The Policy & Engagement Officer introduced the report as set-out in the agenda.

The Chair invited members to ask questions, and points raised included:

·         Sought clarification on the proposed hourly car parking charges up to 7 pm and the set fee of £3 until the following morning at 7 am.  If only two hours were required for parking would the ticket machine allow them to only pay for two hours?;

·         residents could be disadvantaged by the £3 set fee proposal from 7 pm;

·         concerned about the introduction of charges at Council car parks that currently offered free parking such as the Milton Country Park, and were the likely charges known?;

·         how much revenue would the proposed £3 charge make the Council, how much would the Council lose if it was not introduced, and what would the impact of the charge be on the night-time economy? 

·         the Council should explore provision of coach parking;

·         considered that the cost-of-living crisis was affecting the night-time economy;

·         could passes be provided for residents that were volunteers on local community groups?;

·         the report stated that the Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) body worn camera footage could not be used as supporting evidence when appealing a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), was that correct?  The Head of Environment and Leisure agreed to find out if this was correct.

·         if the CEOs wore body cameras for the whole shift would that compromise the privacy of the public?;

·         sought confirmation that existing properties within residents parking zones that were changed to a house in multiple occupation (HMO) were not allowed to have permits?;

·         thanked the officers and the Parking Policy Member Working Group (PPMWG) for their hard work in producing the policy; and

·         Members had a responsibility to ensure that their residents were aware of, and encouraged to respond to the consultation.

In response the Head of Environment and Leisure said that car parking costs proposed by the PPMWG would be “teased-out” during the consultation and the formal Fees and Charges process.  He reminded Members that they were being asked to consider the Parking Policy itself not fees and charges.  He explained that the Parking Policy wording did not refer to the fixed £3 fee, but gave the Council the ability to look at different was of charging.  Discussion ensued and the Head of Environment and Leisure, agreed to refer back to the PPMWG on the Committee’s comments relating to their proposal for a set fee of £3 from 7 pm.  He explained that the PPMWG had received the relevant data before agreeing to put the £3 evening fee forward as a proposal. 

The Head of Environment and Leisure reported that the Council were hoping to provide coach parking at Barton’s Point, Minster, as previously discussed at the Community Committee.  He explained that he thought the CEOs wore body cameras for the whole shift as incidents happened unexpectedly and they may not have the opportunity to turn them on.  However, if there were no incidents during a shift the recording would be deleted.  The body worn cameras were needed to protect officers and were clearly and openly worn so would not be a breach of privacy.   The Head of Environment and Leisure confirmed that Policy Part K, generally prevented new HMOs in residents parking zones being given parking permits, as most of those areas were already at capacity.  

With regard to the issuing of passes for volunteers, the Chair said that it was difficult to define a volunteer and Members had looked at this within the PPMWG.  The cost of administering and producing the passes could be higher than any revenue made. 

In response to a query from a member, the Policy & Engagement Officer said that officers would be keeping a record of the consultation responses as received and this could be shared with Members.  

Resolved:

(1)      That the Draft Parking Policy for public consultation be approved.