Meeting documents
Highways Committee (DCC)
Thursday 14 June 2007
Meeting: Highways Committee (County Hall, Durham - Committee Room 1a - 14/06/2007 10:00:00 AM)
Item: A3 Objections to the Durham City On Street Parking Places Order 2007
Item No 3
| Highways Committee 14 June 2007 Objections to the (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007 |  |
| Report of John Richardson, Corporate Director, Environment | |
1.0 Purpose of Report
1.1 To advise Members of objections received following advertisement of the (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007. The effects of the Order would be to consolidate the existing Durham City Parking Places Orders (Zones 1, 2, 3 & 4), include additional streets in the Farnley Hey Road area and to review the fee structure for parking control within Durham City.
2.0 Background
2.1 The introduction of parking control is considered an effective tool in the delivery of the Council’s transport objectives and delivery of the measures set out in the Local Transport Plan Durham City Package. Members are aware of and have subscribed to the introduction of parking control as stated in the adopted policies of the Local Transport Plan. The proposed strategy developed and delivered through the Plan aims to displace long stay commuter parking from City Streets and create more parking availability for residents and short stay visitors
2.2 Parking Controls were initially introduced in Durham City in 2000 with the implementation of the Parking Places Order (Zone 1). Zones 2 and 3 followed in 2001 and Zone 4 in 2005. The Parking Controls were implemented in phases to allow officers to deal with the consultation exercise associated with each zone.
2.3 Members will also be aware that the fee structure was reviewed in 2005 in preparation for the introduction of the Durham City Park and Ride scheme. Parking fees were initially set at 30 pence per ½ hour in bays with high short stay demand and £1.50 for a full day in areas where long stay parking could be accommodated. Failure to comply with the requirements resulted in a £50 Excess Charge Notice. Exemption permits were available to residents at a charge of £30/annum. Permits for businesses and for other specific purposes were available and visitors were accommodated through the sale of visitor scratch cards.
2.4 Apart from a revision of the £1.50 charge and an introduction of lower tariffs in some areas, no general increase to the parking tariffs, resident permits or Excess Charge Notice have been applied since the scheme was introduced in October 2000.
3.0 Issues
3.1 As a result of the parking controls being implemented in zones over a period of years there are four separate Traffic Regulation Orders in existence. In order to simplify administrative procedures it is desirable to have one Order which covers all four zones together with some additional streets as detailed in para 3.7
3.2 Parking tariffs have remained at a maximum of 30p per ½ hour since the introduction of the scheme in 2000. Whilst inflation and the Retail Price Index have risen, no rises have been applied to Pay and Display charges, Excess Charge Notices or permits. With year on year increasing costs of enforcement in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI) this has resulted in an increase in the cost to operate the scheme without an equivalent increase in income. At RPI rates £1 in 1999 is now equivalent to 85p. This differential has lead to the need to review current charges.
3.3 Parking Tariffs
3.4 Visitor Permits
3.5 Excess Charges
3.6 It is proposed to increase the parking tariffs, charges for permits and scratch cards as set out in Appendices B1 and B2 from 1 July 2007.
3.7 Additional Streets
Residents in the streets shown in Appendix B3 approached the Council with a request to address the inappropriate and obstructive parking which is currently taking place both close to junctions and within the streets. This behaviour has resulted in some vehicles, in particular emergency service, refuse collection and delivery vehicles experiencing difficulty when requiring access. In addition many residents have also found garages and driveways blocked by indiscriminate parking. To address this situation it is intended to extend the Controlled Parking Zone to include this area. Residents have been balloted on the proposals and the majority are in favour.
3.8 Ballot Results
Of 122 ballot papers issued 59 (48%) were returned. Of these 48 (81%) were in favour of the proposals and 11 (19%) were against.
3.9 The notices for the Traffic Regulation Order to implement the changes were posted on street between 10 May and 1 June 2007. The proposal was also posted in the Durham Advertiser on 10 May 2007.
