To select appropriate items
from the Cabinet Board agenda for Pre-Decision Scrutiny (Cabinet Board reports
included for Scrutiny Members)
Decision:
Commercial
Property Grant: 14 Orchard Street, Neath
Following
scrutiny, members were supportive of the recommendations to be considered by
Cabinet Board.
Parking
Review Options Report 2023
Following
discussion, the following amendments were put forward by the scrutiny
committee.
That
recommendations 31-35 of the report be approved subject to the following
amendments.
Option
6 - that the charging hours be amended to 9am to 6pm
Option
7 that the charging hours be 9am -6pm
That
additional recommendation 1 reads that Blue badge holders be granted an extra
hours parking on top of the existing tariffs in town centers,
to reflect the additional time disabled people require, this is to ensure there
is no adverse impact on disabled people as a result of the increase in hourly
parking charges.
That
an additional recommendation be added:
That
a full consultation is undertaken on these proposals with the community,
including businesses and residents before implementation of any changes
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to the Cabinet Board with the
amendments.
Minutes:
Commercial
Property Grant: 14 Orchard Street, Neath
Members
enquired whether there was a tenant secured for the building.
Officers
advised there has been interest, but the condition of the building means nobody
can go in until it is refurbished. Officers see it as an important building in
relation to Gwyn Hall.
Members
also enquired about the ownership of the building. Officers advised that the
ownership isn’t included in the report, but officers can advise members outside
of the meeting.
Members
also expressed their praise for the team involved for bringing this scheme
forward as it will enhance the area.
Following
scrutiny, members were supportive of the recommendations to be considered by
Cabinet Board.
Parking
Review Options Report 2023
The
Cabinet member for Strategic Planning, Transport and Connectivity thanked the
chair for the invitation to the meeting and advised that he and the officers
were happy to answer any questions.
The
chair gave a brief overview and chronology of the Task and finish group and the
report before the committee from the officers on the task and finish report
recommendations.
Members
highlighted that on the IIA assessment first stage, it states a further stage
isn’t required as its only carpark users that are affected.
Members
stated that because the Council doesn’t give discretionary amounts to disabled
users for parking, that the statement in the IIA is wrong as disabled people do
use car parks. Members also stated that as many disabled people are on fixed
income, they wanted to know why the next stage assessment is not required.
Officers
explained that the Blue Badge scheme applies to on street parking and that it
does not apply to off street parking in terms of any concessions. Officers also
advised that within the authorities’ car parks, the disabled parking bays are
located as close to the exits and accesses to the car parks and the pay and display
machines to aid with accessibility issues.
Officers
advised that the Blue Badge scheme nationally is not fiscal or assessed on a
means tested basis. Meaning that the ability to pay is not a consideration.
Members
asked if as an authority they are taking cognisance of how it would be
affecting disabled people on a fixed income. Members felt that the IIA didn’t
take that into account.
Officers
explained that there are some wider principles to consider. If someone has a
car and are able to run, insure and tax it, then
generally they are in a better financial position than a lot of residents
within the local authority. Officers stated that car owners can generally
afford to pay some contribution in terms of parking charges to help the Council
maintain those facilities.
Officers
highlighted for members that all of the car parks cost
a considerable amount of money to maintain as well as the increase in energy costs,
general maintenance of the buildings and security. Officers explained that
there's a balance to be struck, but the Blue Badge scheme is not means tested
so it's not a fiscal issue in terms of ability.
Members
highlighted that during the task and finish group, they looked at the
possibility of allowing disabled users an extra hour as people with a blue
badge may take extra time to exit or enter their cars. It may also take them
longer to shop.
Members
wanted to know if that could be taken on board even if it is to look at doing
it in certain car parks within the towns that they get an extra hour.
Members
stated that given the parking increases are on the hourly rates as proposed,
and not on the all day parking rates, It may
disproportionately affect disabled users who may take longer. Members suggested
that it may make them go over that hour threshold and therefore need to pay
more than they would have otherwise paid.
Officers
advised that the recommendation is due to the current financial pressure, based
on the parking budget, blue badge holders would pay the full charge.
Officers
advised that they recognise and are guided to take into
account the issues of disability and that's why the authority locate all
of the disability parking close to access of the play and display machines.
Officers
explained that they made a recommendation based upon the primary issue of the
concession of a blue badge is for on street and not off-street parking. And
that it is a difficult budget position where officers have got to try and break
even on the parking account.
