SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL KEY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT

Transcription

1 SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL KEY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT Report title: Introduction of Additional Permits, Charges and Other matters Cabinet Member(s): Mr. Harvey Siggs Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Author Contact Details: Oliver Woodhams Strategic Manager for Traded Services, Tel Steve Deakin Parking Services Manager, Tel Date decision taken: 19 November 2014 Date of publication of Key Decision: 19 November 2014 Date Decision comes into force: 25 November Cabinet Member Decision Following consideration of the officer report, consultation response and the impact assessments the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport: Agreed the following recommendations are implemented in respect of residents parking areas in Taunton and Yeovil: (1) To discontinue the requirement for a motorcycle permit. (2) Annual visitor permits. A. To retain the annual visitor permit and review terms and conditions of use to enable cancellation if misuse is identified. B. To increase the cost of the annual visitor permit to 40. (3) Daily visitor permits (scratch cards) A. Not to introduce a 4 hour daily visitor permit and retain the current limit of 100 daily visitor permits per year. B. To increase the charge of issuing a visitor day permit to 30p per permit. (4) To retain the current low emissions discount for resident s permits. (5) To clarify the permit criteria for new builds within resident parking areas, as set out in section 9 of the officer report. (6) To introduce non-resident landlord permits within resident parking areas at the following annual charge. A. One zone per district 150 B. Three zones per district 300 C. All zones per district 600 (7) To introduce business permits within resident parking areas at a charge of 150 per year. 1

2 (8) To standardise the permit eligibility across the County to ensure a consistent policy is applied within resident parking areas. To grant grandfather rights to those residents who currently have more permits than the new consistent policy. (9) The adoption of a carer permit eligible to both employees of care organisations and home carers at a charge of 10 per year with a limit of two hours at a time for parking within residents parking areas. (10) To implement the budget proposals below (full details within appendix three); Increase annual resident permits 1 st vehicle from 35 per year to 40 per year 2 nd vehicle from 50 per year to 70 per year In addition to changes to resident parking areas, the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport agreed the following recommendations are implemented where parking restrictions apply: (11) To introduce a 20 minute loading permit at a charge of 100 per year. (12) To implement the budget proposals below (full details within appendix three); Introduce the following charges per bay for suspensions and dispensations; Daily 10 Weekly 30 Monthly 100 Administration fee 10 (13) Confirmed the enforcement, appeals and representations guidelines as set out in appendices 7 & 8. (14) To authorise the Economic, Community and Infrastructure Director to take forward and agree the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders to give effect to the above recommendations. (15) To delegate any future operational changes to the guidelines to the Parking Services Manager following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport. 2. Reason for Decision(s) A. To ensure that the parking enforcement operation operates on a full cost recovery basis covering its operating costs. B. To introduce new permits to support businesses across Somerset. C. To deliver a consistent approach across the County by enabling visitors to residential parking areas to access a convenient, cost effective, and easily understood permit option whilst visiting friends and family. D. To formally adopt the enforcement, appeals and representation guidelines to ensure a transparent and consistent approach to parking enforcement and appeals. 2

3 3. Reason(s) for Urgency (where applicable) Not applicable. 4. Details of any alternative options considered and rejected The do nothing option has been rejected. These proposals introduce a number of new permits that support businesses across the County. The proposed scale of charges ensures the overall costs of the parking service are covered. The abolition of the annual resident visitor permit has been rejected as feedback during the consultation indicates that it is appreciated by residents and enables them to manage parking for their regular visitors conveniently. 5. Any relevant Personal Interest that the Cabinet Member may have under the Council s Code of Conduct for members Member of Mendip District Council 6. Details of any conflict(s) of interest declared by a Cabinet Member consulted about the proposals and any dispensation from Chief Executive Not applicable. 7. Other background information considered by the Cabinet Member before making this decision As set out in the attached report. 3

