Agenda item

A representative from the West Herts Hospital NHS Trust will be attending the meeting to provide an update on the Task Group’s recommendations.

 

The Chair introduced Eric Fehily, the Associate Director of Infrastructure for West Herts Hospital NHS Trust.  She invited him to respond to the Hospital Parking Charges Task Group’s recommendations.

 

Mr Fehily explained his role at the Trust and that he was responsible for services at the three hospitals within the Trust.  He confirmed that he would be speaking to the Scrutiny Committee about the Watford site when responding to the Task Group’s recommendations.  He informed Members that the funds had been confirmed for the new access road to the hospital and that a preferred bidder for the development had been agreed.

 

Recommendation 1 – Information on concessions to be made clearer and available in an information booklet

 

Mr Fehily informed the Scrutiny Committee that prior to his attendance at the Task Group he had received complaints from visitors about the information available on concessions.  Since that meeting work had been carried out with the Patient and Liaison Services (PALS) to improve the information on the Trust’s website.  Details were included on noticeboards in the hospital’s wards.  Staff were aware of the procedures.  Since his attendance at the Task Group he had not received any complaints.

 

Recommendation 2 – Parking charges to start at £2.50 for a two hour stay

 

Mr Fehily said that there were significant difficulties with this recommendation.  The car park was managed by a contractor on behalf of the Trust and the parking charges had been agreed.  The contract had a further 18 months to run and it was not possible to change the pricing structure.  If the Trust had introduced this lower charge it could not afford to run the car park and NHS funds would had to have been used.

 

Recommendation 3 – Stakeholders to be surveyed prior to increase in parking charges

 

Mr Fehily informed the Scrutiny Committee that this was an agreed procedure by the Trust.  He added that there were no current plans to increase charges.

 

Recommendation 4 – Vouchers to be offered in the event that visitors park for longer than their anticipated stay

 

Mr Fehily stated that the actual cost to administer a voucher scheme would be too costly.  He explained that the Trust took a ‘softly softly’ approach and that penalty notices were mainly issued to staff for incorrect parking. 

 

Recommendation 5 – Pay on exit scheme to be introduced

 

Mr Fehily explained that as part of Watford Health Campus a new multi storey car park would be built.  This would increase the number of spaces for all users.  The recommendation would be introduced with the new car park.  At the present time it would be too costly to introduce as it would require the installation of four gates and barriers and the required equipment.

 

Recommendation 6 – Signage and information on the free ’30 minute’ bays to be improved

 

Mr Fehily confirmed that the signage was in place; however, the spaces were currently available to all users.  The reason for this was that due to the increase in activity at the site the car park was regularly full.  The signage was being ignored as the spaces were needed in order to be able to run the hospital.

 

Recommendation 7 – Signage and information on parking areas for visitors to be improved

 

Mr Fehily advised that the signage had been improved throughout the site.  The signage was constantly under review.  There were proposals for a new surgery ward to be built on the car park and therefore signage would be reviewed.

 

Recommendation 8 – Signs informing on slippery roads to be installed

 

Mr Fehily said that instead of ‘slippery’ the signage would state ‘car park on slope – caution’.  This needed to be completed.

 

Recommendation 9 – Signs to indicate distance to hospital reception to be installed

 

Mr Fehily informed the Scrutiny Committee that there were car park attendants located in the car park in the morning in order to direct people to the correct entrance.  The Acute Admissions Unit had a different entrance to the main hospital.  The Renal Unit was located in a different building.  The car park attendants were proactive.

 

In conclusion Mr Fehily stated that the most difficult recommendation was regarding the £2.50 charge.  The Trust had a contractual relationship until 2015 and it would be costly to break that contract.

 

The Chair asked whether, at a later date, the Trust would consider a charging scheme based on the amount of time spent in the car park.

 

Mr Fehily responded that a business case for the car park had been prepared and would be presented to the Business Case Review Group.  If the Review Group agreed to the proposals they would then be presented to the Trust’s Board for approval.  All parking options for the multi-storey car park would be considered.  He added that £150,000 had been invested in the car park, including road repairs, lines, new disabled bays and access.

 

Councillor Bell questioned whether penalty notices were only issued to staff as he had received complaints from other users.  He also asked whether the new multi-storey car park would be large enough to replace the existing car parks.

