Agenda item

Following scrutiny, recommendation 1 was supported to Cabinet.

 

Following scrutiny, recommendation 2 was supported to Cabinet.

 

Following scrutiny, an amendment was put forward in relation to recommendation 3. The amended recommendation as set out below was supported to Cabinet.

 

3) Continue negotiations and agree terms with Signal Capital to lease the Port Talbot MSCP and to bring a further report back to cabinet for a final decision. “To include capital investment plans, proposed opening hours and impact on Port Talbot Town Centre Car Parks retained by the council.”

 

Following scrutiny, recommendation 4 was supported to Cabinet.

 

Following scrutiny, recommendation 5 was supported to Cabinet.

 

Following scrutiny members recommended and approved the following for Cabinet to consider.

 

(6) Officers explore options to gather occupancy data to be reported back to the scrutiny committee.

David Griffiths Head of Engineering and Transport informed members that it is an early high-level review of the car parking capacity and has been brought because of enquiries that the council are strategically dealing with. Members were advised that Signal Capital made an approach to the authority about the Port Talbot Multi-Storey car park (PTMSCP)

 

Members were advised that PTMSCP needs significant capital investment of at least £2.5 million in the short and medium term to be spent on it and that the recommendations are asking for permission for officers to enter further discussions with Signal Capital about the running of PTMSCP.

 

Officers explained that Bethany Square carpark, Rosser Street carpark and the Pontardawe By-Pass Car Park were considered to support the Local Development Plan (LDP) and have potential as housing development sites for regeneration purposes. These carparks would be retained until opportunities come forward for future housing or regeneration purposes with detailed survey works undertaken at that point.

 

Members had no questions relating to Rosser Street carpark.

 

In relation to Milland Road car park (Neath), members asked whether the amount paid by Neath fair held at Easter and in the Summer were considered in the income for the car park.

Officers explained that the parking service receive no income from the Neath fair and the council and National Rail (NR) just make the carpark available for the fair to take place. Accountants and property officers who manage the fair have confirmed that there is an actual cost to the authority and the authority effectively subsidised it last year by £42,340 in total.

 

Members were surprised at the cost to the council and had thought the Council would be making money from the fair.

Members were informed that Milland Road car park is split approximately 50/50 with one section owned by Network Rail (NR) who sublet it to Transport for Wales (TfW) as part of their rail portfolio. The other section is owned by the Arch Co. and that section is leased to the Council. The lease almost costs the council as much as the parking income it takes and with maintenance costs on top, it results in a net loss to the parking operational account.

 

Members were advised however that the council now occupies without formal approval from NR, the NR car park as well. Officers advised that the estates department are currently working on rationalising that lease.

 

Officers explained that the authority is responsible for repairs to the carpark and last spring, the head of service had to obtain £75,000 from the capital budget to repair a retaining wall for the fair to continue in September.

 

The vice chair asked if officers knew how much the Arch Co would be raising the rent by. Officers explained that the lease at Milland Road is due to expire at the end of December and the Arch Co’s indicative figures are double the current cost and could be as much as £100,000. This would mean that the council would be subsidising the car park if that happened.

 

Officers explained that the lease will roll over when it ends, so Milland Road car park will still be available for parking on the first week in January and the estates officers will enter dialogue over this but there is no decision to be made now. Members were advised that the recommendations in the report are asking for the authority to enter firm discussions on the lease.

Officers felt that if the Arch Co are prepared not to increase the cost of the lease, then that would ease the decision-making process. If the Arch Co force the issue and they put an excessive increase to the lease, then serious consideration will be needed.

 

Officers clarified that if the council no longer leased the car park, it would still be available for car parking, but it might be run by the Arch company or that NR might purchase the carpark back from the Arch Co and run it as a parking facility themselves.

Members asked if the carpark made a loss of just under £20,000 in 2022/23.

Officers confirmed that it was the result of maintenance issues, failed lighting and vandalism to the pay and display machines. Officers advised that it is not a viable car park to the council as the top half of the carpark is not owned by the council and that is where all the money is taken. This is because customers don’t have to walk as far to the train station by parking there.