4 Introduction of Additional Permits, Charges and Other Matters Cabinet Member(s): Mr. Harvey Siggs Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Division and Local Member(s): All Lead Officer: Oliver Woodhams Strategic Manager, Traded Services Author: Steve Deakin Parking Services Manager Contact Details: Tel Report Sign off Forward Plan Reference: Seen by: Name Date County Solicitor Honor Clarke 10/11/2014 Monitoring Officer Julian Gale 10/11/2014 Corporate Finance Martin Gerrish 26/9/2014 Human Resources N/A Property/ Procurement N/A Senior Manager Michele Cusack 26/9/2014 Cabinet Member Harvey Siggs 26/9/2014 FP/14/07/05 The County Council is now responsible for on street parking across the County. To manage this resource it operates a parking enforcement service. Residents parking scheme changes and charges Summary: This decision introduces a number of new permits, increases existing fees and amends policies to ensure they are appropriate for an efficient, receptive service that meets the needs of Somerset residents and businesses. The details of these amendments are set out within the attached report. Wider parking enforcement guidelines This decision also confirms the enforcement, appeals and representation guidelines in respect of the issuing and processing of penalty charge notices. Cabinet Member Decision It is proposed that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport: Recommendations: Agrees the following recommendations are implemented in respect of residents parking areas in Taunton and Yeovil: (1) To discontinue the requirement for a motorcycle permit. 4

5 (2) Annual visitor permits. C. To retain the annual visitor permit and review terms and conditions of use to enable cancellation if misuse is identified. D. To increase the cost of the annual visitor permit to 40. (3) Daily visitor permits (scratch cards) C. Not to introduce a 4 hour daily visitor permit and retain the current limit of 100 daily visitor permits per year. D. To increase the charge of issuing a visitor day permit to 30p per permit. (4) To retain the current low emissions discount for resident s permits. (5) To clarify the permit criteria for new builds within resident parking areas, as set out in section 9 of the officer report. (6) To introduce non-resident landlord permits within resident parking areas at the following annual charge. D. One zone per district 150 E. Three zones per district 300 F. All zones per district 600 (7) To introduce business permits within resident parking areas at a charge of 150 per year. (8) To standardise the permit eligibility across the County to ensure a consistent policy is applied within resident parking areas. To grant grandfather rights to those residents who currently have more permits than the new consistent policy. (9) The adoption of a carer permit eligible to both employees of care organisations and home carers at a charge of 10 per year with a limit of two hours at a time for parking within residents parking areas. (10) To implement the budget proposals below (full details within appendix three); Increase annual resident permits 1 st vehicle from 35 per year to 40 per year 2 nd vehicle from 50 per year to 70 per year 5

6 In addition to changes to resident parking areas, it is also recommended that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport; Agrees the following recommendations are implemented where parking restrictions apply: (11) To introduce a 20 minute loading permit at a charge of 100 per year. (12) To implement the budget proposals below (full details within appendix three); Introduce the following charges per bay for suspensions and dispensations; Daily 10 Weekly 30 Monthly 100 Administration fee 10 (13) Confirms the enforcement, appeals and representations guidelines as set out in appendices 7 & 8. (14) Authorises the Economic, Community and Infrastructure Director to take forward and agree the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders to give effect to the above recommendations. (15) Delegates any future operational changes to the guidelines to the Parking Services Manager following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport. Reasons for Recommendations: Links to Priorities and Impact on Service Plans: 1. To ensure Parking Services continues to meet its Medium Term Financial Plan obligations by covering its operating costs. 2. To introduce new permits to support businesses across Somerset County Council in residents parking areas 3. To deliver a consistent approach across the County by enabling visitors to resident parking areas a convenient, cost effective access and easily understood permit option whilst visiting friends and family 4. To formally adopt the enforcement, appeals and representation guidelines, to ensure a transparent and consistent approach to parking enforcement and appeals. By enabling a sustainable, efficient and effective Civil Parking Enforcement shared service (which eases congestion), the decision will help deliver the following County Plan promises: 6

