The purpose of the report was to advise members of planned changes to parking fees and the parking order. 

Cllr Mrs McKinlay explained to the committee that a strategic report would be brought back to committee in September and that discussions should be based on the recommendation in the report at the proposed parking tariffs. 

Cllr Mrs McKinlay MOVED and Cllr Kerslake SECONDED the recommendations within the report and following a discussion a recorded vote was taken in accordance with Procedure Rule 9.6 of the Council’s Constitution. 

Members voted as followed:

FOR:  Cllrs Mrs McKinlay, Kerslake, Faragher, Hossack and Parker (5)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Barrett, Keeble, Kendall and Mynott (4)

ABSTAIN: 0

RESOLVED that

1.    The proposed changes to the parking tariffs and the parking order updates be agreed to go forward and be subject to public consultation. 

Reason for Recommendation

The council’s strategic agenda to develop income generation options is key to the need to implement the recommendation, plus, there are logical alterations to the parking order which will help residents and shop keepers alike, whilst encouraging commuters to select a more appropriate paring option.  

Appendix A to the report identified that £138,000 of additional income (in a full year) which the proposed tariff increases would yield in Brentwood Town Centre car parks, assuming the demand for parking remained the same for the time being.  This excluded any income from the re-introduction of charging in Shenfield and other initiatives that were being looked into, including those mentioned in 4.4 of the report.  It was estimated, based on historic figures, that the yield from the re-introduction of parking charges in Shenfield, post Crossrail, would yield the council approximately £300K (full year).   

The cost of the changes to the tariffs would be minimal, as an example the maintenance agreement with the organisation that managed the car park machines, allowed for one tariff change per year.  There would be a small impact on resources in relation to the issue of resident permits but this should be contained within existing budgets. 

If a resident who was in possession of a valid car park certificate, accidentally paid a higher amount, the Council would not reimburse such as amount.  The Council would not accept the responsibility nor would it compensate users for such errors.