To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Minutes:
[Councillor Bull left the meeting for the duration of the item]
Deputation in relation to item 14
Mr Paul Burnham and Mr Jacob Secker addressed the Cabinet in relation to item 14 on the agenda –Council Housing Parking Estate Charges.
Mr Burnham felt that parking on Council estates would become worse if the charges were implemented. He referred to the 2000 garages within Council estates and questioned why these were not integrated within the strategy. Mr Burnham also referred to a previous consultation, where less than 30% of consultees supported charging for parking on Council estates.
Mr Burnham considered that there was no economic need for the charges and that the Council could run estates without implementing charges.
Mr Burnham also questioned the transfer of funds received from parking charges between the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund.
Mr Burnham advised that he was opposed to applying parking charges to carers, and to the transfer of funds from the HRA to the General Fund.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estates Renewal responded to the points raised by Mr Burnham and provided a copy of her response for the minutes.
· “Resident charges were rejected in a full Statutory Consultation last year and also rejected by a resident focus Group earlier this year”
The proposals outlined represent the only workable option identified which achieves the aims of the estate parking review approved by Cabinet in July 2019 and presented to residents in the consultation on the “Future of Estate Parking”. The proposals are designed to mitigate financial impact on residents be ensuring every household can apply for one free permit for any vehicle at or below the average emissions level.
The views of respondents to the “Future of Estate parking” consultation are detailed on page 3 of Appendix C (Resident and stakeholder consultation and engagement).
· 50.5% disagreed with introducing permit charges and 29.9% agreed.
· 36% agreed only service users should pay for it (i.e. by buying permits)
· 40.6% agreed to subsidising costs from rent and service charges.
As outlined at section 5.2 of the report (page 3-4), resident views on Permit charges were recognised and alternatives considered. In all instances the alternative options have had to be discounted for the following reasons.
1. A Free scheme would not generate enough income to pay for itself.
2. Service Charges could not be collected from all Leaseholders, Businesses and Freeholders
3. Permit charges for some (i.e. Leaseholders) and Service Charges for others (i.e. Tenants) would make the scheme financially unviable due to the additional administrative and fraud prevention costs.
· “There is no business case for charges to residents and carers. The proposed scheme would generate an annual surplus of £245,000 while the income from residents and carers parking fees would be £55,350”
Appendix B (Financial Assessment including permitting and permissions to park proposal) outlines the business case for levying some charges to ensure the proposed scheme is both financially viable and financed fairly.
Until end 2024/25 the Housing Revenue Account will be in net deficit on parking due to the payback period required to meet the costs of both rolling out the new scheme and maintaining the current scheme in the interim. From 2025/26 onwards the scheme has the potential to generate a net revenue, which if achieved would be reinvested back into services in compliance with Housing Revenue Account and Parking Account rules. In addition, once payback has been achieved Haringey Council would have the ability to review any fees and charges associated with the proposal.
Each household will be eligible to apply for one resident permit free of charge for any vehicle that is at or below the average emission level. Approximately 60% of vehicles are forecast to meet the average emissions level for a free permit. Charges will only apply for second or subsequent and high emission vehicles with the average annual permit price being £45.
Additional protections are in place for those who are disabled, over the state pension age or have a long-term limiting conditions. A charge of £12 per year for Carers permits is designed to cover the administrative costs of preparing these permits to ensure those who do not use the service do not subsidise costs for others.
The proposals will minimise financial impact on residents including ensuring only those who use the service contribute towards the running costs. In addition, the proposals will help to tackle the climate emergency by incentivising residents to reduce the number of vehicles they have and the emissions of each vehicle.
· “The Council want the enforcement income from the scheme to go to the General Fund and not the Housing Revenue Account - more income being syphoned out of Council housing. we say that all income from Council estates should remain in the Housing Revenue Account”.
The financial proposals for the new estate parking management scheme are designed to ensure that Haringey Council complies with all relevant legislation. To the extent legally possible, income will be collected by the Housing Revenue Account.
The Local Government & Housing Act 1989 Schedule 4 Part 1 sets out the credits that shall be placed into the Housing Revenue Account. These include charges for the provision of services and facilities to and contributions towards expenditure on housing within the Housing Revenue Account, but not enforcement income from statutory fines.
In addition, Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 requires Local Authorities maintain a Parking Account of all income and expenditure and ring-fences the application of surplus income generated by Parking enforcement to specific purposes.
In compliance with this legislation, the following is proposed.
1. An Estate Parking Scheme managed by Homes for Haringey on behalf of Haringey Council with charges collected by the Housing Revenue Account.
2. An enforcement scheme to administer parking rules via Traffic Management Orders managed by Haringey Parking Services with income collected by the Parking Account.
3. There is scope for use of any surplus generated from enforcement on estate parking for the Parking Account to be directed to highways-associated improvements on estates
· “Homes for Haringey board members want to push ahead for full CPZ charges for the 280 Council estates which will be affected”
The Deputation referred to questions raised by both residents and board members at the 30 September 2020 Homes for Haringey Board meeting. The questions and responses are outlined at Pages 6-9 of Appendix C and summarised as follows.
1. Homes for Haringey’s Board does not set Council Policy - including the fees and charges associated with this proposal.
2. The proposals will deliver a financially viable scheme without the same charges as CPZ parking permits.