Agenda item

Report of the Director of Finance and Head of Regeneration and Development

This report seeks Budget Panel’s views regarding the future use of the CPZ Reserve.

The Panel received a report of the Shared Director of Finance and Head of Regeneration and Development which provided information about the Parking Reserve Account and the proposed traffic related schemes identified for delivery within the forthcoming financial year.

Councillor Martins stated that as he was unaware of how much income would be generated by the proposed projects.  He was unable to make a judgement as requested by officers.  He felt it was too soon to make any decisions on whether the permit charges should be increased; any discussion should wait until next year’s budget discussions.

The Head of Regeneration and Development informed the Panel that the list of projects provided within the report varied from small schemes to large ones.  Some of the schemes, for example the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Review (Survey), had cost a significant sum but would not generate any income as a result.  In the case of new schemes, the balance of the cost had to be weighed against the cost of increased enforcement. 

The Chair commented that when new schemes were introduced it was likely that more tickets would be issued and over time it would not be necessary to use as many staff.  The Council had increased permits in April this year.  He referred to an incident a local resident had reported to him, which related to several CEOs talking in the street.  He felt that the Council should look at the cost of staff for this service.  He was aware that the Council employed six people to oversee the contract.  He said that residents in Central and Vicarage Wards had no choice but to purchase permits as they did not have driveways.  He questioned whether residents in areas where the enforcement was over a longer period should pay more for their permits.

The Head of Regeneration and Development referred the Panel to paragraph 3.11 in the report which explained about the deployment of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs).  She advised Members that the CEOs patrolled on their own.  There were rare occasions when they patrolled in pairs, for example for training purposes or in the evening.  In view of the way the beats were organised, there might be occasions when an officer might walk through another beat.  When a new zone was introduced, it was likely that more staff would be required to patrol it initially, but this could be reviewed in the medium to long term.  This had been the case with Zone V, where at first two additional officers had been employed, but this had subsequently been reduced to one.  The Parking service was often put under pressure to increase enforcement in some areas, for example at school drop off and collection times or around the park during the summer. 

The Head of Regeneration and Development explained about the staffing arrangements at the Parking Shop.  Parking enforcement had been contracted to Vinci.  The staff employed by Watford Borough Council managed the contract on behalf of three local authorities and dealt with representations, appeals including those that went forward to the Independent Penalty Tribunal and cases referred to the bailiffs.  They also ensured that lines and signs were fit for purpose.  When the previous Parking Manager retired, the staffing arrangements were reviewed and a reduction had been made.  Procedures had been reviewed and made more efficient which reduced costs.  In terms of income and expenditure there were very few things that could be changed, but the charge for parking permits could be reviewed.

The Head of Regeneration and Development advised Members that if they were aware of any problems in an area they needed to contact officers to enable them to discuss the matter with Vinci.

Councillor Rackett referred to the parking review being carried out in Callowland and Leggatts.  He asked that Cabinet allowed those projects which had been led by the public to go forward.

Councillor Meerabux, a non-Panel Member, suggested that the Council should evaluate Controlled Parking Zones.  There were some areas where residents felt trapped and that permits were a guaranteed income for the Council.  It was necessary to be sensitive to how parking systems were organised.  Some residents paid for permits but were unable to find a space.  He also questioned whether the parking schemes helped local businesses.

Following questions from Councillor Turmaine, the Head of Regeneration and Development advised that the introduction of a CPZ was not to reduce traffic flow but to manage parking.  The original reports requesting the implementation of CPZs provided information about the aims and objectives of schemes.  When they were first introduced, it had been to resolve problems caused by commuter parking.  The priority was to allow for residents’ parking.  In other parts of the town there was a priority for shopper parking and this was controlled by a pricing structure.  In local shopping areas there needed to be an ability for customers to be able to visit those shops.  The Council’s Core Strategy contained parking policies.  A review was currently underway to assess how parking was used to manage people coming into the town. 

In response to Councillor Meerabux’s comments, the Head of Regeneration and Development reported that the results of the ’Your Parking Your Choice’ survey would be presented to Cabinet in December.  The respondents were mainly happy with the scheme.  There were issues about the boundaries of the different zones.  Parking schemes resolved parking problems but affected people’s lives. 

Councillor Turmaine asked if it was possible to identify those areas that provided the most income.

The Head of Regeneration and Development referred the Panel to paragraph 3.10 in the report which set out the number of permits and income for each zone.  The income from Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) was set out in the previous paragraph.  She advised that whilst compiling the report she had asked for a breakdown of the Penalty Charge Notice information for each zone, but had been informed that this was not possible.

Councillor Derbyshire agreed with earlier remarks stating that it was too early to provide Cabinet with any comments.  He noted the budget information provided to the Panel.  He said that the Panel would be able to consider this matter further when it reviewed the Fees and Charges.  He felt that there were currently sufficient funds within the existing budget to cover the schemes listed within the report.

Councillor Sharpe, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Development, said that Members needed to be cautious about the projects.  He explained that a parking review was carried out in Oxhey and there was a negative result for a scheme.  This had saved the cost of implementing the scheme.  He did caution Members that the funding within the Parking Reserve account had been increasing but was now decreasing.  He referred to comments made by Councillor Meerabux and advised that the CPZ had been implemented to stop commuters and therefore enabling residents to park.  He cautioned Members about a breakdown of the PCNs as some of the notices may have been issued in areas without a CPZ and others issued within a CPZ area but not related to the times of permit parking, due to the location of the infringement.  In response to Councillor Rackett’s comments he informed the Panel that the projects listed either related to policy matters or had initially been raised by local people.

The Chair commented that space was not created in the streets for residents.  There was space available during the day but not at night.  He felt that a breakdown of the PCNs issued would be useful as it would show those areas that were heavily patrolled.

The Portfolio Holder responded that it was not possible to guarantee a parking space. Parking restrictions had to be enforced across the Borough. 

Councillor Khan, a non-Panel Member, commented that CPZs needed to be self-funding and should not be subsidised by the Council Taxpayer.  Following comments the previous year, he felt it was important that a scrutiny of the take up of permits by zone should be carried out to consider if schemes provided value for money. 

Councillor Connal, a non-Panel Member, said that she wished to thank the parking staff for help in monitoring the situation outside a school.

Councillor Turmaine said that based on the Panel’s discussion he felt that Members wished to delay making any recommendations.  He asked whether the matter would be re-considered before the local elections.

The Portfolio Holder replied that the matter needed to be addressed before the funds ran out.  The budget proposals would be discussed at Budget Panel prior to Cabinet and Council.  He reminded Members that the CPZ policy had been introduced in 1997 and prioritised parking for residents.  He added that parking policies were tied into national planning policies.

The Chair thanked everyone for their comments.  He acknowledged the Panel’s comments and said that Members had indicated that it was not the right time to make any recommendations.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.