Members
were advised that with the blue badge scheme, holders get 3 hours on double
yellow lines provided they put on the badge and the clock at the time. Blue
badge holders are also exempt of any time limit within the limited waiting
bays. Officers stated that it's very important that Blue
badge holders read the badge book because a lot of holders don’t realise the
concession that they actually have on street.
The
chair explained that the principal of what the committee had put forward was to
make sure that concession was consistent and extended into the surface car
parks as well. The chair advised that he recognised the limited opportunities
for people to park on the street around the town centres.
The
chair stated that he took the point there are some concessions but felt that
the principal was ensuring that that was available in the car parks as well.
The
Chair stated that there's a limited amount of blue badge parking bays in the
car parks and asked the Cabinet Member what was the financial calculation
assessment around this recommendation?
The
Cabinet Member advised that in his opinion, if someone has a Blue Badge then
they are entitled to park where they are allowed and that not all disabled people
are unable to pay for their parking.
The
Cabinet member explained that as a disabled person with a Blue Badge he has no
problem with parking because the Blue Badge concession and the facilities are
there for him to use on road parking.
The
cabinet member said that he agreed with the officers that blue badge holders
should read the book because there's lots of concessions for people with the
Blue Badge. The Cabinet member advised that he doesn't think Blue Badge holders
would want to be put into a category where they can’t pay their way.
Members
responded to the Cabinet member and clarified thar the committee’s
recommendation was designed to level the playing field in the sense that an
abled body person could make a shop within an hour. Members stated that
somebody who is disabled, may take longer and therefore would have to pay a
higher charge because they have a disability. Members explained that the idea
of the committee is to balance out things so that somebody who's disabled
shouldn't be unfairly penalised and having to pay more to park for longer
because of their disability.
Members
challenged the impact assessment as they believe that the proposal does impact on
disabled people more than able-bodied people and highlighted that many blue
badge holders do not have a second income.
Members
wanted to know if the IIA was legally sound, and that due regard has been given
to people who are disabled and that impact assessment
only responds to people are using a car park.
Officers
advised that it is an on-street scheme, legally the blue badge is an on-street
concession. Officers advised that if members feel strongly about that, as this
is a national scheme, they can lobby central government to change the Blue
Badge scheme.
Officers
explained that they are applying the concession in line with the blue badge
scheme. Officers explained that nothing has changed on that blue badge scheme,
from under previous administrations dating back to 2010 at least.
Officers
stated that they don’t know if the IIA open to challenge or not. Officers
reiterated that the concession is an on-street scheme and advised members that
they could be challenged as a council, but it's at the discretion of the
Council in their view. The officer’s view is that it is not a determined
aspect.
The
Chair clarified that there may be a mixing up of two things. He advised that
the committee members were talking about the decision that is proposed in the
report and the impacts of the decision in the report on disability, that
includes disabled people, parking in car parks.
The
Chair advised that is a slightly distinct thing from what the National Blue
Badge scheme is and there is a duty as a Council and what members are
questioning is whether the decision to say that there's no impact on disability
as a result of this decision is correct or not.
The
chair stated that is distinct from what the National Blue Badge scheme is and
that they are slightly separate questions.
Officers
reiterated that in the blue badge scheme, its sections are clear. It does not
apply to off street parking. Members were told that the disability and the blue
badge are intrinsically linked so you can't separate them.
Officers
advised that the Blue Badge scheme also says to holders to check with off street car parking what the charges and concessions are.
Officers said they don't think they have broken any legislative position on
not. Officers said that the challenge around the disability is a is a different
matter.
Officers
explained that ultimately it is for the cabinet to decide whether on this item
whether they want to proceed or to review it further and get a formal legal
opinion.
The
legal officer advised that they were unable to advise on the Blue Badge scheme
itself and has looked to the officers for their expertise on that subject and
could be taken away further on the legal impact if input was required on that.
However, the issue in regard to the integrated impact
assessment is whether members have all the information they need to make the
decision in hand.
The
legal officer said that it would go back to the officers for their view that
influenced the integrated impact assessment, to provide all the information
members would require, and that they have due regard to all
of the issues. The legal officer explained that it may be, that it could
be an impact and members would have that to take into account.
