Agenda item

It was agreed at the Environment Committee of 17 November 2021 that the proposed charges as set out in Appendix A of this report be subject of consultation after which a report would be returned to Committee for final approval. This report provides the responses received from the consultation and these are set out in Appendix B.

            Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Customer & Parking Services Manager presented the report to the Committee. He explained that it had been agreed by the Committee in November that the proposed parking charges, shown in Appendix A, be put out for consultation. This had now taken place and the reports showed the results of the consultation. He highlighted that most of the comments received referred to the proposals to introduce charges to free car parks, in particular Grassmere, Links Avenue and Shrubbs Field. All of those responses were opposed to the introduction of charges. Felpham Parish Council and Middleton-On-Sea Parish Council were also opposed to this. With regards to increasing existing charges, most of the responses were opposed to the increases as was usually the case, however on this occasion 22% of the respondents were in favour of the increases. There were fewer objections to the seasonal car park charge increases, however those that did respond were opposed to the increases.

            The Chair confirmed that questions and discussion would be taken on each recommendation separately.

            A discussion then took place on Recommendation 1, and the following points were made by Members and non-Committee Members given permission to speak by the Committee:

·         There was concern as a large amount of the car parking had been lost in Littlehampton town centre. Residents were unhappy with the current loss of parking, and charges should not be increased at this point in time.

·         The Appendix D compared Arun with Worthing and Chichester, which were charging more and it was felt Arun should not be compared to the larger towns. People should be encouraged to come to Bognor and Littlehampton town centres and not deterred by higher parking charges.

·         Other Members felt the compassions in Appendix D highlighted that the costs should be increased, and that the rises were not large for the benefits this would bring to the Council.

·         We were in a climate emergency and visitors should be encouraged to use public transport.

·         Town centre footfall was not yet back to pre-pandemic levels, and it was felt that increasing car parking charges would not benefit the council or the town centres.

·         Car parks needed to be maintained, and the money received from car park charges was required, which could also assist with investing in better solutions for the environment.

·         It was a difficult choice as there was a very good disc scheme which provided 2 hours free parking to those that had the disc. Therefore regular town users may not be effected by a rise in charges, however visitors to the town did need to be encouraged.

            A discussion then took place on Recommendation 2, and the following points were made:

·         The council needed the income, the prices were fairly reasonable, if this was voted against the money would then need to be found somewhere else.

·         It was hoped that the money could be used to make the car parks more attractive, and the residents would benefit from this.

·         Would improvements be made to the car parks with the additional money? The Customer & Parking Services Manager explained that maintenance such as ensuring surfaces were level would be carried out. The appearances of the car parks would also be looked at, and where possible this would be done such as planting carried out.

·         Was money made from car parking and parking fines ringfenced solely for car park improvements and maintenance? The Customer & Parking Services Manager confirmed that money received from parking fines was ringfenced (after the costs of enforcement were taken out), the surplus went towards paying for maintenance and improvement of car parks.

·         It was asked whether the financial information could be broken down further in the reports to show exactly how much income each car park had generated in recent years, and expected future income.

            A discussion then took place on Recommendation 3, and the following points were made by Members and non-Committee Members given permission to speak by the Committee:

·         There was concern regarding the costs of administering, ticketing and controlling charges in these car parks and whether costs would exceed revenues.

·         There was concern that charging for the car parks could negatively impact the local sports teams who used them and the areas in general.

·         Brookfield Park car park was a very small car park, and after installation of the machine it was felt very little money would be made.

·         There was concern that people would instead park in the residential areas causing issues for the residents.

·         It was asked why there was 2 hour free car parking in the village car parks, however only 1 hour in the rural areas where people may stay for longer if they went for long walks.

·         Clarification was sought regarding the actual charges and how these would be implemented and enforced, which was provided by the Group Head of Neighbourhood Services.

·         Members wanted to know the costs involved in installing a parking machine. The Customer & Parking Services Manager explained this depended on how many were purchased and it may be that some machines could be relocated from other car parks where they no longer required so many.

·         There was concern that if the trial was not successful, the charges would be increased.

·         Felpham Parish Council had paid contributions to maintain the car park for many years. The car park should not be described as a free car park, as it was something the residents of Felpham paid for with the contributions from the Felpham Parish Council.

·         2 hours was insufficient time to carry out activities for which people may want to park, such as going out for dinner.

·         Littlehampton Town Council did not contribute towards Brookfield Car Park.

·         How the electricity would get to the car park machines. The Customer & Parking Services Manager explained that the machines were solar powered and did not require mains electricity.

·         It was suggested that the Parish Councils be approached to see if additional contributions could be provided by them after recovery from Covid.

·         If parking charges were introduced to these car parks, the contributions from the Parish Councils would probably stop, and that income would be lost. The car parks were not free, it was just a different way of paying for the car park.

·         There was concern around taking a decision with limited information regarding the costings.

·         Arun was reliant on community groups and organisations around parks and gardens such as Friends of Bersted Brooks. If the recommendation was approved there should be consideration as to whether some sort of seasonal permits could be offered to these groups.

·         There was concern that charging in these car parks would not generate significant income or offer value for money.

            During the course of the above discussion, Councillor Haywood re-confirmed that she had an interest in the item as Chair of Middleton-on-Sea Parish Council. Cllr Chace also re-confirmed he had an interest as Chairman of Brookfield Park, and as Ward Councillor.

            The recommendations were Proposed by Councillor Bicknell and Seconded by Councillor Edwards.

            A recorded vote was requested and the recommendations would be voted upon separately.

            Those voting for Recommendation 1 were Councillors Bicknell, English and Thurston (3). Those voting against were Councillors Chace, Edwards, Goodheart, Haywood, Needs, Warr and Worne (7). There were no abstentions. The vote was therefore lost.

            Those voting for Recommendation 2 were Councillors Chace, Edwards, English, Thurston and Worne (5). Those voting against were Councillors Bicknell, Goodheart, Haywood, Needs and Warr (5). There were no abstentions. This being a tied vote, the Chair used his casting vote in favour, and the recommendation was declared carried.

            There were no Councillors that voted for Recommendation 3. Those voting against were Councillors Bicknell, Chace, Edwards, English, Goodheart, Haywood, Needs, Warr and Worne (9). Councillor Thurston abstained from voting. The vote was therefore lost.

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That the increase to the seasonal parking charges, as set out in Appendix A following consideration of the consultation responses, be approved.

            Following earlier comments made by Members, the Chair suggested that Officers entered into discussions with the Parish Councils regarding their contribution amounts, and the Littlehampton Town Council who currently do not contribute. This was taken as an action by the Customer & Parking Services Manager.