Examination of Witnesses (Questions 322
- 339)
WEDNESDAY 28 JANUARY 2009
COUNCILLOR SHONA
JOHNSTONE, MR
JASON GOODING
AND COUNCILLOR
JOHN WALSH
OBE
Q322 Chairman: Would the witnesses
like to introduce themselves, please, with their names and the
organisation they are representing?
Mr Gooding: I am Jason Gooding
and I am Project Manager at Nottingham City Council.
Cllr Johnstone: I am Shona Johnstone
and I am a Conservative Member of the Local Government Association's
Regeneration and Transport Board and I come from Cambridgeshire.
Cllr Walsh: I am John Walsh, the
Leader of the Conservative Group on Bolton Council and a Member
of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities' Scrutiny
Committee on Transport.
Q323 Chairman: Thank you. The written
evidence we have got from the LGA seems fairly enthusiastic about
congestion charging. Do you still have the same views after the
Manchester result?
Cllr Johnstone: I think the view
of the LGA is that congestion charging may be appropriate in individual
areas. Congestion is not a national programme, but it is a local
problem in local areas and it may be suitable for those areas
subject to full consultation with local residents.
Q324 Chairman: Which local authorities
do you think are likely to want to take that forward now?
Cllr Johnstone: There is a number
of local authorities which are still part of the TIF programme,
Cambridgeshire being one of them. Other authorities include Bristol
and, I believe, Reading and a number of authorities are still
expressing an interest in ways of addressing congestion in their
areas.
Q325 Chairman: What about Cambridge?
Cllr Johnstone: In Cambridge we
had a public consultation in 2007. The results were published
in 2008 and showed quite a mixed picture, that 60% of the population
in Cambridgeshire opposed congestion charging but 60% supported
congestion charging if public transport measures were in place
ahead of it, so it is a mixed picture. I would say that the public—and
I suspect this applies nationally—support investment in
public transport but oppose paying additional taxes. So the Cambridgeshire
Cabinet decided last summer to set up a transport commission,
which is chaired by Sir Brian Briscoe, to look in more detail
and take evidence from those in favour and those opposed to the
TIF scheme in Cambridgeshire. That is just starting to take evidence
now. There is a consultation which closes in March and a number
of questions which are being posed by the Commission and they
will carry out their work during the remainder of 2009 and I would
anticipate that they would report back to the Cambridgeshire County
Council Cabinet in 2010.
Q326 Chairman: What is Government
saying to you now in relation to transport innovation funding?
Cllr Johnstone: The Government
is still supporting local authorities who wish to continue with
TIF.
Q327 Chairman: So it is not saying
anything different?
Cllr Johnstone: Not as far as
I am aware.
Q328 Chairman: Councillor Walsh,
what is happening in Manchester now?
Cllr Walsh: The position in Manchester
is that the Association of governmental authorities has abandoned
the TIF proposals as such and resolved at its last meeting in
December that each of the 10 authorities ought to go away and
produce its own authority list of schemes for future capital programmes.
One of the perceived injustices of the TIF proposal is that it
had a marginal benefit for a number of boroughs on the fringe
of the metropolitan area, Wigan and Bolton to the north and the
west in particular. It brought together a number of projects which
had previously been floated to be funded by mainstream funding,
the Metrolink extension, a number of the rail/bus station improvements,
and also a perception that the former Secretary of State in her
announcement in July 2007 about additional rail capacity had effectively
said that the heavy rail element would be a national programme.
The perception was that it was an unfair imposition on Greater
Manchester that it would then continue to fund the TIF proposals.
The other element of that and the other side of the equation is
that one must look at the total proposed package of £2.8
billion, of which £1.2 billion was to come from the Congestion
Charge. Within that £2.8 billion programme there was something
over £600 million as a contingency sum, there was something
over £330 million, or thereabouts, for the charging equipment,
which was almost a billion pounds of the £1.2 billion that
congestion charging was going to raise.
