Minutes:
Consideration was given to a report which reviewed and updated the current Gainsborough Car Park Strategy to ensure that the supply of car parking was responsive to both current and future demand; and to ensure it aligned to the regeneration programme of the town.
The primary aim of the review was to support town centre viability and local traders, demonstrating that the Council had listened and responded to concerns in this regard.
The review had appraised the current charging tariffs and permit prices to ensure that the proposed improvements to town centre car parking was affordable and self-financing in line with the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. This strategy would include a communication plan and a consultation exercise to ascertain local business and shoppers’ views on the effectiveness of the “Free after 3pm” policy on viability, as opposed to an alternative, of “One hour free at any time”.
An addendum had been included within the report, which primarily related to the Roseway Car Park, its refurbishment and the financing of such, the content of which superseded recommendation two, bullet point 3.
To aide Members understandings of the proposals, a short power point presentation was given, during which Members were provided with information in respect of the following: -
· The current position, noting that in December 2016, with the loss of two large private car parks, demand outstripped supply;
· The details of Phase 1 recommendations relating to new supply generation and when this supply would become available as a result;
· The other recommendations associated with Phase 1 and the costs to the Council or income generated to the Council, as a result;
· The business case regarding the Roseway Car park and the rationale for this being delivered in an alternative way, as per the information included in the addendum;
· The new supply which would be generated by Autumn 2018;
· Details of those recommendations it was proposed would be implemented with immediate effect;
· Details of the Phase 2 recommendations and the current sites which were under consideration.
It was noted that the matter had been considered earlier in the month by the Prosperous Communities Committee, and arising from that meeting they had made a number of recommendations for consideration relating to the financing of the review recommendations.
Since that meeting further amendments were being proposed to those recommendations, namely: -
· that the requested capital budget of £40,000 for the construction of the Bridge Street extension, funded by prudential borrowing be increased to £50,000. This was in light of current tender prices received todate.
· the use of permits be prohibited in both Roseway and Ship Court to facilitate an increased turnover of parking to benefit town centre businesses. This was in response to concerns raised by Members of the Prosperous Communities and having been able to assess the impact of the suggested change. In light of the additional car park being included in the prohibition, implementation would also be delayed until November, allowing time for the new supply to come on-line and mitigate oversubscription.
As earlier advised to Members the addendum within the report, superseded recommendation two, bullet point 3, in that it sought an additional £20,000 towards the financing of the Roseway Car Park refurbishment. This would be by way of a capped grant. The rationale for the work being undertaken and managed in this way was explained noting that any risks would sit with DPL.
Members were asked to note these proposed amendments.
Debate ensued and in opening Members immediately sought indication as to whether, if the proposals were approved, the re-design of Roseway Car Park would be implemented in its current guise. Concern was expressed that consultation only appeared to have commenced with affected businesses recently, also that Members of the Committee had not had an opportunity to see the Plan as it stood.
Members sought indication as to whether lease agreements had been reviewed for those business premises which backed onto the car park, in terms of delivery arrangement agreements to ensure these proposals were not in conflict.
Officers in attendance indicated the current design had been drawn up by DPL, their agents had been made aware of the issues raised by Members, and the design was subject to change. The Leader of the Council clarified how additional spaces had been accommodated and this included land not currently designated as parking spaces. Other Members however were still concerned that the additional spaces had been found by making it extremely difficult for existing businesses to trade and this could not be permitted to happen. Supporting current businesses needed to be a priority. The Leader offered his personal assurance that any changes to the layout of Roseway Car Park would not be to the detriment of existing businesses. This would not be permitted to happen.
Concern was also expressed at the parking arrangements being extended to hotel guests, they believed this to be contrary to previous discussions and considered that there was ample alternative parking which the hotel developer could provide at his own cost. With the re-design of the Roseway Car Park and the pending development in the surrounding area, Members considered this was an opportune time for charges and charging times to be reviewed. Clarity was also sought whether the parking arrangements extended to hotel guests was a permanent offer as Members felt this should not be the case. The Director of Resources indicated he was of the belief that this was however part of the leasing agreement.
The additional inclusion of Ship Court in the prohibition of permit use was a welcomed amendment. However some Members were of a view that this prohibition needed to be extended to cover Bridge Street Car Park at the earliest opportunity to ensure the turnover of spaces, which did not currently happen and in some Members’ view was affecting town centre businesses ability to trade.
Not all Members, particularly those representing the Gainsborough area, were of the belief that the identified new supply would mitigate the need for parking in the market place. Clarity was sought as to whether this was now not being considered and if so expressed concerns that residents were not being listened to.
Again concerns were raised that the current re-design proposals would be to the detriment of existing businesses, there was a view that no allowances had been made for deliveries, waste collection/ storage. Whilst noting comments regarding timed deliveries and alternative arrangements being investigated it was stressed that such arrangements were not always an available option and this would create a further barrier for existing businesses to trade.
In light of concerns over the lack of consultation with existing businesses it was moved and seconded that the proposals be deferred pending full and proper consultation with existing businesses.
