BRADFORD CITY CENTRE – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ON-STREET VEHICLE CHARGES AND CHANGES TO SOME DESIGNATED PAY AND DISPLAY AND LIMITED WAITING BAYS

 

At its meeting on 7 March 2017 the Executive received a report of the Strategic Director, Place (Executive Document “BP”) which considered objections received to the proposals to extend the hours of on-street parking charges to 8a.m – 6p.m on Monday to Saturday (currently 10a.m – 4.30p.m) and to introduce a fixed £1 charge on Sundays in pay and display bays within Bradford city centre.

 

The report also considered the objections received to introduce pay and display bays on Canal Road, Valley Road, Bolton Road and Mill Street, which were currently designated as limited waiting parking bays, and to a proposal to provide a bus bay on Upper Piccadilly.

 

The Executive resolved –

 

(1) That the introduction of the revised on-street parking charges as

described in Document “BP” be approved, with the exception of the

implementation of a £1 Sunday flat rate charge to some “top of town”

streets, namely North Parade, Northgate, Rawson Road, Godwin

Street and Darley Street, where regeneration proposals may affect onstreet parking provision, as referred to in section 2.5 of Document

“BP”. The proposed bus bay on Upper Piccadilly be approved.

 

(2) That all objectors be notified of the Executive’s decision.

 

The decision of the Executive has been called in by Councillor Cooke. The reasons for the call in are:

 

1.    The impact of the proposal, on City Centre retailers, especially those at the 'top of town', is obviously going to be detrimental, potentially undermining efforts to regenerate the City Centre.

 

2.    There is a specific failure to consider the predictable economic impact on the Oastler Centre.

 

3.    The Council purports to promote footfall in order to augment the regeneration and prosperity of the City Centre and new charges will foreseeably do the opposite.

 

4.    As a result of reasons numbered 1 to 3 above, the Council is encouraging the use of out of town shopping centres, at the cost of theCity Centre.

 

In accordance with Paragraph 8.6.9 of Part 3E of the Constitution Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee can, following consideration of the matter, resolve to:

 

(1)  Release the decision for implementation.

 

(2)  Refer all or part of the decision back to the Executive to reconsider it in the light of any representations the Committee may make. The decision may not be implemented until the Executive has met to reconsider its earlier decision.

 

(3)  Refer the decision to full Council for consideration, in which case the decision may not be implemented until the Council has met to consider the matter.

 

If the Committee makes no resolution, in accordance with paragraph 8.6.9 of the Constitution, the decision may be implemented.

 

(Richard Gelder – 01274 437603)

 

 

BRADFORD CITY CENTRE – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ON-STREET VEHICLE CHARGES AND CHANGES TO SOME DESIGNATED PAY AND DISPLAY AND LIMITED WAITING BAYS

 

At its meeting on 7 March 2017 the Executive had received a report of the Strategic Director, Place (Executive Document “BP”) which had considered objections received to the proposals to extend the hours of on-street parking charges to 8a.m – 6p.m on Monday to Saturday (currently 10a.m – 4.30p.m) and to introduce a fixed £1 charge on Sundays in pay and display bays within Bradford city centre.

 

The report had also considered the objections received to introduce pay and display bays on Canal Road, Valley Road, Bolton Road and Mill Street, which were currently designated as limited waiting parking bays, and to a proposal to provide a bus bay on Upper Piccadilly.

 

The Executive had resolved –

 

1.    That the introduction of the revised on-street parking charges   as described in Document “BP” be approved, with the exception of the implementation of a £1 Sunday flat rate charge to some “top of town” streets, namely North Parade, Northgate, Rawson Road, Godwin Street and Darley Street, where regeneration proposals may affect on-street parking provision, as referred to in section 2.5 of Document “BP”. The proposed bus bay on Upper Piccadilly be approved.

 

2.    That all objectors be notified of the Executive’s decision.

 

The decision of the of the Executive had been called in by Councillor Cooke. The reasons for the call in had been:

 

1.    The impact of the proposal, on City Centre retailers, especially those at the 'top of town', is obviously going to be detrimental, potentially undermining efforts to regenerate the City Centre.

