CAR PARKING – REVIEW OF STANNER BANK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT · CAR PARKING – REVIEW OF STANNER BANK CAR PARK ... In July 2010 a feasibility report was ... often eating lunch or drinks

REPORT REPORT OF MEETING DATE ITEM NO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CABINET 14 JANUARY 2015 8

CAR PARKING – REVIEW OF STANNER BANK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT

PUBLIC ITEM

This item is for consideration in the public part of the meeting.

SUMMARY

The report assesses the way that Stanner Bank car park is managed and compares it against other potential management techniques, utilising a desk-top study conducted by independent consultants as a basis.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Due to the cost implications of introducing and operating any new management practices on Stanner Bank car park being the same or higher than the predicted increase in income it is recommended that no new management is introduced at this stage.

2. That the existing management practice be retained with more regular patrols take place by Civil Enforcement Officers on Stanner Bank car park to target those who currently do not pay and promote the new Fylde Resident’s Permit Scheme, presuming that the scheme continues beyond its pilot year.

CABINET PORTFOLIO

This item falls within the following cabinet portfolio(s):

Customer and Operational Services Councillor Albert Pounder

CORPORATE PRIORITIES

To Promote the Enhancement of The Natural & Built Environment (Place)

To Encourage Cohesive Communities (People)

To Promote a Thriving Economy (Prosperity)

√ To Meet Expectations of our Customers (Performance)

√

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS

At the Cabinet meeting of 18th November 2009, among various other car park-related actions, it was resolved to conduct:

‘A feasibility study for the introduction of pay on departure charging facilities for appropriate car parks.’

At the Cabinet meeting of 28th April 2010 a report on North Beach parking charges was presented which included a preliminary assessment on those car parks that would potentially be suitable for pay on foot (barrier) systems. The report concluded that only five of the Council’s 20 car parks would be suitable for such a system, including Stanner Bank, St Paul’s Avenue, Fairhaven Road, North Promenade and North Beach car parks. It was resolved to conduct a more detailed survey and assessment to establish whether it is feasible to introduce pay on foot systems.

In July 2010 a feasibility report was produced which concluded that the additional income that pay on foot systems could potentially generate from those currently avoiding payment at pay and display machines would be outweighed by the annual maintenance costs of the system. This report was discussed with the Portfolio Holder and not formally submitted to Cabinet.

During 2013 members undertook a review of the car parking strategy. This culminated in a report to Cabinet on 15th January 2014 which covered a number of issues including the parking management practices used on Stanner Bank car park. Cabinet RESOLVED

‘To agree to upgrade the older ‘Accent’ machines so that they can accept credit/debit card payments and ‘wave and pay’ facility and the use of ANPR enforcement cameras at Stanner Bank car park which will be the subject of further reports to Cabinet’

REPORT

BACKGROUND

1. Stanner Bank car park is located to the Southern end of Fairhaven Lake. It is a long, narrow car park with space for 9 disabled bays and approximately 145 unmarked standard bays with views over Granny’s Bay, the Ribble Estuary and the Irish Sea to one side and Fairhaven Lake to the other. This car park provides access to Fairhaven Lake, the surrounding park area and amenities, the beach and coastal path. Each year approximately 8,240 vehicles pay to park resulting in on average £16,720 net income per annum (based on a calculation of income generated between April 2011 and March 2014). Since April 2014 there has been a new tariff in place which allows users to pay for a 1 hour visit (previously the minimum was 2 hours). The effect of the 1 hour tariff on this car park will not be known until the end of the current financial year. About 40 PCNs are issued per year generating a further £1,000 plus 2 site specific permits are sold raising £160.

2. It has been considered that for some time that there is an issue on Stanner Bank car park, where a certain number of visitors use the facility without paying due to the unique location of the site. From informal and formal observations, these users either sit in their car or remain nearby, often eating lunch or drinks and snacks obtained from the on-site ice cream kiosk, overlooking either Granny’s Bay or Fairhaven Lake. Most remain for between 30 minutes to an hour. When Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) arrive at the car park most either leave immediately or will do so when the CEOs approach their vehicle. It has been observed that a few of these users then obtain a pay and display ticket. This occurs throughout the year leading Officers to presume that those not paying may be aware of the enforcement weaknesses of this car park.

ANPR

3. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is a system whereby CCTV cameras are used to read the number plates of vehicles as they enter and leave a car park. The registered keeper of a vehicle who fails to make a payment is subsequently sent a Charge through the post. Such a system would encourage users to ensure payment is made while freeing CEO time to enforce on other car parks.

4. The present Government has consistently and robustly opposed the use of ANPR and other CCTV systems as an enforcement tool for parking by local authorities. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been characteristically trenchant in stating his position. No ANPR camera technology has ever been approved to be used by local authorities on public off-street car parks, only for on-street contraventions.