3.10 As a result of advertising the Traffic Regulation Order known as “The County of Durham (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007” written objections have been received. A summary of objections is as follows.
4.0 Summary of objections to “The County Of Durham (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007”
4.1 Objection from employees of Sunlight Services Limited, Neville’s Cross
Nine employees of Sunlight Services Limited responded individually in writing and 113 employees signed a petition to object to the proposal to introduce charges in the Farnley Hey Road area due to the increased cost to the motorist. They have estimated they will face parking charges of £20 a week. Reasons offered include, their employer does not have land to provide parking facilities, public transport is affordable, and parking charges could not be met by lower paid employees.
Response
Employees of Sunlight Services Limited will be faced with similar costs to park on street as other employees in the City. Although the location of this establishment is not served by Park and Ride it is on major arterial routes which are well served by public transport.
4.2 Petition from Prescription Pricing Authority, Green Lane
A 63 name petition has been submitted by an employee objecting to a 50% increase to on street charges in areas where lower tariffs presently exist. The petitioners are concerned that increased parking charges will impact on lower paid employees who have parked in the City for over 20 years.
Response
When Park and Ride was introduced tariffs were reduced from 30p ½ hour to 20p ½ hour in less central areas such as Green Lane and Elvet Hill Road. Since December 2005 demand in such areas has increased and all day commuters are attracted to parking in these areas. Information from ticket machines shows that on average in Green Lane 51% of spaces are occupied by the same vehicle for a full day. The proposal is to increase charges to 30p per ½ hour which was the pre 2005 cost to park. The increase in charge should generate more turnover of space and reduce all day parking.
4.3 Objection from Elvet Residents’ Association
The Elvet Residents Association has objected to the reduction in on street charges from 30p to 20p per ½ hour in Hallgarth Street.
Response
It was intended to reduce the charge in Hallgarth Street when Park and Ride opened in 2005. However, as a result of objections from residents at that time, the changes were not made, and the charge remained at 30 pence ½ hour. Although the advertised Notice indicates a reduction of parking charge to 20p ½ hour in Hallgarth Street, this has been reviewed and it is proposed that the charge remains at 30 pence ½ hour. The Order will be changed to reflect this.
4.4 Objection from Resident of 14 Rydal Road Chester-le-Street DH2 3DR
The objector is a member of Waddington Street Resource Centre and claims additional on street parking in Waddington Street would cause even more difficulty parking and manoeuvring the Resource Centre mini bus. Objector requests a meeting between Elected Members and the Trustees and Management of the Resource Centre to discuss making available an amount of space for the mini bus so disabled members may access the bus in safety.
Response
The proposals will not change any of the parking control measures in Waddington Street and therefore the street will operate as it has since 2001. Whilst this is not a subject of the current Order the concerns will be addressed separately. The current restrictions in the area of the Resource Centre does allow vehicles to park to allow passengers to board or alight, vehicles displaying a blue badge can park free of charge in any of the on street parking bays or for up to 3 hours on double yellow lines.
4.5 Objection from Resident of 11 Percy Terrace, Neville’s Cross, Durham DH1 4DY
Resident objects to the introduction of a parking bay directly opposite their driveway as they believe this would cause an obstruction to vehicles reversing onto the highway. Resident has supplied a swept path simulation along with extracts of guidance documents relating to the layout of parking in residential streets.
Response
In Percy Terrace it is proposed to formalise the current parking arrangements. The bay in question commences approx 1m north west of the north western kerb line of the access to number 11 and is designed to accommodate 2 standard vehicles. Within the parking management of the area there is a need to accommodate vehicles wherever possible to meet demand. The marking out of this bay will make it no more difficult to reverse off the drive of number 11 than it currently is when a vehicle is parked there.