 

2.    There is a specific failure to consider the predictable economic impact on the Oastler Centre.

 

3.    The Council purports to promote footfall in order to augment the regeneration and prosperity of the City Centre and new charges will foreseeably do the opposite.

 

4.    As a result of reasons numbered 1 to 3 above, the Council is encouraging the use of out of town shopping centres, at the cost of theCity Centre.

 

In accordance with Paragraph 8.6.9 of Part 3E of the Constitution Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were advised that they could, following consideration of the matter, resolve to:

 

(1)  Release the decision for implementation.

 

(2)  Refer all or part of the decision back to the Executive to reconsider it in the light of any representations the Committee may make. The decision may not be implemented until the Executive has met to reconsider its earlier decision.

 

(3)  Refer the decision to full Council for consideration, in which case the decision may not be implemented until the Council has met to consider the matter.

 

Members were also aware that if the Committee made no resolution, in accordance with paragraph 8.6.9 of the Constitution, the decision may be implemented.

 

Members raised a number of questions in relation to Executive Document BP including:-

 

·         Had any quantitative evidence been produced to support the statement at paragraph 2.2 to Document BP which suggested that many premium on street spaces were being taken up by owners and workers at the adjacent businesses for convenience parking reducing availability to visitors for shopping purposes? 

 

·         Following the feedback to the consultation process suggesting that the charges would have an adverse effect on the commercial viability of businesses in the “top of town” had any assessment of that impact been undertaken?  

 

·         The table listing objections received and corresponding officer comments, contained at Appendix 2 to Document BP, did not appear to provide a direct response to some of the objectors concerns around the increase to on street pay and display charging hours.   Was it usual to respond that the decision conformed to the decision of full Council made on 25 February 2016?

 

·         The solution to preventing owners and workers occupying premium on street spaces all day thereby reducing the availability to visitors for shopping could be the introduction of a “no return” within a number of hours’ policy.

 

A Member also raised concerns that on dark evenings it would be safer for employees to park close to their workplace.  He reiterated concern about the lack of evidence that such practices were taking spaces from shoppers and of the cumulative impact on the businesses which it was hoped would thrive was once again questioned.

 

In response to the questions/comments received it was explained that:-

 

·         There had been no quantitative evidence produced to support the statement at 2.2 to Document BP, however, Wardens operating in the city centre had regularly observed that owners and workers were taking up premium on street spaces. 

 

·         A very high level assessment of parking charges had been undertaken.  There had been a survey conducted in 2014 involving 1,000 shoppers and 251 non shoppers considering their travel to the city.  Of those surveyed 20% used a car and 14% of those used on street parking. 

 

·         It was normal practice to take account of the views of objectors.  Meetings had been held with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss their opinions and their views had been taken on board.  Objectors had also been informed of the meeting of the Executive on 7 March 2017.

 

·         It would be very difficult for the Wardens to enforce a “no return” policy.  There were a limited number of Wardens and they would have to log information on all vehicles parked and return to each parking space every two hours.  Members then questioned why there was a suggestion to incorporate such a scheme in the original proposals and were advised that this was to allow a focus to be made on particular problem areas.  To operate that policy on a consistent, city centre wide, basis would be difficult.

 

Councillor Cooke addressed the meeting to clarify and expand on the reasons for him calling in the decision.

 

He referred to responses to the consultation process which stated that the Executive decision conformed to the decision made by full Council at the budget meeting on 25 February 2016.  He believed that the legitimate concerns of businesses in the “top of town” had been dismissed on the basis that a decision had already been made.  It was maintained that the environment was not static and the decision had been made for purely financial reasons.

 

It was stated that the closure of Wm Morrison’s Supermarket in the “top of town” had impacted considerably on the mix of businesses and that trade could plateau in that location.  It was stressed that the decision under discussion should be made in the context of the changes since the budgetary decision was made.

 

Paragraph 2.5 in Document BP referred to a streetscape regeneration scheme for the “top of town” which was currently being developed. In that report it was acknowledged that the nature of the regeneration proposals being considered may have implications for the revision to parking charges proposed and Councillor Cooke stressed that the parking arrangements should be considered following the proposals in that scheme.