Q329 Chairman: Yes, but this is about
the TIF bid, is it not?
Cllr Walsh: The point I make is
that if you disaggregate and look at the TIF bid -
Q330 Chairman: No, Councillor Walsh,
I am not asking you about the TIF bid. I want to know what is
happening now.
Cllr Walsh: What I am saying is
that the TIF programme of £1.6 billion of hard expenditure,
just over, is now to be reviewed by each of the authorities to
look at where that is to be picked up by the regional funding
allocation and other mainstream funds.
Q331 Chairman: Do you get the impression
that Government is sympathetic to the bid?
Cllr Walsh: There has been a great
silence on that matter. I have written personally to the Secretary
of State and not had a response in the last four and a half weeks.
Other members have asked questions of ministers and we have not
had a reply, so it is silent at the present time.
Q332 Ms Smith: I want to ask Mr Gooding
why Nottingham has chosen to pursue the workplace parking levies
rather than a Congestion Charge?
Mr Gooding: The Council has been
pursuing a workplace parking levy now since 2000 when the legislation
came into place. Really in Nottingham what we have had to weigh
up is that there were obviously two choices, the road user charging,
which London at the time pursued, and a workplace parking levy,
which Nottingham looked at. We spent a lot of the early years
really trying to work out and develop a scheme that would be specific
to Nottingham, looking at Nottingham's situation. What was Nottingham's
congestion problem? Mainly commuter traffic during peak periods.
So that really helped to understand the congestion problem. If
it was through traffic then obviously we would have moved more
towards road user charging at the time. So we looked at workplace
parking and we have developed then proposals over the subsequent
years. We have actually developed now a business case which we
took out to public consultation, explaining that the purpose of
the workplace parking levy was to tackle the growth in congestion.
So we are looking at Nottingham's picture. We are looking ahead
and we are forecasting that there is going to be increased investment
in housing and businesses in Nottingham and we are seeing that
therefore there will an increased demand to travel. We believe
that with it being dominantly commuter traffic during the peak
period a workplace parking levy would be better suited for Nottingham
in tackling that greater congestion. There is a real significant
difference, though, between road user charging and a workplace
parking levy. The workplace parking levy is a much smaller demand
management tool. It is far more likely to have a less high direct
impact on congestion. It has a far higher indirect impact. To
explain that, the charge of a levy is relatively small. What happens
is that that charge does not actually reduce a lot of congestion
but the revenue which comes from the scheme actually provides
for public transport infrastructure improvement, which will have
a far higher impact on congestion. With the road user charging
scheme what you will see is they normally charge on a daily basis
individuals who are travelling in an area, so basically they capture
all the people who are using cars in that area. With that they
can have a far higher impact on congestion, without a doubt. It
also generates a far higher stream of revenue and therefore can
generate far higher investment in public transport. The problem
you have with that is that, as you see in Manchester and as you
see in Edinburgh, it comes with a far higher risk and also with
a far higher cost. A lot more cost is required for the road user
charging scheme, the infrastructure arrangements. It will normally
cover a far larger geographical area than just one council area,
therefore it brings complications. With Nottingham and the workplace
parking levy it is far more targeted. The workplace parking levy
is basically about targeting and charging commuters. If commuters
are your problem, if you are looking at smaller areas, then it
is normally low-cost, less risk, normally easy to put in and with
that also easier to take out should something else more favourable
come up in the future. So when we have been looking at the levy
there were things about a national charging scheme at the time
as well.
Chairman: I think you have explained
what it is you were doing, yes.
Q333 Ms Smith: Presumably, though,
it would entail also quite severe new measures about parking outside
the workplace because that is traditionally what happens?
Mr Gooding: Yes.
Q334 Ms Smith: When the NHS charges
its staff to park on site what happens is that all the cars park
outside the sites and create mayhem on the road network in any
case, so there is a risk here that congestion could increase in
a sense in terms of road space with this, so you must have thought
about addressing that?