4.6 Objection from Resident of 5 Mullin Close, Oakenshaw, Crook, DL15 0UG
Objects to the introduction of parking charges in the Farnley Hey area. Objector is not a resident but regularly parks in the area and commutes to Newcastle by train on a daily basis. Reasons for the objection are that the majority of residents have off street parking so no real need for metered parking, at weekends and evenings there is no difficulty parking in these streets and most of the congestion is caused by bus drivers parking their cars in the entrance to St Johns Road.
Response
Parking controls are proposed to be extended to the Farnley Hey area at the request of residents who currently experience difficulties with access due to the substantial number of vehicles parking within the area.
4.7 Objection from Residents of 16 Moor Edge, Crossgate Moor, Durham, DH1 4HT
Objector considers the “wholesale carpeting of large sections of the city by such parking spaces is an unnecessary costly exercise”. Objector states that the “intention cannot be for the spaces to actually be of use to the citizens of the city or for visitors as no space allows more than 30 minutes waiting”. Parking to access the two schools in the Neville’s Cross area will become virtually impossible and “to have to potentially pay twice a day for the privilege is ridiculous” and will lead to further congestion in surrounding area.
Response
The proposal is to implement charges of 40 pence per ½ hour in the central areas with 30 pence per ½ hour in other areas. There is no restriction on the multiples of 30 pence that can be paid at the ticket machines and therefore if a visitor wished to park for an hour it would cost 60 pence, one and a half hours would be 90 pence etc. Excessive parking related to schools is an increasing problem.
4.8 Objection from Residents of 3 Wardles Terrace, Durham, DH1 4EX
The resident objects to parking permits for Zone I not being eligible for use in Zone O when Zone O permits are acceptable in both Zone I
Response
This is currently the situation in the existing parking places Order and it is not the intention to change this as part of the consolidating exercise.
5.0 Summary of representations in response to consultation on “The County Of Durham (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007”
5.1 Representation from The President, Durham City Chamber of Trade
Durham City Chamber of Trade have expressed their disappointment with the proposal to increase on street charges. Concern is expressed about competition from out of town shopping centres and reported reduced trade.
5.2 Representation from Durham Markets Company
Durham Markets Company urge serious consideration before increasing on street charges. The competition from out of town shopping centres and a reported decrease in footfall of 8% are of major concern. It is suggested that one of the reasons for reduced footfall is current parking charges.
5.3 Representation from North East Ambulance Service
The Ambulance Service offer their support to the ongoing road safety programme.
5.4 Representation from Resident of 9 Wanless Terrace
Resident concerned that 23 new apartments being constructed by Mandale Developments between Wanless and Finney Terraces will be eligible for permits.
Response
Whilst this is a response to the consultation it does not raise issues that are relevant to the content of the proposed Order.
5.5 Representation from Residents of Granville, Percy Terrace, Neville’s Cross, Durham, DH1 4DY
Representation from residents of above has been received via Roberta Blackman-Woods MP regarding:
· Lack of consultation
· Lack of proper negotiation with residents
Response
Residents of the streets included in the extension to the On Street Parking Controls have been consulted on the proposals on four separate occasions, April 2006, September 2006, October 2006 (public exhibition) and November 2006 (ballot). The Public Consultation and Public Exhibition exercises were carried out to establish residents’ views on the initial proposals which have been considered and have contributed valuably to the final design of the proposals.
6.0 Local Member Consultation
o inclusion of additional streets · confirm the Traffic Regulation Order will proceed for (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007 and approve its implementation (subject to amendment of indicated tariffs for Hallgarth Street)
Background Papers
Appendix 1: Implications 1.1 To advise Members of objections received following advertisement of the (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007. The effects of the Order would be to consolidate the existing Durham City Parking Places Orders (Zones 1, 2, 3 & 4), include additional streets in the Farnley Hey Road area and to review the fee structure for parking control within Durham City.