5. Under the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, a local authority can only use CCTV (including ANPR) “in pursuit of a legitimate aim and…to address a pressing need (or needs). Such a legitimate aim and pressing need might include national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. That purpose (or purposes) should be capable of translation into clearly articulated objectives against which the ongoing requirement for operation or use of the systems and any images or other information obtained can be assessed”. Members will note that the purposes do not include the protection of the council’s revenues. The council “must…have regard to the…code when, in exercising any of its functions, it considers that the future deployment or continued deployment of surveillance camera systems to observe public places may be appropriate.” This would include a decision to deploy ANPR at Stanner Bank. The council does not have to follow the code, but, if it does not do so, it would need to be prepared to justify any departure from it.

6. In addition between, December 2013 and February 2014, the Department for Communities and Local Government launched a public consultation on a raft of changes to parking regulations. The proposals contemplated restricting, or even removing the ability to use CCTV for parking enforcement. In its response to the consultation, published in June 2014, the Government indicated its intention to restrict ANPR use to a very limited number of scenarios and to legislate through the Deregulation Bill currently before Parliament. This was made clear by Robert Goodwill the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport when he addressed the national Parkex conference on 10th June 2014. He stated: 1The first issue we asked about was the use of CCTV. It was reported to the Transport Select Committee that some councils have been using CCTV for parking enforcement as “a matter of routine”. That is not acceptable. The surveillance camera code of practice has long been clear that CCTV should be used sparingly and only where other means of enforcement are unpractical. Your consultation response made a very strong case was to retain CCTV camera enforcement in four areas. Around schools, in bus lanes, at bus stops, and on red-routes. Which we will consider carefully. But what is essential is that the public have confidence that where CCTV is being used it is to promote safety and to tackle congestion. Nothing else.

7. Mr Goodwill subsequently wrote to Local Authority Parking Managers in September 2014, to clarify and restate the Government’s position as a result of some local authorities

1 Speech by the Robert Goodwill the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport at the Parkex conference 10th June 2014

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/circular-0112013

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322495/response-parking-consultation.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/parkex

considering changing the parking enforcement framework to allow for use of CCTV. His letter is attached at appendix 2.

8. In light of the government’s position, and the possibility that expenditure on ANPR could be abortive if legislation forbids it from being used, it is not recommended that ANPR be pursued.

OTHER OPTIONS

9. Alpha Parking Ltd were commissioned to produce a report on management options for Stanner Bank Car Park. The report is set out in appendix 1.

10. The first part of Alpha Parking’s report outlines the situation that affects Stanner Bank. It reviews the existing pay and display and associated enforcement system. It assesses the potential financial loss from those who are currently not paying (which is analysed in more detail later in this report).

11. The second part of Alpha Parking’s report outlines the various management techniques that could viably be applied to Stanner Bank. It assesses the positives and negatives and reviews how they each impact on two of the key types of customer to this car park; those who are disabled and the elderly. It then conducts a broad assessment of possible costs associated with each technology. An outline of legal issues including the use of ANPR concludes the main part of the report.

12. A key element as to whether it is cost effective to introduce alternative enforcement systems is a reasonable analysis of the extent of current underpayment. Although the attached report contains and discusses a possible quantification of underpayment it is since the completion of the report that further work has been undertaken to refine this.

13. As a result, the Principal Parking Officer conducted an informal study at different times during both the peak (Aug/Sept) and off peak (Nov) seasons which are analysed in figure 1 below. This study involved not wearing high visibility clothing to avoid drawing attention which could result in vehicles driving off. The following outlines the findings.

Category of payment Numbers Percentages Peak season survey (Aug/Sept 2014) Paid 129 57% No ticket evident 98 43% Totals 227 100% Off peak season survey (Nov 2014) Paid 25 25% No ticket evident 75 75% Totals 100 100%

Figure 1 - Survey of underpayment at Stanner Bank car park at peak and off peak times

14. It should be noted that these studies only highlight the situation as a snap-shot of a particular period of time when the visits were made. On three occasions the parking officer remained on site for a longer period of time after the survey was taken to observe those who were on site. It was noted that those who did not pay generally either sat in their vehicles overlooking the lake or sea, many eating or drinking, or were close by. Most stayed for between 20 to 40 minutes, few longer than 1 hour. To test the response of non-paying visitors the CEOs were then asked to drive onto the car park. On each occasion there were several vehicles which then drove off as soon as they saw the enforcement vehicle. Others moved when the CEOs approached while most did not move until the CEOs spoke to them to

ask them to either obtain a pay and display ticket or to move on. Very few subsequently obtained a ticket. Of those that moved on they either drove away from the area or else parking on the road where there is free parking. From these observations it may be concluded that only a minority of those who currently park without paying would be willing to pay in future if alternative enforcement techniques were put forward. The Alpha Parking report estimated 1/3rd would pay though this figure could be lower.

15. The results in figure 1 show that during the peak season period the proportion of paying to non-paying customers is slightly less than 1 to 1. Meanwhile the results for the off peak season shows that for every paying customer there were 3 who did not pay. During the off-season survey it was noted that many of those who are non-payers are frequent visitors/offenders.