Mr Gooding: Yes. What we have
done in terms of our scheme is we are actually preparing, before
the introduction of the scheme, to look at traffic management
measures because the levy targets an employer who provides a liable
workplace parking levy space. If an employer then decides to reduce
its parking or decides to charge for its parking there is a chance
that employees will not be able to park on site and will go and
park on the street. With that we are investing up front funding
to ensure that we are prepared, so we are really looking at hot
spots where we believe employers may pass on the charge or there
may already be existing commuter problems. So we are virtually
looking at things like residents' parking schemes, but you also
look at more simple measures such as limited waiting schemes and
other traffic management. So by putting investment in there it
means that we are preparing for that. We are also using an element
of the revenue stream from the levy to actually fund residents'
parking schemes under the traffic management measures during the
first three years because although it potentially could happen,
it may not necessarily.
Q335 Mr Leech: You have half answered
the question I was going to ask actually about residents' parking
schemes where obviously there will be a knock-on effect of cars
trying to park on residential streets. You say they are going
to be funded for three years, so I am assuming that the funding
stream from the workplace parking levy is going to continue, so
why do you not consider giving residents' parking schemes for
free to residents past the three years?
Mr Gooding: What we say is that
after three years we will do a review of all the other demands
on the revenue stream, so we are also funding travel planning,
parking management and residents' parking schemes and traffic
management measures. After three years what we will be looking
at in the review is whether there is still the demand to have
that revenue stream put into residents' parking schemes, whether
it is still associated to the workplace parking levy and that
there is an increase in the demand for residents' parking schemes,
because if it is not then maybe residents' parking schemes should
be funded from other revenue sources such as the local transport
plan, as they are already. Basically what you would look is if
the levy is still having a direct impact. After three years you
would expect that any impact the levy has had will have been in
the first three years, therefore any instances of displaced parking
should be addressed in the first three years. If after a three
year review we still decided that there needed to be funding stream,
then we would allocate further funding.
Q336 Mr Leech: Have you had any discussions
with businesses in Nottingham about the potential for them relocating
to other areas to avoid those charges?
Mr Gooding: Yes. That is one of
the common themes. There is no getting away from the fact that
the levy is applied to a business, so therefore businesses are
going to be affected. There has been quite extensive public consultation
undertaken with businesses and they have voiced concerns like
that, that they will pick up and move out of the city, that they
will reduce investment in the city. I do not know how far you
would like me to go on this.
Q337 Chairman: Can you keep to short
answers, please, because we have got a lot to get through.
Mr Gooding: I will try to. Basically,
there is a lot of cost to businesses and congestion is a big cost
to business in Nottingham. The workplace parking levy—we
have done studies looking at what a levy will mean to the businesses
that will be liable to pay in Nottingham and it represents less
than 1% of their turnover for 90% of businesses that will be liable
for the levy.
Q338 Ms Smith: Do the businesses
themselves accept that work that has been done or are they sceptical
about your study? Has there been any assessment of whether or
not it will discourage new businesses from coming to Nottingham
and choosing to go somewhere else instead?
Mr Gooding: In the scheme one
of the things we have done is in terms of businesses we have actually
put in a 100% discount within our scheme because the Government
does not stipulate a lot of discounts in the scheme. One of our
discounts is that any business with 10 or less liable spaces will
receive a 100% discount. That removes 85% of businesses from having
to pay a levy in Nottingham, so we have already tried to lessen
the impact. That actually leaves around 500 businesses being liable
-
Q339 Chairman: Is that right? You
are saying you are going forward with this scheme and 85% of businesses
will not be paying it, so you are talking about 15%, is that right?
Mr Gooding: That is right. The
85% of businesses only accounts for 20% of liable spaces. It is
almost like 80:20. By reducing the admin and the cost to 85% of
businesses we have only reduced the liable spaces by 20%. Therefore,
20% of businesses in Nottingham actually account for 80% of the
liable spaces. The work that is going on on the scheme does say
that you should look at trying to lessen the burden on smaller
businesses.
| 
