 20 July. In addition to the necessary street notices,
letters and consultation papers were sent to statutory consultees, to
Oxford City Council and the parish Councils within the City, and to
each household in all of the existing controlled parking zones and the
four proposed zones currently being developed, in all, some 25,700 addresses.
More details of the consultation and copies of the information sent
out are in Annex 2 (download
as .pdf file)
A General Assessment
of the Consultation Questionnaire Returns
- A full report
on the consultation results from the questionnaires sent to each household
address is provided in Annex 2 (download
as .pdf file). Officer comments on all of the issues noted in
the report are given in Annex 3 (download
as .doc file), which also gives the responses from statutory
consultees, from Oxford City Council and from Parish Councils.
- All the responses
received are in files deposited in the Members’ Resource Centre together
with a copy of the database of information recording the responses received.
- The consultation
responses from households were for the most part considered and gave
views whether for or against the proposed charges. The questionnaire
ended by asking for general comments and people used this, as well as
other spaces on the form, to get over the points they wanted to make.
Comments to the Parking Hotline by email or telephone were also recorded
and included in the results along with letters both to the Parking Hotline
and to Environment and Economy Directorate. The questionnaire was designed
to give the reasons that lay behind the proposal and test their views
on these. A simple yes/no question would not have given the rationale
for the proposals and may not have elicited any information about reactions
to these reasons. The questionnaire allowed respondents to disagree
with any of the reasons put forward for introducing charges.
Responses from Statutory
Consultees and Oxford City Council
- The only statutory
consultee to respond was Thames Valley Police who had no comments to
make on the proposals.
- The main themes
of Oxford City Council’s objections are;
- The surplus
on the parking account makes it unnecessary and unlawful to make further
charges.
- The residents
parking schemes are part of the transport management measures for
Oxford and it is unjust for residents to be charged for this.
- The consultation
is not genuine and the Cabinet has pre-determined the decision.
- The City Council
also wrote to the Chief Executive on 16 August again raising issues
on the legality of the proposals because of the surplus on the global
on-street parking account for Oxford and that the proposed charges exceed
permit costs and suggesting that the matter had been predetermined.
- The City Council’s
objections are significant issues that must be fully considered but
they are not regarded as valid grounds for a legal challenge. The surplus
on the parking account is a consideration but it is not a bar to introducing
other charges. This is confirmed by leading counsel’s opinion. The critical
issue is not the surplus but that the charges are made for valid traffic
management reasons. The calculation of the permit charges has been explained
in paragraph 16 above. It is agreed that residents parking schemes are
part of the overall transport strategy for Oxford but they also provide
personal benefits to residents by excluding the general public from
parking in that area. As explained above, all decisions so far have
been subject to consideration of the consultation results and indeed
the consultation has been undertaken as directed by the Cabinet resolution
of 6 December 2005.
Household Questionnaire
Consultation Results – Numerical Analysis
- A total of 5043
questionnaires were returned in time to be included in the analysis
given in Annex 2 (download as .pdf
file), a return rate of 20% overall. The questionnaires were
colour coded so that analysis could be done separately on existing zones,
proposed new zones, and the Kassam stadium zones. There was a very similar
response rate from each of these sub-sets, the Kassam zones being slightly
less than the others at 16%.
- The number of
responses is less than the number of live permits, a total of 7567 at
the last count. The response from the Kassam stadium zones was very
close to the permits issued for these zones, 551 returns as compared
to 547 permits issued. But the return from the other existing zones
is 3423 as compared to 7020 permits issued.
- Looking at the
existing zones (excluding Kassam zones) and the four proposed new zones;
- 68% disagreed
and 25% agreed that there is a case for charging for permits - there
is very little difference between the two sub-sets so these have been
combined into one overall figure for this question.
- Looking at views
on whether there should be a consistent policy across the county,
slightly more agreed (28% and 31%) than ended up agreeing there was
a case for charging, and less disagreed (52%) that there should be
a consistent policy than ended up disagreeing with the case for charging.
- A majority of
54% agreed that residents’ parking schemes benefited them and 31%
disagreed in the existing zones. In proposed zones 41% agreed they
would benefit from a residents parking scheme and 45% disagreed, the
most marked difference between these two sub-sets. But in both cases
a lot more people agreed there was a benefit than agreed there was
a case for charging.
- There was not
much support for the view that charges would help restrain car ownership,
14% and 12% agreed with 73% and 75% disagreeing.
- Looking at opinions
on the level of charges, there is close correlation between the figures
for those who thought the charge too high, that there should be no
charge, and that there was not a case for charging. There is good
correlation between the figures for those who thought the charges
about right and those who agreed there was a case for charging.
- Looking at the
answers from the Kassam stadium zones;
- A bigger proportion,
76%, disagreed that there is a case for charging and a smaller proportion,
13%, agreed.
