Agenda item

To consider the attached report (C-017-2019-20).

(1)        That the Cabinet noted and agreed that the Council no longer continues with its current Off-Street Parking Programme on Housing Estates, realising a saving of £848,000 to the General Capital Fund and £485,000 to the Housing Capital Account, the depreciation not incurred is in the order of £21,000 and £19,000 per annum respectively;

(2)        The Cabinet agreed that Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) made under Parts I, II and IV of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended to control parking on its estates, be used instead to manage its roads on housing estates;

(3)     The Cabinet agreed an initial budget of £50,000 (Pro-rata between the GF & the HRA) be included in 2020/21 budget, jointly funded from the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account on a pro-rata basis and reviewed annually thereafter;

(4)       The Cabinet noted and agreed that a list of sites be identified and prioritised for TRO’s in the same way as the current Off-street Parking Programme and agreed by the Cabinet each year; and

(5)     The Cabinet agreed that consideration be given in forming the budget for 2020/21 for TROs, which was to be jointly funded from the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account.

The Housing and Property Services Portfolio Holder introduced the report on the off-street parking programme on Housing Estates.

The Cabinet had, up to now, been monitoring its off-street parking programme annually and assessing schemes to be constructed subject to feasibility, resident consultation and planning permission. This programme has been funded from both the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account. A cost neutral policy for future off-street parking had been agreed by the Cabinet in 2016, with two schemes built under that policy proving that the payback did not offer value for money. Therefore, against the backdrop of the need to make savings across all the Council’s budgets, this report recommended ending the current programme and instead makes use of Traffic Regulation Orders instead to control parking on its housing estates.  

Councillor Chris Pond had no objections to the proposal but wondered if the TRO scheme would be enough. In his ward for instance there were housing estates built in the 1950s without parking spaces and nowadays many tenants and leaseholders had more cars than had been anticipated when they were built and nowhere to put them which may result in whole scale parking on the greens, which would be unacceptable. A TRO scheme was all well and good but perhaps the Portfolio Holder would also like to liaise with NEPP about installing relevant notices under the Essex Act 1987, otherwise we would get wholesale parking on the greens in the housing estates.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse was pleased to see the decision to use TROs for places where there were existing parking spaces. He would like to clarify, paragraph 14 of the report where it talked about the use of TROs on any sort of land, did this mean that the TRO would apply to grass verges and greens as referred to by Councillor Pond. He was less happy about the withdrawal of funds from off-street parking as a whole, it did not address the need for more spaces. This was initially set up to solve problems experienced by our residents.

The Service Director for Contracts and Technical Services, Mr Durrani explained that where TROs could be used was difficult to categorise both on and off-street parking. The £50k was asked for so they could look at and find a better ways of dealing with the off-street parking issues. The aim would be look at all our options to see the best way of doing this.

The Leader of the Council agreed with the aim of looking at the problems as they came up and finding appropriate solutions.

Councillor Murray agreed with Councillor Whitehouse and wanted to know how TROs could generate the extra spaces needed. Residents did not have enough spaces to park. Mr Durrani explained that there were just too many cars for the limited amount of space we had. Creating extra space was not cost effective. They had to look at how to get people to rely less on their cars. This was a complex issue with more parking space not the answer.

The Housing and Property Services Portfolio Holder reminded the meeting that only a few weeks ago the Council had declared a climate emergency and were looking to reduce vehicle use in the long term. The Leader added that the parking bays cost £5,000 each and had to be carved out from the green spaces, this was not cost effective and created as many problems as it solved.

Councillors Neville and Wixley agreed with the reduction of car usage but also that the use of TROs would not solve the current problems and asked what would be the way forward without creating more parking spaces. Councillor Wixley extended an invitation for the Portfolio Holder and Mr Durrani to come and have a look around his ward one evening to see the problems for themselves. The Contract and Technical Services Director agreed to take up Councillors Wixley’s offer.

Councillor Janet Whitehouse asked the council to consider and investigate a car club scheme. Mr Durrani replied that officers were considering schemes such as these. As a council they were going to put in pool cars very soon.

Councillor Philip highlighted that it was not just master planning areas that they were looking at, there were other developments where they were looking for reduced parking and were asking developers to instigate car clubs. It should be remembered that the more car parking spaces they had, the more cars on the road.

DECISION:

(1)        That the Cabinet noted and agreed that the Council no longer continues with its current Off-Street Parking Programme on Housing Estates, realising a saving of £848,000 to the General Capital Fund and £485,000 to the Housing Capital Account, the depreciation not incurred is in the order of £21,000 and £19,000 per annum respectively;

(2)        The Cabinet agreed that Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) made under Parts I, II and IV of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended to control parking on its estates, be used instead to manage its roads on housing estates;

(3)     The Cabinet agreed an initial budget of £50,000 (Pro-rata between the GF & the HRA) be included in 2020/21 budget, jointly funded from the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account on a pro-rata basis and reviewed annually thereafter;

(4)       The Cabinet noted and agreed that a list of sites be identified and prioritised for TRO’s in the same way as the current Off-street Parking Programme and agreed by the Cabinet each year; and

(5)     The Cabinet agreed that consideration be given in forming the budget for 2020/21 for TROs, which was to be jointly funded from the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account.

Reasons for Proposed Decision:

The Council has a duty to evaluate value for money across all of its programmes of work and where necessary offer alternative solutions. With high capital costs and long pay-back periods, the current programme was not considered value for money.

Other Options for Action:

(a)        To continue with the Off-Street Parking Programme and re-introduce free off-street parking to residents at future schemes;

(b)        To set a different set of charges for the parking spaces on HRA land other those already established elsewhere in the District to reduce the pay-back periods.

(c)        Not to introduce Traffic Regulation Orders on housing estates.