A
cabinet member asked if mipermit was available in all
the car parks and suggested that the authority should make it available more
widely so residents can do it off their phone. This would be helpful for people
who feel pressured that they need to get back in time. Officers confirmed that mipermit was available in all carparks.
Members
stated that they were glad to see that the removal of the charge for carers
permits.
Members
asked the cabinet member why Pontardawe is being treated differently regarding
the parking price increase across the borough.
The
cabinet member advised that under previous administrations there was a long
debate on the Pontardawe parking situation of the free hour parking.
The
Cabinet member explained that as the Task and Finish Group report didn’t make a
recommendation on this point then the Cabinet member and the officers decided
to keep it as it was to help the traders by keeping it the same. Although
Pontardawe was brought in line with other areas regarding Sunday parking no
longer being free and the other price charges.
Members
asked that if it is acknowledged that free parking in Pontardawe is helpful to
increase footfall in town centres then why does that not apply to Neath and
Port talbot?
Officers
advised that previously there had been an economic review of town centres in
terms of type and size of retail offer in town centres. Pontardawe was
determined as having a smaller offering than Neath and Port talbot which was one
of the fundamental determinations of previous administrations. In discussions
with members that position hasn’t really changed.
Members
clarified whether it was a political decision.
Officers
advised that the underlying decision was that the type of offer available in
Neath and Port Talbot was bigger than in Pontardawe. It is a matter for the
cabinet to decide.
Members
advised that as a Task and finish group they were asked how to raise money from
parking by the coalition but can’t understand why Pontardawe is protected from
that increase compared to Neath and Port talbot when trying to raise funds.
Members
stated that Neath and Port talbot VIVA work very hard to get people to come
into the town centres and they want clarity on whether there is going to be
consultation with traders and organisations before the charges are raised,
especially Christmas parking arrangements as the cost-of-living crisis gives
people tough decisions on price of parking.
Officers
advised that they weren’t approached directly by Neath or Pontardawe town
centres, but town centre managers meet with them on a regular basis and all
town centres knew there was a parking review.
Officers
explained that there was a specific enquiry submitted by VIVA Port Talbot to
the authority and responded to via democratic services. Officers stated that
the response was that if they have any concerns about parking fees they can contact the chair of the committee and it
doesn’t sound like they followed that advice.
Members
advised that VIVA Port Talbot spoke to them about their concerns around the
parking charges and the lack of impact it will have on Pontardawe compared to
Port Talbot. Members asked why there has been a lack of engagement on this when
making decisions and not listening to businesses there?
The
Cabinet member advised that he felt there hasn’t been any lack of engagement
and felt that the route to contact the chair of scrutiny or chair of the Task
and finish group put it in the lap of VIVA to do that.
The
Cabinet member explained that it was not a political decision to safeguard
Pontardawe as the decision wasn’t made by the current administration and had
been made by a different administration for Pontardawe to have an hour free
parking.
The
cabinet member advised that the Task and Finish recommendations didn’t include
anything on Pontardawe, so the decision was to keep the hour free as it was but
put up the charges in line with everywhere else as well as Sunday charging. The
Cabinet member stated that he felt this was fair across the board.
The
chair asked if there had been any consultation with the traders on the
proposal.
The
chair also expressed that he was uncomfortable with the position that when a
proposal to make charges to parking charges is put forward by an administration
that traders were directed to him as a scrutiny chair as the decision will be
taken by cabinet members. The chair stated that while he is happy to receive
feedback, ultimately it should be for the Cabinet to have those discussions
with traders as the cabinet are accountable for making the decisions on
parking.
Officers
advised that should the decision be taken to go ahead with the recommendations
then the authority would be legally required to advertise the charges and any
traffic orders for on street and off-street parking. During that period anyone
who would want to object to these charges can do so in writing. So VIVA can object to them as part of statutory procedure
within 28days. It won’t be a consultation process.
Cabinet
members advised that they need to take it back to look at with officers who
should be the point of contact when concerns and complaints come in but can
also see the appropriateness of it going to the Chair of the Task and Finish
group, but it could have come to cabinet as well or a point of contact with
officers who could then feed it back.
Cabinet
members asked members of the task and finish group if they raised the concerns on
behalf of VIVA in the task of finish group sessions and whether it is not
reflected in the report.
Members
explained that it is the coalition that are making the decision and the task
and finish group would just look at it. Members advised that VIVA Port Talbot’s
questions were brought up via the members within the task and finish group and
as members they wanted to raise these issues to the people that are making the
decision, which is the cabinet members, to ensure that that they are
considering this.
