SUMMARY/PURPOSE

1. To approve variations to the implementation of the approved Parking Places Order to allow the trialling of an Island Residents’ Permit for use in Council Parking areas adjacent to Leisure facilities.

BACKGROUND

2. At its meeting on 2 June the Executive approved a number of amendments to the advertised Order to take into account further business case information. The Executive also requested further reports back on specific issues and for completeness the agreed resolutions are set out below:-

(i) THAT amendments to the Order be approved and charges were not to be imposed at Chilton Chine; Whale Chine; Warnes Lane, Brighstone; Fort Victoria, Totland Broadway, Smugglers Haven, Wheelers Bay, Dudley Road and Eastcliff, Ventnor and Bouldnor Viewpoint

(ii) THAT the introduction of charges at the Heights, Arboretum and Seaclose be deferred pending a further report on investigation into the issue of double ticketing

(iii) THAT the introduction of charges at Seaclose be deferred until the position was clear with regard to legal implications and problems with enforcement

(iv) THAT the implement of charges at Wootton, Seaview and Carisbrooke be deferred for a period of up to 3 months until the Parish Council, Community and traffic management, and legal issues raised in the debate were resolved.

3. This decision was called in and scrutinised by the Environment and Transport Select Committee on 17 June and the Resolution was as follows:-

The Select Committee resolved to support the decision of the Executive of 2^nd June 2004, and in particular, to support the Portfolio Holder in developing innovative solutions to the problems identified at that Executive.

4. This report will address the concerns raised during these debates and will outline variations to the approved Parking Places Order which reduce the cost of parking at some of the locations that were the subject of that specific order. Whilst this decision is complementary to key decisions previously outlined in the Forward Plan from a constitutional basis it could be interpreted as an additional key decision. For this purpose members are advised that this decision is being taken under the urgency provisions in rule 15 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules in the constitution. This is on the basis that the published Forward Plan does not contain details of the decision because of the call-in procedure and urgency is needed to secure parking income over the Summer season.

5. The report will not in any detailed way consider the specific car parking discussions for Wootton Bridge, Carisbrooke and Seaview as discussions are still ongoing and fall into a different agreed timetable. However one of the recommended proposals may be suitable for consideration in those discussions.

6. During the course of the debate at Executive and the Select Committee the proposal to implement an Island-wide Resident Parking Permit was discussed and officers advised that this could not be implemented urgently due to the need for further detailed investigations. The key issues and timetable for these investigations were reported as follows:-

Phase I

· Confirmation by GOSE that the proposals comply with integrated transport principles contained within the Regional Transport Strategy

· Risk analysis of the budget implications

· Market research and testing about take up and potential congestion implications

· Confirmation alterations to on and off-street parking schemes

Phase 2

· Report principles and findings to Quality Transport Partnership Select Committee and Executive – September/October

Phase 3

· Preparation of detailed revisions of all of the Council’s Parking Places Orders on an Island-wide basis

Phase 4

· Report draft Island-wide Parking Places Order – December/January

· Carry out statutory consultations

Phase 5

· Consider objections to draft Parking Places Order

· Approval and Implementation – March/April and ongoing.

7. Whilst the scale of potential impact of an Island-wide Residents Permit needs to be carefully considered it is possible to consider the introduction of a permit of a more limited scope. This would be particularly relevant if it could also address concerns about increased costs to visit recreational and leisure facilities as a result of the implementation of the Parking Places Order.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

8. The control of car parking is an important traffic management tool in any demand management strategy. Price control is one of the most effective means of regulating this and is consistent with the aims and objectives set out in the Council’s Local Transport Plan.

9. However, the Council also has corporate objectives to improve health, housing and the quality of life for all and there were concerns that excessive parking charges may adversely affect the health and quality of life benefits derived from the use of leisure facilities.

10. The proposals for parking charges contained in the Parking Places Order do not generally increase charges where these exist at present. The main purpose of the changes was to harmonise the cost of parking across the Island by introducing charges where it is currently free. This approach was a recommendation of the Parking Task Group set up by the Select Committee and has been adjusted to take account of representations during consultation.

CONSULTATION

11. This proposal is a direct result of the consultation carried out on the 2004/05 Parking Places Order and reflects the views of the Environment & Transport Select Committee.

OPTIONS

12. The following options have been considered to address the Executive’s concerns about cost effective access to recreational and Leisure facilities:-

Option 1 - Introduction of double ticketing

Option 2 - Introduction of a limited resident permit scheme, together with the new charges

Option 3 - Introduction of charges as intended in the Parking Places Order.

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

13. The use of double ticketing at leisure facilities is not new and was previously operated at some of the locations under consideration by predecessor authorities. In essence this would allow users of leisure facilities to redeem the cost of parking when paying for activities. The cost of redemption would be off-set against parking income which would reduce benefits. In addition, some spectators and groups would have difficulty with redemption which would be available to non-residents as well. In view of the set-up costs, and need for complex administrative arrangements, Option 1 is not recommended for implementation particularly when the Island-wide scheme is under consideration.

14. The introduction of a limited residents permit as suggested in Option 2 does have a number of benefits. It would allow regular users of facilities to make a one-off payment which is less than they would pay elsewhere on the Island. The approach could be trialled at those car parks where new charges are being introduced specifically The Heights, The Arboretum, Seaclose, Puckpool Park and Appley Park. The introduction of these permits could be used as a pilot for a wider scheme and would give evidence about take-up, and operational costs. The proposal could also be offered as part of discussions with local groups for the car parks at Wootton Bridge, Carisbrooke and Seaview. As part of the year has passed, the fee of £50 for a permit for the rest of the year would seem equitable and is possible under the existing Parking Places Order. The administrative arrangements on site will be less, but other resident verification systems will need to be introduced by the parking section. Income from the public generally will still be maintained, albeit at a lesser level through the new charges. This option is recommended for approval.

15. Introducing the charges without some recognition of the effects on the use of leisure facilities would not be consistent with previous debates at the Executive and the Select Committee. Option 3 is not recommended for approval.

16. During the course of investigations the legal implications of using Seaclose has also been investigated. As Seaclose is not an adopted highway, all of it and the Council’s property can be considered as ‘off-street’. The purpose of the Order is to allow the public only to park in designated spaces between the times of operation of the Order. If a car is not parked in a designated place, the Council can take enforcement action provided adequate signage described by regulations is in place. The cost of signs can be borne out of parking income and additional spaces could be marked on the road to help make the use of this area clearer to the public. Private car parks would not be covered by the Order and discussions with nearby owners will take place in advance of implementation.

17. Visitors to the Council’s offices at Seaclose and The Heights can be accommodated with designated bays and the issue of temporary permits. This arrangement currently works effectively at Jubilee Stores.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

18. The sale of permits will provide revenue income to the Council, but there may be some resistance to the introduction of charging, which may reduce income to leisure facilities. It is not possible to quantify the likely overall impact on revenue, which will need to be monitored throughout the trial period.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

19. The advertised Parking Places Order can be implemented at the discretion of the local authority. The design of the scheme proposed has been adjusted to reflect comments received during public consultation

RECOMMENDATIONS

Option 2

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None were used in the preparation of this report.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

None.

Contact Point : Peter Taylor, Traffic & Transportation Manager (tel: 823777)

e-mail [email protected]

Head of Engineering Services

Stephen Matthews

Portfolio Holder for Transport