Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which provided an update on the principles underpinning the Council’s parking policy, outcomes of the parking review undertaken in 2011, links between parking policy and implementation of the Harrow card, the overall impact of parking policy and proposals on identified issues and the status of all proposals.

The Chair welcomed the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, the Divisional Director of Environment and other officers to the meeting.  In response to questions, the Portfolio Holder explained that in terms of implementation, the feasibility study had not yet been completed but that he was happy to share it with scrutiny colleagues.  The Harrow card, free parking and tiered charges were all interconnected and it was necessary to have a programme to ensure that they were introduced in an ordered way.  The Harrow card did not delay the introduction of cashless parking.

Members then made comments and asked questions as follows:

·                    A Member expressed concern at the implementation of the policy, the expense of altering the pay and display machines and sought clarification on the cost of the Harrow card.  The Portfolio Holder advised that the card would cost £10 but that at this stage he could not confirm that it would be progressed.

·                    In response to a Member’s question as to what measures would be used to mitigate the likely worsening of air quality as a result of the parking policy, an officer advised that promotion of use of the card would have an effect on the use of other modes of transport but that it may encourage people to shop more locally.

·                    A Member questioned the use of the Harrow card to reduce vandalism to parking meters and street crime.  The officer undertook provide the data requested and indicated that the provision of a cashless system would reduce the number of machines required.

·                    A Member expressed concern at the estimated cost of the Harrow card implementation, stated that the interfaces with the IT systems had not been addressed and that, in his view, the Harrow machines would not be able to accommodate the variety of payment methods proposed.  The officer confirmed that the internal workings of 150 machines would require replacement.

·                    In response to a Member’s question in relation to the estimated take up of the Harrow card, the Portfolio Holder advised that it was expected that approximately 10% of the Harrow population would take up the card and that the fee for distributing the card would be £10.  The card would be valid for 3-4 years.

·                    In response to a Member’s question, the Portfolio Holder advised that the 20 minute parking limit had seemed reasonable and would allow sufficient time for shoppers to visit a shop for items such as milk and newspapers.  It would also facilitate the movement of cars from parking bays as there was little point in having 20 minutes free parking if there was nowhere to park.  If, however, the parking meters could only be modified to provide 30 minute slots, further consideration may be required.

·                    A Member stated that there appeared to be a contradiction between paragraphs 2.3.7 and 2.4.6 of the report and expressed concern in relation to some of the financial information.  The Portfolio Holder responded that the feasibility study had indicated that there would be 10% take up in the initial year, with a further 10% (that is £210,000) in the following year and the same again in the third year.  It would be an incremental increase as people realised the benefit of the card.  Even if there were a high take up of the card, the business model would not change much.

·                    Clarification was sought as to whether Harrow residents would benefit from cheaper parking as a result of the card and was advised that there would be different forms of the card.  For example, there would be an under 21s card that would have photograph could be used as proof of age and there would also be a non Harrow resident card.

·                    A Member expressed concern that the project was not included on the risk register and was advised that risks would be addressed in the feasibility study.

·                    Some Members expressed concern at the deliverability of projects given the savings proposed for the Environment and Enterprise directorate. 

The Chair thanked the Portfolio Holder and officers for their attendance and responses.

RESOLVED:   That

(1)               the report be noted;

(2)               the results of the feasibility study be reported to a future meeting of the Committee.