16. The Alpha Parking report concludes that, using the various assumptions applied through the report (i.e. the proportion of paying to non-paying customers and the proportion of non-payers who are likely to pay if alternative management practices are introduced) the potential increase in income per year will be about £2,611. However it is considered that the more detailed surveys outlined in figure 1 above allow for a more refined calculation of possible loss of income as set out in figure 2 below:

Percentage of total annual

income usually achieved

during these periods

Average of annual income

achieved during these

periods

Percentage of payment achieved

during recent surveys

Percentage of underpayment assessed during recent surveys

Estimate of income lost through non

payment

Peak season March to September

88% £14,714 57% 43% £11,000

Off peak season October to February

12% £2,006 25% 75% £6,018

£16,720 £17,018

Figure 2 - calculation of income lost through non payment at Stanner Bank car park based on an extrapolation of survey data

17. The above table provides a notional calculation of possible income lost through non payment based on an extrapolation of survey data. Using this calculation (which is only an estimate based on the surveys stated) shows that the current annual income average of £16,720 could be doubled if everyone assessed to be not paying did pay. However the surveys did establish that when approached by enforcement staff most vehicles then left the car park demonstrating that only a percentage of those that currently don’t pay would do so if required to through the introduction of a more rigid enforcement regime. Alpha Parking estimates that no more than 1/3rd of users that currently don’t pay would actually pay for parking if forced to do so and transfer to paying customers.

18. Using this assumption the figure of £17,018 in figure 2 could result in additional income of £5,673. Alpha Parking in their report have estimated that around £2,611 could be generated by introducing some form of alternative management system based on a lower annual

assumption of underpayment. The above calculation in figure 2 is based on surveys undertaken since the completion of the attached report and is considered to be a little more refined/accurate. The unknown factor is how many non paying users would actually convert to paying if a more rigid enforcement regime is introduced. As a result it is possible that the actual amount of additional income achieved could be lower than £5,673 and as such, any decisions made based on these assumptions needs to be taken with this in mind.

19. Although this current loss of potential income is concerning, when looking at the assumed costs of different technologies (options 2 to 5) on page 20 of the report it shows that the annual running costs for each technology is likely to either match or exceed this potential additional income (not taking into account the cost of implementation). As such these options would operate at a loss while disadvantaging other users, particularly those who are disabled or elderly.

20. The only option that would not operate at a loss would be if a private operator took over control of the car park and used ANPR technology. However in this case the car park income would be split between the operator and the Council which could result in a decrease in income to the Council. In addition, as stated above, the Government’s position is that ANPR technology cannot be used on publically owned land even if a private operator were to manage it. As such this is not an option that the Council can pursue.

CONCLUSION

21. The emerging position with the use of ANPR cameras to enforce off street parking on local authority land is now clear following a number of Government statements and speeches. As a result options 6, 7 & 8 as outlined in the attached report cannot be used.

22. The Alpha Parking report, supported by the surveys conducted by Council Officers, indicates that although there are a variety of different alternative management options (options 2 to 5) which could be used on Stanner Bank car park, the costs to implement and operate them mean that they are not viable. In addition any new option may result in those who currently do not pay, who are likely to be local residents, simply making alternative arrangements and not converting into sufficient additional paying customers. There could also be negative publicity of the introduction of a more rigid enforcement regime. As such, although the current management regime results in a loss in some income throughout the year, it still appears to be the most viable option.

23. Although a new management regime may not be viable at this time, it is recognised following the analysis of the surveys that the existing procedures could be improved to increase compliance. It is proposed to increase enforcement patrols by Civil Enforcement Officers on this car park. On these occasions it is proposed that the CEOs are instructed to try to engage with those who are not paying and to promote the Council’s new Fylde Resident’s Permit Scheme, highlighting that for just £25 a year they can park for up to 2 hours every day on a car park of their choice, including Stanner Bank. This should be particularly targeted at the regular offenders. If this fails to work then the frequent patrols may help to dissuade those who are not prepared to pay at all from visiting.

IMPLICATIONS

Finance

This report discusses various options to improve enforcement of parking fee payment at Stanner Bank car park, the cost of each option being contained within table 4.1 of Appendix 1. The report concludes that additional income generated as a consequence of improved enforcement would not offset the cost of implementing any of the options available. Consequently there are no additional cost implications arising from this report, although improved enforcement and fee payment due to amendments to the regime of patrols by the Civil Enforcement Officers on the car park may lead to additional income which it is not possible to quantify at this stage.

