POLICY COMMISION BLUE PAPER

RESPONSIBLE BODY

Policy Commission for Economy, Tourism, Regeneration and Transport

PROJECT NAME

£50 residents’ parking permit for Council car parks

REFERENCE NUMBER

E2/05

1 BACKGROUND TO PROJECT

1.1 This item is on the Commission's agenda following the Conservative Administration’s election promise to “Introduce an “All Island” parking ticket for Island People and abolish expensive parking meters. At the same time we will be introducing a reduced scheme to allow our pensioners to park at under 50p per week.” The Scoping Pro-Forma for this item was passed by the Commission on 13 July 2005. Thereafter, it became a formal Review Project, with a deadline target of 13 December 2005 for submission of the Blue Paper to Cabinet and with a target date for implementation of the Cabinet’s subsequent decision by April 2006.

1.2 There are currently 6329 off-street Council-owned fee-charging parking spaces on the Island. This includes any of the spaces included in the exemptions proposed within this paper (See Options Appraisal Assumption 4).

1.3 Currently, there are a wide range of different permits which allow people (residents and visitors) to park in different places, for different durations of stay and under different terms. This Review Project is concerned solely with introducing a parking permit for Island residents, which is to be used in off-road car parks owned and run by the Isle of Wight Council. The Options contained within this report all make reference to the need to streamline the various other parking permits into a simpler system available to people who wish to park on the Island. However, the nature of that simplified system is considered outside the scope of this Review Project and is therefore not addressed specifically.

1.4 In financial year 2004/05, 934 off-street parking permits were purchased for cars and light vehicles, yielding £249,323 gross revenue. The total gross annual revenue from parking for the same period was £3,119,000 (77% of which was from meters, the balance being made up from the full range of permits available, plus excess charges). It has been assumed, when developing the Options contained within this report, that the total potential market for this new £50 permit is the 71,474 cars and light vehicles registered to owners, resident on the Island. Statistical evidence from consumer research undertaken by the Council in the last 5 years (see Consultation Evidence) indicates a more realistic market for permits of no more than half that number.

1.5 To put this into context, the peak volume of visitors’ private vehicles reaches around 15,000 at any one time and these visitors either purchase a temporary parking permit or pay for off-street parking through meters. Therefore the total volume of cars and light vehicles on the Island’s roads rises from a resident 71,474 to a summer peak of around 86,500 at any one time. However throughout the high season (mid July to end August) as many as 150,000 additional cars may come to the Island. The £50 parking permit will therefore be introduced into a situation of extreme seasonal fluctuation and so its impact will have to be measured across an entire annual cycle, to enable a full evaluation of the policy.

1.6 The effect of offering an annual £50 off-street parking permit to residents will not alter the number of cars on the road. It may draw parking from the street to car parks, a move that will be increased by decriminalised street parking, and its cost benefit might cause some people to drive rather than use public transport. The limit to any such trends will be the availability of parking spaces. Parking space demand is regulated effectively by location, price and permitted duration of stay. If the price of residents’ off-street parking is to be reduced (which would be the direct result of the introduction of a £50 annual parking permit), demand can only be managed in the short term by duration of stay in car parking spaces. It may possible for additional car parks to be constructed in locations of high demand, but with significant cost and lead-time. It follows that residents will not renew parking permits if space availability becomes a problem.

1.7 The Commission is not singling out a specific Option, for recommendation to Cabinet. Each Option is presented, supported by a summary of that Option’s comparative strengths and weaknesses. In addition, the Risk Analyses (which cover financial, operational and reputational impact assessments) and the Legal Implications sections are intended to provide the Cabinet with the contextual background information on which to base any policy decision that they should choose to make on the £50 parking permit.

2 PURPOSE OF ENQUIRY AND PROPOSED OUTCOME

2.1 The purpose of the Review Project has been to identify and assess options for the introduction of a £50 parking permit for Island residents, so that Cabinet may make an informed decision when introducing such a permit as Council policy.

2.2 The reasoning behind the introduction of the £50 parking permit has been that it would offer an easier and more convenient parking system for Island residents and would encourage Islanders to make more use of the business facilities in the smaller towns.

