Much work is being undertaken to analyse and understand the information provided by SNDC regarding the proposed introduction of Car Park Charges. This Page provides some analysis and comments regarding the published information. It is solely the opinion of the person to whom it is ascribed and does not relate in any way to opinions held or actions decided by Redenhall and Harleston Town Council. Whilst every effort is made to be accurate no responsibility can be accepted where errors occur.
Analysis of the Report to the SNDC Cabinet - Agenda Item number 9
This analysis only picks out those pieces of the report which are considered worthy of comment. Much of original report, but not all, was sent to the South Norfolk Alliance, and the analysis of that Report should be considered in tandem with this analysis.
Summary -
'Income has been reducing and costs have been increasing in recent years'
This comment together with the appendix which shows actual revenue for both Diss and Wymondham car parks indicates a failing system, if not a system in Crisis, hardly a pattern to follow to increase revenue.
Conclusions -
'This report identifies the need to get a consistent charging policy across all our car parks'
In other words despite having a failing system which is costing money, the thrust is to charge for the other car parks rather than identify the problems and find a better system.
Recommendations - it is recommended the cabinet -
c - 'Defers any decision of on-street parking at this time '
This suggests that on-street parking is the next thing to be considered, possibly with parking charges
d - 'Delegates to the Head of finance and property services in liaison with the portfolio holder for commercial services to establish the charges effective from April 2008'
The fact that they are recommending that the decision making is to be delegated to establish the rate of charging effective from April 2008, rather gives the lie to the idea that no decision has been make about car park charges. If the decision had not been made then such delegation would be irrelevant at this time.
e - 'Considers allocating a financial share to Diss Town Council of the 2006/2007 surplus'
Previously Diss Town Council has received a share, this time there is a sting in the tail - see the VAT issue later.
f - 'If agreed, that a payment not be made until the VAT situation is clarified.'
So Diss Town Council should not receive payment until the VAT situation is clarified.
Introduction
Much of this is covered in the analysis of the South Norfolk Alliance report.
1.3 - 'Maintenance of the car parks has increased in recent years, but there remains anecdotal evidence that the quality of the environment are insufficient. The council uses ticket machines which are frequently out of action due to vandalism or machine faults.'
The evidence that the car parks need improving is only anecdotal, no surveys, no user interviews, just 'comments'. Also the machines are subject to vandalism, or break down - both indications of a system that is not working, and before committing other car parks to the system it would seem logical to sort out the original problems first.
Car park income sharing.
3.1 'Council policy has been to share any surplus made on car parks at Diss and Wymondham on a 50:50 share with the respective Town Council. This agreement has operated since 2004/05. Surplus's have been made at Diss in those years, but a loss in Wymondham. Cabinet resolved in 2006 that due to the uncertainty of VAT on car park income, that monies should be retained by South Norfolk DC pending the outcome of the VAT legal challenge. This VAT challenge has already been running through the courts for 10 years, and shows no sign of coming to a conclusion in the near future. The Council is at present retaining £20,000 which would be payable to Diss TC if the VAT ruling finds in the favour of local authorities.'
VAT problems have been in the Courts for 10 years without resolution, and show no sign of being resolved. The SNDC has already retained 20,000 pounds which would be payable to Diss if the ruling is made in favour of local authorities - so what is happening with the interest. This is especially relevant when point f), in Recommendations is taken into account.
3.2 'The financial outturn for the 2006/07 financial year is attached at Appendix A to this report. This report shows a reduced surplus being achieved at Diss car parks, and an increased deficit at Wymondham car parks. The key reasons are given below:-
a) Charges-income has been reducing, and this is partly due to a number of thefts and vandalism on ticket machines. Officers have established a new contractual agreement with the ticket machine operators so there is a guaranteed response time when machines become out of action.
b) Repairs and maintenance- the Council has incurred higher levels of expenditure in maintaining the car parks in 2006/07. These costs were originally budgeted for within the Council's capital programme, but are in fact revenue costs. This level of maintenance continues in the current financial year.'
