north east lincolnshire parking review · party without prior permission in writing from systra,...

North East Lincolnshire Parking Review 24/04/2017

Reference number 104918/GB01T16I50

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE PARKING REVIEW

© SYSTRA Ltd 2017 The contents of this proposal remain the intellectual property of SYSTRA Ltd and may be used only in connection with the brief for which it was submitted. It is specifically forbidden to communicate the contents to any third party without prior permission in writing from SYSTRA, and all reasonable precautions must be taken to avoid this occurring.

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE PARKING REVIEW

IDENTIFICATION TABLE

Client/Project owner North East Lincolnshire Council

Project North East Lincolnshire Parking Review

Study

Type of document Final report

Date 24/04/2017

File name

Reference number 104918/GB01T16I50

Confidentiality

Number of pages 92

APPROVAL

Version Name Position Date Modifications

1

Author EA/OH/SP 01/02/2017

Draft report

Checked by DD/MM/YY

Approved by

MR

Market Director – Local Transport

01/02/2017

4

Author EA/OH/SP/CY 06/04/2017

Incorporates comments from NELC officers and members

Checked by DD/MM/YY

Approved by

MR

Market Director – Local Transport

24/04/2017

North East Lincolnshire Parking Review 104918/GB01T16I50

Final report 24/04/2017 /92

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 8

1.2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH 8

1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE 9 2. POLICY CONTEXT 10

2.2 NATIONAL POLICY 10

2.3 LOCAL POLICY 16 3. CURRENT CONDITIONS 22

3.1 REVIEW AREA 22

3.2 DISABLED PARKING 23

3.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY 24

3.4 PERMITS, TARIFFS AND CHARGING 25

3.5 RESIDENTS’ PARKING SCHEME 31

3.6 LOCAL PLAN ASPIRATIONS 32 4. CAR PARK SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS 39

4.1 DATA COLLECTION 39

4.2 DEMAND ANALYSIS 40

4.3 GRIMSBY CAR PARKS - WEEKDAY 41

4.4 CLEETHORPES CAR PARKS - WEEKDAY 41

4.5 AREA-WIDE ANALYSIS – WEEKDAY 42

4.6 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES – WEEKDAY 44

4.7 WEEKDAY SUMMARY 46

4.8 GRIMSBY CAR PARKS - SATURDAY 48

4.9 CLEETHORPES CAR PARKS - SATURDAY 48

4.10 AREA-WIDE ANALYSIS - SATURDAY 49

4.11 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES - SATURDAY 51

4.12 SATURDAY SUMMARY 53


4.14 LOCAL PLAN ACCESSIBILITY 59 5. REVIEW OF OFF-STREET TARIFFS 62

5.1 INTRODUCTION 62

APPROACH TO TARIFF MODELLING 62



ELASTICITY OF DEMAND FOR PARKING 62

THE TARIFF TESTS 63

OUTCOMES OF TARIFF MODELLING 63

5.2 THE IMPACT OF FREE PARKING 64

5.3 THE REVENUE IMPACTS OF CLOSING UNDERUTILISED CAR PARKS 65

5.4 PROMOTING THE USE OF SPARE CAPACITY 66

5.5 THE POTENTIAL FOR EVENING CHARGES 66

A FOCUS ON SUMMER EVENING IN CLEETHORPES 67

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68

5.6 A CONSISTENT APPROACH TO OFF-STREET PERMIT PRICING 68

INTRODUCTION 68

PRICE AND CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS 69

LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS 70

BENCHMARKING 70

PERMIT PRICE MODELLING 70

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 74

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 75 6. MODIFYING THE RESIDENTS’ PARKING SCHEME 76

ESTABLISHING A FAIR PRICE FOR RESIDENTS’ PERMITS 76

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO OPERATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT 77

VIRTUAL PERMITS 77

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ABOUT CURRENT SCHEME 79

BACK OFFICE FUNCTIONS 79

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 80 7. HEADLINE CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 81

7.2 CAPACITY AND DEMAND 81

7.3 INFRASTRUCTURE 82


7.5 PARKING TARIFFS & REVENUES 83

7.6 RESIDENTS’ PARKING 83

7.7 FUTURE WORK 84 APPENDIX A 85

STUDY AREA MAPS 85 APPENDIX B 86

CAR PARK FACILITIES 86



APPENDIX C 87

PARKING PERMIT RESTRICTIONS 87 APPENDIX D 90

ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN RESIDENT’S PARKING SCHEME REVENUE MODEL 90

ASSUMPTIONS USED IN RESIDENT’S PARKING SCHEME REVENUE MODELLING TOOL 91



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Pedestrian Accessibility - Grimsby 24 Figure 2 Pedestrian Accessibility - Cleethorpes 25 Figure 3 NELC Local Plan – Key Diagram 33 Figure 4 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocations and Strategic Sites – Grimsby 35 Figure 5 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocations and Strategic Sites – Cleethorpes 37 Figure 6 NELC Local Plan Employment Allocations - Grimsby 37 Figure 7 Weekday Occupancy – All Car Parks 43 Figure 8 Weekday Occupancy – By Charging Zone 44 Figure 9 Question 3 Responses - Weekday 46 Figure 10 Saturday Occupancy – All Car Parks 50 Figure 11 Saturday Occupancy – By Charging Zone 51 Figure 12 Question 3 Responses - Saturday 53 Figure 13 Occupancy Comparison – All Car Parks 54 Figure 14 Weekday Length of Stay – All Car Parks 55 Figure 15 Saturday Length of Stay – All Car Parks 55 Figure 16 Length of Stay – By Charging Zone 56 Figure 17: Disabled Parking Provision - Grimsby 58 Figure 18: Disabled Parking Provision - Cleethorpes 59 Figure 19 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocations/Walking Accessibility - Grimsby 60 Figure 20 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocations / Walking Accessibility - Cleethorpes 61



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Study Area Car Parks 22 Table 2 Study Area Car Parks – Eligibility of Permits 27 Table 3 Specified Pay and Display Parking Charges (Schedule 4.1) 29 Table 4 Season Ticket Costs (Schedule 4.2) 30 Table 5 Business and Residential Permits 30 Table 6 Single Use Season Ticket Prices 30 Table 7 Reserved Bays 31 Table 8 Concessionary permits 31 Table 9 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocation Sites 33 Table 10 NELC Local Plan Strategic Housing Sites 35 Table 11 NELC Local Plan B1/B2/B8 Employment Allocations 37 Table 12 Interview Questions 39 Table 13 Weekday Occupancy and Length of Stay - Grimsby 41 Table 14 Weekday Length of Stay – By Charging Zone 44 Table 15 Question 1 Responses - Weekday 44 Table 16 Question 2 Responses - Weekday 45 Table 17 Saturday Occupancy and Length of Stay - Grimsby 48 Table 18 Saturday Occupancy and Length of Stay - Cleethorpes 48 Table 19 Saturday Length of Stay – By Charging Zone 51 Table 20 Question 1 Responses - Saturday 52 Table 21 Question 2 Responses - Saturday 52 Table 22 Number of hours disabled occupancy was 80% or higher in a 12 hour period 56 Table 23 Tariff test descriptions 63 Table 24 Tariff test results 64 Table 25 Tariff test descriptions 65 Table 26 Tariff test results 65 Table 27 Evening tariff test results – based on proxy 1p for free parking 67 Table 28 Central Cleethorpes summer evening tariff test results – based on proxy 1p for free parking68 Table 29 Central Cleethorpes summer evening tariff test results – based on proxy 1p for free parking and relatively inelastic demand 68 Table 30 Cost of season tickets in surrounding authorities 70 Table 31 Cost of residents’ permits in surrounding authorities 76 Table 32 Residents’ parking scheme: cost modelling scenarios with virtual permit system 78



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 North East Lincolnshire, which includes the urban areas of Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Immingham, has a total of 26 North East Lincolnshire Council-owned pay and display car parks. The 26 car parks, which provide over 3,000 spaces, were the subject of a 2011 Car Parking Strategy, and North East Lincolnshire Council [NELC] is now seeking to review this earlier strategy to ensure that any revised Car Parking Strategy delivers a parking offer that meets local needs and economic expectations.

1.1.2 Decisions regarding the future of NELC-owned car parks will be informed by this review and update of the 2011 strategy. In addition, there are some external influences that need to be recognised within the review. These include the emerging lobby across the UK seeking the introduction of free parking in town centres, with the aim of supporting the local economy, including retailers. Also, with respect to the provision of parking permits in controlled zones, the review must recognise the ruling in a recent case in Barnet which means that local authorities could not use car parking permit charges solely to raise revenue.

1.1.3 SYSTRA has therefore been commissioned by North East Lincolnshire Council [NELC] to review and update the 2011 strategy. The work will:

Review existing parking infrastructure for off street parking; Recommend the geographical spread and requirement of both off and on street parking

spaces and places to meet future demand; Evaluate whether the provision of parking is in the correct locations and suggest whether the

parking offer needs to be strengthened or reduced in some areas; Assess whether there is sufficient disabled parking to meet current standards and needs for

the area; Review the existing residents’ parking scheme; Review and analyse (i) car park usage (ii) reasons for journeys and (iii) length of parking time

required; and Review the tariff structure based on gathered intelligence including considering free parking,

and the pricing of the wide range of permits available for use in off-street car parks.

1.2 Methodology and Approach

1.2.1 The following work has been undertaken by SYSTRA within the review of car parking in North East Lincolnshire:

A detailed policy review, considering national and local policy to establish linkages with the existing Strategy;

The NELC Local Plan has been examined to identify potential locations for increased demand for parking in relation to development aspirations;

A walking accessibility analysis of the existing parking provision has been undertaken to compare the accessibility to key destinations in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, as well as being used to consider the accessibility to emerging sites contained within the NELC Local Plan;

Surveys of the 26 NELC-owned pay and display car parks were undertaken to identify the demand for the existing provision. The surveys were undertaken in August 2016, which whilst not a neutral month captured seasonal demand and so represents peak demand for



parking in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. Weekday and Saturday surveys were undertaken for each of the 26 car parks;

The survey of car park use was supplemented by interviews with people using the car parks to capture information on the reasons for parking, the type of ticket used or purchased for parking, and whether parking in the Borough is considered to be ‘value for money’;

Analysis of the survey data has been undertaken, to identify demand and occupancy of the car parks, and length of stay, alongside analysis of the responses to the questions asked of car park users, namely the reason for parking, type of tickets are used, and considerations regarding value for money of the pay and display parking. This data analysis provides evidence supporting the conclusions drawn and recommendations presented;

Review of the existing residents’ parking schemes, together with an assessment of pricing and benchmarking against comparator authorities within Greater Lincolnshire and the Humber;

Review of the legislation with respect to parking provision for disabled people and an assessment of local provision;

Analysis and modelling of data supplied by NELC on ticket sales and revenue from off-street parking to inform the review of tariffs, together with a high level review of the pricing of the wide range of permits currently available for use in car parks.

1.3 Report Structure

1.3.1 Following the executive summary and this introduction, the report comprises a further six sections, as follows:

Section Three considers the policy context in which the Strategy sits, as well as providing a review of the current NELC residents’ parking policy;

Section Four includes a review of the existing provision of off-street car parking in North East Lincolnshire, together with information on the provision of parking for disabled users, and the existing residents’ parking scheme;

Section Five details the car park surveys undertaken, and analysis of the supply and demand for parking in the off-street car parks, including that for disabled parking spaces;

Analysis of the demand and revenue implications of changing off-street car parking tariffs and the examination of a number of test options is included within Section Six, together with a review of the prices of the wide range of permits currently available for use in car parks;

Options for modifying the residents’ parking scheme are outlined in Section Seven; Finally, Section Eight contains some headline conclusions and recommendations and

potential next steps.



2. POLICY CONTEXT

2.1.1 This policy review provides the context for the review of car parking. It considers national and local policies and strategies, and examines the existing NELC residents’ parking policy. SYSTRA’s brief also specifically includes review of the 2011 Parking Strategy.

2.2 NATIONAL POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework

2.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] states that the impact on the vitality and viability of town centres is a major consideration for decisions on parking provision in town centres. Planning policies should promote competitive town centre environments and recognise town centres as the core of their communities.

2.2.2 Furthermore, the quality of town centre parking should be reflected by convenient, safe and secure parking for all vehicles, including motorcycles. Improvements to the quality of parking should be made where necessary to achieve this.

Literature Review

2.2.3 The most comprehensive collection of research and evidence on the link between car parking and town centre economic performance is in a 2012 review undertaken for London Councils The Means: to change places for the better - The relevance of parking in the success of urban centres1. This review, prepared by Sophie Tyler, Giles Semper, Peter Guest & Ben Fieldhouse identified that there was relatively little research, either academic or for other purposes, into the link between parking and urban centre success. They also noted that where there was research, it was often not backed up by survey data or other robust evidence.

2.2.4 However, from the evidence available, the main findings of that review were as follows:

More parking does not necessarily mean greater commercial success. A well-managed parking scheme, where spaces ‘turn over’ frequently, can however help to increase the number of visitors coming to a town centre and thereby help business;

There is no such thing as ‘free’ parking. The costs of developing and maintaining parking spaces and then enforcing proper use to ensure good traffic flow have to be borne by somebody. In the case of local authority operated parking (on street or off street) any costs that are not covered by parking revenue falls to local Council Tax payers;

Shopkeepers consistently overestimate the share of their customers coming by car; Car drivers spend more on a single trip; walkers and bus users spend more over a week or a

month; A good mix of shops and services and a quality environment are some of the most important

factors in attracting visitors to town centres. If both these are poor, then changes to parking or accessibility are very unlikely to make a town centre more attractive; and

There is very little evidence of the impacts of parking on the night time economy. This is an area that needs more research.

1 http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/parking-information-

professionals/review-relevance

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/parking-information-professionals/review-relevance

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/parking-information-professionals/review-relevance



2.2.5 The Means researchers concluded that the perception that parking is important to town centre business in attracting customers is a valid one. However, the evidence from studies focusing on shopper surveys suggests that other factors may be much more influential in the choice of shopping location. Some of the most frequently quoted are the mix of retail and environmental improvements or creating a pleasant atmosphere in which to shop.

Management of parking, including the use of charges

2.2.6 There is agreement that parking in town centres has an important role to play. The RAC Foundation and the British Retail Consortium in their 2006 report Motoring towards 2050: Shopping and transport policy (quoted in Tyler, Semper, Guest & Fieldhouse, 2012) highlight the need for well managed parking that is “well located, well signed and well maintained”.

2.2.7 Yorkshire Forward’s (2006) Car Parking Research as part of the Renaissance Market Towns Programme noted that the “overall message of this research is a positive one: if done properly, managing parking is good for a town. The advantages are potentially numerous and sizeable: reducing the dominance of the car whilst enhancing, not reducing access. There is also evidence to suggest that introducing better managed parking can benefit a town’s economy rather than damaging it.” The research went on to say that “a parking ‘free for all’ (with no restrictions or controls on parking and no enforcement) represents a failure to manage the asset and a failure to provide good customer service and will adversely affect economic performance.”

2.2.8 The Greater London Authority, in its 2013 report Open for Business: Empty shops on London’s high streets noted that making high streets more accessible by all modes of transport was important; and for car parking, turnover of spaces should be prioritised. The report identified that “high streets need to be more accessible by a range of transport modes, in particular walking and cycling. Car parking strategies should prioritise turnover of spaces, rather than maximising income, in order to ensure high streets can counter the appeal of out of town centres to motorists.”

2.2.9 The London Councils report The relevance of parking in the success of urban centres identified that charges were a positive aspect of parking management, as charges are “associated with turnover of parking spaces, which is itself linked to higher retail takings”. This report stated that “some research has identified an adverse effect of high charges on retail takings, particularly where there is competition from other retail centres offering free parking.” A 2010 TRL report (Palmer, D. and Ferris, C. (2010) Parking Measures and Policies Research Review, quoted in Tyler et al, 2012) explains how charging users directly is more efficient and generates more revenue without the imposition of a ‘tax’. They continue that there are a number of benefits to charging. It can increase space turnover leading to easier access to spaces; reduce the number of spaces required to meet demand, leading to less development cost; encourage long-stay parking outside the Central Business District, helping to make town centres more attractive; reduce other problems such as congestion, pollution and energy consumption; and generate revenue to pay for space provision and roads or public transport. Yorkshire Forward’s (2006) Car Parking Research noted that “customers value the certainty of being able to park when and where they want it. Convenience is a quality which most are willing to pay for.”

2.2.10 In their 2005 paper Expansion of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and its Influence on Modal Split: The Case of Edinburgh, Rye, T., Cowan, T., and Stephenson, I. (quoted in Tyler et al,



2012) identify that where a town or city provides alternative options or modes such as Park & Ride, then city centre trade will not be affected by charges, as shown by a study of Canterbury. They do however note that there are very limited examples of literature that makes a link between pricing policy, mode choice and economic impact. Yorkshire Forward’s (2006) Car Parking Research affirms that “the parking management regime is one part of an integrated transport policy”.