Legal There are no implications

Community Safety There are no implications

Human Rights and Equalities There are no implications

Sustainability and Environmental Impact There are no implications

Health & Safety and Risk Management There are no implications

REPORT AUTHOR TEL DATE DOC ID Andrew Loynd/

Paul Walker 01253 658527 01253 658431 December 2014

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS Name of document Date Where available for inspection

Report to Cabinet 18th November 2009 http://www.fylde.gov.uk/meetings/details/720

Report to Cabinet 28th April 2010 http://www.fylde.gov.uk/meetings/details/723

Circular 011/2013: surveillance camera code of practice 12th August 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/pu

blications/circular-0112013

Report to Cabinet 15th January 2014 http://www.fylde.gov.uk/meetings/details/1089

Response to consultation on local authority parking June 2014


Stanner Bank Car Park Management Study Final Report

16th September 2014 Appendix 1

Attached documents

1. Fylde Borough Council, Stanner Bank Car Park Management Study, Final Report 2. Letter from Robert Goodwill the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport to

Local Authority Parking Managers September 2014

http://www.fylde.gov.uk/meetings/details/720












1

St Albans City & District Council Traffic Regulation Order and Permit Review Final report

Fylde Borough Council

Stanner Bank Car Park Management Study

Final Report

Appendix 1



2

Client Fylde Borough Council

Job No.

Document Final

Revision Description Date

V1 Draft 15/08/14

V2 Revised financial assessment etc 20/08/14

V3 Further revisions 16/09/14

V4 Revised data on non-payers and costs 19/12/14

Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

RACM RACM

16/09/14

Appendix 1



3

Contents

Section Title Page

1. Background and Objectives 4

2. Stakeholders and Issues 5

Figure 2.1 View of Stanner Bank Car Park from the Inner Promenade 5

Figure 2.2 Number of Tickets PurchasedpPer Month (2013/14) 6

Figure 2.3 Income from Tickets per Month (2013/14) 7

3. Review Approach 8

4. Option 1: Do Nothing (Keep Pay and Display System) 9

5. Option 2: Automatic Barriers (Pay On Exit) 10

6. Option 3: Automatic Barriers (Pay On Foot) 11

7. Option 4: Pay On Entry (Staffed) 12

8. Option 5: Pay On Entry (Automatic Entry Barrier) 13

9. Option 6: ANPR Cameras - Civil Enforcement 14

10. Option 7: ANPR Cameras - Wycombe Pilot Scheme 15

11. Option 8: ANPR Cameras - Privately Operated 16

12. Option 9: Combination of Measures for Different Seasons 18

Aerial Photograph of Stanner Bank Car Park 19

13. High Level Financial Assessment 20

Table 4.1 Estimated Costs of Options 20

14. Legal Considerations 21

15. Summary of Options and Key Findings 24

Table 15.1 Options and Key Findings 24

16. Conclusions and Recommendations 25

Appendix 1



4

1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 Stanner Bank Car Park is located within an attractive part of the Lancashire coast

in the Fairhaven area of Lytham St Annes. It lies on top of a sea wall and offers views

over Fairhaven Lake to one side and the Ribble Estuary, the Irish Sea and an area

known as Granny's Bay to the other. Other than nine disabled parking bays, individual

spaces are not marked, but the car park is regarded as having 145 standard spaces. It

is currently operated by Fylde Borough Council as a "pay and display" facility with

charges applicable every day between 9am and 6pm. An aerial photograph of the site

is shown on page 19.

1.2 The car park is long and narrow with an open aspect. As well as giving access to

the nearby beach and other amenities, it provides an attractive spot both for visitors and

people from the surrounding locality to admire the surrounding scenery. There are no

other car parks in the neighbourhood offering similar views. It is understood that people

often drive on to the car park and sit in their vehicles or stand close by them to look over

the views without obtaining a "pay and display" ticket. Council staff report that when an

enforcement officer comes to the car park these people rapidly leave the site. As a

result, there is a perception that the car park is not generating the income that it should.

1.3 All equipment located at this site is subject to salty sea air, sea spray during

strong winds and storms and, to a limited extent, wind-blown sand. This has led to

maintenance issues with the ticket machines, particularly at the more exposed western

end of the car park. There are plans to upgrade the two current machines (one at each

end of the car park).

1.4 Fylde Borough Council have asked Alpha Parking to undertake a desk top

exercise to produce a report considering the various options for addressing the

enforcement issues in the car park while providing an acceptable service to the local

community.

Appendix 1



5

2. STAKEHOLDERS AND ISSUES

Stakeholders

2.1 Identified stakeholders include:-

� Fylde Borough Council: as current operator of the car park, as provider of services

to the local community and as promoter of the area as a holiday and tourist

destination

� visitors, tourists and holidaymakers, who make a major contribution to the local

economy

� local residents, including significant numbers of disabled and elderly people, who

wish to enjoy the scenic attractions of the car park's surroundings.

Non-payment: putting a figure on the loss to the Council

2.2 The number of tickets purchased at the car park month by month in 2013/14 is

shown in Figure 2.2. However, a survey by Council staff has indicated that few drivers

(approximately one in four) pay for parking during the quieter ‘off season’. At busier

Figure 2.1

View of Stanner

Bank Car Park

from the Inner

Promenade

Appendix 1



6

times, particularly on bright, warm and sunny days when tourists visit the area in large

numbers, far more people pay as they are more likely leave their vehicles to go on to

the beach or walk around the lake. As such, it could be assumed that those not paying

to park are more likely to be local to the area.