7 Investing in Our Future - Promote economic growth through an enterprise culture within Somerset, and support existing successful companies to stay and expand, creating more jobs for Somerset. - Invest in and improve our infrastructure, such as roads, and protect our unique environment to make Somerset a more attractive and competitive place to do business and create new employment opportunities. - Restrict the growth of car ownership within resident parking areas due to over development caused by the conversion of properties to multiple dwellings. - Make it easier for people to visit and enjoy Somerset as a tourist destination. - Make it easier for our businesses etc. to go about their business and reduce the likelihood of receiving a penalty Keeping Cost Down - The introduction of charges will ensure our costs are covered. A countywide consultation in respect of residents parking areas has been undertaken during December 2013/January 2014; the summary results (appendix 4) and consultation comments (appendix 5) are included within the supporting papers. Consultations undertaken: The proposed introduction and charges for new permits will require an amended Traffic Regulation Order, which will need to be advertised. This provides a further opportunity for feedback to be provided by residents and businesses. Details of these proposals have also been provided to the Chairman of Scrutiny, Policies and Place, Opposition Spokesperson for Highways and Transport and all relevant County Councillors who represent a resident parking area affected by these proposals. Feedback, comments or views were requested. None have been received. Financial Implications: Legal Implications: An estimated net additional income of 25,920 per year has been identified. Abolition of Motorcycle permits (280) Annual resident visitor permits 25,000 Daily visitor scratch cards 1,200 The introduction of additional permits and charges will require an amended Traffic Regulation Order which is currently being prepared for advertising. HR Implications: The proposed amendments do not vary any of the terms of the agency agreements relating to transferring employees, and therefore there are no HR implications of this decision. 7

8 Risk Implications: The risks of not adopting the proposed amendments are as follows: o Lack of support to businesses and residents within the County. o Parking Services being unable to cover the cost of service delivery o Lack of transparency and consistency when dealing with parking enforcement and challenges to penalties. There are not considered to be any significant risks in proceeding with the proposed recommendations. Impact assessments ref 185 & 186 (appendices 1 & 2) were completed at the time of setting the 2014/15 annual budget in the context of the Medium Term Financial Plan decision in February This included specific proposals to increase charges for annual resident permits and introduce charges for suspensions and dispensations. Both residents and businesses who make use of parking services maybe be affected by this decision. A revised impact assessment covering these decisions is enclosed (appendix 1a). Overall the impact is regarded to be low for the new recommendations within this report. Other Implications (including due regard implications): Approximately 2,400 residents currently hold resident permits and/or annual visitor permits and daily visitor permits. The purchase of the permits (annual or daily) is not compulsory and is only required if visitors park during the controlled period. Other than the small increase in the charge there are no other changes affecting visitor permits. The permit charge can be avoided as outside of the controlled period no permit is required. Holders of disabled drivers blue badges are only affected if they purchase visitor permits. Their heath related visitors are able to make use of the Carers Permit. Residents who purchase visitor permits will be affected by the price increase, although any impact is considered to be low due to the small increase. The ability to purchase daily visitor permits at 30p (currently 20p) is considered affordable. By continuing the discount for low emission vehicles and improving clarification in respect of new developments within controlled areas the Council is able to contribute to a sustainable policy of reducing carbon emissions. 8

9 The introduction of the new business related permits is considered to have a low impact as these are additional services where currently no entitlement exists. The new permits enable businesses to access parking within resident areas. The proposed reduction in respect of the Carers Permit will have a very limited impact on disabled residents as carers with a Carers Permit will still be able to park to undertake visits. The extension of eligibility to include bona fide home carers will have a positive impact as they are currently ineligible for a Carer Permit. The adoption of a consistent permit policy will have a low impact as residents who currently have additional permits will be granted grandfather rights. The confirmation of the enforcement, appeals and representations guidelines is considered to have a low impact as the guidelines have been used for some time with no negative impact. No effect on any protected characteristic group over another has been identified. Scrutiny comments / recommendation (if any): Not applicable. 9