2.3 The proposed outcome is that the Council introduces a £50 annual parking permit valid in off-street Council car parks, for those people paying Council Tax on the Island. There is also the proposal that the Council introduce a £35 annual parking, valid for the same car parks, for those of pensionable age.

· 3 CONSULTATION EVIDENCE

The Commission has received evidence from a number of stakeholders and Council Officers as set out below

· Policy Commission 13 July 2005 – Mr Gareth Hughes, Financial Services Manager, Isle of Wight Council (IWC).

· Policy Commission 13 July 2005 – Mr Peter Taylor, Traffic and Transport Manager, IWC

· Policy Commission 21 September 2005 - Mr Gareth Hughes, Financial Services Manager, IWC.

· Policy Commission 21 September 2005 – Mr Stephen Matthews, Head of Engineering Services, IWC

· Policy Commission 21 September 2005 – Mr David Woracker, IW Transport 2000

· Policy Commission 21 September 2005 - Mr Steve Porter, Chair of the Quality Transport Partnership

· Policy Commission 19 October 2005 - Mr Kevin Smith, Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce

· Policy Commission 19 October 2005 – Mr Graham Pearce, Isle of Wight Federation of Small Businesses

· Policy Commission 19 October 2005 – Mr Chris Wells, Senior Transport Planner, IWC

· Policy Commission 9 November 2005 – Cllr Fitzgerald-Bond, IWC

· October 2005, iwight.com survey

· October 2005, iwight.com forum comments

· October 2005, letters from Island residents

4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED

4.1 The research undertaken for this Review Project highlighted a number of recurring themes:

(i) the possibility that Islanders would use their cars more as a result of the policy (the Commission was presented with evidence that car ownership and usage is already rising at a higher rate than the increase in population and households;

(ii) the potential increase in congestion in the Island’s town centres (based on the assumption that more people will be competing for the same limited number of parking spaces – the concern was expressed that this could lead to increased driver dissatisfaction with the Council, leading to a drop-off in permit sales in the second and subsequent years);

(iii) the parking permit policy’s relationship with Council and Government transport policy (GOSE have expressed a desire to see evidence of the Council’s stance on parking policy in its Local Transport Plan submission);

(iv) ensuring that commuters working off-Island but bringing the benefits back to the Island economy should not be disadvantaged by any new parking policy (see Supporting Background Information, where a list of the Council’s parking permits and pricing is set out – commuters currently pay over £400 per year for a long-stay parking permit which does not guarantee a parking space);

(v) the fact that no other Southern tourist destination in England appears to have a parking policy similar to that which is being proposed (benchmarking data showing the nearest comparisons which are considered either similar and/or good practice is listed as supporting documentation, see Supporting Background Information);

(vi) funding the permit is outside the scope of the Review Project; that being a Cabinet decision. However, the financial implications of each Option have been included in the Risk Analyses for this report;

(vii) the need to consider the whole parking “product” on the Island – the placing and condition of Council car-parks, charging which varies with seasons and times of day, the wide variety of different parking permits, the need for metered parking charges to rise;

(viii) the need to review parking as another piece of the transport “jigsaw” on the Island and that this Review Project should be considered in conjunction with the Value For Money Review of WightBus (Ref: E7/05), the Introduction of a £1 bus fare (Ref: E6/05) and the Introduction of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (Saf1/05).

5 OPTIONS APPRAISAL

5.1 The electoral mandate given to the Administration means that the Council has a clear commitment to introduce a £50 Parking Permit and the role of the Commission is to present to Cabinet realistic options on which to base their decision.

5.2 It should be made clear that the Commission has considered and discounted a whole range of options in developing the list of four Options set out below. One option on which there was general agreement, at an early stage, was that the suggested 50p per week charge for pensioners’ permits was unrealistic, hence the suggestion of a £35 annual permit.

5.3 By considering a wide range of options, the Commission recognises that there is further work for the Commission to do in the field of car parking, which is why periods of policy review are proposed for all four Options. This should be managed and prioritised as a separate piece of work.

