Agenda, decisions and minutes

Forward Plan Ref: 2014/200

Contact: Owen Jenkins, Highways, Transport & Waste Service Manager Tel: (01865) 323304

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Commercial & Delivery (CMDE4).

The report proposes changes to the cost and extent of charges for on-street parking (pay & display) and residents and other permits within Oxford, Abingdon and Henley.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to agree to:

(a)             increase the charges for on-street parking in the City of Oxford as described in paragraph 17 of the report;

(b)            increase the charges for on-street parking in Abingdon and Henley as described in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the report;

(c)             the replacement of Pay & Display machines as described in paragraph 23 and 35 of the report;

(d)            increase the cost of residents permits in the Oxford area as set out in paragraphs 28 and 30 of the report;

(e)             increase the costs of visitor and contractors permits in the Oxford area as set out in paragraph 31 of the report;

(f)              increase the cost of residents and visitor permits in Abingdon and Henley as set out in paragraph 32 of the report.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered CMDE4 proposed changes to charges for on-street parking (pay & display) and residents and other permits within Oxford, Abingdon and Henley.

Councillor Roz Smith expressed some concern and anger over some of the proposed increases in charges for residents parking. She accepted that pressures did exist in some areas but that was not the case in some other areas such as Quarry Road and York Road where restrictions could possibly be relaxed.  When CPZs had first been introduced the intention had not been to levy charges but that had now changed and she called for a full review of zones to gauge their effectiveness particularly when in many cases there was no enforcement which posed the question why have them in the first place.  Removing some zones would result in a considerable saving which could then be used to improve enforcement and help keep changes down in those areas where zones had been retained. In some areas restrictions could not be enforced because of inadequate signage and lining.

Councillor Steve Curran asked why charges were being increased as much as they were when there had been a promise to limit any increase in line with inflation and whether increases could be applied in such a way that the charge for a second car was higher than that for a first. That could help some residents and possibly encourage a limit to the number of cars residents sought to own. Also many people in his division were on low incomes and would find it extremely difficult to budget for this increase and he felt that some of the surplus should be used to consider carefully how these increases would affect people’s lives.

Mr Tole confirmed that current traffic orders had allowed for increases to be made to charges every 3 years in line with the retail price index but with no further consultation required. However, that had not happened every 3 years and although the latest increase was above RPI it was more reflective in real terms as increases to charging levels had occurred less often than every 3 years and the current proposed increases merely reinstated the mathematical balance.  Revised levels of charges continued to be set using a formula which divided the cost of the scheme by the number of available permits. Resident parking zones were seen as self-financing and had never been related to income, area or vehicle size, although an option relating car size to charging had been looked but it was very unlikely that that could be satisfactorily linked in.  With regard to the possibility of price differential on car numbers he thought some further modelling could be done but there were very few permits for third cars and none at all for a fourth.  He accepted that in some areas the ability to pay could be problematic but was not sure how accurate figures would be if they were, say, based on income.  He confirmed there had been some reviews  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/15

Forward Plan Ref: 2015/009

Contact: Owen Jenkins, Service Manager for Highways, Transport & Waste Tel: (01865) 323304

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial) (CMDE5).

The report considers objections received as a result of a formal consultation on proposals to introduce new Disabled Persons’ Parking Places in Luker Avenue, Henley; Pye Street, Faringdon and Weavers Close, Witney.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed new DPPPs as advertised and detailed in this report. 

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE5) objections received to a formal consultation on proposals to introduce new disabled persons parking places in Luker Avenue, Henley; Pye Street, Faringdon and Weavers Close, Witney.  Other proposals advertised at the same time had been unopposed and had therefore been agreed under delegated authority.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve the proposed new DPPPs namely Luker Avenue, Henley; Pye Street, Faringdon and Weavers Close, Witney as advertised and detailed in the report CMDE5. 

Signed…………………………………

Cabinet Member for Environment

Dated …………………………………