Members
stated that there is a difference between the statutory notification and the
consultation.
Members
said that they felt that there seems to be a confusion over the decision makers
and the people scrutinising the decisions and there is a need to make sure that
they get an answer from the decision makers.
The
Cabinet member reiterated that this was a decision made by the previous
administration with regards to Pontardawe and asked the scrutiny chair for
feedback and guidance as to where the committee's going with Pontardawe?
The
chair clarified that the committee has not made the resolution on it so he was unable to speak for all the committee's views.
He clarified that the original report given to the Task and Finish group by
officers asked them to consider a proposal to scrap the hour parking in
Pontardawe.
The
chair advised that the Task and Finish group made no comment on that proposal,
but because that proposal was put in as an option to raise revenue, the cabinet
members had made the choice to retain the free hour parking in Pontardawe after
considering that report.
The
chair advised that as the context of this is raising income. The chair
explained that raising income and charges is having an impact on town centres,
so the committee was seeking clarification on why that decision was taken to
retain the free hour while placing a burden on other town centres.
The
Chair advised that he felt that question had been answered and stated he wanted
to clarify that was the basis of the questions that had been asked by members.
Members
said that they believed that VIVA need to be consulted as they are trying to
reinvigorate the town centres.
Members
also advised that the traders they have spoken to in Neath didn’t know anything
about the proposed parking increases nor did the residents. Members explained
that the £5 increase in on -street parking is going to affect everyone in the
Neath Centre as will the increase in the car parking charges.
Members
advised that they don’t think there's been consultation with everyone and that
neither neath or Port talbot traders seem to have known enough about the
charges and questioned whether the town centre managers should have informed
them.
Members
raised the issue that the public don't seem to know about season tickets for
the town centre parking as well as the Knoll and Margam Park. Members advised
that there seems to be issues with the website. Members wanted to know if there
is any way that the authority can advertise season tickets more as they help make
the cost of parking far cheaper.
Officers
explained that it was an oversight as it was taken for granted that there was a
need to promote the season tickets and the officers are in consultation and
working with the head of leisure services to see if they can get a better
solution around the country parks which are not under parking services
management.
Officers
advised that they recognise that there are opportunities there that we can
potentially enhance that offer, not just for season tickets but as the task and
finish Group and the head of leisure highlighted, opportunities where the
authority might even be able to develop a menu of offers within the authority.
Officers
used an example that someone might decide they may want to go to the aqua
splash or visit Avon Park or going to Margam Park and you could buy all of
those in a single transaction with the authority.
Officers
said that it was a very positive thing that came from the task and finish
group, and it was an oversight not to include in the report and that it would
be marketed. Officers also said that they would work with the communications
team to get the message out so that it could be shared by members via social
media.
On
the proposals around providing free bus travel put forward by the committee,
the chair advised that he accepted the response that funding something like
that from the parking budget would be challenging, but wanted to know if the
cabinet are prepared to follow what Swansea do, in showing support for the
local bus industry and maybe prioritise it from other funding other than the
parking account, if it was felt that it was something that was really important
because of all the challenges facing the bus industry and passenger numbers.
The
Cabinet Member explained that he didn’t disagree with member’s idea, but
fundamentally, at this time, due to the pressure that this Council is under he
can't see any way that the authority would be able to. The cabinet member
explained that in relation to funding figures they have approximately £80,000
and reality at this time he doesn't think that's feasible.
Cabinet
members stated that they know that in the Amman valley they may lose an early
morning service which people may lose jobs over. The cabinet member stated that
there is a balance of trying to necessitate what is needed.
Cabinet
members commented that it is a great idea and the cabinet board want to support
it going forward, but it is a chicken and egg situation where if you can get
more people on busses the service would become more viable then
it's a great idea, but it's a really difficult job prioritising and just
keeping the really essential services.
Cabinet
members also commented that the finances that are just not there, the bus
service is very volatile at this moment with services being cut back, so there
are big priorities from an officer and cabinet perspective it is being looked
at.
The
cabinet member suggested that despite this they would be prepared to meet with
the Chair of the scrutiny further down the line to listen to their options, you
know listen to some of the recommendations, but whatever proposals come forward
the finance needs to come with it from somewhere as well.
