Agenda item

Lead Member – Councillor Dan Morris, Portfolio Holder for Highways

Lead Officer – Andy Wilde

REPORT TO FOLLOW

RESOLVED:

1. To conclude that the order should be made as drafted in relation to Recommendation 1-8 and 10-15 having considered the objections as set out in Table A below and based on the discussions of each item in the Background sections below. The recommendation number relates the Objection Types consideration addressed in the sections between 7.23 and 7.39.

2. To conclude that the order should be modified before making in relation to Recommendation 9, the evening charges, as per the discussion in 7.26 (h) to (l) and 7.33

(Table A will be contained in the full minutes)

The Portfolio Holder for Highways presented the report following a public consultation on the recommendations within the final Cabinet report regarding parking tariffs.

Members highlighted changes to evening parking fees to assist the night-time economy for workers and those attending Shrewsbury's many evening venues. There were concerns about the clarity and availability of the proposed charges, and a request from the opposition was received that the report returns to the cabinet in January with full and current information. Members were advised that the only change to the figures provided previously was to remove the evening charge of £1.00 from the car parks at Abbey Foregate and St Julians Friars as discussed at 7.33.3 and 7.33.4.

A request was received for clarification on parking charges at Abbey Foregate and Shirehall overspill car park and it was confirmed that these would be provided outside the meeting.

RESOLVED:

1. To conclude that the order should be made as drafted in relation to Recommendation 1-8 and 10-15 having considered the objections as set out in Table A below and based on the discussions of each item in the Background sections below. The recommendation number relates the Objection Types consideration addressed in the sections between 7.23 and 7.39.

2. To conclude that the order should be modified before making in relation to Recommendation 9, the evening charges, as per the discussion in 7.26 (h) to (l) and 7.33

Table A

Recommendation Number	Objection	Make the Order	Consideration
1	That the increase is too large or in excess of inflation	Yes	The increases are those necessary to effect a change in motorist behaviour in terms of parking location or travel mode
2	The increase is motivated by the need to generate revenue	Yes	Refer to Recommendation 1. In addition this would not be accordance with the legal reasons for setting charges.
3/4/5 - Shrewsbury	Deters Visitors, Shoppers and Workers - Shrewsbury	Yes	The transfer of long-term motorists to more appropriate locations creates capacity for new/extra motorists who can visit or shop
3/4/5 - Shropshire	Deters Visitors, Shoppers and Workers - Shrewsbury	Yes	The transfer of long-term motorists to more appropriate locations creates capacity for new/extra motorists who can visit or shop
6	Difficulty retaining or recruiting Employees when parking charges are such a deterrent	Yes	Commuters are the most likely to utilise space needed for visitors yet they are also the most able to establish alternative travel routes.
7	Harm to the Economy	Yes	Refer to Recommendation 3/4/5
8	Harm to the ‘Sunday’ economy	Yes	Sunday parking is as available as most daytime parking and this will encourage active travel.
9	Harm to the ‘Evening’ economy	Modify	Re-introduce a graduation in charges and free parking for evening employees (and visitors) in two locations
10	Displacement of local parking to adjacent uncontrolled Residential Areas	Yes	Effects are not considered widespread. Mitigation can be taken relatively quickly.
11	Transfer of business to other towns – particularly Telford	Yes	Competition from Telford relates more to the type of town and its businesses than the parking charges
12	Unfair to residents in that they are a captive market in a single supplier situation	Yes	Residents receive a very healthy discount of up to 80% of ‘normal’ charges.
13	Unfair to rural dwellers	Yes	The assertion is disputed with no difference between rural and urban motorists
14	Unfair to disabled, elderly and those with other medical conditions.	Yes	Blue Badge holders already have significant concessions but to extend this to others who fall between the blue badge holder and the healthy motorist would be extremely onerous
15	Lack of Alternative Transport, particularly Public Transport	Yes	The Park and Ride (and bus) service may not meet everyone’s needs but it is suitable for typical working hours

Shropshire Council website

Contact information

E-mail

Telephone

Postal Address

Shropshire Council

Parking Tariff Consultation

Navigation