 

Members were aware that work had been undertaken by the Council to look at the future of Bradford’s Markets.  Decisions were yet to be made on that scheme and it was stressed that tactical decisions on the car parking arrangements should be made once arrangements on that scheme emerged.

 

The lack of evidence to support the decision was raised along with a view that only anecdotal evidence statements had been considered.  The survey undertaken three years previously had not been conducted for the purpose under discussion. 

 

Councillor Cooke concluded by acknowledging the financial position of the Council, however, he maintained that the decision should go back to the Executive for a decision to be made in light of the entire proposals for the “top of town” area.  He urged that the Executive delay the decision until work on the regeneration and plans for the area had been concluded. 

 

A local business owner addressed the meeting to discuss the potential impact of the decision on his business and the lack of evidence which had informed that decision.

 

He reminded Members that it had been subsequently acknowledged that commuters were not occupying parking spaces in the “top of town” on a Sunday and the recommendation for a charge on those days had not been approved. He believed that the entire report was based on the same ‘flawed’ evidence and should also be revised.

 

He explained that he was not objecting to car parking charges if there was a genuine offer available to customers, however, he believed that the area should not be considered in comparison with locations such as Manchester and Leeds as there was no comparison with the “top of town” area.  He was concerned that the proposals would be detrimental to the businesses in that area as footfall was already in decline due to reduced parking charges in other areas such as the Broadway Shopping Centre.   He maintained that trading in the “top of town” was tough and businesses needed to do all they could to attract customers to that area.  It was believed that customers who were attracted to the area would return, however, increased parking charges would not help to attract customers initially.

 

It was claimed that the area had completely changed since the survey conducted in 2014.  Mid week footfall had declined and the area was changing from a day time to night time economy.  It was hoped to increase the day time and tea time trade but businesses considered that the introduction of a charge after 4pm would deter custom at that time. He had spoken to other businesses in the area which were of the same view.  It was acknowledged that private businesses were reducing parking charges to attract custom and it was maintained that the Council should do the same.  The proposals went against all the attempts to regenerate the area.  No trade was in the area at 8am and it was suggested that if the Council wanted to increase revenue it should increase the charges from 70p to £1.00 during the existing hours only. 

 

The Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for Regeneration, Planning and Transport, responded as follows:-

 

He explained that to increase parking charges had not been an easy decision to make and he understood the concerns which had been raised.  The Council was in a tough position and must maximise revenue, change its methods of operation and work more efficiently.  It was agreed that anecdotal evidence had been considered but this had not been disputed and he personally had seen business owners/employees occupy car parking places to the detriment of shoppers.  It was cheaper to park on the street in the “top of town” than use the nearby car park.  It was envisaged that increased charges would encourage a change in the behaviour of workers in that location.  The Council did want to support businesses but it was felt that the impact of the changes would not be detrimental.  Free parking at the nearby Oastler Centre had not had a huge impact on usage.

 

A review of Bradford Markets was being conducted and an announcement was forthcoming.  The Council was not acting as if the regeneration of that area was complete but it was the only authority not to charge for parking between operating hours of 8am to 6pm and it provided the cheapest parking in West Yorkshire. It was felt that the decision could not be put on hold because of longer term regeneration plans. 

 

The reduction in car parking charges in the Broadway Shopping Centre had been made as the price had initially been too steep.

 

Members acknowledged and appreciated that the decision of the Executive had been made in light of the current, difficult, financial position of the Council but believed that the viability of businesses must be protected.

 

The options available to Members were considered.  A view that the decision should be deferred until the streetscape regeneration scheme for the “top of town” had concluded was suggested.  No issues with proposals other than those at the “top of town” were raised. 

 

The Portfolio Holder responded that the regeneration scheme would consider the future of the markets and the street scene.  The operating hours were not being considered.  In response to questions about any potential pedestrian schemes it was confirmed that an announcement would be made at the appropriate time but that such arrangements were not being considered.

 

 

Resolved –

 

That the decision be referred to the Executive with a request that the comments expressed at this meeting by businesses about the impact of the parking charges on their future commercial viability be taken into account.

 

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place / City Solicitor