Officers
gave an overview of the current bus situation and explained that they are very
concerned now with the stability of bus services in the County and more widely
across the region. Officers explained that there are potentially going to be
some very difficult decisions on bus services coming forward.
Members
were advised that the BES (Bus Emergency Scheme) that was introduced in
response to the pandemic and it kept local bus services alive, because without
BES the bus companies wouldn’t still be here that are currently operating
today.
Officers
explained that the scheme was going to end in March 2023
but Welsh Government have extended that to the end of July and have entered
into a new transition funding agreement.
Members
were informed that the money is much less at the national level than it was
previously. Officers explained that the knock-on effect of that is that
essential services will probably be reduced.
Officers
explained to members that while the authority was considering giving a free
service for a couple of weekends on the run up to Christmas, the authority
could be best spending that money to sustain some bus services across the
county to get people to the health appointments to work and to learning all
year around. It it's a real challenge and in the current climate, officers
can't see how that's going to be deliverable.
Officers
also explained that in reference to other local authorities such as Swansea who
run a scheme like that. Swansea has much higher parking fees and charges than
in this authority and what Neath and Port Talbot propose is still cheaper than
Swansea’s charges. The higher parking charges in Swansea will probably release
some funding, but also Swansea has got a very big BID which contributes to some
of those initiatives and the Council had taken a decision themselves that they
would put their own funding into that.
Officers
advised that unfortunately, the authority is not in that position, and this is
why officers have recommended that it is not sustainable. Officers stated that
they don’t believe it would ever be sustainable from income from the parking
account and would have to be part of the budget prioritisations programme that
Council would need to consider going forward.
Officers
advised members that they may need to put more subsidy in to keep the essential
services going and not free services at a couple of weekends at the Christmas
period.
The
Chair thanked officers for putting the bus situation into context and felt that
the key point is that if cabinet members felt it is something they may wish to
prioritise then it can be prioritised in the budget setting process.
The
chair advised that that there are a lot of benefits to doing a scheme like that
and the challenge is, does the authority need to allocate some funding to
safeguard existing services versus a scheme like this.
The
chair stated that if cabinet members have an open mind that if funding is
available, if it's something they do agree is a good thing and it's something
they would like to do then if that funding becomes available is it something
they would consider.
The
Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth explained that in his new
role in covering Town centres, the member wants to get out with the local
members who cover the town centre areas and try to get better engagement with
them on something like this, getting feedback prior to when reports are done as
well from local members.
The
chair agreed and commented that it was unfortunate that allocations were put in
the budget before the details were looked at in this instance. The chair
commented that there's a lot of benefit in doing that work in advance as with
the allocations being put in the budget before details were looked at may have
caused a degree of difficulty, especially in the fact that it is nearly August
and a decision has not yet been made on parking charges and the authority is
not going to make that income targets as a result.
Members
stated that their community couldn’t access transport to their own communities
in Neath and Port Talbot due to the difficulties of having just two buses a day
and often they are so full, people can’t get on. Members said that this,
coupled with even the poorest having to be able to run a car to travel out of
communities has led to a community transport scheme having to be set up.
Members
commented that the Council need to look at subsidising services and making sure
that communities are served. Members feel that is something that other councils
are managing to do and it's not happening in this authority.
Members
advised that they want support to enable bus transport for outlying communities
and not penalise them by over charging for parking at the same time. Members
stated that this acts as an indirect tax to keep the Council functioning and
the budget balanced.
Officers
highlighted that the Welsh Government are going to be struggling with the
budget and it's incumbent on all to lobby the national government and Welsh
Government to invest in transport. Officers advised that the budget scenario
for the authorities is extremely challenging when you try to manage the budget
with all the pressures that are emerging and with new demands on all the
services.
The
cabinet member for Streetscene highlighted that they had similar issues with
busses in their community and cutbacks to morning services would mean people
couldn’t get to work, he advised Members to try and influence the powers to be
in the assembly.
Members
explained that the task and finish group carefully chose the amended hours for
the seafront charges to put the greater burden of the charge on visitors and
not unfairly penalise residents who want to use the sea front and the
associated business as well they asked why it’s been amended to shift the
existing enforcement hours.
Officers
noted that the task and finish group wanted to operate the seafront charges
between 9:00am and 6:00pm and explained that officers work until eight, which
means for two hours down on the sea front they wouldn’t be enforcing anything.