- On the other
questions, a similar pattern of figures to the other zones emerges
but much more weighted to the ‘disagree’ end of the range. So again
there are more answers agreeing that there should be a consistent
policy and that residents parking schemes benefited them than agreeing
that there is a case for charging but in smaller numbers than in the
other zones. Even fewer agreed that parking charges would restrain
car ownership. There is still a reasonable correlation between those
who said that the proposed charges were too high, who wanted no charge,
and those who disagreed that there is a case for charging but because
more people did not answer the questions about the level of charges
the figures are more scattered.
- A further 51 questionnaires
have been returned since Annex 2 (download
as .pdf file) was completed; 12 came from the Kassam zones all
disagreeing that there was a case for charging; 26 came from existing
zones and 13 from proposed new zones – taking these together 24 disagreed
there was a case for charging, 2 agreed and 2 had no opinion either
way.
Consultation Results
– Issues and Views Expressed
- A complete analysis
of comments given on questionnaires and in other ways is given in Annex
2 (download as .pdf file).
Each of the issues raised is considered and responded to as set out
in Annex 3 (download as .doc file).
- The big themes
are that the proposed charges are not justified in addition to the money
paid through general taxation; an objection to paying for parking outside
your own house; there should be a guaranteed space in return for a charge;
it would be unfair to charge residents when there is free city centre
parking in the evenings and on Sundays. There is considerable objection
to being charged for schemes which are a response to development pressures
of various kinds (e.g. hospitals growth, Brookes University, the football
stadium).
- There is considerable
concern about the social effects of charges for visitor permits (and
the scheme generally) and about affordability generally for those on
low incomes. There is a particular issue about the nuisance from car
boot sales in the zones around the Kassam stadium.
- There are valid
counter-arguments to the issues raised. But some of the issues justify
recommendations to amend the proposals, particularly as regards visitor
permits and concerns about the social effects of charging for them as
well as comparison with free city centre parking for visitors. Also,
if a decision is made to introduce charges for permits this should be
accompanied by a response to the consultation that gives residents a
return for the income raised by way of a higher level of service than
currently provided and by other practical responses to their concerns
where this is possible. Suggested actions are set out in the next section
of the report.
- Returning to the
counter-arguments to the main themes mentioned above, it is generally
recognised that parking permit schemes confer an extra and particular
benefit on the permit holder by excluding non-residents from the area
(who have also paid their general taxes). And that this benefit has
a value based on the cost of running the permit scheme. The power to
charge for permits is clearly intended to be in addition to general
taxation and is a power that is widely used across the country as evidenced
by Annex 1 (download as .xls file.
- Vehicle tax buys
the general right to use any highway; it does not buy exclusivity to
the road outside your house because in the ordinary way of things it
is public highway available to all. Again, the permit scheme provides
exclusivity; a benefit not enjoyed by the general public and therefore
should be paid for. The reasons why a particular space cannot be reserved
were given in the consultation pack (see Annex 2) (download
as .pdf file) and repeated in Annex 3 (download
as .doc file) – which also comments on views about development
pressures and all the other issues that were raised.
Amendments to
the Proposals and Other Actions in Response to the Consultation
- Undertake to
provide service improvements in permit administration
- Send reminders
that a permit needs renewing
- Provide a 24
hour visitor permit in place of the present calendar day permit
- Provide a residents
permit for temporary residents here for work reasons (subject to the
limit per household) to be charged pro-rata.
- Allow permits
for people with permanent use of a works vehicle
- Enable a temporary
change of registered vehicle if a resident’s vehicle is off the road
for a specified time.
Some
of these will need further amendments to the traffic orders and therefore,
will be subject to further consultation.
- Visitor permits
- Amend the charging
proposal to give one batch of 25 permits free and charge for the second
batch of 25 permits as a broad equivalent to free city centre parking
time.
- No charge at
all for visitor permits to residents aged 70 and over.
- Allow a discretionary
award of 25 additional visitors permits if requested following bereavement
of a married or civil partner.
- Zones with
the greatest pressure on parking spaces
Undertake
to complete a review of the West Oxford CPZ and South Oxford CPZ within
18 months including consideration of a reduction in permit allocation
to one per household. This cannot guarantee to match permit numbers
to spaces in a street or overall, and will be subject to Traffic Order
procedures and further consultation.
Risks and Risk Management
- In this case it
has been mooted that there may be a legal challenge. There is always
a risk of legal challenge to any decision. The officers’ advice, based
on leading counsel’s opinion obtained at the outset, is that the County
Council is acting lawfully in proposing to introduce charges. There
has been extensive consultation. This has been designed to comply with
regulatory requirements and provided both key information and the reasons
for the proposals. Oxford City Council have asked their legal officers
to investigate grounds for a legal challenge and indeed their solicitor
has written to the Chief Executive but as explained earlier, the grounds
they are looking at are not considered to be valid. The Chief Executive
has replied to the City Council to say this and explain why.