The chair asked if the council no longer leased that larger parcel of land, could it potentially be released for development? The chair asked if the council need to consider an overall reduction in parking capacity for Neath as part of that proposal.

Officers explained that there is a requirement on NR and TfW to have sufficient parking capacity at Milland Road car park and their intention is to continue to run that as a car park.

Officers advised that part of the wider discussions are linked with the transport hub, where the council would also have to provide some additional car parking. Members were advised that effectively all of Milland road would be retained as a car park although there is potential for Arch Co to release their land for development, but NR have got retained access rights over the Arch Co land.

 

Members were informed that Milland Road carpark falls within a floodplain which makes it very restrictive as to what development could take place there and is highly unlikely that it would have a building development.

 

Members discussed PTMSCP and indicated that they felt that the proposal was very short sighted from officers considering the Council had received £15,000,000 levelling up funding (LUF) for the Princess Royal Theatre at the Civic Centre. Members believed that the ability to park when visiting the theatre was essential and were concerned about entering negotiations with a private company that could see the authority lose control over the parking.

 

Members stated that at a recent seminar about LUF a suggestion had been made to use some of the levelling up funding to improve the Civic Centre car park by possibly making it two levels. The member advised that the deputy leader had said no to the suggestion. Members were concerned that any viable parking around the civic centre could go, especially with the Bethany Square area being developed.

 

Members were concerned that a private company could treble the price of parking or sublet to another parking management company that could charge big fines if someone gets a parking penalty. They also had concerns that they may shut the car park at 5pm.

Members were worried that if a private company struggled to make money with the PTMSCP then they would hand it back, potentially increasing the cost to the council to bring the building up to spec at the end of the lease.

Officers understood the members concerns but explained that the proposal hasn't come from officers and instead because of an approach by Signal Capital to the authority and the Chief Executive. Officers were asked to look at the option.

 

Members were informed that the PTMSCP needs a major refurbishment, and capital is becoming a significant pressure within the authority with the significant backlog of works in both property and highways as well as matched funding for the Council's regeneration aspirations.

Officers explained that the LUF funding is very prescriptive in how it can be used and is only made available for the building and not supporting infrastructure around the site. Officers noted that the estate team will be discussing a lease and were advised that Signal Capital are looking for a long-term lease of 25 years on the basis that they would need it over a significant period so that they could invest in the fabric of the building and bring it to a better standard. Signal Capital have been undertaking some detailed costings around that investment programme.

Members were advised that signal capital’s business model is to make the car park free of charge to users and if there is increased footfall then they would increase the rental cost to each unit holder that operates within the shopping centre itself. The company would benefit in taking control of the multi-Storey car park to increase footfall in the town centre.

Officers noted that it is a different model to the way the council operates carparks in the county borough.

Members were informed that Signal Capital have got plans that would mean that they would like to keep the car parks open much later at night. They have also indicated that they would still make the carpark available to Council Civic Centre staff on the same arrangements that are in place now. This would also mean that theatre users would be able to park there because they'd be keeping it open until at least 11 or 11:30pm.

 

Officers explained that they would now need to get into the details of the arrangement and would need to agree terms around the investment, the length of the lease, the operational hours and the parking arrangements for staff and for users of the theatre as well.

Officers advised that it then would come back to members for a decision as to whether they wish to pursue that avenue or whether members would prefer to retain the ownership of it, although, that would require some capital investment and being able to secure grants from elsewhere to support the renewal of the building fabric.

 

Members were concerned that it was unlikely that a company could make a profit if they were not looking to charge for parking if the council has failed to make a profit while charging.

Members suggested that the authority should take money from the capital programme to improve the car park and the extra footfall created by the LUF project should mean that the car park would be cost neutral.

Members who had spoken to the manager of the shopping centre advised that he had suggested that Signal Capital who own the shopping centre should take over the running of the multi-Storey car park as they weren't happy with the state of the carpark or the services they were getting. Members felt that the council should enter discussions if they are favourable, and it would be a more positive step.