Officers said that they understand the reasons of the committee, enforcement
officers need to be there during the peak times in the afternoons between 8am
and 8pm.
Members
queried if the enforcement officers could be utilised elsewhere during that
time as they feel that 6pm is reasonable and is the same as the town centre.
Members were concerned that businesses on the beach front would be getting
penalised for the extra two hours, potentially missing out on people that would
visit.
Officers
stated that the authority has been compared with some other authorities in regard to terms of providing free parking or free
initiatives. But on the other hand the authority has not been compared with the likes of the City
and County of Swansea where they charge until 10:00 PM at night for parking.
Officers explained that they have been tasked as officers to try and generate
money and have flexed on the Sea Front parking, giving some concession to
support the arrangement.
Officers
advised they have got a responsibility to maximise the enforcement hours.
Officers
explained that in the peak period in the summer, the seafront is popular, and
officers would tend to enforce that area to maximise enforcement to generate
the income and to get compliance with indiscriminate parking.
Officers
stated that they have almost been given an impossible challenge in being asked
to make money and to provide free services.
Officers
advised that this strategy is going to be monitored and if the authority thinks
there are benefits or non-benefits, then that would be reviewed in 12 months’
time from implementation.
There
was a discussion between officers and members around the rationale of changing
the charging hours to meet the enforcement hours.
Members
expressed the view that it didn’t make sense as the authority can raise a
significant amount of income between 9:00am and 6:00pm which is the peak time
in terms of visitors of the seafront and the charges are doubling as part of
the proposals which is going to be significant income generation.
Members
wanted to understand why officers can’t re-deploy the enforcement staff
elsewhere for those remaining two hours and wanted to understand the financial
rational on why not to change charging hours to those that don’t match the
enforcement hours.
Officers
said there are fundamental challenges with treating one area in isolation to
other areas, in reference to the Seafront vs the country parks and other
visitor attractions in terms of providing concessions in one area over another.
Members
explained that the seafront is quite a distinct area as its
not a gated park and contains businesses and is a destination.
Members
highlighted the difference in parking in the Town centre compared to the
seafront if you wanted to have a meal in the evening as charging on the
Seafront would be until 8pm in the on street laybys.
Members wanted to unpick the rational of the 8am to 8pm hours is from officers.
Officers
explained that during peak periods the intention is that they try to maximise
income and to enforce those operational hours to make sure that the people are
paying.
Officers
explained that the authority should be extending the charge across the piste to 10:00pm or for example in Neath multi
Storey car park is open till 11:00 PM the authority should be maxing
that out and charging to 11:00 PM.
Officers
advised that there are some fundamental challenges for members regarding
principles where there's no clear overview of that strategy.
There
was a discussion between officers and the chair regarding his definition of
residents visiting the seafront. Officers wanted the chair to define what he
meant by the ‘local area’.
Officers
explained that if the residents lived in the local area of the Port Talbot region then you were within an area that you could walk or
cycle to the seafront. If it was a wider authority area the officers explained
chair meant that they were choosing to drive to the seafront
then you would have to expect to pay a charge and can then make a choice about
where to go. Officers wanted to clarify if the chair meant local seafront
residents or the wider authority, but if you chose to drive to the seafront you
would expect to have to pay a charge to park.
The
Chair clarified that it is about people who live in the local authority area
who have to drive to the seafront because there is
poor public transport and that members agreed that the importance of charging
and enforcement at the seafront but did not want the charging to adversely
affect businesses and residents who visit for recreation, mental health or
exercising purposes.
The
Chair stated that the recommendation of the Task and Finish Group was to place
the charging burden on visitors rather than local residents
who use it as an amenity space who can’t otherwise walk or cycle to the
seafront. As visitors tend not to turn up in the evening then residents who
would like to have a meal in one of the businesses could do so without the
charge which is why they wanted to strike a balance with the charging period
suggested.
The
Chair wanted to understand the rational of the response. The current hours are
7am-10pm, Task & finish suggestion 9am-6pm, the current proposal is 8-8 the
only explanation has been because that is the enforcement hours, but they don’t
understand the rational of it as the chair feels that the enforcement hours
should fit the charging hours. The chair asked if they make a reasonable
decision of the charging hours, what is the rational
behind the charging hours in the report?
Officers
explained that they have looked at the proposal and have reduced the charging
hours down, but they have been tasked with getting additional income in to
reduce the deficit. From the enforcement side, they feel it doesn’t make sense
to reduce the hours of income and lose 3 hours without enforcement and that
additional income lost.