 

Mr Fehily advised that if a visitor had parked illegally then they would receive a penalty notice.  However, they were mainly issued to staff.  He said that the car park was managed as sensitively as possible.  The majority of penalty notices were quashed. 

 

With regard to the new multi-storey car park, he explained that consultants had been employed to review the parking arrangements.  The consultants felt that the number of spaces needed to be increased to 1,600.  It was acknowledged that the Trust needed to work on its Green Travel Plan.  Once the new road had been built people would be encouraged to use bicycles.  The first 10 minutes and the last 10 minutes of a person’s experience at a hospital were important and this was not good if they had problems parking. 

 

Mr Fehily added that car parking providers would be asked for their views on parking arrangements through market testing.  The most suitable option for the hospital would be implemented.  Stakeholders would be involved in the development.

 

Councillor Greenslade commented that there had been discussions since the 1980’s about a multi-storey car park for the hospital.  She asked for assurances that it would definitely be built this time.

 

Mr Fehily responded that the business case had been written.  It would be delivered in partnership with Kier and the development partners.  Following a question from Councillor Greenslade about height restrictions, he assured her that all aspects including the height of vehicles would be taken on board.

 

Councillor Khan referred to a recent visit to the hospital.  It had taken him some time to find a space.  He asked how long the Associate Director thought the current situation would continue and whether there was anything the Council could do to assist the hospital.

 

Mr Fehily explained that the current problems were due to the building works.  The staff used a car park in Cardiff Road which had been leased from the Council.  More space was needed.  Activity levels went up in line with the complexity of cases seen at the hospital.  More people requested outpatient appointments at Watford.  The Trust’s website advised people to leave plenty of time to find a parking place.  The building works should be completed by Christmas and the parking situation should improve in January.  The multi-storey car park would take approximately 12 months to build.  Planning approval was likely to be sought in the summer; therefore it would take approximately 18 months to complete it.

 

Following a further question, Mr Fehily added that once the Trust’s Board signed off the business case, the Health Authority would be asked to approve the scheme.  Once approved, the Trust could go to the market and select a preferred bidder.

 

Councillor Martins said that he was disappointed that the recommendation of a £2.50 charge had not been implemented.  He asked whether the business case ruled out the £2.50 charge.  He commented that he understood the reason for issuing penalty notices for illegal parking and asked about penalty notices for those people who overstayed the time on their ticket.

 

Mr Fehily advised that he did not have details of the business case available.  He assured Members that the parking contractor’s role was not to penalise patients and visitors.  If people did have an issue they could go to the PALS office.  He explained that each complaint would be considered on its own merits.  He reiterated that the hospital took a ‘softly softly’ approach.

 

Councillor Martins asked for details of the number of penalty notices issued and the number of appeals.

 

Councillor Hofman asked whether the business plan had taken account of the Croxley Rail Link when assessing the number of spaces required.

 

Mr Fehily confirmed that the forecast had been based on the future activities at the hospital.  It assumed that a number of people would use the train and a number of people would cycle to the site.

 

Councillor Hofman noted that the overflow car park was not used at the weekends.  He suggested that the Trust could open it and charge a fee to those going to the football ground.

 

Mr Fehily explained that it was not used due to a planning condition imposed by the Council.  He said that ideally the Cardiff Road car park would be open for staff thereby freeing spaces in the main car park for visitors.

 

Councillor Meerabux commented that the charge of £4.00 was too high.  He was aware that people passed their unexpired tickets on to other car park users.

 

The Chair responded that this matter had come out in the review.  At the Task Group meeting Mr Fehily had stated that he would take the comments back to the Trust.

 

Mr Fehily added that the Trust was aware the exchange of tickets occurred but turned a ‘blind eye’.  The multi-storey car park would have an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system and this would mean that people would not be able to transfer tickets.  ANPR was a mechanism used to manage car parks.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Fehily for attending the meeting and updating Members on the Trust’s plans for the hospital car park. 

 

The Scrutiny Committee agreed that the Committee and Scrutiny Officer would contact the Associate Director in six months to check on the progress of the plans for the car park which would then be circulated to Members.

 

RESOLVED –

 

that a further update on the car park be provided to the Scrutiny Committee in six months.