10 1 Background 1.1 The County Council adopted its Parking Strategy in March 2012, which helps in supporting Somerset s Future Transport Plan for the period 2011 to Full details of the Parking Strategy are available at: Prior to the MTFP budget proposals agreed at February Cabinet in respect of charges for residents permits in controlled parking areas and dispensations and suspensions (see attached extract {appendix 3} from Cabinet report Appendix H(i)[1]) a countywide consultation was undertaken to seek the views of residents, businesses etc. on both the MTFP proposals and a number of other initiatives, which are detailed within this report. 1.3 The consultation also sought the views of respondents in respect of the Council s Medium Term Financial Plan whereby Council services should cover their cost, which in is accordance with National Legislation relating to parking finances. The consultation also sought respondent s views on standardising policies across the County, along with general background information. 2 Parking Services & Resident Parking 2.1 Since June 2012 the County Council has been responsible for the management and enforcement of parking restrictions across the County. 2.2 The County Council also provides enforcement and penalty charge administration services for Mendip District Council, Sedgemoor District Council, Taunton Deane District Council and West Somerset Council, within their car parks. The specific details of the services are contained within an Agency Agreement (appendix 6) between the County and the individual Council. South Somerset District Council have not entered into an agency agreement with the County Council for enforcement services and have not contributed to the guidelines. 2.3 This report mainly deals with resident parking schemes in Taunton, Yeovil and Minehead. It will also set the standard for any new schemes that are introduced in the future. 2.4 Historically resident permit schemes have been introduced in residential areas where little or no off street parking is provided with the properties. These areas are usually situated close to and within town centres where the demand for parking is high. Without resident parking controls residents would be unable to park as available parking spaces are taken by nonresidents who wish to park close to the town centre, avoiding car park charges. Parking controls are managed in part through the issue of permits and currently the following categories of permit exist: 10

11 Taunton Deane Borough Council Resident Permit First vehicle 40 per year following Cabinet decision in February 2014 Resident Permit Second vehicle 70 per year following Cabinet decision in February 2014 Current Charge Proposed Charge Daily visitor permit 20p 30p (scratch card) Annual visitor permit South Somerset District Council Resident Permit First Vehicle 40 per year following Cabinet decision in February 2014 Resident permit Second Vehicle 70 per year following Cabinet decision in February 2014 Current Charge Proposed Charge Daily visitor permit (scratch card) Annual visitor permit Not available 30p West Somerset District Council (Minehead) Current Charge Proposed Charge Resident Permit First vehicle Annual visitor permit 8.00 *To be subject to a separate decision *To be subject to a separate decision Daily visitor permit (scratch card) Not available *To be subject to a separate decision All Districts Carers Permit Current Proposed 10 per year No maximum stay 10 per year 2 hour maximum stay 2.5 *Note Minehead residents are not affected by this decision in respect of 11

12 visitor permits as a full review is to be undertaken to bring the features of the current Minehead pay and display area in line with that of the Taunton and Yeovil schemes. 2.6 The cost of resident permits is not affected by this decision report as the price increase has already been agreed as part of the 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 budget process. The previously agreed resident permit increases will be implemented at the same time as those included within this decision report. 2.7 Within the controlled areas, limits on the number of permits apply. Residents may purchase up to two permits per property for specific vehicles registered at their address. Residents who have off road parking may purchase one permit. 2.8 Residents may also purchase one annual visitor permit. Regardless of whether they have off road parking. This permit is not vehicle specific and is returned to the resident at the end of the visit. 2.9 All residents may also purchase a maximum of 100 day visitor permits (scratch cards) per year; this limit also applies regardless of whether off road parking is present at the property Currently no other types of permit are provided. This decision report proposes to introduce a number of other permits for use primarily by businesses Enforcement, appeals and representations guidelines The Agency Agreement between the County and District stressed the need that each case (penalty charge notice) would be considered on its merits. To ensure proportionality, objectivity, fairness and reasonableness it was agreed that guidelines would be prepared by the parking managers and reviewed from time to time. The guidelines (appendices 7 & 8) whilst ensuring a consistent approach is taken when considering challenges, also provide the flexibility for each District to have their own guidelines. E.g. penalties for failing to display a pay and display ticket correctly. This report provides an opportunity for the guidelines to be confirmed following the latest review. 3 Consultation Details 3.1 The consultation on residents parking schemes was sent to the following individuals and organisations based across Somerset County. 2,400 residents (Taunton Deane, Minehead and Yeovil) holding a resident parking permit. Compass Disability Mendip District Council Sedgemoor District Council South Somerset District Council Taunton Deane Borough Council West Somerset District Council Somerset County Council Members information sheet Somerset Association of Local Councils 12