Members noted that Signal Capital are running the shopping centre that is attached to the carpark, and they might be able to run it better than the authority because they know the needs and demand better than the council.

Officers advised that Signal Capital operate car parks across the country and have a business model that's tried and tested. Members were informed that the company will be going into discussions with their eyes open and are unlikely to commit to something like having to upgrade the building as part of that lease agreement if they didn't think it is a serious proposition.

Officers felt that these issues need to come out in the detailed discussions with the estates team and the absolute detail around this will come back to members before making any determination on the matter.

 

Cllr Hurley the cabinet member for Climate Change and Economic Growth, noted that the company’s business model is such that it would be counterproductive for them to increase charges and force people away from the businesses they're trying to support, and he had faith that they know what they are doing. He noted that they want to increase footfall which will benefit the whole of the town.

The cabinet member also advised that in relation to the future maintenance, he was confident that the estate team are well experienced in putting conditions in leases so that the council can ensure that the work that they promised to do will be done.

The cabinet member also advised members that the council has got to consider the rationalisation of assets and the future maintenance of them. He stated that members know that the authority needs to save money and if someone is offering to take responsibility of those assets and improve them and possibly improve the service that residents receive, then the council seriously needs to consider those plans.

 

The chair felt that assurances around the opening hours into the evening and capital investment need to be included in tight agreement to ensure they do happen and to avoid the carpark being handed back to the council with a big maintenance backlog.

The chair felt that if the report does come back, if cabinet members are minded continuing with the negotiations, then scrutiny committee members would probably want to see the full detail and assurance over those operational matters.

The chair asked that in a future report to have some analysis over the impact on income to the council’s other car parks because if fees are lowered in the PTMSCP, it would impact on the income in the other car parks in the town centre.

The chair felt that the council should try to anticipate some of the movement of footfall if possible.

Officers advised that they had highlighted that as a risk factor in the report but their experience, people would park as close as they can to shops and are unlikely to walk from Station Road car park up to the shopping centre and back in the rain or carrying goods to just save a few pounds.

Officers used the example of Pontardawe where the public are not interested in parking in the bypass car park and is hardly used because people park on the main road next to the shops.

Officers advised that it would be very hard to give members data on what the council would lose but can give members data on what money the carparks take. It would be very difficult to work out who's not going to park in the other carpark.

Members were informed that there are a lot of businesses on Station Road that buy season tickets from the council because they want to park close to their premises. They are unlikely to want to park in the PTMSCP.

Officers explained that Station Road carpark acts like an overflow for the railway station with many parking there to catch the train, even though there is a car park in the railway station, they are also unlikely to park in PTMSCP and walk to the train station.

Cllr Steve Hunt the Leader of the council felt that it was important to be open and transparent and agreed with some of the points raised. The Leader reminded members to be aware of the impact of Tata Steel job losses and the concerns to the economy, not just in the shopping centre, but the wider communities across Port Talbot.

The leader stated that the company are the shopping centre owners, and it is in their interest to make sure they attract new businesses as there are several empty units and things are not getting any easier.

The leader felt that it will be to the benefit of Port Talbot businesses and traders, but critically it is important that the authority makes sure all members of the council are involved not just the scrutiny committee. He felt it was important that members have the information that they need to make decisions and to give their input into what they feel is right or wrong and for everybody to understand the consequences of decisions.

The leader advised that the authority is going into a budget consultation, and every scrutiny committee sees there are challenges and savings that must be made and costs to the authority that they are trying to mitigate as well. The leader explained that officer reports are the start of a conversation and then bring the outcomes back to members.

The leader felt that it is important that members support it at this stage and to shut the door on discussions would not be prudent.

Members highlighted that the car park at the cinema in Port talbot was an example of the private sector not managing carparks well.

The cabinet member for Climate Change and Economic Growth, asked the member if they could supply the scrutiny committee and cabinet with the information about the issues and experiences of the private carpark at the cinema or whether officers might give some feedback so they can have full consideration of how private car parks may be impacted.

