Agenda item

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

Members considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services in respect of the Barbican Charging Policy for Car Parking.  The Chairman reminded Members of the previous report, presented to Members of the Barbican Residential Committee in December 2016, which had resulted in the report before them today and made the following statement:

In the light of the many objections raised by residents to these proposals, I want to make a few comments. I rarely speak to a script but, on this occasion, I shall, as I shall be asking for my comments to be minuted.

The role of this committee is to oversee the management of the estate and its ancillary properties on behalf of the City of London Corporation. 

It's important to be clear that the Barbican Estate has no social housing. Its flats are let and its leases sold at market rates. 

Those who have purchased leases for car parking have a right to a parking space. Otherwise, land currently used for car parking is a city asset and, subject to planning permission, can be used for such purposes as the city sees fit. It can't be used for commercial car parking, however, since current city planning policies prohibit the creation of any further such spaces.

And, under planning law, of course, residents must, be consulted about any proposed change of use to what are currently car parking spaces. Residents do not, however, have any rights in deciding the charging basis for those spaces.

Many have mentioned the need to review how the service charge element of payments for car parking are apportioned. They are right and work on this is underway. As many of you know, preparation for consultation regarding the planning application for storage units is also underway. At this stage a working party would be inappropriate and, in any event, a comprehensive plan for the car parking area is not within the gift of this committee.

All that said, however, the proposals before us aren't contingent on those matters being decided. The proposals are based on decisions, already taken by this committee:

1 - that car park rental charges should ensure a fair return to the City

2 - to arrive at this, an independent valuation was required

3-  that if increases were to be significant, they would be phased in.

There have been two key objections from residents, which are relevant to these proposals - that the basis of the valuation is unreasonable, and that the increases proposed are unaffordable to significant numbers of users.

Following comments at the RCC, I asked for further valuations to be sought. It has not been possible to secure these in time for today's meetings, but the Surveyors' department have canvassed estate agents and I shall ask Michael Bradley to update us, as soon as I've finished speaking.

At this meeting today, I suggest we first, discuss and then vote as to whether we accept the valuation and the surveyor's update. If we vote against this, I suggest two further valuations be sought and the proposals deferred to our September meeting.

If we accept the valuation, I suggest we move to discuss and vote on

1 -  the point on the valuation scale  at which increases should be set

2 - the number of years over which the increase should be phased in

Having had that discussion, we will move to any amendments needed and then vote on the proposals before us.

If those are defeated, then I will need a proposal as to a different basis of charging and, if this is accepted, officers will need to bring forward new proposals.

Members noted the request from the Barbican Estate Residents Consultation Committee for additional valuation reports, as they felt that those provided in this report were inadequate; i.e. the comparison to the Dolphin Estate.    Although owned by the City of London, which is a Local Authority, the City Surveyor had worked on the basis that the Barbican was more akin to a private development rather than a council estate or social housing and had never been within the Housing Revenue Account.  The City Surveyor therefore instructed Kinney and Green to obtain evidence of comparable parking charges for private developments.   Members noted that the report from Kinney and Green advised that a value of between £1,750 - £2,250 could be applied to each car space, instead of the current charge of £1,225 pa.   The City Surveyor advised that, since Kinney and Green issued their report they had provided the following additional comparables for resident only car spaces (inclusive of service charge) at the following developments:

·       Imperial Wharf, Townmead Road, Fulham SW6 (600 apartments): Standard cars. £2,200 pa. Car spaces are only offered to residents. There are 600 resident car spaces of which approximately 25% are vacant.

·       St George’s Wharf, Vauxhall SW8 (1,100 apartments):  £2,485 pa. Non-residents may lease spaces but at a higher tariff

·       Chelsea Bridge Wharf, 372 Queenstown Rd, London SW8 (number of apartments not known. Possibly 500+):  £2,020 pa. Non-residents may lease spaces but at a higher tariff.

Members felt that these new evaluations were not particularly helpful as the sites were new developments in affluent areas, which also fell outside of the congestion zone area.

During the discussion, in which all Members were invited to comment, the following points were made:

1.    The report should be considered alongside  other storage charging policy reports.  Members noted that they had been scheduled for consideration at this meeting but the planning application was withdrawn for further consultation.

2.    Given that substantial capital funds had been generated by the car parks; i.e. the Heron Development, should they have been credited to the car park account?

3.    If 25% were to give up their car park spaces, then would this negate the benefit of the higher charges? Some Members felt that the 25% decrease should be taken into consideration as part of the valuations.

4.    If charges were below the market rate, then all spaces would be full but this was not the case.

5.    There had been a deficit on the car park account for the past 2 years and many spaces were empty and in poor condition.  However, the car parks were costing the City of London Corporation £400,000 pa and therefore it was unsustainable.

6.    A breakdown  of management and supervision charges, including concierge duties had been requested by the RCC.

7.    Concern was expressed about the process and not just market options; i.e. the cost of the Consultant.

8.    The views of residents had not been taken into consideration and responses to Ward Members had been unprecedented.  There were particular concerns about vulnerable and/or disabled residents.

9.    Whilst the outcome of the information provided by the valuations was beyond the control of officers, some Members challenged whether the brief to officers had been fully captured in the report.   Some Members felt that it had not provided an explanation of the elasticity of demand but it was accepted that this could be difficult to calculate. 

10. The decision in December had sought fair value , not to maximise the asset. 

11. The possibility of involving other Committees in the decision, which should be wider than just the price; i.e. it should consider alternative uses and ‘balancing the books’.

12. If Members could not reach a decision today, then officers could revert to the default position of an RPI linked increase, which would cover the notice period for a price increase and avoid any unnecessary loss of revenue.  The Chamberlain advised that the Committee had used RPI in the past but many other Committees now used CPI and therefore recommended CPI going forward.

It was proposed by Randall Anderson, Seconded by Mark Bostock and RESOLVED,  that:

1.       The car park charges for 2016/17 be increased, in line with CPI, in time for           the statutory           notice period.

          It was proposed by Randall Anderson, Seconded by Jeremy Mayhew and   RESOLVED, that:

1.       Members receive a further report, in the context of the City’s Car parking    policy; to include a           range of valuations from more comparable        developments, a survey of users and study of           usage, alternative uses      (including storage) and cost allocation (including car park           attendants). 

2.       Members note the earliest stage for the report to come back to the   Committee be December 2017 or possibly March 2018; i.e. when           storage         charges would be due for   Review.

3.       A Member/Officer working party be established to consider this matter        further.