2.2.11 One of the most difficult balances in an urban environment is between shopping locations within the same town or city, as raised by Bonsall, P. and Young, W. (2010) in their paper ‘Is there a case for replacing parking charges by road user charges?’ (Quoted in Tyler et al, 2012). They explain that there is some evidence to suggest that high parking charges have an adverse impact on retail takings, particularly if the city centre stores are competing with other stores where parking is available, such as out of town retail centres. This can be defined as a ‘willingness to pay’ for the cost of a service when perceived against another service that may have a different price. Bonsall and Young expand on this point by quoting a study by Lockwood in 2002. This found that high prices (above £3-4 per hour at that time) may indeed suppress retail activity. However, they qualify this by saying that there must be a balance with congestion that free or low cost policies will create.

2.2.12 Kelly and Clinch (2009), in a study of Dublin (quoted in Tyler et al, 2012), looked at how parking patterns changed in light of changes to the pricing structure in an environment where there is already pricing implemented for on-street parking. The most notable result is that even with a 50 per cent increase in cost, there is very little change to the patterns of parking, implying that willingness to pay is not necessarily an issue in this case.

Parking charges and free parking

2.2.13 ‘Free parking’ is one of the recommendations of Mary Portas in her independent review of the future of high streets commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron and published in December 2011. Portas (quoted in Tyler et al 2012) cites two examples in support of her ninth recommendation that “local areas should implement free controlled parking schemes that work for their town centres”. These are Chester with a ‘Free after Three’ campaign, including parking free of charge from 3pm in the city centre, and Swindon where short stay parking charges have been reduced in the town centre. However, no data is provided on the impacts so we cannot see whether these have been beneficial or detrimental to trade.

2.2.14 Other authorities across the UK have at some point in the last three to four years implemented parking schemes offering exemptions or reduced charging. These types of measure typically enjoy wide support. In Christchurch, Dorset, the local chamber of commerce introduced a scheme in which visitors can have their parking charge refunded if they spend £10 on the high street. In several parts of London, boroughs have introduced free or reduced initial periods of parking, such as in Croydon, and in Richmond parking is free for the first 30 minutes, while in parts of Hammersmith and Fulham there is a 40p charge for a maximum one-hour stay.

2.2.15 However, in ‘The relevance of parking in the success of urban centres’, the London Councils’ findings on the impact of removing charges altogether are clear. In cases where local authorities have removed charges in town centres this has had unintended, negative consequences, in particular spaces being occupied by traders or employees rather than shoppers, and an increase in traffic as motorists cruise the area looking for a space. This is



supported by the EU Technical Committee on Transport (COST Action 342 (2006)) report Parking Policies and the Effects on Economy and Mobility, which clearly concludes that unregulated free parking just results in places being occupied by workers for a long period of time and not visitors, who have short term parking needs. This was confirmed by trials in a number of different German cities. A trial in the city of Herford for free parking for the first half hour found that it resulted in no rise in gross sales, a rise of 75 per cent in the number of drivers parking for less than half an hour and an increase in traffic volume (quoted in Tyler et al 2012).

2.2.16 A number of writers have provided evidence that free parking is not actually “free”, and that somebody, somewhere, has to pay the costs. Two sources are quoted in Tyler et al, 2012. Shoup (1997) provides evidence from the USA in The High Cost of Free Parking; the same argument can be found in a 2010 TRL report (Palmer, D. and Ferris, C. (2010) Parking Measures and Policies Research Review), which explains that “parking is only free at point of use because its cost has been allocated to higher prices or charges that are not obvious at the point of use.”

2.2.17 All the research reviewed by Tyler et al (2012), including that sponsored by industry associations such as the British Parking Association, highlights that somebody has to pay for the development and maintenance of parking spaces, as well as the management of any enforcement regime to ensure their efficient use. There is therefore no such thing as ‘free’ parking. This cost may fall to developers and private businesses in the case of shopping centres or large retail stores. Most on street parking is the responsibility of local authorities and therefore it is local taxpayers who pick up the cost of provision if revenue is not sufficient to cover costs.

2.2.18 A Welsh Government commissioned report2 highlighted potential negatives of introducing free parking at council car parks. It was found that blanket free parking in the town centres featured in the study were used by commuters rather than visitors. The following conclusions were drawn from the study:

There is a lack of robust evidence that can be used to link car parking strategies and town centre footfall. While over 75% of business owners and workers interviewed perceived that car parking prices impacted on local custom, the report found that this was largely anecdotal evidence with very little published evidence to support this;

Charging for car parking is one of a complex array of factors that can influence town centre vitality; and

Town centre economies are highly localised and are hyper-specific – this is particularly relevant in the context of this Strategy.

2.2.19 The following recommendations were highlighted in the study:

Car park charging should not be viewed in isolation from other factors (availability of parking, signage, traffic flow) which affect willingness to drive in town centres;

Local Authorities should be encouraged to consider the impacts of car parking charges in the broadest possible sense, particularly if their primary goal in changing them is to generate revenue;

2 http://gov.wales/docs/caecd/research/2015/150610-assessing-impact-car-parking-charges-town-centre-footfall-en.pdf

http://gov.wales/docs/caecd/research/2015/150610-assessing-impact-car-parking-charges-town-centre-footfall-en.pdf



Local Authorities should be encouraged to collect more robust data on the impact of car park charging in their areas; and

Parking strategies should be developed that factor in local nuances in town centre layout and retail offerings which differ between locations.

2.2.20 A Vale of White Horse District Council report3 assessed the impact of providing 2 hours free parking at locations in Abingdon, Faringdon, Wantage and Botley on businesses in these towns. 97 businesses responded to a survey undertaken in 2012, one year after the introduction of the scheme. The following results were apparent:

Approximately 70% of businesses reported a positive impact from the scheme; 61% of businesses stated that the scheme made it easier for clients and customers to access

their business; 51% of business believed that the scheme attracted more people to shop in the town centre,

increasing footfall on the high street; 35% of businesses felt that the scheme increased the number of visitors to their premises; 45% of businesses felt that the scheme encouraged shoppers to stay longer in the town,

increasing customer spend; 44% of businesses believed that the scheme attracted shoppers into town centres who

would have otherwise shopped in out of town retail parks/supermarkets; and 32% of businesses believed that the scheme attracted shoppers into town centres who

would have otherwise shopped in other towns.

Permit charges

2.2.21 In 2011, Barnet Council increased the cost of a parking permit in Controlled Parking Zones [CPZs] from £40 to £100, with visitor vouchers also increasing from £1 to £4. The High Court ruled in July 2013 that Barnet Council acted unlawfully in increasing the cost of resident parking permits in CPZs to raise revenue. It was determined that the increase in the cost of permits and visitor vouchers was undertaken to meet the projected cost of road maintenance in the Borough, rather than to cover any increased costs of running residents’ parking schemes. This was in contravention of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which is not a revenue raising statute. This ruling effectively ensured that councils across the country did not use Barnet as a precedent to use parking as a revenue raising service.

The quality of the town centre offer is more important

2.2.22 Yorkshire Forward’s (2006) Car Parking Research as part of the Renaissance Market Towns Programme concluded that “the relationship between parking and economic performance is weak” and that “parking is not the primary factor affecting (economic) performance. Rather it is what the town has to offer.” The report goes on to say that “in fact, the primary factor affecting a town’s competitiveness is the town’s offer. Therefore, a town with a good retail offer will continue to attract customers despite poor parking facilities. Meanwhile a town with very good parking facilities but a limited retail offer will struggle to attract customers.”

2.2.23 The 2010 TRL report (Palmer, D. and Ferris, C. (2010) Parking Measures and Policies Research Review, quoted in Tyler et al, 2012 and citing evidence from Betts (2009) and Litman (2010)) explains that parking fees can be correlated to the level of service in an area

3 http://www.vale4business.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Impact-of-2-hour-free-parking-2012-report-FINAL.pdf

http://www.vale4business.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Impact-of-2-hour-free-parking-2012-report-FINAL.pdf



(quality of retail mix). For example a convenient, diverse and quality mix of retail will attract people to one centre over another, even if the second centre offers free parking. They continue that pricing structures are often most objected to, not by the user, but by retailers who believe that parking fees discourage customers. However as an example of the unbalanced nature of retail centres, some of the most successful charge for parking, and some that offer free parking are economically unviable simply because the real pull [or push] factors are the shops themselves.

2.2.24 Teller and Reutterer (2008, quoted in Tyler et al, 2012) evaluated shopper choice in their study. Their survey comprised more than 2,000 on-site interviews with customers of an inner city shopping street and a competing peripheral shopping mall. The results showed that the tenant mix and the atmosphere, not parking and accessibility, exerted the most influence on attractiveness for shoppers. The EU Technical Committee on Transport (COST Action 342 (2006)) report Parking Policies and the Effects on Economy and Mobility, reporting results of surveys in Apeldoorn in The Netherlands identified that the shopkeepers said that their customers choose where to shop on the basis of the quality of the retail offer rather than parking charges. This was corroborated by the British Parking Forum position paper on parking in town centres (British Parking Forum 2006, quoted in Tyler et al, 2012), which concluded that “good access arrangements are a necessary but not sufficient pre-requisite for a successful town centre. A poor range of shops or other facilities or a poor quality environment can never be compensated for by any degree of parking or public transport access.”

2.2.25 Data from the Transport for London 2011 Town Centre Study, focused on interviews with visitors to 15 town centre areas, found that parking was very unlikely to be mentioned as the main priority for improvements. The results varied by the location of the town centre, but a ‘better range of shops’, ‘cleaner streets,’ or in Central London ‘less traffic’ were the top scoring factors. ‘More or easier parking’ was mentioned at most by six per cent of respondents (in Outer London) as being the most important factor. The Camberwell Shoppers Survey (SEA RENUE 2008) also looked at what would attract more local residents to shop locally. Responses to a local residents’ survey (of 444 residents) indicated that the main reason for choosing not to shop in Camberwell was the range of shops. When asked what would encourage then to shop in the area, the most frequently quoted response was a more varied range of shops.

2.2.26 Bonsall and Young (2010, quoted in Tyler et al, 2012) raise the issue of what are the main ‘pull’ factors in attracting visitors to a shopping or town centre location. They explain that social, environmental and economic factors all have a part to play. Marsden (2006, quoted in Tyler et al, 2012) in The evidence base for parking policies – a review, Transport Policy, Vol. 13, No. 6, notes that there is relatively limited evidence on the behavioural response to ‘parking policies’ in terms of urban vitality. He could find no link between the provision and convenience of parking spaces and their economic performance. The EU Technical Committee on Transport report (COST Action 342 (2006), quoted in Tyler et al) Parking Policies and the Effects on Economy and Mobility, reported on how Vienna introduced parking management and how they had measured the impacts of the phased roll-out of parking management including fees between 1993 and 2003. This concluded that parking policy in Vienna was only of minor importance when compared to structural changes in trade and retailing over the previous decade; and the study could not find any correlation between a reduction in turnover and the implementation of the parking management



policy. This was in spite of retailers often being critical of the local transport policy. The study also concluded that the parking management system had resulted in higher turnover of spaces in car parks and the decrease in the search time for spaces.

2.2.27 Mingardo, G. and van Meerkerk, J (2012) in ‘Is parking supply related to turnover of shopping areas? The case of the Netherlands’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, (quoted in Tyler et al, 2012) using data from Dutch national sources on (1) parking variables; (2) the physical characteristics of the shopping area and; (3) demographic and economic characteristics of the shopping area, looked at the relationship between parking charges and retail turnover in 80 urban centres of different sizes from city to district centres. They found that there was a statistically significant relationship between parking tariffs and turnover. Contrary to what is often believed, higher parking fees were linked to higher retail turnover. The only exception to this was for regional centres, but as the authors note, this was only the link with parking capacity, rather than price. “An important exception must be made for regional shopping areas, i.e. those shopping areas that have a regional catchment area and, accordingly, might be particularly oriented towards car travel. In this case parking capacity, but not price, does have an influence on turnover”.

2.3 Local Policy

North East Lincolnshire Council Local Plan

2.3.1 Policy 37 in the Pre Submission Draft Local Plan outlines NELC’s position on parking policy in the Borough:

“To meet expected demand whilst making the most efficient use of land and maintaining the principles of sustainable development, the form and scale of off-street parking provision to be provided in association with development that will generate additional parking demand will be determined with reference to: the accessibility of the development; the type, mix and use of the development; the availability and frequency of public transport services; and, local car ownership levels. Developers will be expected to have considered and incorporated measures to minimise parking provision without causing detriment to the functioning of the highway network, local amenity and safety.

Where private and/or public on-site parking for public use is to be provided at least 5% of parking bays, should be designed, set out and reserved for people with mobility impairments. Such parking bays should be located as close to the main access to the building as possible. Where 100 or more parking places are to be provided to serve a commercial development, a minimum of three charging points should be provided for electric vehicles. Appropriate low-maintenance landscaping should be included as an integral component of the design and construction of larger areas of surface parking.”



North East Lincolnshire Council Local Transport Plan 3

2.3.2 The NELC LTP3 sets out the transport strategy for the Borough between 2011 and 2026.

2.3.3 The LTP3 is built around a series of transport challenges, with challenges relevant to parking outlined below.

Challenge A: Enable sustainable growth through effective transport provision – A key element of the Local Development Framework is to ensure that developments are situated in accessible locations. Actions designed to reduce demand will be applied in conjunction with this, including parking policies and the promotion of ‘smarter choices’ to encourage travel by sustainable modes;

Challenge B: Improve journey times and reliability by reducing congestion. A key transport challenge for the Borough is to manage access to the resort of Cleethorpes and the associated requirement for car parking spaces. In particular, the A1098 in Cleethorpes suffers from severe congestion due to traffic looking for parking spaces at weekends and in the holiday season, so car parking policies will be important in addressing this. Policies will look at residential and workplace parking, commuter parking, short stay parking and parking charges;

Challenge C: Support regeneration and employment by connecting people to education, training and jobs. This will be achieved through accessibility planning policies; and

Challenge G: Improve the “journey experience” on the local transport network. This will be achieved through the integration of transport modes, including the use of park-and-ride to provide links to Grimsby and Cleethorpes on the A180, A46 and A16 corridors. Public transport improvements will feed into the regeneration plans for Grimsby and Cleethorpes, alongside the use of parking policies to provide adequate, easy to find parking.

Car Parking Strategy for North East Lincolnshire, 2011

2.3.4 The 2011 Parking Strategy was designed to be integrated with the NELC LTP3 Transport Strategy 2011-26 and to reflect wider NELC aspirations and the Sustainable Community Strategy. The Parking Strategy comprises three distinct elements:

Parking Strategy (2011-2014); Parking Policy (2011-2014); and Parking Delivery Plan (2011-2014).

2.3.5 The elements were described thus:

The Parking Policy described the means by which the strategy will be delivered. It set out NELC’s innovative new Parking Management Principles which allowed for more flexible solutions, and more efficient and effective use of parking assets;

The Delivery Plan identified the key actions to deliver the aspirations of the strategy over a three year delivery period. It included a Parking Management Plan which was stated as being clear, focussed, and integrated with the LTP3 Delivery Plan 2011-2014; and

Parking of all vehicles, including cars, lorries, coaches, buses and cycles is a key element in the development of town centres, businesses, tourism and leisure. This integrated approach is considered essential by NELC to the continued operation of services within a local transportation network constrained by both capacity and topography.



2.3.6 The aims of the Parking Strategy were to:

Increase the provision of parking for the disabled to meet current standards; Support the tourism and retail industry through the provision of adequate high quality

parking for those attractions where alternative travel modes are considered inappropriate; Promote the adequate enforcement of parking restrictions, both on-street and off-street,

and maintain and improve restrictions for the benefit of tourism, business and the community of North East Lincolnshire;

Source investment to improve all the area’s car parks to the highest standards, including membership of the ParkMark® safer parking scheme;

Implement, where deemed appropriate and supported by local residents, Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) in residential areas;

Support major car parking generators, such as business, leisure and tourism, by assisting in providing essential high quality off-street parking; and

Help to reduce congestion, to reduce emissions and improve air quality.

2.3.7 The Car Parking Strategy references the charging regime for parking, and the setting of tariffs in North East Lincolnshire. It is stated that ‘the charging regime used in setting the parking tariffs throughout the Borough is reviewed annually, to draw a balance between the actual cost of providing the service and the revenue generated. Implementation of the new tariffs is expected to be bi-annual, allowing for increases due to inflation, although annual increases should not be discounted. The charges may vary between parking facilities depending upon local economic conditions at the micro-level’. With regards to differentiated tariffs, the strategy notes that ‘setting appropriate tariffs, differentiated by zone, or by length-of-stay, is a crucial demand management measure to influence parking patterns that support the economy and highway operation’.