3.2 The key reasons for the problems with the car parks are -
a. Charges income have been reducing -partly due to a number of thefts and vandalism to the ticket machines. However nothing is said about what comprises the other part.
b - The council has incurred higher levels of expenditure for maintenance in 2006/2007. They were original budgeted for the capital program but should have been revenue costs. So the council has money elsewhere now not committed, but cannot resolve the problem of finance. Also it suggests that in previous years the money has been taken from the wrong budget, suggesting yet again that the system is not functioning correctly.
3.3 'Should Cabinet wish to continue with the previously agreed policy, Diss Town Council should receive a sum of 6,049 pounds as its share of the 2006/07 surplus. Wymondham Town Council would not receive any surplus. It is recommended that any payment be withheld until after the VAT situation is clarified.'
3.3 Coupled with the paragraphs e) and f), of Recommendations - it is suggested that 'any payment (to Diss) should be withheld until after the VAT situation is clarified'. - Though it has been in the Courts for 10 years without resolution. in other words, no money should be paid at this time, which makes the idea of a surplus being returned to the people a nonsense.
There is nothing in this Cabinet report that suggests the South Norfolk District Council have taken any steps to find out why Wymondham and Diss car parks are failing, nor that they intend to before imposing car park charges on Harleston and Lodden. It defies logic to move forward in this manner before finding the roots of the problem and curing them.
This analysis is the work of myself, Barry Woods and reflects only my views as to the report itself. Whilst retaining an open mind as to the advisability or otherwise of introducing car park charges across the South Norfolk area, I consider that the whole question should be dealt with in a much more rigorous manner, with much greater transparency than has so far been presented.
Back to the top
Financial considerations relating to current paying car parks
By the SNDC financial breakdown for the Diss and Wymondham car parks over the period 2003 - 2007 annually Diss has made a small profit, whilst Wymondham has never made a profit. However, since 2004 it appears no salary has been paid to anyone with regard to the car parks, notwithstanding that someone is apparently receiving travel expenses, and benefits.
If it is assumed that the non-person has not had a rise in salary since 2004, the figures become even more noticeable.
|
SNDC |
Car Park Profits if Salaries are included |
Pounds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diss |
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
total Shown |
Salaries included |
Salary |
Final Total |
|
2003 - 2004 |
50,732 |
Yes |
21,234 |
50,732 |
|
2004 - 2005 |
19,726 |
NO |
21,234 |
- 1,508 |
|
2005 - 2006 |
28,923 |
NO |
21,234 |
7,689 |
|
2006 - 2007 |
12,099 |
NO |
21,234 |
- 9,135 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wymondham |
|
|
|
|
Year |
total Shown |
Salaries included |
Salary |
Final Total |
|
2003 - 2004 |
-22,560 |
Yes |
10,576 |
- 22,560 |
|
2004 - 2005 |
-13,017 |
NO |
10,576 |
- 23,593 |
|
2005 - 2006 |
-3,835 |
NO |
10,576 |
- 14,411 |
|
2006 - 2007 |
-38,478 |
NO |
10,576 |
- 49,054 |
Back to the top
Analysis of the Report sent to the South Norfolk Alliance by South Norfolk District Council relating to Car Parking.
The paragraphs in this analysis mirror those of the original report.
1. Background
1.1 Statement of factual information
1.2 It has been said that SNDC has not made a decision regarding charging for parking in Harleston and Lodden car parks. This is not borne out by the language used in this report.
'The process is that once this Cabinet determines its strategy for car parking provision and charges, a consultation process is undertaken with stakeholders. Following any revision necessary following this consultation, parking orders are placed and then charges become effective.'
i.e. Once the strategy has been determined by SNDC, a consultation is undertaken with stakeholders - but this can only be as to how much for how long, as the sentence continues 'parking orders are placed and then charges become effective'
It states 'a consultation process is undertaken with stakeholders' - however it would be difficult to imagine a stakeholder with more of an interest than the local Town Council, who are not included in the initial consultations, if at all.
2. Car Park Strategy
2.1 Key drivers for the Car Park Strategy.
- Preserve the special character of our market towns and villages
- Make South Norfolk a culturally and economically richer place to live and work.
It is difficult to see how introducing car parking charges helps preserve the special character of our market towns, or makes it economically a richer place to live and work.
2.2 The principles are proposed for Cabinet's consideration. Only these principles, not anything else, such as to consider alternatives to charging for car parking.
a) It states quite rightly that 'The public should expect to receive an improved standard of service in terms of maintenance, security, etc. --- Charging would provide the finance to raise standards.'