FIGURE 2.2: NUMBER OF TICKETS PURCHASED PER MONTH (2013/14)

2.3 Taking the off-season as October-February inclusive, it is noticeable that the

number of tickets issued per month is consistently low, with an average of just 217.6. In

terms of income received (see Figure 2.3) this equates to £489.79 per month, with an

average spend of £2.25 per ticket (or £1.875 excluding VAT). This suggests an

average length of stay of about two hours (for which the actual charge is £2.10). As an

estimate of the actual off-season usage of the car park, we can multiply the 217.6

tickets per month by 4, based on the survey result that only approximately 1 in 4 drivers

is actually paying. This gives a figure of 870.4 drivers per month who ought to be

paying during the off-season, or 652.8 more than actually pay at the moment. Of

course, if forced to pay, a high proportion of these additional drivers would probably be

unwilling to do so and would look for other travel options or alternative ways of spending

their time. If we suppose that two-thirds of them chose other alternatives, that would

leave 217.6 additional drivers per month who could potentially be paying in the off-

season.

Appendix 1



7

FIGURE 2.3: INCOME FROM TICKETS PER MONTH (2013/14) INCLUDING VAT

2.4 A previous survey by the Council indicated that most of those who do not pay sit

inside their vehicles and stay for between half an hour and an hour. Very few stay

longer. Considering that a new tariff band of £1.20 for 1 hour was introduced in April

2014, each person who fails to pay may be assumed to owe the Council that amount,

which equates to £1.00 excluding VAT. The 217.6 potential additional payers would

then represent an overall current loss to the Council of £217.60 per month during the

off-season.

2.5 In the absence of any data on non-payment during the busier months (other than

the Council's statement that far more people pay for parking than during the off-season)

it would seem reasonable to assume from the steep increase in income during these

months that the visitors and some local people are paying for their parking, but that

those who abuse the situation during the off-season continue to do so at these times as

well. On that basis, the monthly loss to the Council would be the same as in the off-

season (£217.60), resulting in an annual loss of £2611.20. If this loss were prevented

by a more effective means of enforcement, the annual income from ticket sales

(excluding VAT) would then increase by 15.2% from the present £17,175 to £19,786.

Appendix 1



8

3. REVIEW APPROACH

3.1 The following enforcement options have been examined for their suitability at

Stanner Bank:-

� Do nothing (keep pay and display system)

� Automatic barriers (pay on exit)

� Automatic barriers (pay on foot)

� Pay on entry (staffed)

� Pay on entry (automatic entry barrier)

� Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras - civil enforcement

� Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras - Wycombe pilot scheme

� Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras - privately operated

� Combination of measures for different seasons

3.2 These options are reviewed in the following sections of this report, which also

explain the typical mode of operation of each system and give an assessment of its

pro's and cons together with its specific effects on disabled and elderly users.

Appendix 1



9

4. OPTION 1: DO NOTHING (KEEP PAY AND DISPLAY SYSTEM)

Typical mode of operation

Drivers buy their tickets on arrival in accordance with the tariff displayed at the ticket

machines. Civil enforcement officers patrol the car park at intervals and issue penalty

charge notices under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to vehicles failing to display

appropriate tickets.

Pro's

No issues of public acceptance

System is familiar and easy to use

No need to amend Traffic Order

Cons

Fixed tariff with no refunds for unused time

Payment currently by coin only

Non-payers may drive away upon seeing enforcement officer

Perceived loss of income resulting from above

Equipment maintenance issues due to exposed location

Disabled Users

Good provision for blue badge holders with nine disabled parking bays (three groups of

three) at strategic locations, free for three hours.

Elderly Users

Purchase and display of tickets is reasonably straightforward.

Coin availability and handling may present difficulties to some users.

Walking distances of up to 300 metres to ticket machines may not be welcome.

Appendix 1



10

5. OPTION 2: AUTOMATIC BARRIERS (PAY ON EXIT)


5.1 Entry to and exit from the car park are both controlled by barriers. Drivers take a

ticket at the entry barrier and park. Upon leaving they present the ticket at the exit

barrier and make the appropriate payment.

Pro's

� No need for routine patrolling

� Drivers only pay for the time they use

� Effective against non-payers

Cons

� High risk of wilful or accidental damage to barriers

� Likelihood of maintenance issues in exposed environment

� Help facility needed for cases of lost tickets etc

� Immediate call-out facility needed in case of barrier malfunctions

� Need to amend Traffic Order

� Barriers need to be in operation even during non-charging hours to prevent non-

payers escaping for free at the end of the charging period

Disabled Users

5.2 In their standard form, barriers are unable to distinguish between blue badge

holders and other users. One option may be to set the barriers a short distance back

and provide disabled parking bays on both sides of the car park just off the Inner

Promenade. However, this would offer a seriously reduced choice of locations

compared with the three strategically located groups of bays that currently exist.