2.3.8 The Parking Strategy identifies that ‘the Parking Policy provides a balance between the provision and use of On-Street and Off-Street car parking. Each of these parking provisions has its role to play within the overall parking stock in supporting the various activities that take place in North East Lincolnshire’. Whilst this study only considers off-street parking, the on-street parking stock in the study area should be considered within the same context in supporting the activities taking place in North Lincolnshire.

2.3.9 The following principles were derived in developing the Parking Strategy:

On-Street parking provision in town centre areas should be aimed mainly at short stay parking, “blue badge” holders, taxis and deliveries;

Long stay parking should be directed, where practical, to off-street locations on the edges of the town centres or in designated central locations, with priority for short and medium parking provision being given to shoppers and visitors; and

Sufficient off-street parking should be provided in town centres, dedicated to short & medium stay parking to accommodate appropriate demand situations.

2.3.10 The Parking Strategy also considers the requirements of the parking stock, to ensure that it is appropriate for users. It is noted that ‘the mix and availability of parking stock needs to be regularly assessed so as to ensure that the most effective and efficient use is being made of these facilities’.



2.3.11 Within the 2011 Parking Strategy NELC commits that it ‘will periodically review the operation of its parking stock, as part of a review of car parking assets, to establish the following:

The locations of major parking demand generators (such as shopping areas, employment, tourist and leisure attractions) and the likely demand for parking at these locations by time of year;

The patterns of this demand, including duration of stay, time of arrival, group size, and the propensity to pay parking charges;

Existing parking supply at these locations, including dedicated off-street, general off-street and available on-street parking in the vicinity;

An assessment of the quality and suitability of the parking provided, particularly in meeting the needs of the disabled and other vulnerable groups; and

The requirements for increased parking supply at certain locations, and the availability of surplus parking and possible alternative use, including disposal.

2.3.12 At a local level, the Strategy identifies that ‘in relation to the three town centres of Grimsby, Immingham and Cleethorpes, these periodic reviews will be undertaken as part of the on-going programme of assessment. This process will record and analyse the effectiveness of parking deployment, and those measures introduced that will ensure that the most efficient and cost-effective balance between off-street and on-street parking is being maintained’.

2.3.13 The Parking Strategy has a defined approach for off-street parking, which ‘aims to improve the attractiveness of parking areas provided to encourage more people to use them as alternative to on-street parking. Key to this is removing the perception and fear of crime that surrounds off-street parking’. To this end, NELC reviewed the off-street car parks in 2008, alongside a programme of maintenance works. The Parking Strategy also identifies that ‘the on-going maintenance of this status will be funded through the car park maintenance programme. Currently 21 Council car parks hold the ParkMark ® Award.’

Disabled Parking

2.3.14 The Blue Badge is the National Disabled Parking Scheme which generally allows unlimited free parking in on-street parking bays and up to three hours parking on waiting restrictions (unless there is a ban on loading or unloading and only if their vehicle does not cause an obstruction).

2.3.15 The Department for Transport’s ‘Inclusive Mobility’ statement (published in 2005) is the most up to date guide to best practice on access for disabled people.

2.3.16 This states that for car parks associated with shopping areas, leisure or recreational facilities, and places open to the general public, there should be a minimum of one space for each employee who is a disabled motorist, plus 6% of the total capacity for visiting disabled motorists.

2.3.17 Inclusive Mobility also states that in off-street car parks operated by a Local Authority and in car parks offered for public use by private companies, spaces for Blue Badge holders should be provided as close as possible, preferably within 50 metres of the facilities served by the car park, with level or ramped (preferred gradient 5%) access, and under cover if possible.



2.3.18 Where car parks serve a general area rather than a specific facility, the document suggests that consideration should be given to providing a ‘Shopmobility’ service for disabled motorists between the car park and the area served by it.

NELC residents’ parking policy

2.3.19 The Council has an existing policy for the provision and management of residents’ parking schemes. The 2011 review of parking highlighted the issues surrounding residents’ parking schemes and those associated with on-street commuter parking within residential areas. Following this earlier review, more detailed work was undertaken and the new residents’ parking policy produced. The policy was approved by the Council’s Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Environment in July 2012. It replaces all previous guidance in relation to residents’ parking. It sets out the criteria for a residents’ parking scheme, and the operational details of a scheme.

2.3.20 Residents’ parking schemes aim to:

Give priority in the use of available road space to residents; Remove or control commuter or other parking; Improve environmental conditions in residential areas; and Encourage the use of alternative modes of transport such as public transport, cycling,

walking or car sharing.

2.3.21 The present policy requires that “the administration and enforcement of the scheme must be able to operate with no financial burden to the Council and its Partners”. On this basis, the charge of £80 was established, with the cost for the second permit, £100, having regard to encouraging use of sustainable or alternative modes of travel. The £80 charge for the permit was calculated with reference to the costs incurred to administer, operate and enforce the existing scheme, thereby being consistent with the terms of the Barnet ruling (see 3.2.21).

2.3.22 Application for schemes will be considered if they meet the following criteria:

Genuine Need A scheme will only be considered where:

There is only limited or no off-street parking; Residents are unable to park near to where they living, due to 40% or more

of the available spaces being regularly taken by other road users; The majority of residents have a need for on street parking (51% or more

on each street in the proposed area).

Where a request for a scheme does not fulfil the above criteria, its introduction will not be considered unless:

It will be the most effective and appropriate way to address access needs or road safety problems;

The scheme is necessary to address the adverse impact from new development in a residential area;



The scheme is to be introduced as part of a wider integrated traffic or parking management scheme or to encourage use of alternative facilities such as off-street parking.

The majority of the Community should be in favour of the scheme.

The purpose of a scheme is to improve the quality of life for those residents who require on-street parking. A scheme will only be successful when there is support and cooperation from the majority of residents living within the proposed parking scheme area. A scheme will only therefore be considered where there is clear support from residents affected by the scheme.

51% of affected households need to be in support of a scheme and wanting to participate in the proposed scheme being introduced.



3. CURRENT CONDITIONS

3.1 Review Area

3.1.1 The review, as defined by NELC, comprises of 26 pay and display car parks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, totalling over 3,100 spaces. These are detailed in Table 1 below. A map showing the location of the car parks can be found at Appendix A.

Table 1 Study Area Car Parks

CAR PARK LOCATION CHARGING ZONE

TOTAL SPACES

DISABLED SPACES

(INCLUDED IN TOTAL)

1 Abbey Walk Grimsby G1 440 23

2 Burgess Street Grimsby 0 40 0

3 Cartergate Grimsby G1 105 5

4 Duchess Street Grimsby G2 213 6

5 Garibaldi Street / Duncombe Street

Grimsby 0 111 9

6 Heritage Centre North Grimsby G2 118 4

7 Heritage Centre South Grimsby G2 33 0

8 Heritage Square Grimsby G2 45 3

9 Market Hall Grimsby G1 119 7

10 Orwell Street East Grimsby 0 67 0

11 Orwell Street West Grimsby 0 38 3

12 Somerfield (Garden Street)

Grimsby G1 91 7

13 Town Hall Grimsby G1 45 0

14 Wellington Terrace Grimsby 0 107 6

15 Boating Lake Cleethorpes C2 87 6

16 Central Promenade Cleethorpes C1 262 13

17 Civic Offices Cleethorpes C2 61 1

18 Grant Street Cleethorpes 0 92 6

19 High Street Cleethorpes C1 63 2

20 Leisure Centre Cleethorpes C2 152 7



21 Meridian Road Cleethorpes C2 173 0

22 North Promenade Cleethorpes C2 169 10

23 St. Peter’s Avenue Cleethorpes C1 93 9

24 Wardall Street Cleethorpes C2 89 5

25 Yarra Road Cleethorpes C2 44 2

26 Thrunscoe Land Cleethorpes C2 305 0

TOTAL 3,162 134

3.1.2 There is great variety in the quality of infrastructure provided across the 26 off-street car parks considered within the review. The facilities offered are illustrated through photographs of the car parks, which can be found in Appendix B.

3.2 Disabled Parking

3.2.1 The current number of Blue Badges issued by NELC is 6,668 (including 81 organisation badges).

3.2.2 Disabled badge holders are able to park free of charge and without time limit in both the on-street and council owned off-street pay and display car parks. The same applies to resident only parking bays.

3.2.3 In terms of designated provision, there are 73 disabled spaces in the council run off-street car parks in Grimsby and 61 in the car parks in Cleethorpes. There are four car parks in Grimsby with no disabled provision (Burgess Street, Heritage Centre South, Orwell Street East and Town Hall) and two car parks in Cleethorpes with no disabled provision (Meridian Road and Thrunscoe Land). This comprises less than 5% of the 1,572 off-street spaces currently available in Grimsby and less than 4% of the off-street spaces currently available in Cleethorpes. This is below the 5% of total spaces for disabled users advocated for new development in the emerging Local Plan for North East Lincolnshire and also below the 6% of total spaces recommended for car parks associated with shopping areas or leisure or recreational facilities in the Inclusive Mobility report.

3.2.4 NELC has contacted the British Parking Association about obtaining disabled parking accreditation for NELC car parks. The BPA has supplied guidelines for how bays should be marked and signed and has carried out an initial inspection. The BPA has advised that some of the council’s car parks are suitable for accreditation, but most will need some remedial work first.

3.2.5 Shopmobility is available inside the Freshney Place Shopping Centre in Grimsby. Any customer requiring mobility assistance is advised to arrive at the east car park of the centre and to press the help button on the car park entry machine or to call Shopmobility to request assistance, and arrangements are then made for Shopmobility staff to assist. There is no service available in Cleethorpes.



3.3 Pedestrian Accessibility

3.3.1 SYSTRA has considered the pedestrian accessibility of the 26 car parks, to illustrate the coverage of Grimsby and Cleethorpes town centres.

3.3.2 SYSTRA utilised GIS software to generate walking accessibility isochrones for each car park. The process included the generation of a walking network that covered Grimsby and Cleethorpes. This excluded any non-accessible major roads and service roads where pedestrians are unlikely travel. An assumed walking speed of 4.8km/h was applied to the network and the assumed access point was at the entry of each car park. This allowed ‘five minute’ walking distances isochrones to be created.

3.3.3 Pedestrian accessibility maps for created for the car parks located in Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

Figure 1 Pedestrian Accessibility - Grimsby

3.3.4 From Figure 1 it can be seen that the existing car parks within Grimsby provide an excellent coverage of the Town Centre with regards to walking accessibility, covering the core retail area (including Freshney Place) and associated services. The land off Garth Lane is not accessible from the existing car parks, but this area is identified as an ‘area of opportunity’ within the NELC Local Plan, and as such, car parking may come forward as part of the mixed-use development proposals identified in Policy 22 of the Local Plan.

3.3.5 In addition, the land around Victoria Street and King Edward Street is not accessible from the existing car parks within the study area. However, this is not an issue as this area plays host to numerous retail units and supermarkets which are supported by their own car park



provision. This is also the case for land to the east of Peaks Parkway to the southeast of the Town Centre.

Figure 2 Pedestrian Accessibility - Cleethorpes

3.3.6 Figure 2 shows that the existing car parks within Cleethorpes provide an excellent coverage of the Town Centre, associated services and the key leisure locations. The coverage includes the two ‘areas of opportunity’ close to Cleethorpes Railway Station, as identified in the NELC Local Plan.

3.4 Permits, Tariffs and Charging

3.4.1 Within the study area, there are a range of permits, tariffs and parking charges, which are outlined below:

Permits

3.4.2 The following permits are permitted to be used at car parks within the study area:

Season Tickets – These are available to the general public and businesses; SMART Permits – These are for North East Lincolnshire Council employees and are paid for

by salary sacrifice. The cost of these permits is 1% of salary per annum, capped at £450. They have no expiry date and are valid until cancelled;



Business Permits – These are valid for businesses bordering Seaview Street in Cleethorpes and situated on the North and Central Promenade;

Single Use Season Ticket – These season tickets are designated for one car park only. They are available for Stagecoach bus drivers for the Burgess Street car park and for businesses bordering Orwell Street car park. For Shoreline (a private business which was formerly part of the council), there is the choice of using the Abbey Walk, Duchess Street or Heritage Centre car parks;

Concessionary (Navigo) – These permits are valid for use as a Season ticket. As with Shoreline, Navigo is understood to be a branch of the NHS which used to be part of the council;

Reserved Bays - Agreement made for 30 reserved bays with 165 permits issued to Heritage Centre staff;

Resident Permits – These are available for eligible residents bordering Wardall Street and Yarra Road car parks, who have no on-street parking available to them;

Free Of Charge – For Old Market Place businesses, 10 permits are available for use at the Market Hall car park in Grimsby. For Grimsby Minster, 24 permits are available for use at the Cartergate car park. Various concessionary permits including 25 for use on Duchess Street, Wellington Terrace, Burgess Street, Heritage Centre and Yarra Road. For fostering and adoption purposes, there are daily permits available for use at the Abbey Walk car park. In Cleethorpes, the Coastguard has 16 permits for the Central Promenade car park and the RNLI has 8 marked bays and 2 permits for the shop; and

Leisure Centre Member Permits.

3.4.3 The eligibility for use of the above permits at car parks within the study area is shown in Table 2 below:



Table 2 Study Area Car Parks – Eligibility of Permits

CAR PARK SEASON TICKETS

SMART PERMITS

BUSINESS PERMITS

SINGLE USE

SEASON TICKET

CONCESSIONARY

RESERVED BAYS

RESIDENT PERMITS

FREE OF CHARGE

LEISURE CENTRE

1 Abbey Walk X X X X

2 Burgess Street X X X X X

3 Cartergate X X X X

4 Duchess Street X X X X X


X X X

6 Heritage Centre North X X X X X X

7 Heritage Centre South X X X X X

8 Heritage Square X X X X X

9 Market Hall X

10 Orwell Street East X X X X

11 Orwell Street West X X X X


13 Town Hall X X

14 Wellington Terrace X X X X

15 Boating Lake X



16 Central Promenade X X

17 Civic Offices X

18 Grant Street X X X

19 High Street X

20 Leisure Centre X

21 Meridian Road X

22 North Promenade X X X

23 St. Peter’s Avenue X

24 Wardall Street X X X X X X

25 Yarra Road X X X X X X

26 Thrunscoe Land X



3.4.4 There are caveats to the use of permits in the study area, and these are detailed at Appendix C.

3.4.5 Information provided by NELC has identified the following numbers of permits in circulation:

Season Tickets – 217 active tickets in circulation; SMART Permits – 667 active permits in circulation; Business Permits – 86 permits (Wardall Street – 36, North Promenade – 34, Central

Promenade – 16); Single Use Season Ticket – 21 permits (Burgess Street / Orwell Street – 9, Shoreline – 12) Concessionary (Navigo) – 38 permits; Reserved Bays –165 permits; Resident Permits – 32 permits (Wardall Street – 20, Yarra Road – 7, North Promenade – 5);

and Free Of Charge – 85 permits (Old Market Place – 10, Grimsby Minster – 24, Duchess Street,

Wellington Terrace, Burgess Street, Heritage Centre and Yarra Road – 25, Coastguard – 16, RNLI – 10).

Off-street parking tariffs – Grimsby and Cleethorpes

3.4.6 The current parking charges in Grimsby and Cleethorpes are detailed in Table 3 below:

Table 3 Specified Pay and Display Parking Charges (Schedule 4.1)

CHARGE

ZONE CAR PARKS CHARGING PERIOD CHARGE

Grimsby

1

Abbey Walk Cartergate Market Hall Somerfield (Garden Street) Town Hall

Up to 1 hour 1 to 2 hours 2 to 4 hours Over 4 hours 18:00 – 08:00

£1.50 £2.50 £3.50 £5.00 £1.50

2 Duchess Street Heritage Centre North Heritage Square


£1.00 £2.00 £3.00 £5.00 £1.50

Cleethorpes

1 Central Promenade High Street St. Peter’s Avenue


£1.00 £2.00 £3.50 £5.00 £1.50

2

Boating Lake Civic Offices Leisure Centre Meridian Road North Promenade Wardall Street


£1.00 £1.50 £3.00 £5.00 £1.50



Yarra Road Thrunscoe Land

Other Areas 0

Burgess Street Garibaldi Street / Duncombe Street Orwell Street East Orwell Street West Wellington Terrace Grant Street

Up to 1 hour 1 to 2 hours 2 to 4 hours Over 4 hours 18:00 – 08:00 08:00 – 18:00 HGV

£1.00 £1.50 £2.50 £3.00 £1.50 £3.00

3.4.7 In addition to the Pay and Display parking charges detailed in Table 3, the cost of season tickets and permits for use in off-street car parks are:

Table 4 Season Ticket Costs (Schedule 4.2)

SEASON TICKET CHARGE

Per Calendar Month £71.49

6 months £367.66

12 months £663.83

Table 5 Business and Residential Permits

ANNUAL PERMIT CHARGE

Business Permit £663.83

Business Permit4 £102.13

Resident Permit5 £15.00

Table 6 Single Use Season Ticket Prices

PURPOSE CHARGE

1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 12 Months

Burgess Street Car Park (for Stagecoach bus drivers)

£24.29 N/A £125.00 £225.70

Businesses bordering Orwell Street car park

£24.29 N/A £125.00 £225.70

Shoreline – Choice of Abbey Walk / Duchess Street / Heritage Centre

N/A £153.19 £183.83 £367.66

4 Businesses bordering Seaview Street and North & Central Promenade

5 North Promenade, Central Promenade, Wardall Street and Yarra Road



Table 7 Reserved Bays

ANNUAL PERMIT CHARGE

Reserved Bays £9,000.00

Table 8 Concessionary permits

PERMIT CHARGE (FOR SIX MONTHS)

Navigo (valid for use as a season ticket) £200.00

3.4.8 In addition, it is understood that, as part of the broad package of measures associated with the new Cartergate development, which provides important employment in the town centre, the occupier has paid the equivalent cost to 49 single use season tickets for 49 reserved bays in the Cartergate car park for use from Monday to Friday. At weekends, these spaces will be available for public use.