2.0 Background
2.1 The introduction of parking control is considered an effective tool in the delivery of the Council’s transport objectives and delivery of the measures set out in the Local Transport Plan Durham City Package. Members are aware of and have subscribed to the introduction of parking control as stated in the adopted policies of the Local Transport Plan. The proposed strategy developed and delivered through the Plan aims to displace long stay commuter parking from City Streets and create more parking availability for residents and short stay visitors
2.2 Parking Controls were initially introduced in Durham City in 2000 with the implementation of the Parking Places Order (Zone 1). Zones 2 and 3 followed in 2001 and Zone 4 in 2005. The Parking Controls were implemented in phases to allow officers to deal with the consultation exercise associated with each zone.
2.3 Members will also be aware that the fee structure was reviewed in 2005 in preparation for the introduction of the Durham City Park and Ride scheme. Parking fees were initially set at 30 pence per ½ hour in bays with high short stay demand and £1.50 for a full day in areas where long stay parking could be accommodated. Failure to comply with the requirements resulted in a £50 Excess Charge Notice. Exemption permits were available to residents at a charge of £30/annum. Permits for businesses and for other specific purposes were available and visitors were accommodated through the sale of visitor scratch cards.
2.4 Apart from a revision of the £1.50 charge and an introduction of lower tariffs in some areas, no general increase to the parking tariffs, resident permits or Excess Charge Notice have been applied since the scheme was introduced in October 2000.
3.0 Issues
3.1 As a result of the parking controls being implemented in zones over a period of years there are four separate Traffic Regulation Orders in existence. In order to simplify administrative procedures it is desirable to have one Order which covers all four zones together with some additional streets as detailed in para 3.7
3.2 Parking tariffs have remained at a maximum of 30p per ½ hour since the introduction of the scheme in 2000. Whilst inflation and the Retail Price Index have risen, no rises have been applied to Pay and Display charges, Excess Charge Notices or permits. With year on year increasing costs of enforcement in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI) this has resulted in an increase in the cost to operate the scheme without an equivalent increase in income. At RPI rates £1 in 1999 is now equivalent to 85p. This differential has lead to the need to review current charges.
3.3 Parking Tariffs
The Pay and Display tariffs in the City have generally achieved their aim of creating turnover of space and reducing the amount of long stay parking. However, in certain high demand areas the impact has been eroded as costs to motorists have reduced in real terms. Certain city centre locations are considered high demand areas where information from machines and ticket transactions indicates a need to take action to redress the balance between long stay parking and short stay demand. It is therefore proposed that tariffs on a limited number of streets in the central area should be increased as indicated in
Appendix B.
Appendix B.
3.4 Visitor Permits
The scheme incorporates a system to accommodate visitors of residents using scratch cards to indicate time of arrival and valid parking periods. The costs of printing have seen a significant increase over the contract period and it is therefore now considered necessary to increase the cost of this parking provision by 50p for a book of 15 three hour cards. This would represent an increase from 5.5p per hour to 6.7p per hour for residents’ visitors.
3.5 Excess Charges
It is considered that the offer of an instant charge of £10 payable on the day of issue should be removed. This is a non statutory offer by this authority and if removed would bring payment in line with that of other all authorities in the region. Currently Excess Charge Notices (ECN) are issued to motorists contravening regulations and the charge of the ECN is set at £50 which is discounted to £25 if paid within 14 days. To bring this in line with charges set by neighbouring authorities it is considered these charges should now be revised to £60 and discounted to £30.
3.6 It is proposed to increase the parking tariffs, charges for permits and scratch cards as set out in Appendices B1 and B2 from 1 July 2007.
3.7 Additional Streets
Residents in the streets shown in Appendix B3 approached the Council with a request to address the inappropriate and obstructive parking which is currently taking place both close to junctions and within the streets. This behaviour has resulted in some vehicles, in particular emergency service, refuse collection and delivery vehicles experiencing difficulty when requiring access. In addition many residents have also found garages and driveways blocked by indiscriminate parking. To address this situation it is intended to extend the Controlled Parking Zone to include this area. Residents have been balloted on the proposals and the majority are in favour.
