URL: https://minutes.tewkesbury.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8364

Decision Maker: Executive

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: 83.1           The report of the Head of Service: Asset Management - Operations, circulated at Pages No.17-30, asked Members to adopt the proposed new pricing structure for Tewkesbury Borough Council owned pay display car parks from 1 May 2026, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report; and to delegate authority to the Section 151 Officer and the Director: One Legal, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to consider and determine any objections received during the statutory consultation process.  83.2           In proposing the report recommendation, the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management explained that the Council had not reviewed its Parking Strategy or the charging tariff for its car parks for over 10 years.  Whilst pricing for customers had remained static, the costs faced by the Council had risen steadily and consistently, with national inflation rising by 40% across the period.  The Council ran 10 pay and display car parks – two in Winchcombe and eight in Tewkesbury - with a further three car parks in the borough – two in Churchdown and one in Snowshill - that were free to use. He clarified that this review focused solely on the existing pay and display car parks.  In recent years, the Council had made improvements across the car parks, including new LED lighting, new payment machines, payment apps and electric vehicle (EV) charging capability and costs associated with maintenance, enforcement and management had increased.  This review focused on optimising revenue whilst seeking to maintain some key principles from the 2015 Parking Strategy, as set out at Page No. 19, Paragraph 1.2 of the report.  As such, although it was proposed to introduce new parking charges, the Council was also seeking to maintain its support for important community occasions with free parking on Remembrance Sunday, the Christmas lights switch-on and the last shopping Saturday before Christmas.  In addition to these significant events, the review also proposed measures to support the community, accessibility, climate and trade, with free parking offered on Sunday mornings and at school drop off/collections times in both Back Lane car park in Winchcombe and Spring Gardens car park in Tewkesbury.  Importantly, the review proposed that parking was free for blue badge holders and those using EV charging points within the car parks.  Section 3 of the report outlined the recommended pricing structure and the review process had included analysis of capacity, usage, and the average length of time spent within the various car parks, as demonstrated at Appendices 1 and 2 to the report.  Section 4 of the report set out the importance of permits to residents and businesses, recognising that permit holders were consistent customers of the car parks. As such, the review recommended that these prices remained the same, aside from rounding up to the nearest pound.  There had been significant engagement with Members in recent months and the questions and suggestions that had been generated were greatly appreciated, helping to form how the review had been conducted, and how it had reached its conclusion.  The proposals had also been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee which had endorsed the proposed new pricing structure and recommended to the Executive Committee that it be adopted.  Should Members agree to the proposals today, a statutory consultation process would be undertaken, as set out at Section 5 of the report.   In his view, if adopted, the proposals would mean that the Council could optimise revenue, ensuring that other budgets were not, in effect, subsidising the management of the sites, whilst ensuring that customers were able to get best value through some additional shorter parking periods available at appropriate sites. Importantly, a compassionate approach was being maintained in ensuring that blue badge holders were not charged, and the higher use of EV charge points was being encouraged.  The proposal was duly seconded. 83.3           A Member felt the report was lacking figures, specifically in terms of how much revenue would be raised as a result of the proposals and if there would be any associated costs, such as enforcement.  In response, the Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations advised that, historically during periods when enforcement had been reduced, such as the pandemic, there had been a corresponding drop in income; however, enforcement had not been included in the figures and calculations as it was not possible to set targets for the issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).  Notwithstanding this, Officers had an expectation of the proportion who would not pay for parking based on understanding of usage of the car parks and enforcement generally covered its cost in terms of penalties.  The Member asked how the cumulative income from car parks compared with the costs associated with running the car parks and the Associate Director: Finance confirmed that information had to be produced by law each year and was available on the Council’s website.  For 2024/25 there was a surplus of £169,000; however, that figure did not include staff costs.  The Member indicated that on that basis, as the proposal was to increase the parking fees, that figures would rise going forward and would be perceived as an income generator for the Council.  The Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management felt it was important that the real cost of providing the service was reflected in the publicly available information along with context around the social objectives the Council was trying to achieve around supporting High Streets etc.  The Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations confirmed that information could be provided and pointed out that some of the money generated by the car parks was used to support other services not directly apportioned to car parks, such as elements of the Ubico contract e.g. street cleansing. 83.4           With regard to Appendix 1 to the report which set out the charges for each car park, a Member pointed out that, for Back Lane car park, it stated ‘not applicable’ for ‘up to 30 minutes, 1 hour etc; however, he felt this could be misleading and suggested parking was free when the charge was actually £1.50 for up to three hours.  In addition, he made the point that, whilst it may have been politically convenient not to increase parking charges for a number of years, it meant that when the increase did come into effect it was significant, as much as 50% in some cases.  As such, he felt the charges needed to be kept under regular review going forward.  The Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management accepted the point about the way the information was set out within the report and provided assurance that the signage and communications about the changes would be much clearer.  He agreed that 11 years was far too long not to have reviewed the charges and the team was committed to not being in that situation again.  