3.4.9 As the tables show, there is a wide range of tickets with a variety of prices across the tickets available, with different businesses (depending on the nature and location of the business, and the specific terms of agreements) paying between £102.13 and £663.83 per year for a season ticket.

3.5 Residents’ parking scheme

3.5.1 As identified above (3.3.19) the council adopted a new policy for residents’ parking in July 2012. Prior to that, the council operated 11 Shared Parking Areas (SPAs) in areas that had restricted kerb space and excessive commuter parking. Alongside residents’ parking, the SPAs allowed parking for either 30 minutes with no return within one hour or one hour parking with no return within one or two hours. All SPAs were effective from 08:00 until 18:00 from Monday to Saturday, with a historic cost of £15 for resident’s permits. However, following a review of parking undertaken by the council in 2008/09 and accounting for the consultation responses to the Parking Strategy in 2011, the qualifying criteria was found to be unsatisfactory at that time, and in need of updating.

3.5.2 The new qualifying criteria for a residents’ parking scheme in North East Lincolnshire are outlined above (3.3.22). The new schemes are for residents’ parking only and operate from 08:00 until 18:00, seven days a week. The revised cost of the permit is £80, which is based upon the cost of administration, operation and enforcement of the schemes as calculated by the council’s Parking Services.

3.5.3 The large increase in cost to the users of the residents’ parking permits (which as noted above reflected the costs of operating the service) led to almost all of previous SPAs not being reinstated as residents’ parking schemes, as many communities and streets were not supportive of the schemes as constituted.

3.5.4 However, residents’ parking schemes remain in place on:

College Street, Cleethorpes Oole Road, Cleethorpes Somersby / Fildes Street, Grimsby



3.5.5 Experience of operating under the new policy has led the council’s Parking Service to identify that, due to the lack of provision for non-residents, displacement into other nearby streets is a problem, and, very shortly after the introduction of a new residents’ parking scheme similar requests have been made from surrounding streets. This process of dealing with requests for residents’ parking schemes in an incremental way has created further costs for the council in terms of repeated consultation, creating individual orders, and additional on-street infrastructure such as signing and lining.

3.5.6 In addition to the existing schemes, the council has two further schemes in the pipeline which have approval and sufficient support to progress, namely:

Elm Road, Cleethorpes Glebe Road, Cleethorpes

3.5.7 There are also additional requests to introduce residents’ parking schemes at the following locations:

Sea View Street, Cleethorpes Knoll Street, Cleethorpes Dolphin Street, Cleethorpes Cartergate, Grimsby Anderson Street, Grimsby Edward Street, Grimsby Abbey Drive West, Grimsby Conyers Avenue / Edge Avenue, Grimsby

3.5.8 In addition to these geographical concerns, there are also some other issues with the operation of the permits as follows:

Carers – certain residents may have multiple carers, but the policy only allows one permit to be issued to a specific vehicle;

Traders – residents must purchase visitor permits (£16 for a book of eight scratchcards). Elsewhere in North East Lincolnshire, if residents have a single yellow line outside their property, they can apply for a dispensation free of charge. Aside from the cost implication of this policy, it is cumbersome in terms of speed of issue.

3.6 Local Plan Aspirations

3.6.1 The above tables and details show the existing car park provision, pedestrian accessibility and the associated charging and permit regimes. There are also a number of development aspirations within the NELC Local Plan that will influence future parking provision.

3.6.2 The Key Diagram within the Local Plan shows the spatial vision in which the development aspirations – both housing and employment – will sit within. The Key Diagram has been reproduced at Figure 3.



Figure 3 NELC Local Plan – Key Diagram

3.6.3 Whilst there are other settlements considered within the Local Plan, it is recognised that the aspirations in Grimsby and Cleethorpes will have the greatest level of ‘impact’ on the car parks within the study area. Table 3.9 details the emerging development sites (with some of these sites having already secured planning permission) within the pre-submission draft NELC Local Plan within the study area.

Table 9 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocation Sites

SETTLEMENT ALLOCATION REFERENCE

SITE LOCATION ESTIMATED YIELD TO 2032

TOTAL SITE

CAPACITY

Grimsby

HOU017 Land at 71-85 Hamilton Street and Cleethorpes Road, Grimsby

30 30

HOU018 Land at Macaulay Lane (West Marsh Renaissance)

250 250

HOU037 Land to the west of Cartergate

14 14

HOU044 Land at Ladysmith Road (former Birdseye site)

177 177

HOU047 Claremont House, 7 23 23



Welholme Avenue

HOU059 Former Cedars Office, Eastern Inway

32 32

HOU074A, HOU074B & HOU074C

Land west of Humberston Road 748 1,708

HOU118 Central Parade, Freshney Green (former Yarborough Estate)

165 165

HOU119 Cordage Mill, Convamore Road

113 113

HOU128

Land at former Western School and to the rear of Grange Primary School, south of Cambridge Road and east of Little Coates Road

390 390

HOU144 Land off College Street 14 14

HOU150 Land at the south of Diana Princess of Wales Hospital

233 233

HOU151 Land at the north west of Diana Princess of Wales Hospital

19 19

HOU231 Fletchers Yard, Wellowgate

12 12

HOU232 2-4 (Hazlemere House) and 2A Welholme Avenue

14 14

HOU249A Land at corner of Park Street (65) and Brereton Avenue

14 14

HOU296 Land off Shaw Drive and Glebe Road

160 160

HOU302 2-6 Littlefield Lane 10 10

HOU303 29-31 Chantry Lane 11 11

HOU308 Land at Winchester Avenue

60 60

HOU316 Former Leaking Boot Public House, Grimsby Road and Suggitt’s Lane

21 21

Cleethorpes HOU034A, HOU034B &

Land at Pelham Road and Chapman’s Pond

242 242



HOU034C

HOU042 Site of former Clifton Bingo, Grant Street

80 80

HOU057 Winter Gardens, Kingsway 25 25

HOU143 Former Poplar Road depot 48 48

3.6.4 In addition to the sites listed in Table 9, there are three Strategic Housing Sites identified within the Local Plan. These sites are all located on the edges of Grimsby or Cleethorpes, so whilst not located close to the car parks within the study area, may generate demand for car parking and town centre uses when they are brought forward and delivered. The Strategic Housing Sites are listed in Table 10.

Table 10 NELC Local Plan Strategic Housing Sites

SITE REFERENCE

STRATEGIC SITE ESTIMATED DELIVERY TO 2032

POTENTIAL TOTAL SITE CAPACITY

HOU076 Scartho Top, Grimsby 1,024 1,024

HOU342 Land west of Laceby Acres and Wybers Wood, Grimsby (Grimsby West)

2,593 3,335

HOU074 Land west of Humberston Road, Grimsby (Humberston Road)

748 1,708

The sites identified in Table 9 and Table 10 have been mapped and can be seen in

3.6.5 Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Figure 4 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocations and Strategic Sites – Grimsby



Figure 5 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocations and Strategic Sites – Cleethorpes

3.6.6 In addition to housing sites, the Local Plan also contains allocations for employment development in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and these have been identified in Table 11 and mapped in Figure 6.

Table 11 NELC Local Plan B1/B2/B8 Employment Allocations

SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT TYPE

ALLOCATION REFERENCE

SITE LOCATION DEVELOPABLE SITE AREA (HA)

Grimsby

B1/B2/B8 ELR005 Former Huntsman Tioxide Site, Moody Lane

25

B1/B2/B8 ELR015 a&b Great Coates Business Park, Moody Lane

22.6

B1/B2/B8 ELR008 a-e Europarc Phase III 14.9

B1/B2/B8 ELR011 Europarc Phase IV 15

B1/B8 ELR036 Land at Westgate Park, Armstrong Street

0.61



Figure 6 NELC Local Plan Employment Allocations - Grimsby



4. CAR PARK SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Data collection

4.1.1 Surveys were undertaken to collect data to aid understanding of the demand for parking, including to identify the length of stay of vehicles parking in the area, to understand why people are parking in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and to obtain views regarding whether parking is considered value for money. These surveys were specified and agreed with NELC, and took place in August 2016.

Specification

4.1.2 The surveys of the 26 pay and display car parks were undertaken at hourly intervals between 08:00 and 20:00 on Thursday 25th and Saturday 27th August 2016, with the following information collected:

Occupancy counts; Number plate surveys of vehicles in each car park to identify length of stay; and Number of blue badges displayed on vehicles in each car park.

4.1.3 Surveying the demand for parking in August captured peak demand for parking within Grimsby and Cleethorpes, more so considering the Saturday survey was undertaken over the August Bank Holiday weekend. By undertaking the surveys during peak demand, it allows for tourism and seasonal parking to be captured, rather than leaving the need for assumptions to be made about this level of demand had the surveys been undertaken in a neutral month. Weekday and Saturday surveys were chosen to demonstrate the envisaged contrast in demand for different days during a standard week.

4.1.4 Hourly occupancy counts allow for accumulation analysis of each park to be undertaken. With number plate surveys being undertaken, this allows for length of stay calculations to be made, which informs the overall analysis.

4.1.5 In addition, short interviews with parkers have been undertaken to ascertain the following information:

Table 12 Interview Questions

QUESTION ANSWER(S)

Question 1 – What is the reason for your visit today?

Work

Shopping

Leisure

Tourism

Other (Please state)

Question 2 – What ticket do you use for parking today?

Pay and Display

Season Ticket

SMART Permit



Business Permit

Single Use Season Ticket

Concessionary

Residents Permit

Reserved Bay

Free of Charge

Leisure Centre Permit

Blue Badge

Other (Please state)

Question 3 – On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being excellent value, do you consider parking in North East Lincolnshire to be value for money?

Sliding Scale:

1 – Poor Value

2

3

4

5 – Average Value

6

7

8

9

10 – Excellent Value

4.2 Demand analysis

4.2.1 This section presents the data collected at an individual car park level as well as considering the ‘bigger picture’ with regards to car parks as a whole for both Grimsby and Cleethorpes respectively. Analysis has been undertaken for both the weekday and the Saturday data collected. Furthermore, this section presents the responses to the interview questions to people seeking views on parking across the two days.

4.2.2 This section is completed by a consideration of the walking accessibility of the NELC Local Plan sites identified in Section Four, paying due cognisance to the walking accessibility presented.

4.2.3 For each car park within Grimsby and Cleethorpes, the occupancy and length of stay were surveyed on both the weekday and Saturday surveys.



4.3 Grimsby Car Parks - Weekday

Table 13 Weekday Occupancy and Length of Stay - Grimsby

CAR PARK PEAK OCCUPANCY

NUMBER OF VEHICLES / %

TIME OF PEAK OCCUPANCY

MINIMUM LEVEL OF

OCCUPANCY

AVERAGE LENGTH OF

STAY

Abbey Walk 198 45% 11.00-12.00 0%

6 hours 21 minutes

Burgess Street 12 30% 10.00-12.00 5%

5 hours 47 minutes

Cartergate 42 40% 13:00-14:00 0%

3 hours 25 minutes

Duchess Street 206 97% 12:00-14:00 9%

6 hours 19 minutes

Garibaldi Street / Duncombe Street

7 6% 15:00-16:00 0% 2 hours 56

minutes

Heritage Centre North

22 19% 15:00-16:00 0% 5 hours 17

minutes

Heritage Centre South

28 85% 12:00-13:00 6% 5 hours 1 minute

Heritage Square 37 82% 11:00-12:00 2%

5 hours 14 minutes

Market Hall 104 87% 10:00-11:00 0%

2 hours 50 minutes

Orwell Street East

0 - - - -

Orwell Street West

10 26% 13:00-14:00 0% 5 hours

Somerfield (Garden Street)

80 88% 12:00-13:00 2% 1 hour 47 minutes

Town Hall 12 27% 10:00-11:00 0% 4 hours 21

minutes

Wellington Terrace

10 9% 13:00-14:00 0% 2 hours 5 minutes

4.4 Cleethorpes Car Parks - Weekday

CAR PARK PEAK OCCUPANCY TIME OF PEAK MINIMUM AVERAGE




OCCUPANCY LEVEL OF OCCUPANCY

LENGTH OF STAY

Boating Lake 15 28% 14:00-15:00 0%

1 hour 50 minutes

Central Promenade

206 79% 13:00-14:00 2% 2 hours 8 minutes

Civic Offices 53 87% 13:00-14:00 7%

3 hours 29 minutes

Grant Street 33 36% 14:00-15:00 2%

3 hours 8 minutes

High Street 60 95% 12:00-13:00 2%

2 hours 17 minutes

Leisure Centre 110 72% 12:00-13:00 33%

2 hours 9 minutes

Meridian Road 134 77% 13:00-14:00 3%

2 hours 13 minutes

North Promenade

118 70% 14:00-15:00 12% 1 hour 53 minutes

St. Peter’s Avenue

87 94% 13:00-14:00 4% 1 hour 58 minutes

Wardall Street 80 90% 12:00-13:00 16%

2 hours 36 minutes

Yarra Road 27 61% 13:00-15:00 11%

3 hours 40 minutes

Thrunscoe Land 70 23% 13:00-14:00 2%

2 hours 18 minutes

4.5 Area-Wide Analysis – Weekday

4.5.1 Looking at the weekday survey data average car park occupancies for each hour surveyed and average length of stay have been calculated for the surveyed car parks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, as well as for each of the charging zones identified in Table 3.



Occupancy

4.5.2 In Grimsby, occupancy levels were generally lower throughout the day, compared with car parks in Cleethorpes, with average occupancies reaching peaks of 43% and 41% between 11:00-12:00 and 12:00-13:00, respectively. Correspondingly car parks within Cleethorpes were observed as having a higher average occupancy, with the highest occupancy between 13:00-14:00 with an average of 64%, but a similar level was also apparent between 12:00-13:00, at 61% occupancy.

4.5.3 The highest average occupancy across the entire study area was between 12:00-13:00 and 13:00-14:00, at approximately 50%. This is shown in Figure 7 below. Some of the car parks surveyed were identified as being close to capacity at some points during the survey, but in overall terms, there was plenty of spare capacity observed.

Figure 7 Weekday Occupancy – All Car Parks

4.5.4 For the car parks within Charging Zone 1 in Grimsby, the highest average occupancy was between 11:00-12:00, at 52%, and this hour was also noted as having the highest average occupancy for the car parks in Charging Zone 2, at 68%.

4.5.5 In Cleethorpes, the highest average occupancies were seen between 13:00-14:00 for both Charging Zones 1 and 2, at 89% and 58%, respectively. For the car parks located in other areas, the highest average occupancy took place 13:00-14:00, at only 17%.

4.5.6 The weekday occupancy by charging zone has been calculated and is shown in Figure 8 below:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

08:00 -09:00

09:00 -10:00

10:00 -11:00

11:00 -12:00

12:00 -13:00

13:00 -14:00

14:00 -15:00

15:00 -16:00

16:00 -17:00

17:00 -18:00

18:00 -19:00

19:00 -20:00

Weekday Occupancy - All Car Parks



Figure 8 Weekday Occupancy – By Charging Zone

Length of Stay

4.5.7 Across the car parks in Grimsby, the average length of stay was 4 hours and 2 minutes, while in Cleethorpes it was observed as being 2 hours and 28 minutes.

Table 14 Weekday Length of Stay – By Charging Zone

CHARGING ZONE AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY

Grimsby – Charging Zone 1 3 hours 45 minutes


Cleethorpes – Charging Zone 1 2 hours 8 minutes


No Charging Zone 3 hours 10 minutes

4.6 Questionnaire Responses – Weekday

4.6.1 During the course of the weekday data collection, 261 people completed the questionnaire across car parks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, which is just over 5% of the number of parking instances recorded.