I would suggest that the word 'would' needs to be replaced by the word 'should' in this sentence. There are many financial issues relating to the introduction of car park charges that have been glossed over. It is obvious that the decision has been made to charge, without thought of any other possible avenues of obtaining the necessary money. The questions raised could fill a whole report on finance just by themselves.
b) 'The charging for car parks should be on a consistent basis across the district, recognising the need to encourage the use of our market towns. ---- We want to encourage the use of our market towns, so could consider allowing the first hour of parking free of charge in short stay car parks as an example'
Leaving aside the irrelevancy of the Costessey resident who has to pay in Norwich, as we all do, the principle of one area not paying for another area's parking is sound. However, car parking, and charges for car parking, needs to be considered in a structured but selective manner. All the factors pertaining to a particular economic area need to be considered before even introducing charges. To introduce such a change without consideration of its potential effect on the local economy is high handed and dangerous to that economy.
c) There is often a vast difference between the intended use and the actual use of car parks. The introduction of charges would probably cause a marked increase in on-street parking in the surrounding areas. If Diss is taken as an example, the effect of the car parking charges there on on-street parking is mitigated by people parking in the supermarket car parks. Without such parking being available the effects on the market towns could be horrendous.
d) 'The cost of maintaining the car parks should fall on the users, rather than the general council tax payer. Car park charges are not set at present to recover costs, ---- so we would have to fund any improvements through the raising of income from another source. The most logical of these is through car park charges being set to cover costs.'
The principle of the costs of maintaining the car parks not falling on the council tax payer is sound, provided they have been given the option of so paying if they wish to, or if there is no other way of paying these costs. Raising the car park charges to cover these costs is only logical if the only way to pay considered is that of raising car park charges.
This report admits that charging for car parking at the present rate does not work. The cost of maintaining the system itself is not covered by the income. Rather than persisting with something that does not work, it would have been better to have sought an alternative solution that does work.
e) 'A proportion of any additional income, which could be generated, should be used for the Neighbourhood forums to use within their areas. If car park charges are to be increased, the burden of paying for Council Services would be increased in our market towns. It is therefore considered appropriate to consider providing some the additional income generated to fund good projects through the new Neighbourhood forums.'
This particular paragraph is quite incredible. It has moved from 'the current system does not even cover the cost of sustaining itself' to 'by introducing car park charges in the market towns there will be a surplus of money'. It admits that introducing the charges will have a detrimental effect on the Residents of the town, but states that the way forward is to use some of the additional revenue (which may not even materialise) for good projects - decided by the Neighbourhood forums!
So the very people who will suffer due to the introduction of the parking charges will not even be allowed to decide the fate of any 'surplus' funds for themselves.
2.3 'Cabinet has endorsed this set of principles and agreed that a fuller report on them is made to the South Norfolk Alliance so the consultation can begin. Subject to the outcomes of this consultation, Cabinet is requested to delegate the establishment of detailed charges to be effective from April 2008'
If the decision had not yet been made, then the results of the consultation would be to consider whether the introduction of car park charging was feasible or not; rather than giving a 'go live' date for those charges.
3. Issues for the Alliance
3.1 Whilst admitting that there are many implications arising from the new approach to car park charging the SNDC seems only to be considering the views of the South Norfolk Alliance, which whilst perfectly valid and valuable, totally sidesteps the democratic procedure of Town Councils being consulted, and the views of the people being considered.
The South Norfolk Alliance is being invited to endorse the principles of the report to rubber stamp the decisions already made. These decisions have taken no account of possible problems, or outcomes, or the views of Residents who will be affected. Nor the financial implications of the introduction of charges, or the lead time before the start up money is repaid. It is my opinion that if this report genuinely shows the position of the SNDC then the whole process is seriously flawed, and should be revisited as a matter of urgency.
This analysis is the work of myself, Barry Woods and reflects only my views as to the report itself. Whilst retaining an open mind as to the advisability or otherwise of introducing car park charges across the South Norfolk area, I consider that the whole question should be dealt with in a much more rigorous manner, with much greater transparency than has so far been presented.
Back to the top
Back to SNDC Car Park Charges