Members
raised concerns about illegal parking during the summer and wanted to know
whether other options were considered before the task and finish group were
asked to help find the £300,000 for parkin.
Members
also wanted assurances that people are going to be fined or ticketed if they
illegally park and if they do illegally park, is it going to cost the legal
department money to chase up fines which are not paid?
Officers
explained that there is one tariff on the Seafront so the only time a person
would get a ticket is if you don't purchase one. Officers advised that if the
proposals go ahead, then they can dedicate an officer to the seafront to the
limited waiting bays to enforce them and the car parking.
Officers
also clarified that it was enforcement and not the legal section would take
this on as is currently the case. Officers clarified that if a PCN is issued
for not having a pay and display ticket or no ticket through the app, then
enforcement will chase it and take it all the way.
Members
raised the concern that anybody from the local area who visits the beach front at the moment for free for a limited time, won’t in the
future unless they do it early morning or evening. Members explained that this
would be off putting to a lone female walking a dog and wanted to know if local
people had been consulted.
Officers
explained that by introducing the charges, people should have a better
opportunity to have a space to park due to churn as a result
of the time limit. Whereas now people are parking at 8am and going at
11pm which would be preventing residents parking.
Members
raised concerns that a full range of the priorities as a Council need to be
looked at to make the authority area a lovely place to work and live and by
having the charging at the times suggested it may rule out certain members of
the public who cannot afford to come down three times a week to the to the
beach who currently use the seafront for their mental health etc.
Members
enquired about the parking in the evenings and whether there was going to be an
hourly or 2 hour charge in the bays.
Officers
advised that parking will be £4 per day but the bays will be £1.00 per hour
maximum stay of two hours. The bays will only be charged at peak times and then
during the winter period they will be free. Members were told that the main
carparks are going to be a flat rate of £4 a day in the recommendations.
Members
raised the IIA in relation to the seafront and explained that they have family
members who that can't walk more than a few yards without having to stop.
Members
were concerned that their family members would never be able to walk or cycle
to the sea front and when they park in the car park across the road, it takes
approximately 20 minutes to get from the car park to the sea front.
Members
felt that this would adversely affect disabled people and felt that the IIA
needs to be re-done.
Officers
explained that with regard to the limited waiting bays along the sea front, the
Blue Badge scheme applies to them and Blue badge
holders can park in the limited waiting bays with exemption of the time limit
and also exempt the payment as well.
Members
raised the point that the task and finish group had recommended exploring the
possibility of overnight campervan parking on the sea front, this would raise
revenue and increase visitors, but noted it had not been included in the report
and wanted to know if it was going to be considered?
Officers
advised that they are due to take a sea front strategy report to the head of
Leisure services regarding the whole sea front and the camper van parking will
be part of that remit and they will also look at it countywide and whether it
can be introduced elsewhere within the county borough.
Members
felt this was a great idea and were glad this would be looked at.
Members
raised concerns relating to anti-social behaviour in car parks on the beach and
the need previously for gated carparks at night to combat this. The members
raised worries that people wouldn’t want to park their campervans there given
the anti-social behaviour.
Members
were advised that officers are aware of the issues there and they will take
that forward with the head of Leisure Services as part of the strategy and it
may be such that a location is identified that might not be in the current car
parks that exist at present. Officers didn’t know at this stage, and it might
be a designated area that would be much more easily managed.
Members
also enquired about one of the recommendations that the Task and Finish group
raised about looking at mitigation measures around the immediate residential
areas around the seafront and suggested that this recommendation may push
people into trying to seek on-street parking in residential streets.
Officers
advised that they recognise the risks associated with the parking charges.
Officers suggested that the residential on street parking schemes policy
document probably needs to be reviewed as it is a little bit inflexible in the
way that it's applied.
Officers
advised that there is an opportunity to review the policy position which have
hotspots that we can review that policy position.
Officers
also explained that in regard to residents parking,
the upcoming revolution in terms of EV infrastructure and charging needs to be
considered. Officers wanted to re-assure scrutiny and the cabinet and that that
EV Charging infrastructure residentially needs to be picked up as a, separate piece of work and possibly a task and finish
group specifically.
Members
had questions in relation to the Neath pedestrianised zone and were concerned
that in the evenings in Neath it can be extremely dangerous with the traffic
moving into the town that time of night with the pavement cafes.