4.6.2 The replies to Question 1 – ‘What is your reason for parking today?’ - are detailed in Table 15:

Table 15 Question 1 Responses - Weekday

RESPONSES REPLIES %

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

08:00 -09:00

09:00 -10:00

10:00 -11:00

11:00 -12:00

12:00 -13:00

13:00 -14:00

14:00 -15:00

15:00 -16:00

16:00 -17:00

17:00 -18:00

18:00 -19:00

19:00 -20:00

Weekday Occupancy - By Charging Zone

No Zone G1 G2 C1 C2



Work 78 30%

Shopping 111 43%

Leisure 43 16%

Tourism 19 7%

Other (Please state) 10 4%

4.6.3 Almost half of the responses were people parking for shopping, with people parking for work purposes the next most popular reason. Of the reasons given for ‘other’, these varied from meeting family, social events to eating out, with no clear trend apparent.

4.6.4 The replies to Question 2 – ‘What ticket did you use for your parking today?’ - are detailed in Table 16:

Table 16 Question 2 Responses - Weekday

RESPONSES REPLIES %

Pay and Display 163 62%

Season Ticket 12 5%

SMART Permit 23 9%

Business Permit 1 0%


1 0%

Concessionary 0 0%

Residents Permit 1 0%

Reserved Bay 0 0%

Free of Charge 9 3%

Leisure Centre Permit 1 0%

Blue Badge 16 6%

Other (Please State) 34 13%

4.6.5 Almost two thirds of respondents had ‘pay and display’ tickets when parking, with a range of other tickets or permits used less frequently. Of the reasons given for ‘other’, 30 of the 34 responses cited that the parking machines were out of order, with these people being surveyed at the Duchess Street and Somerfield (Garden Street) car parks. It is likely that these people would have responded ‘pay and display’ if the machines had been working.



4.6.6 The replies to Question 3 – ‘On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being excellent value, do you consider parking in Grimsby and Cleethorpes to be value for money?’ - are detailed in Figure 9:

Figure 9 Question 3 Responses - Weekday

4.6.7 There are a range of responses, with a score of 6 the only response gaining more than 15% from respondents. As such, of the people surveyed during the weekday, there was no general consensus on the value for money of parking. The mean score was 6.

4.7 Weekday Summary

4.7.1 Examining the data collected from the car parks on the weekday survey it is observed that, taken as a whole, the car parks across Grimsby and Cleethorpes operate with significant amounts of spare capacity. This broad conclusion however hides significant differences in the use of individual car parks. The spare capacity is not evenly distributed, and is focused on a limited number of car parks, particularly those located in Grimsby, but outside the town centre.

4.7.2 The surveys undertaken in the summer of 2016, in combination with the examination of ticket sales data, indicates that the car parks that are poorly used are the Burgess Street, Orwell Street East, Orwell Street West, Garibaldi / Duncombe Street and Wellington Terrace car parks within Grimsby.

4.7.3 Figure 5.4 below shows the comparison between the car parks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. On average, the car parks in Cleethorpes have a higher occupancy over the course of the surveyed weekday. This may be due to the surveys being undertaken in August, when parking for leisure and tourism is more prevalent. This is borne out through analysis of the questionnaire responses, with over 70% of people questioned parking in Cleethorpes being there for either leisure or tourism purposes. In addition, this also explains the increase in parking occupancy in Cleethorpes after 18:00.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 3 Responses - Weekday



4.7.4 The average occupancy in Grimsby remains broadly consistent between 10:00 and 16:00, reflecting the traditional ‘office hours’ of businesses within the Town Centre (09:00-17:00) combined with shoppers visiting the Town Centre. It is possible that because of this, and the timing of the surveys to coincide with peak visitor season, that the use of town centre car parks recorded is below typical levels.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

08:00 -09:00

09:00 -10:00

10:00 -11:00

11:00 -12:00

12:00 -13:00

13:00 -14:00

14:00 -15:00

15:00 -16:00

16:00 -17:00

17:00 -18:00

18:00 -19:00

19:00 -20:00

Weekday Occupancy - Grimsby and Cleethorpes

Cleethorpes Grimsby



4.8 Grimsby Car Parks - Saturday

Table 17 Saturday Occupancy and Length of Stay - Grimsby




MINIMUM LEVEL OF

OCCUPANCY

AVERAGE LENGTH OF

STAY

Abbey Walk 19 4% 12:00-13:00 0% 2 hours 20 minutes

Burgess Street 3 8% 09:00-13:00 0% 5 hours

Cartergate 83 79% 12:00-13:00 19% 2 hours 13 minutes

Duchess Street 150 70% 11:00-12:00 7% 3 hours 1 minute


12 11% 12:00-13:00 0% 1 hour 56 minutes


6 5% 12:00-16:00 0% 2 hours 27 minutes

Heritage Centre South

14 42% 13:00-14:00 0% 3 hours 16 minutes

Heritage Square

16 36% 15:00-16:00 0% 3 hours 33 minutes

Market Hall 104 87% 12:00-13:00 0% 2 hours 10 minutes

Orwell Street East

1 1% 10:00-12:00 0% 2 hours

Orwell Street West

3 8% 11:00-13:00 0% 1 hour 17 minutes


54 59% 10:00-11:00 1% 1 hour 59 minutes

Town Hall 2 4% 11:00-12:00, 14:00-15:00, 16:00-17:00

0% 1 hour 36 minutes

Wellington Terrace

24 22% 13:00-14:00 0% 1 hour 35 minutes

4.9 Cleethorpes Car Parks - Saturday

Table 18 Saturday Occupancy and Length of Stay - Cleethorpes




MINIMUM LEVEL OF

OCCUPANCY

AVERAGE LENGTH OF

STAY



Boating Lake 30 35% 14:00-16:00 0% 2 hours 14 minutes

Central Promenade

235 90% 13:00-14:00 5% 2 hours 25 minutes

Civic Offices 13 21% 14:00-15:00 0% 2 hours 1 minute

Grant Street 33 36% 13:00-14:00, 15:00-16:00

1% 2 hours 59 minutes

High Street 60 95% 13:00-14:00 8% 2 hours 7 minutes

Leisure Centre 87 57% 11:00-12:00 5% 1 hour 50 minutes

Meridian Road 122 70% 13:00-14:00 2% 1 hour 45 minutes

North Promenade

166 98% 13:00-14:00 14% 2 hours 45 minutes

St. Peter’s Avenue

89 96% 13:00-14:00 12% 1 hour 44 minutes

Wardall Street 80 89% 11:00-12:00 22% 3 hours 40 minutes

Yarra Road 29 66% 14:00-15:00 16% 3 hours 14 minutes

Thrunscoe Land 104 34% 14:00-15:00 2% 1 hour 43 minutes

4.10 Area-Wide Analysis - Saturday

4.10.1 Looking at the Saturday survey data, average car park occupancies for each hour surveyed and average length of stay have been calculated for the surveyed car parks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, as well as for each of the charging zones identified in Table 3.

Occupancy

4.10.2 For all the car parks within Grimsby, the average occupancy peaked between 12:00-13:00, at 29%, while in Cleethorpes, the occupancy was at its highest around 13:00-14:00 and 14:00-15:00, at 63% and 62%, respectively.

The highest average occupancy across all the car parks surveyed was between 12:00-13:00 (43%), 13:00-14:00 (45%) and 14:00-15:00 (44%). This is shown in Figure 10 below.



Figure 10 Saturday Occupancy – All Car Parks

4.10.3 For the car parks located within Charging Zone 1 in Grimsby, the highest average occupancy was at 12:00-13:00 with 45% occupancy, whilst in Charging Zone 2, occupancy peaked at 47% between 13:00-14:00. For Cleethorpes, the car parks within Charging Zone 1 experienced highest average occupancy between 13:00-14:00 at 94%, and for Charging Zone 2, it was between 14:00-15:00 at 56%. The car parks that were located in areas outside the Charging Zones experienced highest average occupancies between the hours of 12:00 and 14:00, at 12%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

08:00 -09:00

09:00 -10:00

10:00 -11:00

11:00 -12:00

12:00 -13:00

13:00 -14:00

14:00 -15:00

15:00 -16:00

16:00 -17:00

17:00 -18:00

18:00 -19:00

19:00 -20:00

Saturday Occupancy - All Car Parks



Figure 11 Saturday Occupancy – By Charging Zone

Length of stay

4.10.4 The average length of stay on the weekend across the car parks in Grimsby was 2 hours and 27 minutes, while in Cleethorpes it was 2 hours and 22 minutes.

Table 19 Saturday Length of Stay – By Charging Zone

CHARGING ZONE AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY





No Charging Zone 2 hours 28 minutes

4.11 Questionnaire Responses - Saturday

4.11.1 During the course of the weekday data collection, 262 people completed the questionnaire across car parks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, which is just over 5% of the number of parking instances recorded.

4.11.2 The replies to Question 1 – ‘What is your reason for parking today?’ - are detailed in Table 20.



Table 20 Question 1 Responses - Saturday

RESPONSES REPLIES %

Work 37 14%

Shopping 97 37%

Leisure 67 26%

Tourism 44 17%

Other (Please state) 17 6%

4.11.3 Over a third of respondents were people parking for shopping, with just over a quarter of responses from people parking for leisure purposes. Of the reasons given for ‘other’, these varied from people going for food, or parking for activities for children, with no clear trend apparent.

4.11.4 The replies to Question 2 – ‘What ticket did you use for your parking today?’ - are detailed in Table 21:

Table 21 Question 2 Responses - Saturday

RESPONSES REPLIES %

Pay and Display 133 51%

Season Ticket 10 4%

SMART Permit 9 3%

Business Permit 0 0%


0 0%

Concessionary 0 0%

Residents Permit 0 0%

Reserved Bay 0 0%

Free of Charge 44 17%

Leisure Centre Permit 0 0%

Blue Badge 8 3%

Other (Please State) 58 22%

4.11.5 Just over half the number of respondents had used ‘pay and display’ tickets when parking, with a range of other tickets or permits used less frequently. Of the reasons given for ‘other’, all of the responses cited that the parking machines were out of order, with these people being surveyed at the Duchess Street car park. It is likely that these people would have responded ‘pay and display’ if the machines had been working.

4.11.6 The replies to Question 3 – ‘On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being excellent value, do you consider parking in Grimsby and Cleethorpes to be value for money?’ - are detailed in Figure 12:



Figure 12 Question 3 Responses - Saturday

4.11.7 There are a range of responses, with a score of 8 the only response gaining more than 20% from respondents. As such, of the people surveyed during the Saturday, there was no general consensus on the value for money of parking. The mean score was 6.

4.12 Saturday Summary

4.12.1 The Saturday survey again suggests that the car parks operate with significant amounts of spare capacity on a weekend.

4.12.2 It was observed that the car parks in Cleethorpes saw a greater average occupancy than the car parks in Grimsby, although given the Saturday surveys were undertaken on August Bank Holiday weekend to capture peak demand for parking, this is unsurprising. Furthermore, over half of the questionnaire respondents said they were parking for either leisure or tourism purposes. When these responses are analysed further, over 60% of respondents parking in Cleethorpes did so for leisure or tourism purposes.

4.12.3 Despite the Saturday surveys being undertaken over August Bank Holiday weekend, the cumulative demand for parking in Grimsby and Cleethorpes followed a traditional ‘office hours’ occupancy curve, peaking at 13:00-14:00.

4.12.4 When comparing the weekday and Saturday data, there are more parking instances on a Saturday (5,129) than on a weekday (4,788). However, the average occupancy was greater across all car parks in the weekday surveys, due to the average length of stay per vehicle being longer on a weekday (3 hours 19 minutes) than on a Saturday (2 hours 25 minutes). This increase in average length of stay can be attributed to workers. The comparison of average occupancy between the weekday and Saturday can be seen in Figure 5.8, with both occupancy curves following similar – and traditional – trends. The demand for parking across both survey days peaks at 13:00-14:00. The rationale for the same hour being the highest point in demand across both days is attributed to a combination of workers,

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 3 Responses - Saturday



shoppers and visitors all combining to make 13:00-14:00 the ‘busiest’ hour of the surveyed days. However, it is considered that the combination of these groups will be different on the weekday compared to Saturday.

4.12.5 On each day plenty of spare capacity was identified across the parking stock as a whole.

Figure 13 Occupancy Comparison – All Car Parks

4.12.6 Figure 14 and Figure 15 detail the composition of length of stay across each surveyed day. 43% of all parking instances surveyed on the weekday were for 1 hour or less, with just over 80% of all parking instances being 3 hours or less. However, the demand for longer stay parking during the day means the average length of stay was over three hours, and this can be attributed to workers in Grimsby and Cleethorpes town centres.

4.12.7 In comparison, 54% of all parking instances surveyed on the Saturday were for 1 hour or less, with 89% of all parking instances being 3 hours or less. As a consequence, the average length of stay on the Saturday was less than 2 and a half hours, lower than observed on the weekday, and this can be attributed to less workers in Grimsby and Cleethorpes town centres.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

08:00 -09:00

09:00 -10:00

10:00 -11:00

11:00 -12:00

12:00 -13:00

13:00 -14:00

14:00 -15:00

15:00 -16:00

16:00 -17:00

17:00 -18:00

18:00 -19:00

19:00 -20:00

Occupancy Comparison - All Car Parks

Weekday Saturday



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

08:00 -09:00

09:00 -10:00

10:00 -11:00

11:00 -12:00

12:00 -13:00

13:00 -14:00

14:00 -15:00

15:00 -16:00

16:00 -17:00

17:00 -18:00

18:00 -19:00

19:00 -20:00

Weekday Length of Stay - All Car Parks 1 Hour 2 Hours 3 Hours 4 Hours 5 Hours 6 Hours

7 Hours 8 Hours 9 Hours 10 Hours 11 Hours 12 Hours

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

08:00 -09:00

09:00 -10:00

10:00 -11:00

11:00 -12:00

12:00 -13:00

13:00 -14:00

14:00 -15:00

15:00 -16:00

16:00 -17:00

17:00 -18:00

18:00 -19:00

19:00 -20:00

Saturday Length of Stay - All Car Parks 1 Hour 2 Hours 3 Hours 4 Hours 5 Hours 6 Hours

7 Hours 8 Hours 9 Hours 10 Hours 11 Hours 12 Hours

Figure 14 Weekday Length of Stay – All Car Parks

Figure 15 Saturday Length of Stay – All Car Parks

4.12.8 When considering the length of stay within each charging zone, some clear trends emerge. The average length of stay in Grimsby (both Charging Zone 1 and Charging Zone 2) was identified as higher than in the others zones when surveyed on the weekday. It is likely to be due to Town Centre workers given the average length of stay recorded at this location.

4.12.9 The average length of stay in Cleethorpes (Charging Zone 1 and Charging Zone 2) was



observed as being broadly similar in the weekday and Saturday surveys.

Figure 16 Length of Stay – By Charging Zone


4.13.1 There are three car parks in Grimsby and two car parks in Cleethorpes with no allocated disabled spaces provided namely, Heritage Centre South, Burgess Street and Town Hall (though on-street spaces are provided close to this location) in Grimsby, and Thrunscoe Land and Meridian Road in Cleethorpes. In Cleethorpes, this means that there are no disabled spaces in council owned car parks south of the Boating Lake.

4.13.2 As part of the car park surveys, the occupancy of the disabled spaces each hour was recorded. The table below presents the number of hours between 08:00 and 20:00 when the occupancy of the disabled spaces was 80% or higher.

Table 22 Number of hours disabled occupancy was 80% or higher in a 12 hour period

CAR PARK CAPACITY OCCUPANCY 80% OR HIGHER (HOURS)

OCCUPANCY 100% (HOURS)

WEEKDAY WEEKEND WEEKDAY WEEKEND

Abbey Walk 23 0 0 0 0

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

No Zone G1 G2 C1 C2

Length of Stay - By Charging Zone

Average of Weekday Average of Saturday



Cartergate 5 12 12 12 12

Duchess Street 6 2 1 0 0


9 0 0 0 0


4 0 0 0 0

Heritage Square 3 0 0 0 0

Market Hall 7 1 5 1 1

Orwell Street West 3 0 0 0 0


7 6 1 2 0

Wellington Terrace 6 0 0 0 0

Boating Lake 6 0 2 0 0

Central Promenade

13 0 0 0 0

Civic Offices 1 12 1 12 1

Grant Street 6 0 1 0 0

High Street 2 4 4 4 4

Leisure Centre 7 2 0 0 0

North Promenade 10 0 3 0 0

St. Peter’s Avenue 9 4 7 1 5

Wardall Street 5 4 6 1 1

Yarra Road 2 2 2 2 2

4.13.3 These data indicate that in Grimsby the disabled spaces within the Cartergate, Market Hall, and Somerfield (Garden Street) car parks are well utilised. Indeed, at Cartergate the disabled spaces were 100% occupied for the whole period of the surveys both on the weekday and Saturday. Market Hall was well used at the weekend, as was Somerfield (Garden Street) on the weekday, with roughly half of the day seeing more than 80% occupancy. In Cleethorpes, use of the disabled spaces at the Civic Offices, High Street, St. Peter’s Avenue, Wardall Street and Yarra Road car parks was high, with the Civic Offices being 100% occupied for the whole period of the survey on the weekday (this possibly reflecting use by workers in the offices as the car park is closed to the public on weekdays). High Street and St. Peter’s Avenue car parks reach 100% occupancy for a number of hours around midday at the weekend.