Members wanted assurance that they would have the opportunity to review and agree the final design, as opposed to a first draft. The Car Park was an asset of the Council and thus they should drive its redesign.
A Member of the Committee raised concerns that the Committee were straying outside of their purview, advising their remit was to approve any funding required to achieve the Strategy, as opposed to the details of that Strategy.
Officers again offered reassurance that all of those issues raised by Members during the debate had already been raised with the designer, and were being reviewed, the design was subject to change and supporting existing businesses was a shared priority. The Leader also offered his personal assurance that he would not allow existing businesses’ ability to trade to be affected in any detrimental way. He offered assurance that they would be consulted and their views taken into consideration in developing the final design
Having received these assurances the motion to defer was withdrawn and in order to satisfy the Committee’s concerns, whilst being mindful of their purview the following two additional recommendations were moved: -
“Officers are instructed to note the concerns raised regarding access and waste collections to Church Street businesses, and their ability to trade should not be affected in any detrimental way as a result of the re-designed Roseway Car Park”
“The Director of Resources and the Director of Commercial and Economic Growth be granted delegated authority to agree the final design layout for the Roseway Car Park in consultation with both Policy Committee Chairmen and wider Members as those Chairmen deem appropriate.”
On the above being seconded it was RESOLVED that: -
(a) the findings of the car parking review be used as the evidence base to enable the Council to manage car parking supply and demand including the charging regime up to 2023 as part of the regeneration plans for the town.
(b) the Phase 1 recommendations, set out in section 7 of the report, be implemented namely:
· Liaison with Marshalls Yard to manage their overflow car parking at peak times more effectively and especially to cater for the development of the hotel at the Sun Inn and refurbishment of the Roseway car park.
· the recommendation from Prosperous Communities committee be accepted and a capital budget of £40,000 plus and additional £10,000 as advised to the Committee be approved to spend within the current year for construction of the Bridge Street extension, funded by prudential borrowing.
· the recommendation from the Prosperous Communities Committee be accepted and a capital budget of £450,000 be built into 2018/19 capital programme for construction works at Roseway, funded by prudential borrowing and the scheme be delivered by North Street (Gainsborough) Limited through a Grant Funding Agreement;
· that charging for the new Bridge Street extension commence as soon as practicable after the building works have ceased.
· the recommendation from Prosperous Communities Committee be accepted and parking charges for Roseway be increased by 25% when it re-opens post refurbishment in Autumn 2018.
· that charging for parking at Lidl commence as soon as practicable upon completion of the property purchase.
· the recommendation from Prosperous Communities committee be accepted and parking permits be increased in two stages, 2018/19 and 2019/20 in order to achieve a charge that reflects a 45% discount on the long stay (6+ hours) ticket price. Further advice with regards to the maximum number of permits to be sold (note the financial model is based on 60% of chargeable spaces) be taken
· That four of the eight disabled spaces at North Street be redesignated as available for all users from 1 April 2018, providing 6 standard bays in their place.
· the recommendation from Prosperous Communities committee be accepted and the lease with Tesco for 50 parking spaces be extended and negotiations to purchase this land as a minimum continue up to a maximum value as indicated in the model;
· That the hotel construction company be allowed free use of 30 spaces at Roseway car park in exchange for a parcel of land that will facilitate a minimum 16 additional parking spaces at the car park.
· the use of permits in both Roseway and Ship Court (a change from the position reported to Prosperous Communities Committee) be prohibited to facilitate an increased turnover of parking to benefit town centre businesses with effect from 1 November 2017
· further liaise with LCC Highways to seek additional and more prominent signage directing road users to car parks. To supplement existing signage within car parks, providing information regarding other long and short stay car parks including locations.
· Seek to designate 2-3 coach parking bays within the town centre, potentially 1 space in the existing Lidl site at Ropery Road and a further 2 in the bus station.
In addition, that the Council consult town centre businesses and stakeholders on the following:
· Allow the first hour parking to be free at any time; or
· To retain the free after 3pm policy.
(c) the recommendation from Prosperous Communities committee be accepted and these costs be approved as part of the Car Parking Funding Strategy.
(d) The Phase 2 Recommendations in section 9 of the report, be agreed in principle, subject to detailed business cases for each acquisition when the feasibility work concludes on a site by site basis.
(e) a review of the Market Rasen car parking charges (based on the methodology used for the Gainsborough review) commence with immediate effect, and the results be brought back to both the Prosperous Communities Committee and the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee in September.
(f) Officers be instructed to note the concerns raised regarding access and waste collections to Church Street businesses, and their ability to trade should not be affected in any detrimental way as a result of the re-designed Roseway Car Park; and
(g) The Director of Resources and the Director of Commercial and Economic Growth be granted delegated authority to agree the final design layout for the Roseway Car Park in consultation with both Policy Committee Chairmen and wider Members as those Chairmen deem appropriate.
Note Councillor Stuart Kinch declared a personal interest in the above item of business as he was part owner of business located on Church Street