Agenda item

Purpose of the report:

To share the results of the consultation on implementing car parking charges on the Countryside Estate and to consult the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee on the proposals.

Declarations of interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Samantha Cunningham, Senior Change Consultant, E&I Directorate Programme Group

Lisa Creaye-Griffin, Countryside Group Manager

Lesley Harding, Head of Place Development

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Additional financial information and a presentation were circulated to the Committee, these are included as an annex to these minutes. The Committee reviewed the options, with the majority of Members expressing support for option five in the papers. It was noted that there was some reluctance in introducing charges, but it was recognised that the Council’s financial position meant sustainable solutions were required.

2.    Members commented that they would like to take a broader consideration of the different business plans under consideration in relation to the Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) and its long term plans to generate income. It was commented that the Committee and the Countryside Management Member Reference Group would be invited to review different proposals as they came forward. The Committee queried whether disposal of the car parks had been considered, and it was confirmed that this had been reviewed and considered not in the best interest of the SWT and its future sustainability.

3.    Members highlighted that there were options to bring in additional revenue through the provision of kiosks, and other amenities. Officers commented that there were kiosks on some of the sites and options were being considered for future development. It was also noted that kiosk staff would be able to assist people using the car park if needed.

4.    Member suggested that additional consideration should be given to enabling online payments, and looking to best practice from the congestion charges. It was noted that payment on exit was not a feasible solution as the cost of technology to enforce this would exceed the benefits.

5.    The Committee discussed the need to make payment options easy to use, and that blue badge holders should not be charged for parking. Exemption for blue badge holders was confirmed by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. The Committee was informed that barriers would not be removed to allow horseboxes to enter, as this also increased the risk of traveller incursion.  It was suggested that payment options could be phased, with some sites only offering phone payment. The Cabinet Member was supportive of a phased approach.

6.    The Committee discussed enforcement, and the risk of displacement. It was acknowledged that there needed to be a flexible solution, and one that did not seek to create issues for residents and local businesses. The Cabinet Member highlighted that there was work being undertaken to look at the specific local options, and that a blanket approach using double yellow lines were not considered to be a popular solution. The Cabinet Member highlighted that there was a lump sum in the budget for the changes for displacement solutions, though it was intended that not all of this would be required.

7.    The Committee queried the level of charges, following some correspondence that had been received from the Surrey Local Access Forum. It was confirmed that a review of parking charges at different sites across Surrey had informed the proposed tariffs, and that they were in line with other car parks across the county.

8.    The Committee discussed enforcement, and it was confirmed that cost for contracting companies to carry this out would be met through collected fines, meaning a zero cost to the Council. 

9.    Members commented that there should be improved facilities to encourage cycling, and to identify where public transport could support a reduction in parking displacement. The Cabinet Member also confirmed that the changes would take account of the improvements to Junction 10 of the M25 as far as was feasible.

10.  The Committee reviewed the proposed recommendations, and a vote was taken. Nine Members voted for the proposed recommendations, three Members voted against, and one abstained.

Recommendations:

That the Cabinet agree option 5 with further consideration given to

·         Options for people to pay online, or in advance or after parking 24 hours

·         How machines and phone payment are options made accessible and easy to use

·         How enforcement is implemented with minimum of disruption

·         A review of the scheme, displacement and lessons learnt within six months

·         What additional resources are provided to promote cycling and cycle parking