4.13.4 The use of disabled spaces at other locations is however relatively lower, with many of the car parks never reaching 80% use of their disabled spaces, or only infrequently.



4.13.5 The figures below show 50m and 150m isochrones around the car parks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, as well as places where there are either no spaces or where occupancy reaches 100% on either a weekday or weekend.

Figure 17: Disabled Parking Provision - Grimsby



Figure 18: Disabled Parking Provision - Cleethorpes

4.13.6 The figures show that the walking distances from the current car parks would appear to cover the main destinations within Grimsby and Cleethorpes town centres. However, there may be a lack of availability of disabled spaces within those car parks at certain times.

4.13.7 In view of this distribution of uneven distribution of demand for disabled parking spaces, and the standards advocated for new development in the emerging Local Plan for North East Lincolnshire and the recommendations for car parks associated with shopping areas or leisure or recreational facilities in the Inclusive Mobility report (see 4.2.3), it is therefore advisable to examine the use in more detail and consult with disabled users to ensure that the number and location of spaces best meets the needs of users.

4.14 Local Plan Accessibility

4.14.1 The NELC Local Plan sites identified in Section 4 have been overlaid with the walking accessibility to ascertain whether the existing car parks within Grimsby and Cleethorpes provide accessible coverage to these sites if they come forward. In addition, the capacity of car parks – capacity identified through the data analysis above – has been considered to ascertain whether or not the existing car park provision can accommodate the demand for the Local Plan sites.

4.14.2 For the purpose of this exercise it is recognised that the NELC Local Plan proposed employment sites are located away from Grimsby town centre, and as such, are outside the scope of the walking accessibility isochrones. In addition, due to their location it is likely



that they will be brought forward with their own parking supply. With this in mind, only the housing sites (

4.14.3

4.14.4

4.14.5 Figure 4 and Figure 5) are being considered. Whilst it is recognised that housing sites may be brought forward with their own parking supply, the principle of residents’ parking in pay and display car parks or benefitting from a residents’ parking scheme has already been established within Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

Figure 19 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocations/Walking Accessibility - Grimsby

4.14.6 There are three NELC Local Plan housing sites entirely within the walking accessibility isochrones in Grimsby Town Centre, with these sites identified as providing 35 dwellings. A further site is partially located within the isochrone, and this site is proposed to deliver a further 12 dwellings.



4.14.7 The nearest car park to sites HOU302, HOU303 and HOU037 is Cartergate. When surveyed on the weekday, the maximum occupancy at Cartergate was 40% (with spare capacity of 63 spaces) with a maximum occupancy of 79% on the Saturday (with spare capacity of 22 spaces). As such, it is considered that there is some spare capacity which could be utilised to provide dedicated parking for these Local Plan housing sites.

4.14.8 Local Plan housing site HOU231 which is partially located within the isochrone is closest to the Duchess Street car park, which was heavily utilised on the surveyed weekday, and is therefore considered inappropriate to be utilised for residential parking.

4.14.9 Figure 20 below shows for Cleethorpes the two NELC Local Plan housing sites located either fully, or partially, within the walking isochrones. Housing site HOU143 has the capacity to provide 48 dwellings and is located close to the Grant Street car park. The Grant Street car park operated with plenty of spare capacity on both the survey days, thus providing an option for dedicated residents parking at this location.

4.14.10 Local Plan housing site HOU057 has the potential to deliver 25 dwellings, with the closest car park being the Leisure Centre car park. On both the survey days, it was observed that there was spare capacity within the Leisure Centre car park, thus providing an option for its use.

Figure 20 NELC Local Plan Housing Allocations / Walking Accessibility - Cleethorpes



5. REVIEW OF OFF-STREET TARIFFS

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 It is understood that car parking tariffs have been held relatively constant for a number of years (with the last increase understood to be from 90p to £1 for one hour in 2010). Consequently, analysis has been undertaken to estimate the likely impact on demand for parking, and consequent revenues to the council, of different tariff levels within the off-street car parks within Grimsby and Cleethorpes. This has been undertaken using one year’s car parking ticket sales data, for the period August 2015 to July 2016.

Approach to tariff modelling

5.1.2 Ticket sales data by car park, by zone, and by length of stay has been used to develop a demand and revenue model to test the impact of different pricing tariffs. The availability of a relatively recent full year of data has enabled us to cast forward the likely implications of changes to tariffs. Where, for a variety of reasons, ticket sales data for any particular week or ticket machine is not available, estimates have been made using ticket sales in adjacent weeks, to ensure that we have a full year of data available.

Elasticity of demand for parking

5.1.3 In changing tariffs, sensitivity to price of users may lead to reduction in parking (for tariff increases) or increases in parking (where tariffs are reduced). This elasticity is important, and we have sought to model the impact on revenues of an increase in tariff by reducing the numbers of people parking.

5.1.4 While it is rational and easily understood that raising tariffs will reduce demand, the elasticities that are revealed by changes to pricing for car parking are strongly influenced by local circumstances. Influences include the specific economic characteristics of an area; the availability, price and location of other parking facilities; the availability of alternative transport services; and so forth. There is no known work that has been undertaken to identify parking elasticities for Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and therefore we have chosen to use two different sets of elasticities within our modelling. In this way we can take a view on the influence of and possible sensitivities to the specific elasticity values used.

5.1.5 In determining the elasticities used, we have referenced research quoted on the ‘konsult’ website hosted by the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds6. This notes that figures for price elasticity of demand for parking activity with respect to parking charges are quoted as being in the range -0.1 to -0.4 (Feeney, 1989; Pratt, 1999), meaning that a 10% increase in parking charge will result in a 1%-4% reduction in parking activity. This is a similar level to that quoted within a TRL review of parking policy research for the Department for Transport in 2010. This work reported research undertaken by Todd Litman in North America7. In an evaluation of various types of parking taxes and their impacts with regard to various planning objectives, he reported that elasticities typically range between –0.2 and –0.4, indicating that a 10% increase in parking price reduces parking demand by 2-

6 http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/konsult/private/level2/instruments/instrument025/l2_025b.htm

7 Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts, T Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2010



4%. Litman noted that many factors can affect these impacts. Price elasticities tend to be greater for long-stay parking such as by commuters than for short-stay parking such as by shoppers, and are greater for a particular location (for example, a particular car park) than an area (for example, if all car parks in a town centre increase their prices), since some motorists respond to price differences by changing where they park.

5.1.6 Based on these general values for parking elasticities, and reflecting on the data available and the assumptions that we can readily apply to the modelling, we have therefore used two different sets of elasticities for each of the general tests. The first is to apply a single elasticity to all parking events, taking a value of -0.3, which lies within the range of both pieces of research quoted above. This means we are assuming that a 10% increase in parking charge will result in a 3% reduction in parking activity. The second reflects upon the differential between long and short stay parking. We have details of demand by time period, with ticket sales being available for each of the different tariffs by time period. We have therefore adopted variable elasticities by length of stay, from -0.1 for up to 2 hours, to -0.3 for a stay of 2-4 hours, and -0.5 for stays over 4 hours.

The tariff tests

5.1.7 We have modelled 6 tests to provide a broad understanding of the impacts of different charge levels and assumed elasticities on both demand and revenue. In defining tariff increases, we have chosen ‘round’ numbers in percentage terms to reflect a realistic tariff for users paying cash charges, with increases representing multiples of 5p and 10p.

5.1.8 These tests are as follows:

Table 23 Tariff test descriptions

TEST DESCRIPTION

Test 1 5% tariff increase across all car parks for all charge bands, fixed elasticity at -0.3

Test 2 5% tariff increase across all car parks for all charge bands, variable elasticity by time period

Test 3 10% tariff increase across all car parks for all charge bands, fixed elasticity at -0.3

Test 4 10% tariff increase across all car parks for all charge bands, variable elasticity by time period

Test 5 10% tariff reduction across all car parks for all charge bands, fixed elasticity at -0.3

Test 6 Different increases by zone (G1 and C1 +10%, all others +5%) for all charge bands, variable elasticity by time period

Outcomes of tariff modelling

5.1.9 A summary of the results of the tests, expressed in terms of both demand and revenue, is shown in Table 24 below:



Table 24 Tariff test results

TEST No. NAME

% CHANGE IN DEMAND

ANNUAL REVENUE CHANGE

% CHANGE IN REVENUE

Test 1 5% increase, fixed elasticity

-1.5% £69,530 +3.5%

Test 2 5% increase, variable elasticity

-0.8% £78,926 +3.9%

Test 3 10% increase, fixed elasticity

-3% £138,073 +6.9%

Test 4 10% increase, variable elasticity

-1.5% £157,176 +7.9%

Test 5 10% reduction, fixed elasticity

+3.2% -£142,286 -7.1%

Test 6 Zonal increases, variable elasticity

-1.2% £128,182 +6.4%

5.1.10 The results of the tests show estimates in the change of demand and revenue that are logical. For instance, a 5% increase in tariffs is likely to produce an increase in revenue of between 3.5% and 4%, logical accounting for the fact that some existing users will choose to park elsewhere or travel by alternative means as a result of the increased charge. Similarly, a reduction in tariffs, while it might be expected to drive an increase in demand, is still likely to result in falling revenues due to the lower charge for each transaction.

5.2 The impact of free parking

5.2.1 Across the UK, the idea of free parking provision, to support local business and generate retail and other economic activity, has widely been mooted as a solution to the problems of some town centres. Within the initial review of UK policy (between 3.2.3 and 3.2.20) there is some interpretation of the research into free parking as a policy tool. There is no definitive evidence that in towns the size of Grimsby and Cleethorpes that free, or reduced rate parking is the key determinant in encouraging increased retail and other economic activity.

5.2.2 In terms of revenue to the council, a very simple calculation of the revenue that would be foregone can be undertaken. For example, looking only at people parking for up to one hour shows annual revenue from tickets sold to be in excess of £480,000. Thus, a proposal to give one hour free parking, while it may drive some new demand for parking, will cost the council in excess of £480,00 in revenue foregone. Indeed it is likely that some people presently parking and staying in the towns for longer than an hour would choose to limit their stay in order to park for free, so the impact is likely to be in excess of £500,000.

5.2.3 Taken alongside the very limited evidence of any economic impact, this is not a course of action that is recommended.



5.3 The revenue impacts of closing underutilised car parks

5.3.1 The surveys undertaken in the summer of 2016, in combination with the examination of ticket sales data, indicates that a number of car parks are poorly used. These include the Burgess Street, Orwell Street East, Orwell Street West, Garibaldi / Duncombe Street and Wellington Terrace car parks within Grimsby.

5.3.2 Two tests have been undertaken:

Table 25 Tariff test descriptions

TEST DESCRIPTION

Test U1 Assumes that the suggested car parks close and that the users do not transfer elsewhere

Test U2 Assumes that the customers of Burgess Street car park may transfer to the nearest car park, which is Abbey Walk – assumptions are included within the test to account for some lost demand

5.3.3 The first test is simply a calculation of revenue lost. The second test uses a constant elasticity to determine the impact of the higher tariff at Abbey Walk in comparison to what users at Burgess Street are paying now.

5.3.4 The other poorly used car parks listed are all a significant distance from the town centre car parks, and it is unlikely that there will be any significant transfer to other car parks. It is therefore assumed that there will be no transfer to any town centre car parks.

Outcomes of modelling

5.3.5 A summary of the test, expressed in terms of both demand and revenue, is shown in the table below:

Table 26 Tariff test results

TEST No. NAME

% CHANGE IN DEMAND

ANNUAL REVENUE CHANGE

% CHANGE IN REVENUE

Test U1 No transfer of users

-3.56% -£50,037 -2.65%

Test U2 Burgess Street transfer to Abbey Walk

-1.65% -£33,014 -1.02%

5.3.6 The results show that if the five car parks were to close, and the users did not transfer, then there would be an overall annual revenue loss of 2.65% of the total car parking revenue. Even assuming that a proportion of the Burgess Street users transferred to Abbey Walk there could be a loss in overall revenue of around 1%.

5.3.7 These are significant revenue losses, and therefore in view of the location of these car parks well away from alternative town centre parking, it is likely to be appropriate to retain one or more of these car parks to serve these areas. The impact on demand can therefore be



mitigated, and revenues protected so that any operational savings are not neutralised by loss of revenue.

5.4 Promoting the use of spare capacity

5.4.1 As identified above, the surveys undertaken in the summer of 2016, in combination with the examination of ticket sales indicates that there is spare capacity within some car parks.

5.4.2 In particular at weekends the Abbey Walk car park, and both the Town Hall car park in Grimsby and the Civic Offices car park in Cleethorpes (both of the latter two are closed to the public on weekdays), have significant spare capacity.

5.4.3 Firstly, and fundamentally, additional use of these car parks at weekends should not abstract from other council owned car parks. Additional parking acts within the off-street parking stock must therefore be generated through attracting more visits to Grimsby and Cleethorpes, or through attracting people who have previously parked in other non-council car parks, or on-street, to use these or other council-owned facilities. The offer within these car parks must therefore be attractive, and well publicised. Some additional use of these car parks may be generated by transfer from the under-utilised car parks elsewhere in the towns (see above) should any of these facilities be redeveloped.

5.4.4 It has been suggested that promotional activities might include discounted tariffs for weekend parking. SYSTRA does not have access to data that separately identifies weekend ticket sales and it is therefore not possible to model the potential impacts of discounted tariffs at weekends. Nevertheless, the results of Test 5 of the general tariff tests in Table 24 above would indicate that reducing the price of parking will result in significantly reduced revenues, even accounting for the increased demand that this is likely to generate. The caveat on the effect of price of parking in relation to other factors (see 3.2.4) that influence whether people visit a town centre is also worth reiterating. Evidence from the available research is at best inconclusive, and there is no definitive evidence that in towns the size of Grimsby and Cleethorpes that free or reduced rate parking is the key determinant in encouraging increased retail and other economic activity.

5.4.5 In attracting more visits to Grimsby and Cleethorpes there are many other factors involved beyond car parking. However, some targeted promotion and marketing of the facilities on offer at weekends at Abbey Walk, the Town Hall car park, and the Civic Offices car park may be beneficial in terms of revenue generation.

5.5 The potential for evening charges

5.5.1 The surveys undertaken in the summer of 2016 indicate that there is significant occupancy of the off-street car parks in the evenings, beyond the chargeable period. This evening parking activity is principally in Cleethorpes, possibly reflecting that the surveys were undertaken in the summer months, when many leisure users and visitors are present in the resort town.

5.5.2 The off-street parking orders do allow for a single flat rate charge of £1.50 for overnight parking after 6pm, but this is not currently implemented or enforced. In practical terms, the tariff boards have been amended to cover over the overnight tariff and it is not charged to car park users.



5.5.3 Some analysis has therefore been conducted to model and estimate the likely evening use, and potential revenue from introducing an evening charge for parking after 6pm. This has been undertaken by using the data from the summer 2016 parking surveys, and based upon the annual ticket sales for the major Cleethorpes car parks (for it is in the Cleethorpes car parks that most of the evening use occurs) scaled the data to estimate annual evening use.

5.5.4 In introducing a charge for parking that is currently free, it is likely that there will be a reduction in parking. In estimating what that reduction is likely to be, tests have been run using a proxy of 1p for the current ‘free’ use, and a series flat rate charges for evening use, commencing with the £1.50 that is currently allowed within the Order. A fixed elasticity of -0.3 has been used in all tests. Two sensitivity tests at lower flat rate charges have also been undertaken.

5.5.5 The impact of introducing these charges, in terms of change in demand, and potential revenue that may be generated, is shown below:

Table 27 Evening tariff test results – based on proxy 1p for free parking

TEST No.

NAME

% OF PREVIOUS EVENING DEMAND

ANNUAL REVENUE

Test E1 Evening charge at £1.50, fixed elasticity

22% £35,989

Test E2 Evening charge at 50p, fixed elasticity

31% £16,679

Test E3 Evening charge at £1, fixed elasticity

25% £27,095

5.5.6 The analysis indicates that while the introduction of evening and overnight charges has the potential to raise upwards of £16,000 per annum, dependent upon the tariff introduced, and the assumptions underpinning the estimate, there is likely to be a significant reduction of demand. This could see the reduction of parking acts by close to 80% at the upper end of the estimates.

5.5.7 There are a range of potential behavioural responses that may be reflected in this significant reduction in estimated demand. There is therefore the potential for a number of consequences. A reduction in evening parking acts may result from people choosing not to park in off-street facilities, and instead parking in nearby streets, with the consequent conflicts that this may bring. At the extreme end of the responses to evening charges, it could be that people will choose not to visit the area in the evening at all.

