Agenda item

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment in respect of Car Park and On-Street Parking Pay tariffs.  Members noted that it had been over three years since the last full-scale parking tariff review, and with demand for parking places increasing as the City moves towards recovery from Covid-19, a review was timely.

Officers reminded Members that, earlier this year, they had brought forward a report on how the Transport Strategy related to carparking and on-street parking bays going forward and, at the time, Officers had set out that there would be a further report later in the year in relation to reviewing carparking and pay and display tariffs. Officers reported that the long-term strategy for the City had, for many years now been about discouraging commuting by car – something that was reiterated within the Transport Strategy.

Members were reminded that the most recent change introduced in terms of tariffs had been a move to emissions based on-street parking in terms of pay and display. It was noted that this had been successful and well received both within the industry and with the public as well as contributing to a reduction in the number of high polluting vehicles using these bays.

Officers reported that the costs of the City’s operations, particularly in terms of carparks continued to gently rise as a result of things such as the organisation’s commitment to the London Living Wage for staff operating here. It was highlighted that, were it not for COVID-19, this report would be a relatively straightforward continuation of the Transport Strategy. However, the current pandemic had clearly had an impact on the way that people were now choosing to work and travel into the City with all of the data currently available showing a significant rise in those choosing to come into the City by car as opposed to public transport. The City and TfL’s position on this was that they could not rely upon a car-led recovery longer-term and that there were simply not enough parking spaces to accommodate all those who may wish to drive in. With this in mind, it was highlighted that pricing remained a legitimate means of addressing capacity issues particularly as the City was now reaching the point where some of its carparks were full and pay and display bays were reaching approximately 90% capacity at peak times during the day. In addition to this, it was also noted that emissions from vehicles in the City were on the rise again.

Officers concluding by stating that the recommendation within this report was essentially a continuation of the long-term strategy of the Transport Strategy through this process, to continue to manage demand, to use necessary mechanisms to reduce emissions by encouraging the use of less polluting vehicles and to continue to drive a differentiation in on-street parking bays between high-polluting and low-polluting vehicles. Officers were aware of the need for a degree of flexibility given that the situation was very dynamic and underlined that they would continue to monitor the way in which vehicles return to the City.

A Member referred to the Car Park Tariff Benchmarking document at Appendix 1 and commented that it appeared that, for short-term parking, the City were significantly less expensive than the vast majority of other locations but, for longer-term or all day parking, the City charged significantly more. He questioned the reasons for this. Officers reported that longer-term parking for a day was just an extension of the hourly rate. In commercial car parks, however, you tended to find that they would discount so that the longer you park, the cheaper the rate. This had been something that City policy had traditionally gone against in an attempt to discourage the idea of commuting by car.

Another Member questioned whether, in an attempt to work towards zero emissions, the City had considered making more of a statement by freezing the costs of parking for zero emissions vehicles and modelling the differential onto all other types of traffic. Officers responded by reporting that what they were looking to do was to continue to align with the long-term strategy which was that, eventually, the City wanted to try and reduce all vehicle emissions and car journeys beyond anything other than essential. In this respect, the ability of the system to have differential pricing bands for three different kind of emissions to date had been a real technological advantage and had allowed this messaging to continue. Officers reported that, when looking to introduce emissions charges, TfL had discovered that, eventually, you would reach a position where there would be lots of clean vehicles on the roads but that this would still pose issues in terms of congestion. The longer-term message was around wanting cleaner vehicles but also fewer vehicles on the City’s streets.

A Member questioned whether the City would be continuing to allow coaches to use the Tower Hill Coach carpark free of charge for the first half an hour for drop-offs and pick-ups. She also questioned why, considering that the City wanted to encourage more vehicles to use its carparks to ensure that there was free thoroughfare through its streets, it was currently cheaper for coaches to park in bays as opposed to the dedicated coach park at Tower Hill which covered a whole floor and therefore impacted on income. Officers confirmed that the short, free of charge period for drop-offs and pick-ups for coaches would continue at Tower Hill in an attempt to discourage them for parking up elsewhere in the vicinity for this purpose. In terms of differential rates between Tower Hill and on-street bays, Officers reported that these were, to an extent, historical and had evolved from the charges at the coach park at St Paul’s when it had been in existence and the parking that had been in place around the Barbican Centre with those rates more akin to on-street parking as opposed to rates for coach parking at the Tower. Members were informed that coach parking at Tower Hill was very specific in that it was driven by the need to facilitate pick-ups and drop-offs and longer term parking requirements for those visiting the Tower of London and Tower Bridge and that charges here were therefore equivalent to other comparable facilities elsewhere in London. Very different requirements and priorities had been considered in setting these two particular tariffs.

The Comptroller and City Solicitor spoke to clarify that there was reference in the report to the use of on-street parking reserve and that, whilst this was fine in terms of off-street parking, as far as on-street parking tariffs were concerned, there was a judgement that clarified that the availability of on-street parking reserve and how it should be spent was not relevant in terms of setting parking tariffs.

RESOLVED – That the Planning and Transportation Committee:

1.    Approve the three-year pricing strategy for on-street parking bays, as set out in paragraph 19 of this report with effect from January 2021; and

2.    Approve a three-year pricing strategy for parking charges in relation to Baynard House, London Wall, Minories and Tower Hill public car parks, as set out in paragraph 19 of this report, with effect from January / February 2021.