13 Somerset County Council s business alert Healthcare organisations providing home care services Somerset Chamber of Commerce Yeovil Chamber of Commerce Bridgwater Chamber of Commerce Federation of Small Businesses Federation of Master Builders National Federation of Builders National Landlords Association Landlords for landlords Taunton Town Centre Company 4 Response Details 4.1 Overall 425 responses were received, the majority of 404 being from residents. General of the resident responses held a resident parking permit. Only 5% (21) of respondents do not have a vehicle. The majority 222 (52%) have one vehicle with 136 (32%) having two. 46 (11%) respondents have three or more vehicles. 60% (246) of respondents are unable to park their vehicle off road (in a garage or driveway) Only 34% (144) felt that parking should not be considered in the process of financial savings. The majority of respondents 227 (55%) considered those who contribute to parking pressures and use the service should cover the cost. 4.3 In considering the range of parking services there was no indication as to where the priority should be focussed when considering changes. 4.4 Responses in respect of the specific initiatives are detailed within the individual recommendation. Recommendations, summary of consultation responses, reasons for recommendations and financial implications 5 (1) Motorcycle Permit 5.1 Only 4 specific comments were received regarding the abolition of the motorcycle permit. All comments objected to its abolition, particularly as a motorcycle can take a full space if it parks parallel to the kerb. 5.2 Generally respondents disagreed to the abolition of the motorcycle permit. 5.3 The number of motorcycle permits is low (16). 5.4 In considering the continuation of a motorcycle permit, it is considered the key requirement for parking of a motorcycle is one of security. i.e. the ability to chain the motorcycle to a solid object, rather than the ability to park on street. 13

14 5.5 Due to the very small number of permits with the majority of respondents making no comment either way it is proposed to discontinue the requirement for a motorcycle permit. 5.6 Recommendation To discontinue the requirement for a motorcycle permit within a resident parking area. 5.7 Financial Implications - The current charge for a motorcycle is per year, the loss of income will be approximately (2) Annual Visitor Permits 6.1 Residents within a residents parking area are able to purchase an annual permit for use by their visitors. 6.2 The permit is not vehicle specific and can be used by anyone visiting the resident. The original expectation is for the permit to be used by occasional visitors. 6.3 Feedback from residents suggests the permit is being misused by allowing workers within the town who have no eligibility for a permit to obtain one via a resident. This enables non-residents to obtain very cheap parking to the detriment of residents by taking spaces away from residents and their bona-fide visitors. 6.4 The consultation sought the views of residents as to whether the annual permit should be discontinued and replaced by day visitor permits and whether action should be taken to deter misuse % (255) of respondents agreed something needed to be done about misuse of the annual visitor permits with the preferred solution being one of enforcement and control rather than abolition. 6.6 Comments received suggested this permit is valuable to residents, particularly for informal family childcare. 6.7 The current charge of 20 for an annual resident visitor permit does not cover its identified cost. The previous MTFP proposal that increased the cost of a resident permit to 40 per year identified the cost of a permit to be The annual cost per permit of running a typical resident scheme has been calculated as follows; Cost of enforcing permit area Permit processing costs 7.00 Maintenance of signs and lines 7.00 Other contract costs and overheads Income from enforcement activity (penalty charge notices) Net running cost of scheme per permit issued Recommendation A Retain the annual visitor permit and review the terms and conditions of use to enable cancellation of the permit if misuse is identified and proven. 14