Elderly Users

5.3 The processes are reasonably straightforward in themselves, but taking and

presenting tickets and payment at the barriers may be physically awkward for some less

mobile users. Coin availability and handling may present difficulties to some users.

Appendix 1



11

6. OPTION 3: AUTOMATIC BARRIERS (PAY ON FOOT)

6.1 This is the same in principle as the "pay on exit" system above, but here the

payment is actually made at a free-standing pay station before returning to the car. The

pay stations are usually sizeable and capable of handling large numbers of

transactions. They are usually more suitable for multi-storey car parks than surface

level ones.

6.2 In other respects, the comments made above on "pay on exit" parking also apply

here.

Appendix 1



12

7. OPTION 4: PAY ON ENTRY (STAFFED)


7.1 A flat fee would be collected at a staffed entry point, usually with a manually

controlled barrier.

Pro's



� Potential for better level of service with human contact

� Wider range of payments possible (notes, giving change)

Cons

� Loss of flexible charging for different lengths of stay


� Security issues for lone workers handling cash

� Special payment arrangements needed for vehicles left for more than one day

Disabled Users

7.2 The good level of provision for blue badge holders that currently exists (nine

dedicated bays in groups of three) could remain.

Elderly Users

7.3 A very straightforward process. The member of staff could also offer appropriate

assistance with any particular needs elderly people might have.

Appendix 1



13

8. OPTION 5: PAY ON ENTRY (AUTOMATIC ENTRY BARRIER)


8.1 A flat fee would be payable at an automatic entry barrier. The exit lane from the

car park would remain open, protected by surface one-way retracting plates.

Pro's



Cons

� Loss of flexible charging for different lengths of stay


� High risk of wilful or accidental damage to barrier

� Likelihood of maintenance issues in exposed environment

� No daily charge facility for vehicles left for more than one day

Disabled Users

8.2 Standard barriers are unable to distinguish between blue badge holders and

other users. One option may be to set the barrier a short distance back into the car

park and provide disabled parking bays on both sides between the Inner Promenade

and the barrier. However, this would offer a seriously reduced choice of locations

compared with the three strategically located groups of bays that currently exist.

Elderly Users

8.3 The processes is reasonably straightforward in itself, but presenting payment at

the barrier may be physically awkward for some less mobile users. Having the right

coins available and handling them may present difficulties to some users.

Appendix 1



14

9. OPTION 6: ANPR CAMERAS - CIVIL ENFORCEMENT


9.1 The camera system records the vehicle's registration number as it enters the car

park and the driver then leaves the vehicle in a vacant space. On returning, the driver

enters the vehicle's registration number at a pay station and pays the appropriate fee

before driving out of the car park. No ticket is involved at any stage. The camera

system also identifies vehicles as they leave the car park and any vehicle for which no

payment has been recorded is treated as having parked without payment of the parking

charge. A penalty charge notice will then be generated and sent by post.

Pro's


� Simple for users to operate



Cons


� Widely seen as open to legal challenge (see paragraphs 14.3, 14.4, 14.7 and 14.8)

Disabled Users

9.2 It is possible for ANPR operators to offer concessions to blue badge holders if

they register their vehicles first. However, these concessions would then apply to the

whole car park (instead of just the nine dedicated bays as at present). Another option

would be to set the cameras a short distance back into the car park and provide

disabled parking bays on both sides between the Inner Promenade and the cameras.

Elderly Users

9.3 Having the right coins available and handling them and keying in the registration

number may present difficulties to some users. Remembering the registration number

may also be an issue for some users (not necessarily just elderly ones!).

Appendix 1



15

10. OPTION 7: ANPR CAMERAS - WYCOMBE PILOT SCHEME


10.1 The camera system records the vehicle's registration number as it enters the car

park and the driver then leaves the vehicle in a vacant space. On returning, the driver

enters the vehicle's registration number at a pay station and pays the appropriate fee

before driving out of the car park. No ticket is involved at any stage. The camera

system also identifies vehicles as they leave the car park and any vehicle for which no

payment has been recorded is treated as having parked without payment of the parking

charge. A letter stating that a "standard charge" (see paragraph 14.5) is payable is then

generated and sent by post.

Pro's





Cons


� Potentially open to legal challenge (see paragraphs 14.3 - 14.8)

Disabled Users






Elderly Users




Appendix 1



16

11. OPTION 8: (ANPR) CAMERAS - PRIVATELY OPERATED


11.1 The Council would close the car park by revoking the Traffic Order and then

lease the land (as private land) to an ANPR operator on agreed terms. The ANPR

system records the vehicle's registration number as it enters the car park and the driver

then leaves the vehicle in a vacant space. On returning, the driver enters the vehicle's

registration number at a pay station and pays the appropriate fee before driving out of

the car park. No ticket is involved at any stage. The camera system also identifies

vehicles as they leave the car park and any vehicle for which no payment has been

recorded is treated as having parked without payment of the required fee. A parking

charge notice (under contract law) will then be generated and sent by post.