A focus on summer evening in Cleethorpes

5.5.8 As noted above, the surveys undertaken in August 2016 indicate that the majority of evening car park use takes place in Cleethorpes, and is focused on the summer. Therefore, tests have been conducted to examine the impact of introducing a charge in zone C1 only,



consisting of the Central Promenade, St Peter’s Avenue and High Street car parks; and only examining the use of charges from May to September. The following charging scenario has therefore been modelled: charging between May and September only, with a fixed elasticity of -0.3. The impact of introducing these charges, in terms of demand and revenue, is shown in the table below:

Table 28 Central Cleethorpes summer evening tariff test results – based on proxy 1p for free parking

5.5.9 The

introduction

of evenin

g charges is shown

to significantly affect demand for these car parks, with parking acts reducing between 70-80%. It has been suggested that, in practical terms, the availability of alternative parking in central Cleethorpes is relatively limited, and that demand may be relatively inelastic. While there is no specific evidence available to support the definition of elasticities in Cleethorpes, a second set of tests has been modelled using a lower elasticity of -0.1 (which would seem a reasonable value as it is the elasticity used for a length of stay between 0-2 hours), the results of this are shown in the table below:

Table 29 Central Cleethorpes summer evening tariff test results – based on proxy 1p for free parking and relatively inelastic demand

Conclusions and recommendations

5.5.10 The introduction of a completely new charge is likely to be controversial, and potentially unpopular with a range of stakeholders. The results of the general tariff tests shown in Table 24 indicate that a higher level of additional revenue is likely to be generated by a relatively small increase in the general daytime tariff in comparison to the evening charge tests, even those where relatively inelastic demand is assumed. It is therefore recommended that implementing the evening charges is not considered at this time.

5.6 A consistent approach to off-street permit pricing

Introduction

5.6.1 As identified in section 4.4 (and illustrated in Tables 4-8) there is wide variety of permits available for use in off-street car parks, in terms of users, price, and the car parks in which

TEST NUMBER NEW CHARGE


SUMMER REVENUE (MAY-SEP)

Test CSE1 £0.50 31% £4,495

Test CSE2 £1.00 25% £7,302

Test CSE3 £1.50 22% £9,698

TEST NUMBER NEW CHARGE


PEAK REVENUE (MAY-SEP)

Test CSEI1 £0.50 68% £9,829

Test CSEI2 £1.00 63% £18,342

Test CSEI3 £1.50 61% £26,419



permits can be used. There is a strong desire on the part of the council that in particular, the pricing of the wide range of permits available for use in off-street car parks be standardised to provide a consistent and equitable pricing structure.

5.6.2 A review of the prices of the wide range of permits currently available for use in car parks has therefore been undertaken.

5.6.3 In respect of the range of different business permits available and the differing prices for those permits, the following factors have been considered:

Available capacity within the designated car parks; Any legal arrangements in place regarding the cost or applicability of car parking for

businesses in Grimsby or Cleethorpes; The cost of season tickets in neighbouring authorities.

Price and capacity considerations

5.6.4 In respect of the available capacity within the car parks where single use and other specialised season tickets are valid, in some cases this is not an issue, for example single use season tickets for the Burgess Street and Orwell Street car parks. However, the cost of a ticket in these car parks is cheaper than the Shoreline single use season ticket (£225.70 as opposed to £367.66) and significantly cheaper than general business season tickets (£225.70 as opposed to £663.83).

5.6.5 In other cases, cheap business permits are valid in car parks which are reaching capacity. For example, there are 36 permits for Seaview Street businesses which are valid in the Wardall Street car park, despite the fact that occupancy of the car park reaches approximately 90% both on weekdays and weekends. If all permits were used every day, this would represent 40% of that usage. In addition, permits for businesses on Seaview Street are only £102.13 per year, meaning that this capacity is being sold very cheaply compared to being available to the general public (either through pay and display or a general season ticket).

5.6.6 In terms of the validity of general season tickets, in Grimsby tickets are valid for all car parks except Market Hall, Somerfields and Town Hall during the week. In Cleethorpes they are valid for Grant Street, High Street, Yarra Road and Wardall Street car parks. Clearly there is a balance to be struck between making season tickets attractive (and therefore valid in car parks which are a reasonable distance from workplaces) and taking up significant capacity in car parks where spaces are at a premium or greater turnover would be preferred in order to support the local economy.

5.6.7 In terms of validity there are some car parks where the validity of season tickets should be reconsidered, for example Cartergate (where it is known that changes to the size and use of the car park has caused it to be operating close to capacity), High Street and Wardall Street (where car parks are reaching capacity on weekdays). Conversely, there are also car parks in Cleethorpes where season tickets are not currently valid, but have significant spare capacity which could usefully be taken by season ticket holders for example the car parks south of Wardall Street in Cleethorpes.



Legal arrangements

5.6.8 In reviewing the use and pricing of the range of permits, it is important to be cognisant and respectful of any specific legal agreements that may be in place, and any pricing that has been agreed as part of a package of measures. For example, the car park spaces that have been allocated to the business located in the new Cartergate development form part of the broad package of measures within the lease agreement for the development rather than as business permits.

5.6.9 However, discussions with North East Lincolnshire Council have not highlighted any particular legal obligations in place with respect to any of the free or cheaper season tickets that are issued.

Benchmarking

5.6.10 The cost of season tickets in neighbouring authorities is presented in the table below.

Table 30 Cost of season tickets in surrounding authorities

Location Price of season ticket

(annual)

Validity

Beverley (East Riding)

£550 Long stay car parks only

Bridlington (East Riding)

£150-£550 2 – 10 long stay car parks

Hull £600 Long stay car parks only

Lincoln £875.50 - £1112 Varies by price and car park

North Lincolnshire

£367.70 Long stay car parks only

5.6.11 As the table above shows, the current cost of a standard season ticket of £663.83 is towards the higher end of the cost of schemes in neighbouring areas, but is significantly cheaper than tickets in Lincoln.

Permit price modelling

5.6.12 The revenue implications, risks and management issues for a number of different pricing scenarios for season tickets have been examined. In each case, the revenue implications are based upon current take up levels, with no assumptions being made with respect to any reduced or increased in take up as a result of changes to season ticket costs.



Option 1: A two tier system of permits, with single use (for one designated long stay car park) costing £367.66 and general season ticket (for all long stay car parks) remaining at £663.83.

Rationale: The current arrangement at Cartergate (spaces leased at £367.66) is consistent with this pricing structure allowing greater consistency and transparency. The lower cost option would potentially be a more palatable increase for some of the businesses that currently receive cheap or free permits. The cheaper cost for this ticket is more in line with the cost of general season tickets in neighbouring areas.

Revenue implications: Assuming that all current business permits, excluding general season tickets, transfer to being single use season tickets, this would result in an extra £25,000 in revenue excluding charging for currently free permits and £56,000 including charging for currently free permits.

Risks and management:

The two tier system would involve greater administration as users would need to specify which car park they would like to use rather than the permit being for general use. The more general policy and application of permits may offset this against the current system however.

The increase could be perceived as large compared with current pricing for some permits and hence careful consultation and a gradual increase in rates will be required.

Some revenue may be lost from businesses not renewing their permit due to the large cost increase (92% of the £25,000 increase in revenue quoted above comes from the increase to Seaview Street, North and Central Promenade permits, which have the biggest rise in cost).

Option 2: Make all season tickets £450. Cartergate leased spaces would remain at £367.66.

Rationale: The £450 cost is in line with the maximum cost of a council season ticket and brings the cost of a season ticket more in line with neighbouring authorities.

Revenue implications: This would result in a loss of £7,000 excluding charging for currently free permits, and an extra £31,000 including charging for currently free permits.




The increase could be perceived as very large compared with current pricing for some permits and hence careful consultation and a gradual increase in rates will be required, meaning that the full financial benefits may not be realised for a number of years.

There is a chance that overall revenue may be lost due to lesser take up amongst those with currently cheap or free season tickets. Assuming that only 50% of cheap season tickets are taken up results in a £26,000 loss (excluding charging for currently free permits) and a £7,000 loss including where charges are levied for currently free season tickets. However, this may be offset against greater take up of season tickets amongst the public as a result of the reduction in the cost of general season tickets, which has not been accounted for in the calculations. 59 extra season tickets would be required to absorb the £26,000 loss.

The fact that the parking spaces at Cartergate are cheaper than other season tickets may leave the council open to criticism, accepting that this is part of a broader legal agreement.

Option 3: Make all season tickets £500 (assuming that council season tickets would rise by £50 each). Cartergate leased spaces would remain at £367.66.

Rationale: The £500 cost would aim to bring in more revenue against the potential £7,000 loss (excluding charging for currently free permits) under Option 2. It also brings the cost of a season ticket more in line with neighbouring authorities.

Revenue implications: This would result in extra revenue of £46,000 excluding charging for currently free permits and an extra £88,000 including charging for currently free permits.


The increase could be perceived as even bigger compared with current pricing for some permits and hence careful consultation and a gradual increase in rates may be required, meaning that the full financial benefits may not be realised for a number of years.

There is a chance that take up may be lower due to the price increase against currently cheap or free season tickets. Assuming that only 50% of cheap season tickets are taken up results in a £24,000 increase in revenue excluding charging for currently free permits and a £46,000 increase in revenue including free season tickets. A 50% take up is considered reasonable given that a charge of £500 per year still represents a saving of £800 against the £1,300 annual cost of parking in the main car parks for each working day of the year. In addition, these impacts may be



compounded with greater take up of season tickets amongst the public as a result of the reduction in the cost of general season tickets, which has not been accounted for in the calculations.

The increased charge for council season tickets is likely to be unpopular, particularly amongst lower paid staff who would feel the increase more than those on higher wages (given the standard rather than percentage increase tested). Therefore a fairer policy for council employees which is still broadly comparable with the wider cost is recommended. A policy to pay 1% but capped at £500 rather than £450 would be an option, but would reduce the increase in revenue gained from council season tickets as a whole.


Option 4: Make all season tickets £663.83 (assuming that council season tickets would rise by £213.83 each). Cartergate leased spaces would remain at £367.66.

Rationale: This option aims to test the revenue implications of bringing all season tickets fully in line with the current cost to the general public and businesses.

Revenue implications: This would result in extra revenue of £219,000 excluding charging for currently free permits and an extra £275,000 including charging for currently free permits.


Despite bringing in considerably more revenue than the current pricing schedule, the large price increase is likely to be very unpopular with a number of groups including council workers. 65% of the £219,000 increase in revenue quoted above is as a result of the increase to the cost of council season tickets and therefore a significant proportion of this may not be realised if season tickets were not taken up as a result.

The fact that the cost does not represent a saving on the current cost of season tickets to the wider public means that there is little scope for a greater take up of tickets amongst this group.




Option 5: Combine Option 1 and 3 with a two tier system of single use season tickets (for one designated long stay car park) costing £367.66 and general season ticket (for all long stay car parks) reducing to £500.

Rationale: The current arrangement at Cartergate (spaces leased at £367.66) is consistent with this pricing structure allowing greater consistency and transparency. The lower cost option would potentially be a more palatable increase for some of the businesses that currently receive cheap or free permits. The cheaper cost for a general season ticket is more in line with the cost in neighbouring areas.

Revenue implications: Assuming that all current business permits transfer to being single use season tickets and general season tickets reduce to £500, this would result in a loss of £11,000 excluding charging for currently free permits and an extra £21,000 including charging for currently free permits.


The two tier system would involve greater administration as users would need to specify which car park they would like to use rather than the permit being for general use. The more general policy and application of permits may offset this against the current system however.

The increase could be perceived as large compared with current pricing for some permits and hence careful consultation and a gradual increase in rates may be required.

There is a chance that overall revenue may be lost due to lesser take up amongst those with currently cheap or free season tickets. Assuming that only 50% of cheap season tickets are taken up results in a £26,000 loss excluding charging for currently free permits and a £11,000 loss including free season tickets. However, this may be offset against greater take up of season tickets amongst the public as a result of the reduction in the cost of general season tickets, which has not been accounted for in the calculations. 53 extra season tickets would be required to absorb the £26,000 loss.


5.6.13 In summary, it is suggested that the pricing structure under Option 1 provides a balanced approach in terms of standardising the current inconsistencies between different business permits. It is in line with cost of parking for the recently introduced lease agreement for the Cartergate development, it still provides good value in the cost of parking compared with pay and display rates, and through only applying to a limited number of tickets (rather than all season tickets) the chance of lost revenue through lesser take up is reduced.

5.6.14 In order to mitigate against current general season ticket holders transferring to single use season tickets (and the associated loss of revenue this may create), it may be necessary to



further limit the car parks where single use tickets are valid to those where significant spare capacity is available (in a system similar to that in Bridlington where tickets are cheaper in the more distant car parks, but more expensive in the more convenient ones). It is therefore recommended that these are only valid in car parks outside of zone 1 and 2, and in car parks in Cleethorpes south of Wardall Street.

Other considerations

5.6.15 In addition, to ensure that there is consistency in the pricing of residents’ permit schemes, the cost of the residents’ permits which are valid in the North Promenade, Wardall Street and Yarra Road car parks should be brought in line with the cost of a permit for the on-street residents’ permit scheme (see section 7).



6. MODIFYING THE RESIDENTS’ PARKING SCHEME

6.1.1 As noted earlier in the review, the current price of a residents’ permit is £80 per year. While this figure is derived from the policy commitment to cover the costs of operation of the scheme, and reflects the cost to the council of operation, enforcement and administration, it is useful to reflect upon the cost of such permits in comparison to neighbouring towns and cities.

6.1.2 In benchmarking the cost of residents’ permits, SYSTRA has reviewed similar schemes from across the Greater Lincolnshire and Humber area. The price of permits to residents is illustrated in Table 28 below:

Table 31 Cost of residents’ permits in surrounding authorities

Location (and type of permit) Price of annual permit

Beverley (East Riding) £30 (second permit £105)

Bridlington (East Riding) £25 (second permit £25)

Howden (East Riding) £35 (second permit £35)

Hull £20 (£80 where streets are metered)

Lincoln £26 (subsequent permits £52 up to max. of 3)

Scunthorpe £50 per vehicle

6.1.3 As the benchmarking information shows, the cost of a residents’ permit is greater than the cost in other authorities in the surrounding area, in spite of the relationship of the cost of permits to the costs of operating the scheme. Furthermore, a number of residents in the borough have expressed strong views about the costs of permits, with perceptions and views being that the costs are too high. This is despite support in principal from those residents for a scheme to be implemented within their communities.

6.1.4 When considering the costs of operation that influence the price of a residents’ permit within the current scheme, over 80% of the cost of the permit is related to enforcement.

Establishing a fair price for residents’ permits

6.1.5 In order to establish a fair and equitable price for residents’ permits given the issues with the current system outlined above, SYSTRA developed a revenue modelling tool which accounted for permit and PCN income as well as administration, operation and enforcement costs of the current system based upon the existing College Street / Oole Road scheme.

6.1.6 The model was also developed to understand the revenue implications of future schemes, based upon information on the council website about planned and approved streets, namely Somersby Street, Elm Road, Glebe Road. Road lengths for each street were provided by the council and the data suggested that the projections should use figures around 22% higher than the existing areas. The detailed assumptions used in the model are provided in Appendix D.



6.1.7 The individual elements in the initial College Street / Oole Road scenario are:

PCN Income £20,800 Permit Income £ 6,300 CEO cost £ 1,900 PCN Processing £ 350 Permit Processing £ 1,600 Signs and Lines £ 340

6.1.8 In summary, as a baseline, the initial scenario shows that the existing Resident Parking Areas in College Street and Oole Road, Cleethorpes with current prices and current enforcement outcomes are making a surplus of approximately £22,900, of which 92% comes from PCN income.

6.1.9 Using the projected future schemes scenario, it was derived from the tool that a permit price of £45 would cover the costs of administration and enforcement should compliance improve (and the number of PCNs issued reduce), thereby ensuring that the scheme did not have to rely on PCNs in order to cover costs.

6.1.10 It should be noted that the previous calculation used to inform the current price of £80 per permit differs from the SYSTRA modelling in several respects:

It does not consider the income accumulating from the issuing of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). This is a significant income stream;

It is based on limited waiting enforcement rather than permit enforcement. The former is considerably more difficult, time consuming and therefore expensive;

It is based on a fully manual permit application process, the time for which could be reduced with efficiencies and cut further by the introduction of additional IT systems and software.

An alternative approach to operations and enforcement

6.1.11 As a further element to the residents’ permit modelling, SYSTRA has undertaken further scenarios based on an approach that modernises the operations and enforcement of the scheme.

Virtual permits

6.1.12 A key consideration to assist with improvements in both back office efficiency and on street enforcement is to introduce virtual permits. Virtual permits are a replacement for security printed paper or scratch-card permits. They work in the same way as pay by phone parking, except users remain on the approved list for days, months or years instead of a few hours. They are managed over the telephone or via the internet. Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) use their hand held computers to scan car number plates to get an instant notification of whether a valid permit or payment is in place.