3.8 Ballot Results
Of 122 ballot papers issued 59 (48%) were returned. Of these 48 (81%) were in favour of the proposals and 11 (19%) were against.
3.9 The notices for the Traffic Regulation Order to implement the changes were posted on street between 10 May and 1 June 2007. The proposal was also posted in the Durham Advertiser on 10 May 2007.
3.10 As a result of advertising the Traffic Regulation Order known as “The County of Durham (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007” written objections have been received. A summary of objections is as follows.
4.0 Summary of objections to “The County Of Durham (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007”
4.1 Objection from employees of Sunlight Services Limited, Neville’s Cross
Nine employees of Sunlight Services Limited responded individually in writing and 113 employees signed a petition to object to the proposal to introduce charges in the Farnley Hey Road area due to the increased cost to the motorist. They have estimated they will face parking charges of £20 a week. Reasons offered include, their employer does not have land to provide parking facilities, public transport is affordable, and parking charges could not be met by lower paid employees.
Response
Employees of Sunlight Services Limited will be faced with similar costs to park on street as other employees in the City. Although the location of this establishment is not served by Park and Ride it is on major arterial routes which are well served by public transport.
4.2 Petition from Prescription Pricing Authority, Green Lane
A 63 name petition has been submitted by an employee objecting to a 50% increase to on street charges in areas where lower tariffs presently exist. The petitioners are concerned that increased parking charges will impact on lower paid employees who have parked in the City for over 20 years.
Response
When Park and Ride was introduced tariffs were reduced from 30p ½ hour to 20p ½ hour in less central areas such as Green Lane and Elvet Hill Road. Since December 2005 demand in such areas has increased and all day commuters are attracted to parking in these areas. Information from ticket machines shows that on average in Green Lane 51% of spaces are occupied by the same vehicle for a full day. The proposal is to increase charges to 30p per ½ hour which was the pre 2005 cost to park. The increase in charge should generate more turnover of space and reduce all day parking.
Alternatives to the use of privately owned vehicles are available such as public transport or car sharing. As the objectors all work for the same authority it may be beneficial if the authority were to develop a travel plan.
4.3 Objection from Elvet Residents’ Association
The Elvet Residents Association has objected to the reduction in on street charges from 30p to 20p per ½ hour in Hallgarth Street.
Response
It was intended to reduce the charge in Hallgarth Street when Park and Ride opened in 2005. However, as a result of objections from residents at that time, the changes were not made, and the charge remained at 30 pence ½ hour. Although the advertised Notice indicates a reduction of parking charge to 20p ½ hour in Hallgarth Street, this has been reviewed and it is proposed that the charge remains at 30 pence ½ hour. The Order will be changed to reflect this.
4.4 Objection from Resident of 14 Rydal Road Chester-le-Street DH2 3DR
The objector is a member of Waddington Street Resource Centre and claims additional on street parking in Waddington Street would cause even more difficulty parking and manoeuvring the Resource Centre mini bus. Objector requests a meeting between Elected Members and the Trustees and Management of the Resource Centre to discuss making available an amount of space for the mini bus so disabled members may access the bus in safety.
Response
The proposals will not change any of the parking control measures in Waddington Street and therefore the street will operate as it has since 2001. Whilst this is not a subject of the current Order the concerns will be addressed separately. The current restrictions in the area of the Resource Centre does allow vehicles to park to allow passengers to board or alight, vehicles displaying a blue badge can park free of charge in any of the on street parking bays or for up to 3 hours on double yellow lines.
4.5 Objection from Resident of 11 Percy Terrace, Neville’s Cross, Durham DH1 4DY
Resident objects to the introduction of a parking bay directly opposite their driveway as they believe this would cause an obstruction to vehicles reversing onto the highway. Resident has supplied a swept path simulation along with extracts of guidance documents relating to the layout of parking in residential streets.