15 6.10 Recommendation B To increase the cost of the annual resident visitor permit to Financial Implications - Based upon the number currently issued additional revenue of 25,000 may be received. 7 (3) Daily Visitor Permits 7.1 Residents may also obtain a daily visitor permit which is valid for the day. These are obtained in advance and given to the visitor who validates the card with the day of use. Residents may currently purchase 100 day visitor permits per year. 7.2 The annual allocation of 100 was considered about right by 49% (200) respondents. 27% (110) considered the proposed allocation was insufficient. 7.3 The consultation sought the views of residents to increase the amount of these permits from 100 to 120 and provide all residents with 10 at no charge. The provision of 10 free and an increase in the annual limit to 120 was suggested to compensate for the removal of the annual visitor permit. As it is proposed to retain the annual permit the existing annual allocation is to remain. 7.4 Day visitor permits currently cost 20p each. This charge has been unchanged since Applying a pure inflationary increase would increase the charge to 23p. 7.5 Whilst the cost of issuing and administrating a day visitor permit is 67p, an increase of over 300% could be difficult to justify, given the number of respondents objecting 60% (242) to an increase to To reduce the current loss incurred in the production and administration of these permits it is proposed to increase the charge from 20p to 30p per permit. 7.8 There was no support for the introduction of a 4 hour daily visitor permit. 7.9 Recommendation A Not to introduce a 4 hour daily visitor permit and retain the current limit of 100 daily visitor permits per annum Recommendation B To increase the cost of a daily visitor permit to 30p Financial Implications - Based upon the number of permits currently issued additional revenue of 1,200 is likely. 8 (4) Low Emission Vehicle Discount 8.1 The responses were generally neutral with a slight movement towards agreeing to the abolition of the discount for low emission vehicles. 8.2 As emissions are falling for new vehicles the discount favours affluent residents. 15

16 8.3 The current parking strategy promotes the use of low emission vehicles by way of discounted permits. The parking strategy is not due to be reviewed for a couple of years. By continuing with the low emission discount the Council continues to support environmentally friendly vehicles. 8.4 Recommendation the current low emissions discount is to remain and extended across the County. 8.5 Financial Implications by extending the discount to existing permit holders in South Somerset and West Somerset (when reviewed) it is unknown how many vehicles would qualify. Within the Taunton Deane scheme there are currently 45 vehicles receiving a low emission discount. The South Somerset and West Somerset schemes are smaller, therefore any financial cost is likely to be minimal. 9 (5) Permit eligibility of new builds / conversions 9.1 The introduction of residential parking controls aims to reduce demand within an area by prioritising limited parking capacity in favour of residents. 9.2 Future developments within a residential area have the potential to increase parking demand if no new parking provision is provided as part of the development. Residential parking areas are generally situated within town centres where good public transport links are readily available. In these circumstances car free developments are likely to be acceptable. 9.3 The increase of residential properties within existing parking zones does increase demand. It was surprising the response from respondents was neutral. 9.4 Officer experience from other authorities confirms that unchecked development with an automatic entitlement of permits will change the views and concerns of residents. Therefore a clearer policy for new developments is required. 9.5 The current Parking Strategy makes reference to parking standards within new developments. The current application of the strategy and permit scheme should prevent a new development from being eligible for a permit. The standardisation of the permit criteria for permits within controlled areas provides an opportunity to make the restriction on issuing permits to new developments clearer. 9.6 Recommendation New builds are not to be eligible for resident permits as they are increasing demand. Existing properties that are converted may retain the existing allocation to be shared amongst the new dwellings. 9.7 Financial Implications Nil (as no change to numbers of permit issued) 10 (6) Non Resident Landlord Permits 10.1 Within the current residential parking areas there is no option for a landlord of a property to park during the hours of control. This prevents a property owner from visiting their property. 16