83.5           Another Member asked whether the fact that vehicles were getting larger had been recognised, and if it was made clear that a fine would be incurred if vehicles were parked over the lines of a parking bay.  In response, the Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations confirmed this was clear on the signage within the car parks and indicated that motor homes which parked over two bays had to pay for both bays.  Whilst it was accepted that vehicles were getting bigger, the majority had wheels which would sit within the lines of the current regulation size bays within the car parks.  In Winchcombe, Bull Lane car park was particularly small and increasing the size of the bays would reduce the number of bays available; however, there was a relining programme and, as part of that, there may be opportunities in Back Lane car park to increase the size of the bays as had recently been done in Spring Gardens where bays had been made longer to accommodate parallel parking.  If a vehicle was parked over the lines of a bay, when determining whether to issue a PCN consideration would be given as to whether the vehicle could have parked within the bay. 83.6           With regard to the free parking at school drop-off and pick up times in certain car parks, a Member asked whether school parents were issued permits for display or if there was no enforcement during those times and the Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations confirmed that permits were issued by the schools and the Council passed that information on to the enforcement team.  Officers worked with the schools to carry out random checks to ensure that those using the permits were parents with pupils at the schools.  83.7           A Member asked whether the Committee would have an opportunity to see a summary of any public consultation responses and sought assurance that heavy vehicle tariffs would be considered as part of the 12 month review which was referenced at Page No. 23, Paragraph 7.1 of the report.  The Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations clarified that a statutory consultation must take place; however, the Communications team would be running a public consultation alongside that which would be more focused on gathering opinion.   Any responses received as part of the statutory consultation must be responded to and that information could be shared with Members, along with a report on the public consultation.  A Member sought clarification as to whether the feedback received as part of the public consultation could potentially influence what the Council did in terms of parking charges and the Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations advised that the public consultation was around openness and transparency and would help to establish whether the proposed changes were considered to be fair.  In terms of the statutory consultation, there must be a valid legal objection in order to amend the proposals.  A Member suggested this would be an engagement rather than a consultation if there was no intention to amend the proposals based on the feedback and the Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations confirmed it would be engagement. 83.8           A Member noted that the environmental and sustainability implications section of the report referenced that the car parks currently supported cycling through hosting Gloucestershire County Council’s secure cycling hub locations; however, to her knowledge, neither Gloucestershire County Council or Tewkesbury Borough Council had promoted their locations and she would like to see communications from both authorities given that the hubs would be removed if not used.  She also raised concern with regard to the statement that, by maintaining affordable long stay options and introducing flexible tariffs, the proposals complemented sustainable travel initiatives by reducing congestion and supporting efficient car parking management; in her view, sustainable travel initiatives were walking, cycling, scooting and using public transport.  In response, the Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations explained that a piece of work was being undertaken around potentially increasing the number of environmentally friendly vehicles; however, those types of vehicles could be financially prohibitive and it was important not to prejudice anyone who could not afford one.  If fees were reduced for those with environmentally friendly vehicles, that must be balanced elsewhere in the budget. It was hoped there would be an initial report in relation to this available to Members by the summer.  With regard to the promotion of the secure cycling hubs, he undertook to pick this up with colleagues at the County Council.  In terms of the comments about sustainability, he advised that a large piece of work had been done with Winchcombe Town Council around introducing new signage in order to help direct people straight to the car parks, rather than them having to drive around looking for them, and that was something which would also be introduced in Tewkesbury.  There was a great deal of on and off street parking within Tewkesbury town centre and people would drive around to find this so it was hoped that having options for fair fees would help to reduce that. 83.9           A Member sought clarification as to what the expected additional income would be from the proposed fee increases and whether any additional income would be used to reintroduce grass cutting.  The Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management indicated that, although there would be opportunities to consider what might be done with any additional money, that was not linked in any way to the proposals.  The Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations explained that the 2025/26 budget accounted for an increase in parking fees so, in the event the proposals were not approved, it would be necessary to identify savings elsewhere to account for that.  The Associate Director: Finance advised there was currently a deficit of £89k against what was expected from car parking charges and whilst there was no change to the car parking income budget for 2026/27, it was hoped the proposed changes would ensure that the expected income was realised. 83.10         A Member asked if the ratio between the daily charges and the annual permits had been considered, for example, under current circumstances it was £1 to park for the day in Back Lane, Winchcombe and an annual permit cost £250 – if the daily parking charge was increased to £1.50 and the cost of the annual permit remained the same, there would effectively be a 50% discount for permit holders.  The Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management confirmed that permit holders were seen as key users and had been prioritised as loyal customers.  The Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations confirmed the intention was to maintain current users and, whilst there was an awareness of the ratio, it was not something which had been used in coming to the recommendations.  