The member advised that they could provide the cabinet member with evidence of attending magistrates’ courts on behalf of residents whereby the parking company sent a team of solicitors from Manchester to prosecute a lady who was 3 minutes over the allotted parking time. The member offered to e-mail that detail and put the cabinet members in touch with the resident. The member advised that there continues to be residents prosecuted by that car park and he doesn’t want the council being associated with companies like that.

Officers advised that the detail in the lease agreement is critical and the council needs to be fully transparent on that. Officers said that if it doesn't satisfy members concerns, then officers can deal with that in the future and then as it's such an important decision, it may be that the council asks the company to come into the chamber and present their business model on how they would operate if they're keen to take responsibility for the building. This would allow members to ask them those questions directly before determining a decision around it.

Members didn’t have any questions about Bethany Square carpark in Port Talbot.

Members stated that they hoped that all carparking in Neath Port Talbot are linked in with all the other projects happening. Members felt that when the authority is trying to regenerate the town centres all aspects of policies and reports should be discussed so there is a joined-up conversation and they don’t want the council appearing to be making contradictory actions in the eyes of the public.

Members gave an example of improving the arts centre in Pontardawe, but then taking the parking away from it. Members were sure that the officers and the council will have a good overview of everything being done all the time to make sure that there's a joined-up conversation going on between it all.

Officers agreed that the council shouldn't just dispose of the car park and need to be mindful of the other investments and improvements being made in the town centre and particularly the arts centre at present. Officers don't know how that's going to impact on the Pontardawe car park but wouldn't dispose of it until a developer came forward and even then, only if members were satisfied that there wasn't a demand for that car park.

Officers stated that they would monitor it and will have to do detailed surveys on the disposal of any carpark across the borough.

Officers know that the bypass car park is making a loss which is a concern, because Pontardawe is a small-town centre and it needs to be kept sustainable and officers don’t want to do something that's going to have a negative impact on the arts centre and facilities there. Officers hope that the regeneration of the Art Centre will bring in additional visitors, but currently it does run at a loss and there is nobody parking there. If the Art Centre does increase visitors, the occupational surveys might show that the council will need to keep that carpark.

 

Officers reminded members that they are not asking for a decision in this report on the bypass carpark in Pontardawe and are highlighting that it is something the council need to consider for the future.

 

Members advised the only time they ever use the bypass car park is when they go to the Arts Centre and the only time, they see it used in the evening is when there are events on at the Arts Centre. Members noted that it is particularly difficult to measure because it is free to park at that time, which is probably why people are using it.

Members advised that it does show demand for it although not helpful for an income generation point of view.

 

Members suggested to help with surveying usage of the carpark, officers may be able to use the Arts Centre's mailing list to ask the customers where they tend to park when they come to Pontardawe. Members felt that it would be a cheap way of establishing some trends of where people park.

 

Members noted that there are income numbers for the car parks but not ticket numbers. Members felt that to look at car parking capacity, better data is needed including more granular data as it is not enough just knowing the average occupancy for a couple of days.

 

Members advised that they need to know about the days in the year when the council is running very close to capacity to make sure that the authority can meet that. Members asked for reassurances that, that work will be done to improve the data on which members are basing these decisions.

 

Officers agreed and advised that ideally, they would have occupancy counters in all bays and car parks. They looked at getting occupancy counters in the Neath Multi Storey Carpark, but it was cost prohibitive. In relation to Pontardawe, officers would undertake detailed surveys, and they would do it 3-4 times a day over seven days a week to capture the difference between shows being on or not.

 

Officers explained why it is difficult to get detailed data for the Neath Multi storey carpark. They advised that data is available when customers pay for parking by using the machine or paying by phone, however, that only tells officers how many people pay to park but doesn’t give the occupancy. This is because all the staff and members who park there aren’t captured as they don’t pay for parking. This is the same for the leisure centre as none of the leisure centre users pay because of a deal with Celtic Leisure.