Pro's





Cons

� Need to revoke Traffic Order

� Potentially open to legal challenge (see paragraphs 14.7, 14.8 and 14.9)

Disabled Users






Appendix 1



17

Elderly Users




Appendix 1



18

12. OPTION 9: COMBINATION OF MEASURES FOR DIFFERENT SEASONS

12.1 Possible combinations of Options 1-8 could be considered, but tend to suffer

from the disadvantage that the off-season (when a less rigorous enforcement regime

might be thought appropriate) is actually the time when the non-payment problems

appear to be at their worst.

12.2 Any of the options involving substantial capital investment (which is all of them

except Do Nothing, privately operated ANPR and, possibly, staffed Pay on Entry) are

unlikely to yield the full potential return if operated on a seasonal basis.

Appendix 1



19

Appendix 1



20

13. HIGH LEVEL FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT

13.1 As noted in paragraph 2.5 above, effective enforcement could increase ticket

income at the car park by an estimated £2611.20 per year, based on the assumptions

stated. This is the figure against which the costs to the Council of the various options

examined must be assessed. Table 4.1 sets out some broad estimates of these costs.

It is stressed that these figures are only estimates for the purposes of a high-level

assessment and are not based on extensive market research. They should not be

used as a benchmark for evaluating any specific information offered by suppliers.

TABLE 4.1 ESTIMATED COSTS OF OPTIONS 1 - 8

All costs are indicative only and are shown relative to the "Do nothing" option

Option Initial cost Annual cost Comments

1. Do nothing (keep pay and display system)

Nil Nil The costs of this option are the base level used for the comparison of all the options

2. Automatic barriers (pay on exit)

£25,000 £5,000 support & maintenance

Initial cost includes traffic order costs

3. Automatic barriers (pay on foot)



4. Pay on entry (staffed)

£5,000 £25,000 staff costs etc


5. Pay on entry (automatic entry barrier)



6. ANPR Cameras (civil enforcement)



7. ANPR Cameras (Wycombe pilot scheme)



8. ANPR Cameras (privately operated)

£2000 plus legal costs for lease

Operator's agreed share of takings

Initial cost includes traffic order costs.

Appendix 1



21

14. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

14.1 This section of the report seeks to identify the known legal issues affecting the

various options examined. However, it should not be understood as offering

professional legal advice and the Council is recommended to seek such advice itself

where it considers appropriate.

Existing Traffic Order

14.2 Stanner Bank Car Park is governed by the Fylde Borough (Off-Street Parking

Places) (Consolidation) Order 2007. This order covers some 22 car parks in various

parts of the Borough, most of them of the "pay and display" type. It is generally well-

written and reflects the typical content and format of an off-street parking order. It

actually pre-dates the introduction of Civil Parking Enforcement in 2008 and is therefore

still worded in terms of the previous "Decriminalised Parking Enforcement" regime

under the Road Traffic Act 1991. Although the differences between the two regimes are

not great, the government's statutory guidance on parking enforcement in 2008

indicated that traffic orders should be updated to reflect the new civil enforcement

legislation.

ANPR Cameras

14.3 Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 ("TMA"), local authorities have powers

to issue penalty charge notices for parking contraventions detected with camera

systems using automatic number plate recognition ("ANPR"). However, the statutory

guidance on parking enforcement in 2008 indicated that camera-based systems should

only be used where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and conventional patrolling is

not practical, and that cameras should not be used where permits or exemptions (such

as residents' permits or blue badges) not visible to the equipment may apply.

14.4 For car park enforcement, there is also a more fundamental obstacle. The

legislation provides a range of enforcement codes for contraventions in car parks (such

as "parked without payment of the parking charge") but none that is applicable beyond

Appendix 1



22

dispute to ANPR enforcement, where the cameras only record the vehicle entering and

leaving the car park, and not actually anyone parking or failing to pay. With very few

exceptions (Welwyn Hatfield is one) local authorities have opted for other means of car

park enforcement, taking into account the legal doubts over ANPR.

14.5 Wycombe District Council has piloted a possible way round this issue, where it

has gone back to a strategy which was commonly used in car parks in the early days of

the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and under previous legislation. This involved the

substitution of a "standard charge" (payable to the Council) in place of a parking fine

(payable to the government) in cases where drivers had broken the rules. The standard

charge was supposedly a parking charge but was fixed at a comparable level to a

parking fine. In Wycombe's case, the Council is now relying on the use of a standard

charge with its ANPR cameras, so that the lack of a contravention code under the TMA

is no longer an issue when a driver fails to comply. The Council simply issues a letter

stating that the standard charge is payable (and presumably follows that up with threat

of court action where necessary).

