Agenda item

Members gave consideration to a report which sought to determine the Market Rasen Car Parking Policy following a consultation exercise on the first two hours free period currently in force, and to determine the level of permit prices to be applied in the Town.

The background to the review was outlined in Section 1 of the report and the consultation exercise undertaken and the arising results were outlined in Section 2.

The proposed permit changes along with the Car Parking Policy for Market Rasen arising as a result were detailed in sections 3 and 4 of the report. 

The overall financial impact of the policy and charges was set out at section 7.

Before opening the matter for debate the Chairman invited visiting Ward Member, Councillor Smith, to address the committee, who made the following statement: -

“Thank you Madam Chairman

The people of Market Rasen would of course like as much free parking as possible that goes without saying. However, I and the Town Council are aware of the budgetary pressures the Council finds itself in. The retention of the two hours free car parking is most welcome as this will assist the local businesses of Market Rasen on its high street who like many high streets across the country are struggling at the moment for a whole host of reasons. Lastly I would like to thank you Madam Chairman and our Director for Economic Growth Eve Fawcett Moralee for the discussions we have had on the matter, as they highlight the other possible options that could be considered in the next financial year.”

The Chairman thanked Councillor Smith for his comments and noted that comments had been made by two members of the public during the public participation session earlier in the evening before opening the matter for debate.

Some Members expressed concern at the accuracy of the figures within the report, having heard from the public speakers and in response the Financial Services Manager offered the following summary: -

It was stressed that the 2019/2020 estimate was not directly comparable with the 18/19 position.  The current level of income for 18/19 had a forecasted outturn positon of £27,000, the loss of income due to the two hours free parking had been calculated in a previous report at £9,000.  The report being considered by Members was effectively forecasting a budget for the running costs of the Market Rasen Car parks during 2019/20.

There were currently 111 permits issued but in preparing the forecast, consideration had to be given, in the event of prices being increased, to the likelihood of these all being retained.  Therefore assumptions had had to be made as to how this may impact in the future.  These were as follows : -

19/20 – a reduction of 12.5%

20/21- a reduction of 25%

It was stressed these were assumptions and estimates.  A further assumption being relied upon was that general parking income would continue at present levels.  These factors and assumptions would be reviewed annually as part of the annual review of fees and charges. 

The comments made by Mr Campbell regarding saving nearly all of the £42,600 by ceasing charging were addressed. This was considered inaccurate, as in effect, the forecasted costs would not be budgeted for, creating a further financial pressure which would need to be funded from elsewhere.  A number of the associated costs were fixed as opposed to variable, for example NNDR, staffing and insurance.  Enforcement if ceased would only save around £5,000 and costs were apportioned per space based on the total number on offer across the whole function.  The proposal would not deliver the savings suggested.

The Opposition Leader considered the Policy to be a nonsense, it would never be feasible to generate an income from the Car Parks in Market Rasen, in his view this had been evident for a considerable amount of time and yet was still being pursued. There was far too much expenditure incurred in implementing and enforcing charges for income to ever be generated and he was supportive of the idea of suspending charges.  Furthermore he considered, pursuing the policy was damaging to high street businesses and would not be supporting the paper.

Some Members felt the charges were not enough considering the amounts people in other towns, such as Gainsborough were having to pay. Real equity would be the same charges across all car parks.

The suggestion of income generation was challenged, this had never been a driver nor was it the Policy of the Council; this had been cost recovery and equity of the “principle” of charging.  The car park had also been refurbished and was considered to offer a great benefit for a modest amount.  Space blocking had also been a reported concern and this appeared to have eased.   The two hour free parking was to support businesses and the congestion issue and on the whole had been welcomed.

It was considered far too simplistic to relate high street decline solely to parking charges.  Towns with free parking were still experiencing high street decline.  Those Councillors in support of the proposed Strategy considered, taking into account all the factors, the financing of the car park to be fair one, a contribution from those who used it, and a contribution from the general tax payer.

The recommendations were moved.

Several Members spoke in support of the Policy, the drivers behind it, the need to recover costs but not to generate income, and an acceptance that the offers differed and that without charging Gainsborough’s car parks would be subsidising the others.

The following amendments were moved to replace recommendations 2 and 3 within the report : -

“ (2)       That Members approve to suspend the car parking charges by meter for 12 months thereby saving approximately £43,000 per annum, to continue to monitor the footfall using the equipment already installed and to re-visit the issue in 12 months.

(3)          That Members approve to keep the permit scheme charges at their current level.”

In response the Executive Director of Operations addressed the Committee and sought information from Officers around the assumptions the amendment made. It assumed all the monies would be saved, that permit sales would remain at current levels and that no staffing or enforcement would be required. The Committee had earlier heard of the fixed costs associated with car parking and again these were not considered within the amendment.

Officers in response advised the Committee that permit sales would undoubtedly reduce significantly, as no-one would buy a permit if the car park was free on daily basis. If permits remained in operation there would be some enforcement and staffing costs and therefore this proposal did not produce the savings suggested.

The Financial Services Manager advised that around 50% of the costs related to staffing costs in respect of the car parking function, and therefore these would be a retained cost. Contracted costs, such as machine maintenance, would need to be honoured. New signage would be a legal requirement and a further cost to be borne into consideration.

Having heard the response, Councillors again expressed differing views as to whether charging was appropriate or not. With some vehemently in support of charging and some vehemently against.

It was noted that any such amendment affecting finances would need to be recommended to the Corporate Policy and Resources.  The mover of the amendment accepted this fact and indicated he was content the amendment be further amended to reflect such if supported.

The amendment having been seconded was put to the vote but was declared LOST.

The recommendations as set out in the report, having being seconded were then put to the vote and on that basis it was RESOLVED that :-

(a)          the results of the consultation exercise be noted;

(b)          the Market Rasen Car Parking Policy be approved; and

(c)          the two stage pricing increase of permits be RECOMMENDED to the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee.

Note:         Councillor Malcolm Parish declared a personal interest due to his close personal relationship with the Mayor of Market Rasen.

                   Councillors Judy Rainsforth and Trevor Young requested that their vote against the above decision be recorded.