5.4 The four options which have been developed are set out as follows:

Option A - for permits valid up to 4 hours

· £50 for Island residents (£35 for Islanders of pensionable age).

· Valid in most Council public off street car parks where charges are levied. (for exclusions see Options Appraisal Assumption 4 below).

· Maximum stay limited to 4 hours to encourage turnover.

· Existing ‘All Island’, ‘residents’ and commuter permits to be retained (see Supporting Background Information for full listing and descriptions).

· 6 & 12 month reviews of charging structure and parking provision.

Strengths	Weaknesses
· Provides Island residents with an easier and more convenient parking system. · Encourages use of local shops and services. · Retains existing permits for those with differing needs.	· Does not meet all expectations arising from the manifesto commitment. · Offers no advantage to commuters. · Potential to create congestion through four hourly space switching to secure longer stay parking.

Option B - 3 hour “Shoppers’ permit”

· £50 for Island residents (£35 for Islanders of pensionable age).

· Valid in most Council public off street car parks where charges are levied (for exclusions see Options Appraisal Assumption 4 below).

· Maximum stay limited to 3 hours to further encourage turnover and deter space switching.

· Existing ‘All Island’, ‘residents’ and commuter permits to be retained.

· 6 & 12 month reviews of charging structure and parking provision.

Strengths	Weaknesses
· Provides Island residents with an easier and more convenient parking system. · Least potential to create congestion. · Encourages use of local shops and services. · Retains existing permits for those with differing needs.	· Does not meet all expectations arising from the manifesto commitment. · Offers no advantage to commuters.

Option C - Length of stay determined by Car Park designation

(“Long” or “Short” stay, or for specified number of hours)

· £50 for Island residents (£35 for Islanders of pensionable age).

· Valid in most Council public off street car parks where charges are levied (for exclusions see Options Appraisal Assumption 4 below).

· Permitted duration shown on car park notices, or display signs.

· Existing ‘All Island’ and ‘residents’ off-street parking permits to be deleted.

· 6 & 12 month reviews of charging structure and parking provision.

Strengths	Weaknesses
· Provides Island residents with an easier and more convenient parking system. · Retains a degree of control over traffic circulation, consistent with car park designation. · Encourages use of local shops and services. · Existing permits can be abolished (commuter = permit for long stay designated parking). · Less likely to create congestion than Option D	· May not meet all expectations arising from the manifesto commitment, but significantly closer than Options A & B · May result in insufficient spaces to meet demand · Any car park designation differing from “long” or “short” stay may result in a longer lead time for implementation

Option D - permits valid up to 24 hours

· £50 for Island residents (£35 for Islanders of pensionable age).

· Valid in most Council public off street car parks where charges are levied. (for exclusions see Assumption 4 below).

· Maximum stay up to 24 hours; longer duration available by prior permission of Isle of Wight Council.

· Existing ‘All Island’ and ‘residents’ off-street parking permits to be deleted.

· 6 & 12 month reviews of charging structure and parking provision.

Strengths	Weaknesses
· Meets aspirations and spirit of the manifesto commitment · Provides Island residents with an easier and more convenient parking system. · Represents best value to Island residents. · Existing permits can be abolished, rationalising the system at a stroke.	· Potential to create congestion with higher levels of take up. · Will make access to local shops and services more difficult by reducing turnover of spaces. · May result in insufficient spaces to meet demand

5.5 Assumptions

5.5.1 It is assumed that presentation of options by the Commission to the Cabinet will be followed in due course by a comprehensive review of the adequacy of parking supply on the Island to meet changing demand both on and off-street. Specific subjects should include bespoke parking entitlement packages; pricing structures for other permits (including tourists’ and coaches); shoulder times and seasonality; re-designation of car parks and the issue of mixed designation car parks. Any rises in pricing would be structured in line with parking provision.

5.5.2 That officers will undertake monthly monitoring of the permit operation and report back to the Commission on a quarterly basis to check progress and identify mitigation if necessary.

5.5.3 It is assumed that until such time as a smartcard or similar technology is introduced, “honesty clocks” would be available with each permit as they are in the Channel Islands and New Forest.