Members
were concerned that the proposal of an evening closure doesn't spill over into
the morning sessions as traders have said they would be disappointed if the
authority shut the town in the morning session that runs until 10.30 am.
Officers
explained that the town centre is complex in the way that it receives goods and
services and deliveries to the businesses. Officers advised that they need to
undertake a proper feasibility review into a any
changes that are made to the orders at Neath.
Members
were advised that a very detailed and in-depth consultation with the traders
would be needed as by restricting it in the way suggested by the task and
finish group could have a potentially detrimental effect on businesses as they
will need access and egress during that time of the day as previously post 5pm
parking used to be prohibited but this was changed at the request of members to
support the nighttime economy following an assessment.
Officers
suggested that it does need to be considered as a feasibility and that it needs
to be a put on the list for consideration as part of the end of year
prioritisation programme of things that will be considered for feasibility
going forward.
Officers
advised that pedestrian safety is important, and they feel that the whole
security around the town centre needs to be reviewed along with a fresh look at
how the town-centre is managed there.
Officers
said that there is an undertaking that, if that gets prioritised in autumn,
that will be looked at in depth and following a detailed consultation with the
traders and the town centre locally elected members.
Members
agreed with officers and felt that consultation was vital, members didn’t want
to see changes having a negative effect on the town centre prospering.
The
chair stated that he recognised this is something that was worth looking at and
appreciated the challenges in the the highways capital
programme and prioritising this. He asked officers if speaking to colleagues in
regeneration and town centres to consider if it's not being able to be funded
out of highways work this clearly has benefits for town centre regeneration
from reviewing this and it may be another avenue that could be explored?
Officers
agreed and explained that they know there are opportunities for town centres to
secure grants and that may well be an opportunity where they could do a joint
approach and are happy to work in any way to achieve that feasibility there for
the best outcome of everybody taking on board the concerns that Members raised.
The
Cabinet member advised that there are two current consultations regarding town
centre strategies as well, but also the re-engagement of the traders. He said
he is trying to involve everything as part of the consultation and make sure it
gets fed back through the consultations so it can influence process.
Members
commented that local members are going to be consulted with the review of the
town centre, which they were happy about, but members noted that there's two
other consultations, and a feasibility exercise going on within the towns that
members were unaware of. Local members asked when they were going to be
included?
The
cabinet member explained that he had only just heard about this week and would
ensure that the local councillors would be included.
Officers
also advised members that in relation to the Place plans, the regeneration team
is working with consultants, the urbanists to do what is called a place plan
for the town centres. This would be for Neath, Pontardawe and secondary and
tertiary town centres like Tai Bach, Britton Ferry etc. They are going to draw
up a series of documents for a setting out a potential public realm
regeneration projects that they might want to consider for the town centres in
the future and the work is still ongoing.
Officers
advised that this is not going to be completed until the end of the calendar
year. But when we do have the produce from the urbanists, there will be a
series of workshops and consultations which will include local members. It will
be brought forward for constant full consultation.
Members
were also advised that the authority had secured a grant this year for feasibility
on the town centre as well to see how the town centre can be enhance active
travel and walking. Officers explained that until they have done a feasibility
study, they aren’t in a position to consult. Officers
stated that the local members will be part of that consultation as well.
Members
made a comment relating to continuous administrations using car parking as a means to provide council services. Some members
suggested that as a principal it is fundamentally wrong. Members suggested that
Council services can’t be provided based on car parking when it is unknown how
many people are going to use the car parks.
Members
suggested that Car parking is not a cash cow, requested that members look at
car parking and next year when budget setting comes around members hoped that
car parking isn’t factored in and is just an additional bit of income to spend
on discretionary services rather than anything else.
Following
discussion, the following amendments were put forward by the scrutiny
committee.
Option
6 - That the charging hours be amended to 9am to 6pm
Option
7 That the charging hours be 9am -6pm
That
additional recommendation 1 reads that Blue badge
holders be granted an extra hours parking on top of the existing tariffs in
town centre’s to reflect the additional time disabled people require, this is
to ensure there is no adverse impact on disabled people as a result of the
increase in hourly parking charges.
That
an additional recommendation be added:
That
a full consultation is undertaken on these proposals with the community,
including businesses and residents before implementation of any changes.
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to the Cabinet Board with the
amendments.