Agenda item

An Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 25 March 2025 relating to increasing parking chargeshas been the subject of a 6-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee is recommended to either:

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report is noted the process continues and the call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments are made the process continues and the comments and call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal is agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in will not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the originaldecision takes immediate affect without amendment).

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report informing the Commission that the Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 25 March 2025 relating to increasing parking charges had been the subject of a 6-membercall-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Chair clearly outlined the process that she would follow in determining how to resolve the call-in. The Commission was recommended to either:

a) Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report was noted the process continues and the call-in will be considered at Council on Full Council or

b) Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments were made the process continues and the comments and call-in would be considered at Full Council); or

c) Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wished for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal was agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in would not be considered at Full Council and the original decision takes immediate effect without amendment).

The Chair invited the proposer of the call-in, Councillor Porter, to make their case. The following points were raised:

• Council proposals had been made to increase charges to on-street and off-street parking.
• It was suggested that those on a low-income and already struggling with increased cost of living prices would be most affected.
• It was put forward that increased parking charges could have a negative effect on the city centre economy. Competitor retail sites, such as Fosse Park, located beyond the city boundary, had free parking.
• A counter suggestion was put forward to reduce city centre parking fees to improve retail revenue.
• The most recently published Revenue Budget reflected a current deficit of £400k in parking income for the city.
• Proposals had been made to remove night-owl charges, this was the reduced rate parking fee designed to boost the city’s night-time economy. Out of hours bus services could be problematic so city centre night-time could be impacted by a reduction in footfall.

The Chair invited the seconder of the call-in, to the table to make their case. Councillor Modhwadia attended the meeting as substitute for seconder Councillor Kitterick and raised the following point:

• Reductions to parking charges could bring people into the city which would support local business and create revenue for the council.

The Chair invited Assistant City Mayor for Environment and Transport, Councillor Whittle, to respond. A presentation was given (slides attached) and the following points were raised:

• Overall, city centre tariffs would increase by 25% for on street pay and display and off-street parking.
• There would a higher increase for Victoria Park.
• The evening discount would be terminated.
• The tariff for parks would increase by 10%.
• Blue Badge free parking would remain in place.
• Sunday street parking would be chargeable.
• New fees would commence on the 12^th May.
• There would be an annual review charges to consider inflation.
• Inflationary cost charges in CCTV monitoring, energy cost, maintenance and third-party services all led to the need for an increase in charges.
• There had also been major capital investment in recent years to improve service and ensure safer parking.
• Changes would create an annual saving of £1.1m, £0.5m would cover service cost pressures.
• Savings would contribute to the 3-year savings target for Planning, Development and Transportation.
• Private operators would also be increasing their charges.
• In terms of benchmarking, Leicester’s council parking site tariffs would remain up to 60% lower than private sites in Leicester and Derby.
• Leicester short stay parking charges were among the cheapest in the midlands.
• The evening tariffs were lower than Nottingham and Derby.
• Sunday charges were in line with neighbouring cities.
• There was an emphasis on low-cost travel within the city including the fare cap of £3 on bus fares, concessionary bus tickets, Park and Ride and the Free Hop service.
• Previously raised parking fees had not led to reduced occupancy levels.
• Privately owned carparks did not offer the same level of provision as Leicester City Council carparks and charged more.
• High quality cycling and walking routes into the city were available.
• Evening free carparking would remain in place.
• The City Centre offer was wider than retail, including leisure and tourism amongst the portfolio.
• It was recommended that the scrutiny commission resolved that the call-in was withdrawn.

Members of the Commission discussed the report which highlighted the following points:

• Increased parking charges was estimated to generate £1m revenue in the first year.
• Consultation was not required when amending parking tariffs. A newspaper notice and notices within the carparks were required.
• Parking in Leicester city was comparatively cheaper than other cities and it would be good for this to be publicised.

The Chair asked if the proposer wished to withdraw the call-in. It was noted that the proposer wished for the call-in to proceed.

Councillor Bajaj moved that, following the points raised during the meeting,

the call-in be withdrawn. This was seconded by Cllr Barton and upon being

put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

 That the call-in be withdrawn.

AGREED:

• For a report to be brought to Commission, to include car park usage since the increased charges.
• More publication to be given regarding the relative low cost of using Council car parks.

Councillor Porter and Councillor Modhwadia left the meeting at the end of this item.