Response
In Percy Terrace it is proposed to formalise the current parking arrangements. The bay in question commences approx 1m north west of the north western kerb line of the access to number 11 and is designed to accommodate 2 standard vehicles. Within the parking management of the area there is a need to accommodate vehicles wherever possible to meet demand. The marking out of this bay will make it no more difficult to reverse off the drive of number 11 than it currently is when a vehicle is parked there.
4.6 Objection from Resident of 5 Mullin Close, Oakenshaw, Crook, DL15 0UG
Objects to the introduction of parking charges in the Farnley Hey area. Objector is not a resident but regularly parks in the area and commutes to Newcastle by train on a daily basis. Reasons for the objection are that the majority of residents have off street parking so no real need for metered parking, at weekends and evenings there is no difficulty parking in these streets and most of the congestion is caused by bus drivers parking their cars in the entrance to St Johns Road.
Response
Parking controls are proposed to be extended to the Farnley Hey area at the request of residents who currently experience difficulties with access due to the substantial number of vehicles parking within the area.
4.7 Objection from Residents of 16 Moor Edge, Crossgate Moor, Durham, DH1 4HT
Objector considers the “wholesale carpeting of large sections of the city by such parking spaces is an unnecessary costly exercise”. Objector states that the “intention cannot be for the spaces to actually be of use to the citizens of the city or for visitors as no space allows more than 30 minutes waiting”. Parking to access the two schools in the Neville’s Cross area will become virtually impossible and “to have to potentially pay twice a day for the privilege is ridiculous” and will lead to further congestion in surrounding area.
Response
The proposal is to implement charges of 40 pence per ½ hour in the central areas with 30 pence per ½ hour in other areas. There is no restriction on the multiples of 30 pence that can be paid at the ticket machines and therefore if a visitor wished to park for an hour it would cost 60 pence, one and a half hours would be 90 pence etc. Excessive parking related to schools is an increasing problem.
4.8 Objection from Residents of 3 Wardles Terrace, Durham, DH1 4EX
The resident objects to parking permits for Zone I not being eligible for use in Zone O when Zone O permits are acceptable in both Zone I
and O.
Response
This is currently the situation in the existing parking places Order and it is not the intention to change this as part of the consolidating exercise.
5.0 Summary of representations in response to consultation on “The County Of Durham (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007”
5.1 Representation from The President, Durham City Chamber of Trade
Durham City Chamber of Trade have expressed their disappointment with the proposal to increase on street charges. Concern is expressed about competition from out of town shopping centres and reported reduced trade.
5.2 Representation from Durham Markets Company
Durham Markets Company urge serious consideration before increasing on street charges. The competition from out of town shopping centres and a reported decrease in footfall of 8% are of major concern. It is suggested that one of the reasons for reduced footfall is current parking charges.
5.3 Representation from North East Ambulance Service
The Ambulance Service offer their support to the ongoing road safety programme.
5.4 Representation from Resident of 9 Wanless Terrace
Resident concerned that 23 new apartments being constructed by Mandale Developments between Wanless and Finney Terraces will be eligible for permits.
Response
Whilst this is a response to the consultation it does not raise issues that are relevant to the content of the proposed Order.
New multiple accommodation developments within the Controlled Parking Zone will not be eligible for permit issue. In accordance with the Parking Control provision for parking has been considered as part of any development. This provision applies to new developments and conversions of existing buildings into multiple occupancy accommodation.
There will be limited car parking available within the site with only 9 spaces being available for the 23 apartments. There will be no on street car parking available for residents as no resident parking permits will be issued to new apartments. The site is in a city centre location and therefore it will be convenient to most facilities on foot. Consequently it will be suitable for residents without cars.
There will be limited car parking available within the site with only 9 spaces being available for the 23 apartments. There will be no on street car parking available for residents as no resident parking permits will be issued to new apartments. The site is in a city centre location and therefore it will be convenient to most facilities on foot. Consequently it will be suitable for residents without cars.