The Member stressed that he supported the principle of attracting people to buy long term, but without information about what the changes were, it was unclear what judgements had been made.  The Chair pointed out that a number of these issues had been discussed at the Member workshops which had been held during the formulation of the proposals and the report may have benefited from having further information in that regard.  83.11         In terms of the proposal not to charge electric vehicles for parking whilst charging, a Member asked if there was a risk that people could use them without charging in order to get free parking.  The Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations advised that the charging points were operated through Evolt and the Order had already been updated so that the only vehicles permitted to park in the charging bays were electric vehicles.  Whilst vehicles were only permitted to use the bays if they were charging, the enforcement team had no way of knowing if they were charging; however, Evolt operated an overstay fee which would be invoked if they stayed in the bay beyond the charging period.  The Member asked how this would be made clear to customers and was advised this was done through the Evolt app which alerted the user when the charge was complete.  83.12         A Member sought reassurance around visitor numbers in the town, particularly given the opening of the new designer outlet which offered free parking.  The Head of Service: Asset Management – Operations advised that car parking usage was being monitored and the most recent update last week showed a positive uplift as a result of the outlet with increased usage of around 7%.  This would continue to be monitored throughout the year and reported back via the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management. 83.13         During the debate which ensued, a Member expressed the view that car parks were to support the local economy rather than to generate income for the authority and he was thankful that approach had been taken.  Another Member was grateful for the amount of consultation which had been carried out and that consideration had been given to each individual car park rather than imposing a standard increase across them as a whole.  Whilst a 50% increase sounded significant, she felt this must be considered in context given the amounts in question, for instance, a 50% increase to a £1.00 charge was £1.50 which she did not consider to be unreasonable. Tewkesbury was a tourist destination but was also a functional town and she felt it important to recognise things such as blue badges and electric vehicle charging, particularly given there were a number of residential properties which did not have the facilities to charge their vehicles.  She parked in Tewkesbury a couple of times a week for work and currently paid £4.00 a day, which would increase to £4.80 under the proposals - she felt that was good value when compared to Gloucester where it would cost £8.40, Cirencester where it would cost £9.20, or the centre of Cheltenham where it would cost £16.80.  Whilst it was unfortunate charges needed to increase, it was necessary in order for the car parks to be sufficiently maintained.  83.14         Another Member echoed the previous comments and thanked Officers for the informal Member workshops which had provided an opportunity to ask questions.  In her view, it was important to ensure everyone understood that price increases were necessary in order to support services and that any income generated could only be spent on certain things.  She welcomed continuation of the provision of free parking in certain car parks for those dropping off/picking up children from schools as this prevented the streets around the schools from becoming congested and she felt this should be championed in communications along with parking charges being cheaper than many others and that prices had not been increased for 10 years.  With regard to electric vehicle parking, she felt it needed to made very clear for customers that parking was only free whilst charging.  83.15         A Member supported the proposals and felt the review and increases were necessary after such a long period of time.  The actual increases were minimal in monetary terms and he considered the car park costs to be very reasonably priced comparatively.  With regard to Winchcombe, he felt care needed to be taken regarding potential prioritisation of certain vehicles going forward, given the majority of visitors came by car, as this could have implications for on street parking.  Another Member felt it was important not to overcomplicate charges and there was a danger of this if different charges were introduced for different sized vehicles.  In terms of the proposals being considered today, he welcomed the changes, particularly the change in the ratios for permits which he felt were too high previously as he was of the view there should be a clear benefit to purchasing one and, looking at occupancy rates, the car parks were rarely completely full. 83.16         A Member indicated that he was not in favour of the proposals and saw no reason for increasing parking charges as this would be at odds with some of the Council’s other policies around counteracting the impact of inflation.  In his opinion, the introduction of parking charges had contributed to the decline of the High Street.  The prime offer of outlets and retail centres was free parking and he felt charges deterred people from visiting regularly.  He suggested it was difficult for Tewkesbury to compete with places such as Stroud in terms of its offer, noting that it had slightly cheaper parking and was thriving.  He pointed out that Herefordshire was looking to introduce free parking for the first 30 minutes in its car parks and felt that would be an incentive for people to use the town more.  He welcomed the 7% uptake in car parking usage which would be the equivalent of £42k income and questioned whether the prices needed to be increased on that basis given the money which customers would save could potentially be spent within the town.  A Member indicated that the report made clear that services would be lost if charges were not increased and asked the Member which he would choose to lose.  She pointed out that raising prices may encourage more people to walk or use public transport.  Another Member indicated he was sympathetic to some of the points raised and recognised that increasing parking charges would never be popular; however, given there had been no increase for 10 years, cheap parking was clearly not the key to ensure a thriving town which was also about the offering, business rates and much more.  It was noted that introducing the 30 minute charge made it cheaper for someone to pop into town and there was no evidence to suggest they would spend the 80p they would have saved in the town if there was free parking.  In addition, the proposals protected blue badge parking and offered free parking for coaches to support the onward journey of visitors to the retail outlet into the town.  83.17         Upon being put to the vote, it was

Date of Decision: February 4, 2026