14.6 It remains to be seen whether such a charge is actually fair and proportionate, or

whether it is valid under the terms of the 1984 Act. The High Court has strongly

emphasised in recent times (in the course of judicial reviews of permit parking schemes

at Barnet and elsewhere) that parking charges must be proportionate to the benefits

received and that the 1984 Act must not be used with the aim of raising revenue.

However, Wycombe Council have now converted up to 19 of their car parks to this form

of enforcement at a reported cost of £680,000 (Bucks Free Press 4th March 2013).

14.7 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 raises further issues. This Act covers,

among other things, the use of ANPR systems in public places and the Home Office has

subsequently issued a Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (June 2013), to which

enforcement authorities must have regard. Against a background of concerns about

intrusion of privacy and erosion of personal freedoms, the first of 12 guiding principles

set out in this Code is as follows:-

"Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is

in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need."

Appendix 1



23

14.8 It would seem difficult to claim that ANPR was "necessary" in any situation where

enforcement could reasonably be undertaken by other means. On the other hand, it

could be argued that in a car park where cameras were already in use for security

reasons, the addition of ANPR cameras would hardly represent an additional intrusion

of privacy.

14.9 The Code of Practice would also have implications for contracting out the running

of the car park to any private ANPR operator. Paragraph 1.11 states:-

"The duty to have regard to this code also applies when a relevant authority uses a third

party to discharge relevant functions covered by this code and where it enters into

partnership arrangements. Contractual provisions agreed after this code comes into

effect with such third party service providers or partners must ensure that contractors

are obliged by the terms of the contract to have regard to the code when exercising

functions to which the code relates."

Appendix 1



24

15. SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND KEY FINDINGS

15.1 These are set out in the table below:-

TABLE 15.1 OPTIONS AND KEY FINDINGS

Option Main Pro's and Cons Costs

1. Do nothing (keep pay and display system)

Good provision for disabled people but open to abuse by non-payers

Neutral

2. Automatic barriers (pay on exit)

Effective enforcement but has potential maintenance issues and associated costs

Fairly high costs which well outweigh the potential savings

3. Automatic barriers (pay on foot)

Effective enforcement but has potential maintenance issues and associated costs

High costs which well outweigh the potential savings

4. Pay on entry (staffed)

Effective enforcement but requires flat-rate fee

High annual costs which well outweigh the potential savings

5. Pay on entry (automatic entry barrier)

Effective enforcement but requires flat-rate fee and has potential maintenance issues and costs

Moderate costs but still outweigh the potential savings

6. ANPR Cameras (civil enforcement)

Effective enforcement, but generally considered too risky legally


7. ANPR Cameras (Wycombe pilot scheme)

Effective enforcement, but some potential for legal challenge


8. ANPR Cameras (privately operated)

Effective enforcement, but some potential for legal challenge and operator would require share of takings

Low costs but operator's share of takings is likely to far exceed savings

Appendix 1



25

16. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

16.1 The numbers of tickets purchased would suggest low levels of usage of the car

park, particularly during the off-season, but it is understood that these figures

considerably under-represent the actual usage during the off-season period because of

non-payment by a high proportion of users.

16.2 Such abuse of the car park by non-payers could be costing the Council an

estimated £2611.20 per year based on the assumptions made in this report.

Nevertheless, the high-level financial assessment suggests that none of the options for

change would be capable of paying for itself over any period of time.

16.3 Of the possibilities examined, the ANPR options are attractive in operational

terms, and not among the most expensive. However, no ANPR system is free from

legal issues and very few authorities have chosen to use this method of car park

enforcement. The Council may wish to seek legal advice on these options if it considers

they are worth pursuing further.

16.4 The options based on barriers tend to be more expensive. Two of these (pay-on-

exit and pay-on-foot) require full-time operation of the barriers and consequently a need

for a full-time help facility in case of lost tickets etc and an immediate call-out facility in

case of barrier malfunctions or vandalism. It is difficult to assess the frequency of such

occasions and the costs of meeting them. Use of CCTV might be considered as a

deterrent to vandalism, as well as theft and threats to personal security.

16.5 One of the key assumptions in the financial assessment is the proportion of non-

payers who would not visit the car park if forced to pay (taken as 2 in 3). One way of

checking this would be a trial period of operation of a new enforcement regime (perhaps

staffed pay-on-entry with a temporary barrier and cabin to keep the set-up costs low).

This would allow a more accurate assessment of the potential savings than is possible

within this report.

Appendix 1



26

16.6 The high level financial assessment does not allow for non-payment by visitors

and holidaymakers during the busier months, although it is understood that such non-

payment may not happen on a particularly large scale. However, if it were found to be a

significant issue, this might increase the potential savings made by any alternative

enforcement system. The Council may wish to consider undertaking surveys of actual

car park usage during the peak season and comparing the results with ticket receipts to

gain further insight on this point.

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 2

Documents

CAR PARKING – REVIEW OF STANNER BANK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT · CAR PARKING – REVIEW OF STANNER BANK CAR PARK ... In July 2010 a feasibility report was ... often eating lunch or drinks