6.1.13 Benefits offered by virtual permits include:

Eliminating the use of physical permits and season tickets thereby reducing fraud and associated administration;

Reduced wasted enforcement, processing time and PCN cancellations from “failure to display” warnings;



Reduced workload for customer services; Increased use of telephone and internet transactions; Increased coverage and frequency of enforcement through quicker patrols; Resource efficiency through all payments (car parking fees and permits) being able to be

handled under the same system; and Supporting the removal of pay and display machines in uneconomic areas.

6.1.14 Virtual permits would also help to overcome the existing problems related to carer and trader parking in residents’ parking schemes by making the system (and additional permits required) much simpler and more efficient to administer.

6.1.15 Therefore a scenario incorporating a fully utilised virtual permit system has been modelled for both the current and future schemes. Table 32 illustrates the outcomes of scenarios modelled.

6.1.16 Scenarios shown incorporate the pricing of permits at both the current price(£80) and the fair price established earlier (£45). Parameters within the scenarios have been altered to reflect different permit pricing options and the extent of the enforcement service. It is important to note that there is no effect on overall employment levels as permits will still need to be verified and evaluated and CEO patrols will not reduce (these will even increase in one scenario).

Table 32 Residents’ parking scheme: cost modelling scenarios with virtual permit system

OPTION INCOME – CURRENT

AREA (£p.a.)

EXPENDITURE – CURRENT

AREA (£p.a.)

SURPLUS – CURRENT

AREA (£p.a.)

SURPLUS – PROJECTED

AREA (£p.a.)

Current

£80 resident permit

27,100 4,200 22,900 28,000

Permits based on £45 price to residents

24,400 4,200 20,200 24,500

Permits based on £45 for residents incl. Patrol/Issue costs but excl. PCN processing cost.

No PCN income

3,520 3,835 -315 -480

Permits based on £45 for residents

With No PCN income

With No PCN costs

3,520 1,950 1,570 1,900

Permits based on £45 for residents

25% of Current PCNs

8,700 3,300 5,400 6,600



6.1.17 Looking at the scenarios modelled, the third scenario (£45), which includes patrol and issue costs, but excludes PCN processing costs, shows a very small deficit. The fourth scenario (also £45), which does not account for any of the PCN costs (i.e. no issue or processing) but simply accounts for the costs of back office operation and enforcement, shows a small surplus.

6.1.18 If resident permits were reduced to a price of £45 (alongside proportionate reductions for others) the surplus would still be £22,000, which reduces to £5,400 if higher compliance means that PCNs will also reduce to only 25% of current levels.

In terms of the savings from the modernised system, the tool showed that the fully utilised virtual permit system could save the council 10% of current expenditure on the residents’ parking scheme and up to 20% of expenditure on future schemes. In addition, further savings would be made on its application to season tickets.

Further observations about current scheme

6.1.19 The permit application forms are very unclear and as written are subject to significant interpretation. It is recommended that the criteria, evidence requirements etc. should be re-written and the TRO should be re-examined at the same time to ensure consistency and meaningfulness.

6.1.20 Based on a single observation on Google Maps Street View, some of the current limits of the scheme could be relaxed, for example:

Maximum 2 permits per shared household, which could be considered a randomly unequal restraint on travel choice. As genuine residents they are not part of the problem of commuters or shoppers. As there are no such permits issued it is not a practical issue but it is one less matter upon which to be criticised.

Maximum 1 company car per household has similar issues and arguably might affect people more likely to object.

Back office functions

6.1.21 In addition to the introduction of virtual permits, there are a number of other improvements that could be considered in order to improve the efficiency of the back office service.

6.1.22 The following measures are suggested to allow payments outside of office hours and locations whilst reducing the workload for council staff:

Extend the current system for paying for council tax through Post Offices and Pay Point to include payments of permits and PCNs;

Introduce an automated telephone payment service; Use a provider to process postal payments and scan, post and print letters and document;

and Use a provider to take payments over the internet.

6.1.23 Research has been carried out and quotes received by ENGIE for an additional module to the parking management software which will improve customer service considerably by using an instant on-line or telephone service instead of a two day delay in manual



operation. The software could reduce operating costs slightly, but the largest benefit will be the improvement in customer service achieved.

6.1.24 Regardless of the above software changes, the issue of paper resident permits is not necessary in terms of the enforcement process as the ANPR equipped handhelds can take readings based on the permit database. The CEOs do not need to look at a permit. However it is not a great cost if there is a particular desire for them to be visible on the vehicle for other reasons.


6.1.25 The current residents’ parking schemes within North East Lincolnshire are making a surplus of approximately £22,900, of which 92% comes from PCN income.

6.1.26 A revenue modelling tool has established that a permit price of £45 would cover the costs of administration and enforcement should compliance improve (and the number of PCNs issued reduce), thereby ensuring that the scheme did not have to rely on PCNs in order to cover costs.

6.1.27 It is therefore recommended that the council reduce the cost of the residents’ permits to £45 (which is more in line with the cost of permits in neighbouring authorities). As with season tickets, a simpler and more transparent pricing schedule provides benefits to the administration of the scheme as well as in understanding for users. Therefore a flat rate of £45 is recommended for all resident parking permits issued.

6.1.28 In order to address the displacement problems (outlined in section 4.5.5) which have become an issue, as part of the publicity for a reduced residential permit rate, there is the opportunity to consult with neighbourhoods to establish the full extent of where residential parking schemes may be required and create a zonal system combining neighbouring streets with similar issues. This more proactive approach would provide savings on the cost of consultation, legal fees and infrastructure and would provide greater consistency for residents.

6.1.29 Is it also recommended that the criteria, evidence requirements (e.g. for carers and traders) etc. should be re-written and the TRO should be re-examined at the same time to ensure consistency and meaningfulness.

6.1.30 Extending the number of streets within the residents’ scheme should, in the short term, even at a reduced fee per permit, enable the fees collected to generate sufficient funds to continue to provide the overall service within existing resources when accounting for operational costs, and well within the incomes generated by the whole service including PCN charges.

6.1.31 It is clear that the council and their delivery partner ENGIE are already investigating ways to improve the efficiency of the service and the customer service provided to customers. However, it is recommended that in the medium term, a fully integrated review of the operation and enforcement of the parking service should be undertaken to enable a consistent approach to be offered to residents seeking a permit scheme.



7. HEADLINE CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1.1 This review of off-street parking, disabled parking provision, and the residents’ parking scheme in North East Lincolnshire is wide ranging, and taken together, the findings of the analysis provide North East Lincolnshire Council with a number of, sometimes inter-connected options going forward.

7.2 Capacity and demand

7.2.1 The analysis shows that capacity exists across the entire parking supply. Given that the surveys were undertaken over a time period in the summer to capture ‘peak demand’, the maximum levels of demand are likely have been captured within the survey data in terms of summer visitor use. While overall there is excess capacity within the pay and display car parking stock, this is concentrated in certain poorly used car parks, while other car parks in the town centres are well used.

7.2.2 Spare capacity within the parking supply allows for the demand for parking created by local economic growth to be accommodated, without the need for additional parking provision to be created. In addition, any increased demand for parking will see an increase in parking revenues within NELC car parks. However, a balance has to be struck with the efficient use of car parking space, combined with ensuring that parking charges are attractive for people to park, rather than parking for free on street, or in car parks not operated by NELC.

7.2.3 When considering the different Charging Zones, the car parks located outside of the Charging Zones in Grimsby and Cleethorpes at no point reached over 20% cumulative occupancy on any of the survey days. The location of the car parks outside the Charging Zones in Grimsby – Burgess Street, Orwell Street East, Orwell Street West, Garibaldi / Duncombe Street and Wellington Terrace – do not serve the Town Centre offer of retail, business and services, which may explain their low occupancy recorded over the weekday and Saturday survey days.

7.2.4 The car parks listed above (plus Grant Street in Cleethorpes) provide 455 spaces in total. It is recognised that the disposal of car parks would have a revenue impact for NELC, however, this could be offset by the income potential of developing the car parks for different uses. It is estimated that the reduction in revenue could be as much as £50,000 per annum.

Headline recommendation: that detailed examination be undertaken on the future of underutilised car parks in Grimsby, namely Burgess Street, Orwell Street East, Orwell Street West, Garibaldi / Duncombe Street and Wellington Terrace. The costs of operation, the potential for the transfer of users to other car parks, and the potential future uses of these sites should be examined.

7.2.5 Whilst the car parks in the respective Charging Zones 1 had a varied occupancy over the survey days, these play a crucial role in providing car parking for visitors and workers. However, at weekends the Town Hall and Abbey Walk car parks are poorly used in Grimsby, as is the Civic Offices in Cleethorpes. The scale of this unused resource in the parking stock is significant at weekends, and there is potential for promotion of the overall off-street car park offer.



7.2.6 The Abbey Walk car park stands out as a significant asset that may need to be considered in more detail. The Abbey Walk car park comprises five floors and has 440 spaces, making it the largest car park within the study area. When surveyed on the weekday it had a maximum occupancy of 44%, which outside of school holidays (the surveys were in August) is likely to be greater. However, on the Saturday this fell dramatically to a maximum occupancy of 4%. The Abbey Walk car park is located on the edge of the core retail area of Grimsby Town Centre, and is therefore well placed to serve the retail, business and services offer that the Town Centre provides. Some of the potential of this car park is realised on weekdays, but this is not the case on Saturdays. Given its location, Abbey Walk has potential as a convenient and useful car park, but needs to be made more attractive to potential parkers, through a combination of improvement of facilities, and increased awareness of the facility.

Headline recommendation: that some targeted promotion and marketing of the facilities on offer at weekends at Abbey Walk, the Town Hall car park, and the Civic Offices car park may be beneficial in terms of revenue generation

7.2.7 Spare capacity was recorded in the car parks at the Heritage Centre. As discussed in the review, the land off Garth Lane is not considered to be accessible from the existing car parks, but this area is identified as an ‘area of opportunity’ within the NELC Local Plan, and as such, car parking may come forward as part of the mixed-use development proposals identified in Policy 22 of the Local Plan. Having considered the survey data, the existing car parking in the vicinity of the Garth Lane site could support development aspirations in this location, providing accessibility between the current parking supply and the development is established.

7.3 Infrastructure

7.3.1 The conclusions drawn regarding spare capacity above also factor into decision-making regarding the current infrastructure of the car parks within the study area. For example, should the recommendation of the rationalisation of parking in Charging Zone 2 in Cleethorpes be developed further by NELC, then this could be accompanied by improvements in infrastructure to make the new parking arrangements more attractive.

7.3.2 From undertaking the site visits it was identified that the 26 car parks within the study area vary in their offer with regards to the standard and quality of infrastructure. It is SYSTRA’s view that a blanket ‘infrastructure improvement’ of car parks within the study area would not be an effective measure, especially given the conclusions drawn regarding the disposal and rationalisation of the parking supply. As such, it is suggested that a selective infrastructure improvement programme be developed by NELC once any decisions regarding disposal and / or rationalisation have been reached.


7.4.1 In Grimsby the disabled spaces within the Cartergate, Market Hall, and Somerfield (Garden Street) car parks are well utilised. Indeed, at Cartergate the disabled spaces were more than 80% occupied for the whole period of the surveys both on the weekday and Saturday. In Cleethorpes, use of the disabled spaces at the Civic Office, High Street, St. Peter’s Avenue



and Wardall Street car parks was high. The use of disabled spaces at other locations is however relatively low, with many of the car parks never reaching 80% use of their disabled spaces, or only infrequently.

Headline recommendation: that the views of disabled users are sought to ensure that the number and location of spaces best meets the needs of users.

7.5 Parking Tariffs & Revenues

7.5.1 Modelled estimates of the impact of changes to tariffs across the whole off-street parking supply show that, for increases of 5% or 10% in parking charges, increased revenue of the order of £70,000 to £150,000 per annum could be achieved dependent upon the option pursued. This would provide additional income that could support investment and improvement programmes for the parking offer.

7.5.2 Modelled tests of the impact of providing free parking, or charging for evening parking after 6pm, suggest that these options are unlikely to be beneficial, and indeed there may be significant disadvantages to such policies, and these options are not recommended.

Headline recommendation: that consideration is given to the potential for a small increase in parking charges as part of a coordinated policy to support any investment in the parking assets of the council, alongside potential rationalisation, and promotion of the parking facilities.

7.6 Residents’ parking

7.6.1 While the current charge for residents’ permits (£80) is derived from the policy commitment to cover the costs of operation of the scheme, and reflects the cost to the council of operation, enforcement and administration, in comparison with neighbouring authorities operating similar schemes across Greater Lincolnshire and the Humber, the cost of a permit is relatively expensive.

7.6.2 Detailed review of the back office and enforcement functions, and consideration of commonly used alternative approaches such as the use of virtual permits and alternative approaches to some back office functions, should be undertaken to evaluate fully the cost of operating the service.

7.6.3 There is also the opportunity to consult with neighbourhoods to establish the full extent of where residential parking schemes may be required and create a zonal system combining neighbouring streets with similar issues. This more proactive approach would provide savings on the cost of consultation, legal fees and infrastructure and would provide greater consistency for residents. Extending the number of streets within the residents’ scheme should, in the short term, even at a reduced fee per permit, enable the fees collected to generate sufficient funds to continue to provide the overall service within existing resources. In the short term, reducing the number of days on which patrols are undertaken in each street (but across more streets in the scheme) may enable this to be progressed quickly, in advance of a more detailed review of the operations of the scheme.



Headline recommendation: that, in the short term, to reduce the cost of residents’ permits to a level consistent with those of neighbouring authorities, a charge of £45 per permit be initiated. In the medium term, a full review of the operation and enforcement of the scheme should be developed to enable a consistent approach to be offered to residents seeking a permit scheme.

7.7 Future work

7.7.1 It is suggested that these headline recommendations above form the basis for consultation, in order to develop a new parking strategy for North East Lincolnshire.



APPENDIX A

Study Area Maps

Car Park Locations



APPENDIX B

Car Park Facilities



APPENDIX C

Parking Permit Restrictions

Study Area



CAR PARK SEASON TICKETS

SMART PERMITS

BUSINESS PERMITS

SINGLE USE

SEASON TICKET

CONCESSIONARY

RESERVED BAYS

RESIDENT PERMITS

FREE OF CHARGE

LEISURE CENTRE

1 Abbey Walk Valid on all

levels Shoreline

2 Burgess Street

Stagecoach bus drivers

only

3 Cartergate

4 Duchess Street Shoreline


6 Heritage Centre North Shoreline

7 Heritage Centre South Shoreline

8 Heritage Square Shoreline

9 Market Hall

10 Orwell Street East Bordering businesses

11 Orwell Street West Bordering businesses


13 Town Hall Valid for use at

weekends only

Permit only valid with

authorised keyfob at the

barrier



14 Wellington Terrace

15 Boating Lake

16 Central Promenade

17 Civic Offices

18 Grant Street Not in the HGV

parking area

19 High Street

20 Leisure Centre

21 Meridian Road

22 North Promenade

23 St. Peter’s Avenue

24 Wardall Street

Except the short stay

bays

25 Yarra Road

Valid for use on the central

bays only

26 Thrunscoe Land



APPENDIX D

Assumptions made in resident’s parking scheme revenue model



Assumptions used in resident’s parking scheme revenue modelling tool

The approach adopted in modelling the costs of the residents’ parking scheme, and therefore the calculation of a recommended price for the permits, includes (with any assumptions made – shown in the solid red bullets below):

Income from PCNs arising from the operation of the scheme

The proportions of full payment and discount payment to total PCNs remain fixed

The additional areas are 22% higher than the current areas based on road length

Income from the sale of permits

Costs of Enforcement patrols, PCN issue and administration

Street/walking distances are from Google Maps measurements Walking speed/patrol time will vary with use of Virtual Permits/HHC ANPR

readers Only one patrol per day is required As patrols require less than 1/7th of a Full Time CEO, the effect on premises,

equipment, uniforms etc. is essentially non-existent and no allowance has been made for this

As well as a 5-minute observation time there will be a 2-minute PCN issue time

The proportion of challenges to total PCNs remains fixed

Costs of administrating permit applications

20% of permit applications fail The introduction of the ICES Permit/Voucher system will halve the local

workload

Costs of infrastructure maintenance/replacement

There are no road markings There are no ‘bay’ signs, only zone entry (and exit) signs

Consideration in the calculations undertaken has been given to:

parameters from operational practices/performance elsewhere, or figures directly provided by the Council;

parameters which can be altered to reflect different permit pricing options and the extent of the enforcement service.

SYSTRA provides advice on transport, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers.

A diverse group of results-oriented people, we are part of a strong team of professionals worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world.

For more information visit www.systra.co.uk

north east lincolnshire parking review · party without prior permission in writing from systra,...

Documents