5.5.4 There are two car parks where income from off-street parking is credited to the budget of adjacent leisure facilities. In order to protect these income streams the Commission proposes that the £50 permit should not be valid in the following car parks:

Ventnor Botanic Gardens – (130 spaces)

Dinosaur Isle / Browns – Sandown (171 spaces)

Total 301 spaces ineligible

This proposal would reduce the overall number of fee-charging parking spaces across the Island, for which the £50 parking permit could be used, to 6028

5.5.5 The precise definition of ‘pensionable age’ will be decided by Cabinet

6 CUSTOMER IMPACT (VALUE FOR MONEY)

6.1 The Options were all reviewed using the Council’s Value for Money checklist (see Supporting Background Information). All Options were judged to offer improved service accessibility, at lower cost, making the service easier and cheaper to use. Therefore, all four Options were judged to be offering improved value for money for the car parking services of the Council.

7 Financial / Reputational Risk Assessment by Assistant Chief Executive

Nature of risk	Options A & B*	Options C & D**	Possible controls
High take-up of permits for residential parking purposes: Financial – loss of seasonal income Reputational – commuters and shoppers unable to find spaces Economic – loss of town centre trade	1x1= 1	4x4= 16	All options: Offset potential loss of income by increasing the scope of non-permit charges: · 12 month season · 7 day week · 24 hour day · All viable on and off street locations Option C&D only: On-going budget provision of £1m plus identified one-off cover of £800,000. A mechanism to change the rules at short notice if necessary, clearly flagged up at point of sale.
Change in on-street parking patterns: Financial – permit holders stop using on-street	2x2= 4	2x2= 4
Loss of seasonal income attributable to residents: Financial – some seasonal users may be residents and therefore may buy permits	1x3= 3	1x3= 3
Error in assumptions about current parking patterns: Financial – if frequency of current usage has been understated, then losses will be higher	1x3= 3	1x3= 3
Error in assumptions about ratio of pensioners: Financial: - if ratio of discounted permits is higher than assumed	1x2= 2	1x2= 2

Risk score methodology:

Impact	x	Likelihood	=	Risk
1 – Low, under £250,000		1 – Very unlikely
2 – Medium, under £500,000		2 – Possible
3 – High, under £1m		3 – Probable
4 – Catastrophic, over £1m		4 – Very likely

* Option B is less expensive than A but not massively so (£20K upwards)

** Option C is less expensive than D (<£20K)

8 Operational Risk Assessment, by Traffic and Transport Manager

Nature of risk	Options A & B*	Option C	Option D	Possible controls
Public perceive scheme does not meet the manifesto commitment: Operational – low take up of permits	4x3= 12	4x2= 8	4x1=4	· Agree a mechanism to introduce changes at short notice. · Carry out a review of the overall parking stock. · Introduce traffic management measures to mitigate effects. · Control demand through time management and pricing structure
Scheme is too permissive: Insufficient spaces to meet demand Traffic congestion from drivers seeking spaces Restricted access to local shops and services	2x3=6 3x2=6 2x2=4	2x2= 4 3x2=6 2x2=4	2x1=4 4x4=16 4x4=16

Risk score methodology:

Impact	x	Likelihood	=	Risk
1 – Low		1 – Very unlikely
2 – Medium		2 – Possible
3 – High		3 – Probable
4 – Problematic		4 – Very likely

9 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

9.1 No legal implications were identified by Highways professionals, with reference to Highways legislation.

9.2 Legislation pertaining to the equality of pension entitlements would suggest that “pensionable age” should be standardised at 60 years of age, to bring entitlements in line with bus-pass eligibility on the Island.

10 SUPPORTING BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Appendix 1 - List of current parking permits, prices and annual income for 2004/05

Appendix 2 - Assistant Chief Executive’s spreadsheet showing car park budgets.

Appendix 3 - Benchmarking comparison, showing what other authorities do with regard to parking permits

Appendix 4 – Isle of Wight Council’s Value for Money checklist

Prepared by: Cllr J Fitzgerald Bond and Peter Taylor, Traffic & Transportation Manager.

Date: 22 November 2005