Officers explained that it might look like a lot of cars there, but the figures from income and how many tickets are sold will be nothing like occupancy.

Members were advised that the only way to get an accurate picture of usage is doing a detailed survey or using parking counters.

 

Members asked if the parking wardens keep account of how many cars are parked. Officers advised that they only look for offending vehicles. Officers can ask wardens to count cars parked if needed on a car park by car park basis if they wanted that data for car parks when looking into disposal to get a clearer picture.

Officers explained that while they are not proposing to do anything with Neath multi story carpark, they noted that it's never been at capacity since it's been built and while it looks busier than it's ever been, it is because staff have returned to work in Neath Civic Centre after Covid and the popularity of the leisure centre but those people don’t pay to park.

 

Officers explained that Neath fair and the food festival and cricket matches make parking busier. They anticipate that when rugby league comes to the Gnoll that will also bring up the figures, but these events are the only times income goes up.

 

Members felt that if the warden checks to see if non ticketed vehicles have got a permit at the end of their round and they combine this figure with the number of cars that are parked, it would give a baseline figure for the approximate percentage of cars which are on permits and the ones which aren't. Members thought that this could be used along with other things to give a better idea of occupancy.

 

The chair advised that he had experienced the car park being full in the week and had on a few occasions had to park on higher levels due to how full it was but noted that the number of people working in the office on a particular day can sway the numbers. The chair felt that it did give members a little bit of a mismatch from the data that was in the report to their experience as members.

In relation to occupancy data, members felt that gathering it in a more robust way needs to be looked at. Members asked if some of the technology that highway teams use to count vehicles could be used at the entrance to count the vehicles in and out using loops. It would also mean that they would not need any staff being there at 8pm or 9pm.

Officers agreed that they could do this but there is a cost involved in doing it, such as the resource of taking the enforcement officer out to count each bay and floor plate. Usually, officers wouldn’t be looking at the empty bays.

Officers have had the network management survey team do surveys, but it is costly, and feel that they would probably need to look at employing a specialist firm to put counters in. Officers explained that they would need to have dialogue with those companies on the costs and what data that will provide in terms of occupancy.

Officers also explained that the parking budget hasn't got any money currently and they are trying to manage the spend and balance the budget going forward, this means that every bit of money spent puts additional pressure on the financial position.

Cllr Wyndham Griffiths the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Transport and Connectivity assured members that they have had discussions about the bypass car park, and they will be conducting in depth studies when the theatre opens again and to assure members that this will be done.

Members asked if the same technology of putting a wire across the roads to count vehicles going over is something that could be looked at to be cheaper. Officers advised that they would ask.

Officers advised that they have done similar work doing desk occupancy within buildings and said that AI can be used to do it accurately as well as using the Long Range Wide Area Network System, which are sensors on each parking space that trigger when the space is used and generates data. This would likely be a 6-figure sum to put that in place.

Other methods like sending people around to look at things periodically or having loops for cars going in and out won’t be as accurate.

The cabinet member Councillor Hurley noted that part of the Swansea Bay City Deal covers the interconnectivity and the Internet so he will speak to the officers to see what possibilities there are.

 

The chair felt this was a good suggestion.

 

Following scrutiny, recommendation 1 was supported to Cabinet.

 

Following scrutiny, recommendation 2 was supported to Cabinet.

 

Following scrutiny, an amendment was put forward in relation to recommendation 3. The amended recommendation as set out below was supported to Cabinet.

 

Continue negotiations and agree terms with Signal Capital to lease the Port Talbot MSCP and to bring a further report back to cabinet for a final decision. “To include capital investment plans, proposed opening hours and impact on Port Talbot Town Centre Car Parks retained by the council.”

 

Following scrutiny, recommendation 4 was supported to Cabinet.

 

Following scrutiny, recommendation 5 was supported to Cabinet.

 

Following scrutiny members recommended and approved the following for Cabinet to consider.

 

Officers explore options to gather occupancy data to be reported back to the scrutiny committee.