5.5 Representation from Residents of Granville, Percy Terrace, Neville’s Cross, Durham, DH1 4DY
Representation from residents of above has been received via Roberta Blackman-Woods MP regarding:
· Lack of consultation
· Lack of proper negotiation with residents
Response
Residents of the streets included in the extension to the On Street Parking Controls have been consulted on the proposals on four separate occasions, April 2006, September 2006, October 2006 (public exhibition) and November 2006 (ballot). The Public Consultation and Public Exhibition exercises were carried out to establish residents’ views on the initial proposals which have been considered and have contributed valuably to the final design of the proposals.
6.0 Local Member Consultation
6.1 Three County Councillors represent the area in which parking controls operate. The Local Members, Councillor Freeman (Elvet), Councillor Southwell (Gilesgate) and Councillor Martin (Nevilles Cross) support the proposals.
7.0 Recommendations and Reasons
7.1 It is RECOMMENDED that Members:
· endorse the Corporate Director, Environment’s recommendation to set aside objections in relation to:
o inclusion of additional streets · confirm the Traffic Regulation Order will proceed for (Durham City) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007 and approve its implementation (subject to amendment of indicated tariffs for Hallgarth Street)
Background Papers
Office Files
Copies of correspondence have been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre.
| Contact: Dave Lewin Tel: 0191 3834635 |
| Finance Additional income is required to insure the continued self financing of the integrated traffic management within Durham City. Staffing There are no adverse implications. Equality and Diversity There are no adverse implications. Accommodation None Crime and Disorder There are no adverse implications. Sustainability None Human Rights There are no adverse implications. Localities and Rurality Durham City Centre. Young People There are no adverse implications. Consultation Full consultation was carried out prior to commencing the scheme. Health There are no adverse implications. Appendix B1 Pay and display Changes from 1st July 2007 Location | Existing Tariff | Proposed Tariff | |
| Old Elvet | 30p / ½ hr | 40p / ½ hr | |
| New Elvet | 30p / ½ hr | 40p / ½ hr | |
| Elvet Waterside | 30p / ½ hr | 40p / ½ hr | |
| Prison Green | 30p / ½ hr | 40p / ½ hr | |
| Framwellgate Waterside | 30p / ½ hr | 40p / ½ hr | |
| Crossgate | 30p / ½ hr | 40p / ½ hr | |
| Castle Chare | 30p / ½ hr | 40p / ½ hr | |
| Atherton Street area | 30p / ½ hr | 40p / ½ hr | |
| Green Lane | 20p / ½ hr | 30p / ½ hr | |
Appendix B2
Current Parking Control Charges
TO VIEW PLAN PLEASE REFER TO HARD COPIES LOCATED IN CORPORATE SERVICES OR THE COUNTY RECORDS OFFICECurrent Parking Control Charges
| Permit Types | Current Charge | Proposed Charge from 1st July 2007 | Increase from current charge |
| | | |
| Resident Permit | £30 per annum | £30 per annum | Nil |
| Regular Visitor Permit | £30 per annum | £30 per annum | Nil |
| Business Permit | £350 per annum | £375 per annum | £25 |
| Carer’s Permit | Free | Free | Nil |
| Temporary Permit | £10 | £10 | Nil |
| Courtesy Car Temporary Permit | Free | Free | Nil |
| Visitor’s Scratch Cards Book of 15 cards (max 2 books per residence per month) | £2.50 | £3.00 | 50p |
| Blue Badge Holder | Free | Free | Nil |
| | | |
| Tariffs and Charges | Current Charge | Proposed Charge | Increase from current charge |
| | | |
| Pay and display (Selected streets identified in Appendix B1) | £0.30 per 30 mins. | £0.40 per 30 mins. | £0.10 per 30 mins. |
| | | |
| Fixed Daily Charge | £30 per day | £30 per day | Nil |
| Excess Charge Instant Fine (paid on the day of issue) Payment within 14 days Payment after 14 days | £10 £25 £50 | Withdrawn £30 £60 | £5 £10 |
Attachments