Agenda item

The Streets & Environment Sub-Committee is asked to receive the March 2024 Cabinet report ‘PROPOSED PARKING CHARGE AMENDMENTS 2024-2025,’ recommending a statutory consultation on changes to parking charges, and to consider whether Members feel the proposed charges are reasonable to meet the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. The Sub-Committee are also to consider whether the proposed changes will align to the Medium-Term Financial Strategy for the period 2024 to 2028 (2024-28 SAV SCRER 002).

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 63 to 102 of the agenda, which provided the proposed Parking Charge Amendments for 2024-25, considered at Cabinet on the 27 March 2024. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment introduced the item followed by a short presentation from the Head of Highways & Parking Services.

Members asked how the Council would determine the success of the proposed tariffs and how their environmental impact would be measured. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that the Council would continue to incentivise residents to adopt less polluting vehicles through a parking discount, but that business footfall and vitality had also been a focus in developing the proposals in order to align with the Mayor’s Business Plan. The Sub-Committee heard that the proposals sought to achieve Medium Term Financial Strategy savings (2024-28 SAV SCRER 002) and that this would be used to determine the success of the new tariffs. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the Council was seeking a balance between environmental incentives and encouraging economic activity in the borough and explained that the current 90% discount for Electric Vehicles (EVs) was high when compared to other boroughs.

The Sub-Committee asked how this policy would connect with other strategic transport polices, and what the Council would be doing to encourage the use of less polluting methods of transport, beyond the use of EVs. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the Council’s Strategic Transport approach and Local Implementation Plan worked together to encourage the use of public transport, active transport and walking. Members heard that national trends showed new vehicles purchased were increasingly EVs or Hybrid and that the Council needed to look at how to support this through infrastructure, particularly where residents did not have their own driveways or access to a personal EV charger. The Council had been providing on street EV charging points and this approach was being reviewed, following the departure of the former officer overseeing this work and a new officer starting in post. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the Council’s role in delivering EV infrastructure needed to be reviewed as the market grew, with the continued rollout of charging points at supermarkets and petrol stations. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment added that the second meeting of Croydon Advisory Forum on Active, Sustainable and Accessible Transport was scheduled for later in April 2024, and that this was another way for the Council to engage with key stakeholders on strategic transport in the borough.

The Sub-Committee asked what number of current permits were for higher polluting vehicles. The Head of Highways & Parking Services responded that, for 2022/23, of 8,779 parking and residential permits 264 of these were for higher polluting vehicles, and that almost 80% of the total were for the middle band.

The Chair praised the emissions-based charging approach and asked why the size and weight of vehicles had not also been considered. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that this would be a complicated process and it was not known if the Council’s payment contractor would hold this information; the importance of having a simple system that could be easily understood by residents was also highlighted. Members were informed that EVs were heavier than other vehicles and could lead to greater road wear, damage, and resulting maintenance costs.

Members asked what evidence base the Council had used for choosing the proposed charges, and what comparisons had been made with similar boroughs parking schemes. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that the Council had reviewed its existing emissions data from previous cashless transactions, UK average emissions benchmarking and tariff benchmarking (London wide for permits and neighbouring boroughs for kerbside parking). The Sub-Committee heard that of Croydon’s neighbouring boroughs, only one other offered a free parking period for district centres, and this was only for 30 minutes. Members heard that the Council had made the decision not to increase Band 5 as it sat at the top-end when compared to other London boroughs; for Bands 2-4 Croydon Council was around the London median; and for EVs the proposed charge had been increased as the current discount was significant.  The Vice Chair asked how many residents would be affected by the changes in Bands 1 – 4 parking permit charges and heard that this would affect around 6500 residents (as of 2023 data).

Members asked how often charges and the Parking Policy would be reviewed and how residents and businesses would be engaged. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that there had been a great deal of engagement with businesses on the new Parking Policy during the consultation and during the cashless parking trials, and that this engagement would continue. The Sub-Committee heard that the proposed charges needed to go through the Traffic Regulation Order consultation process before implementation, and then the impact could be measured. Once the Council had sufficient data, it would be able to review the charges; Members heard that this would take 15 months at a minimum. The Sub-Committee noted that this was the first time that parking tariffs had been reviewed since 2019.

The Sub-Committee asked whether one-hour free parking for district centres was the correct length of time. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that one-hour free parking time had been decided in collaboration with local businesses and was intended to give residents enough time to visit several shops; residents would also have the option to pay to extend parking time if needed (which was not currently possible). Business footfall would be measured by transaction data (a baseline for this would be established before the new tariffs were introduced) and the Council was looking to work with RingGo to utilise new technology to monitor turnover at kerbside bays.

The Vice Chair asked if consideration had been given to a scale of permit charges for households with multiple cars. The Head of Highways & Parking Services responded that residents could purchase up to three permits and that there was already an excess fee for households purchasing multiple permits, with no increase was currently proposed.

Members asked about Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs), and heard that recent recruitment had been successful in bringing the team up to 40 full time employees. The RingGo new technology trial would help to determine current compliance levels and would allow for better-tailored enforcement. The Sub-Committee heard that the trial would also look at parking on single yellow lines, highway and loading bay blocking, and parking on forecourts. The Chair asked about fluctuating numbers of CEOs and retention and heard that this was due to the challenging nature of the work. The Chair asked about targeted data-led enforcement, which had been discussed at the Sub-Committee in July 2023. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that discussions with RingGo on how this data could be collected to create hotspot maps for officers was ongoing, but that PowerBI would likely be used as part of the implementation.

The Chair asked if a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) had been considered. The Corporate Director for SCRER stated that generally the Council looked to employers to develop parking policies for their own staff. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment added that there were cycle to work and electric car initiatives available to businesses. The Director of Streets & Environment explained that the Council would be looking at WPLs but noted that other boroughs had adopted WPLs with little success.

The Chair asked how any surplus income from the proposed charges would be spent. The Head of Highways & Parking Services responded that the Council would prioritise any surplus on road safety initiatives due to a reduction in funding sources for these kind of schemes over recent years.

The Vice Chair asked if social tenants would receive any discount on parking permits. The Head of Highways & Parking Services responded that this had not been defined in the Parking Policy, but that this was something that would be reviewed at a later date.

Conclusions

1. The Sub-Committee welcomed that the proposed parking tariffs would continue to use an emission based charging scheme.

2. The Sub-Committee were encouraged that the Council would be looking at the possible adoption of Workplace Parking Levies (WPL) and asked to be kept informed of this work as it developed.

Recommendations

1. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Council undertake further work to understand the impact of increased residential parking permit prices for social tenants and the feasibility of providing a discount to these residents in the final scheme.

2. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Council develop specific Key Performance Indicators to monitor the footfall impact of the proposed charges on businesses in district centres.