- Some Oxford City
Councillors have said that they would not be prepared to administer
paid–for residents parking permits from the Parking Shop that they operate
on behalf of the County Council jointly with their Payments Shop on
High Street. The County Council pays for this service and there is no
requirement to provide it in this way, it has been a convenient voluntary
arrangement. Oxford City Council are considering closing their Payments
Shop by May next year. Therefore it would be sensible in any case for
the County Council to plan for making its own arrangements for the administration
of parking permits and other parking services.
- Some people might
refuse to pay for permits and be subject to enforcement action leading
to a more difficult relationship with parking attendants and other parking
staff. The suggested actions in response to the consultation could help
to ameliorate this view. In most other towns paying for a permit would
be a fact of life and it is likely that this would be an initial reaction
that would dissipate over time.
- The risks of not
introducing the proposed charges are that the cost of running residents
parking schemes will increase if more are introduced as planned. In
other towns in the county payment of charges for permits will be seen
as unfair in comparison to Oxford.
Financial and Staff Implications
- The financial
issues have been addressed earlier in the report.
- The transfer of
Parking Shop functions to the County Council will require staff to operate
it. The payments currently made to the City Council would be available
to meet the costs and all costs would be charged to the Parking Account
and not impact on the Revenue Budget. None of the Payments Shop staff
work exclusively on parking administration but there may be TUPE (Transfer
of Understanding (Protection of Employment)) implications in ending
the Parking Shop arrangements. It has already been indicated to the
City Council that this Council are willing to discuss and agree transfer
of some staff in the event that they decide to close their Payments
Shop.
Relationship with Local
Transport Plan and Corporate Policies
- The place of residents’
parking schemes in our Transport policies and the possibility of introducing
charges in Oxford are explicitly mentioned in the Local Transport Plan.
- The closest connections
with the Council’s strategic priorities are with helping the economy
by being part of the strategies that control congestion and assist with
access and with safeguarding communities by removing parking that would
be a nuisance to residents.
Conclusions
- The proposal to
charge for parking permits should be confirmed with the modifications
mentioned in the report.
- The issues raised
in the consultation must be considered fully and fairly with an open
mind but they do not dictate the decision that can be made. The consultation
outcome of the majority disagreeing that there is a case for introducing
charges is not unexpected given the history of residents parking in
Oxford. But the sizeable minority who say there is a case shows that
it is not the wholly outrageous proposal it is sometimes represented
as. Many residents recognise that there is a parking problem and that
they benefit from residents parking but do not want to pay for the solution
provided.
- Charging for residents
parking permits in Oxford would ensure fairness across the county now
and in the future.
- There is a sound
legal basis for introducing charges and it would be a reasonable and
unexceptional action as evidenced by comparison with other towns. There
is a rational basis for the proposed charges derived from the circumstances
in Oxford.
- Some significant
changes to the proposals for visitor permits are justified in response
to the issues raised in consultation, and if charging is agreed there
should be a commitment to a better and more flexible level of service
for permit administration and to the other actions set out in paragraph
38.
Recommendations
- The Cabinet
is RECOMMENDED to:
- Approve
the introduction of charges for parking permits in Oxford as
follows;
- All
zones except the match-day event zones;
Residents
parking permits
£40
a year for each of the first two permits for any household
in any zone
£80
a year for a third permit, £120 a year for a fourth and
further permits in zones where Orders allow this.
Visitors
parking permits
No
charge for one batch of 25 permits; £15 for a second batch
of 25 permits.
No
charge for visitors permits issued to qualifying residents
aged 70 or over.
Contractors
permits
£15
for a discretionary authorisation to apply for a week in
the zone requested.
- Match-day
event zones (Kassam stadium zones)
Residents
parking permit
£10
a year for each permit.
- Authorise
the making of the Traffic Regulation Orders with the necessary
modifications for visitors’ permits as set out in (a) above;
- Instruct
officers to take the necessary actions to improve the service
as set out in paragraph 38 noting that in some cases these will
be dependent on further amendments to Traffic Regulation Orders;
- Instruct
officers to review West Oxford and South Oxford Controlled Parking
Zones within 18 months and draw up a programme of regular reviews
for Oxford Controlled Parking Zones generally;
- Instruct
officers to make arrangements to enforce parking restrictions
around the Kassam stadium when car boot sales are held at the
stadium.
STEVE
HOWELL
Head of Transport
Contact
officer: Richard Dix, Assistant Head of Transport, tel 01865 815663
Bckground papers:
Letter from Jeremy Thomas, Oxford City Council to Chief Executive faxed
on 17 August 2006
Letter from Chief Executive to Jeremy Thomas, Oxford City Council, dated
25 August 2006
September
2006
Return to TOP
|