17 10.2 Anecdotal feedback suggests some landlords are using the allocation of permits associated with the property, potentially preventing their tenant from obtaining permits There were some comments that landlords should not be able to park as well as their tenants as this reduces the number of spaces for residents. However any landlord visit is likely to be short in duration % (241) of respondents proposed supporting the introduction of these permits The suggested level of charge was considered to be about right. The proposed charge has been set at a premium to ensure they are not seen as a cheap option for parking A rising scale of charges is proposed, based upon the number of zones the permit is valid. This ability for a landlord to apply for a multiple zone permits recognises those property owners who have multiple properties across the District Recommendation to introduce non-resident landlord permits at the following annual charge. One zone per district 150 Three zones per district 300 All zones per district Financial Implications As these are new permits, income will be generated. Anticipated demand is unknown; therefore income is difficult to assess. 11 (7) Business Permits 11.1 As with non-resident landlords, businesses within a resident parking area have no entitlement to park a vehicle In recognition of a need to support businesses a business permit is proposed. The introduction of a business permit may increase demand for parking. It is therefore proposed that only businesses that require a vehicle in the operation of the business will be eligible for a permit. E.g. a florist s delivery vehicle. It is not proposed for the permit to be used for all day cheap commuter parking % (263) of respondents supported the introduction of a business permit for those businesses situated with residential areas that require a vehicle The response to the proposed charge of 150 per year was neutral. It is considered this a fair charge and is set at a higher rate than residents and is in line with the proposed non-resident landlord permit. There should be little impact of businesses as the charge would be deductible as a business expenses Recommendation To introduce business permits at a charge of 150 per year. 17

18 11.6 Financial Implications As this is a new permit, income will be generated. Anticipated demand is unknown; therefore income is difficult to assess. 12 (8) Maximum of 2 resident permit per property 12.1 The County Council has inherited differing schemes from the District Councils; this has resulted in the number of permits allowed per property to vary depending upon the area the property is situated in Taunton Deane Borough Council Residents within Taunton Deane are currently able to purchase two resident permits for use with their vehicles. For properties with off road parking, either a garage or drive way the allocation is reduced by one South Somerset District Council Within Yeovil there has previously been no limit on the number of permits per household. Currently there are 7 properties (Crofton and Colmer Roads) that have more than 2 permits. 2 properties have 4 permits 5 properties have 3 permits 12.4 West Somerset District Council The Minehead area is due to be reviewed to ensure the controls operate effectively for all users. The permit allocation will be part of the review As it is proposed to have a Countywide policy both in terms of charges and allocation of permits, it would be appropriate to consider granting the current residents of those properties with more than 2 permits grandfather rights for their existing permits The limiting of permits can be controlled through the permit policy by designating eligible property addresses Recommendation To introduce a consistent policy across the County for the number of permits per property and grant grandfather rights for those households that current have more than two permits Financial Implications Nil, no new demand for permits created. 13 (9) Carers Permit 13.1 At the commencement of civil parking enforcement by the County Council it was necessary for a carers permit to be introduced at short notice. This enables a healthcare professional to provide home care to patients within residential controlled parking areas, 18

19 13.2 The interim permit policy was introduced to avoid unnecessary penalties being received by carers undertaking legitimate health related visits. There is currently no time limit for the policy enabling holders of the permit to park all day. The current fee is 10 per year Since the introduction of the policy there have been no identifiable problems of carers with permits receiving penalties. It is therefore considered the policy is working well It is proposed to reduce the worth of these permits by reducing the period they are valid to two hours. Feedback from health organisations suggests the two hour limit is adequate for the significant majority of home visits. Should extended visits be required this can be arranged on a case by case basis Feedback has been received regarding home carers, both those whose care is provided by the family and those who are home funded by the Council Subject to confirmation of being a bona fide carer it is proposed to enable this additional category of carers to apply for a permit Recommendation The adoption of a carer permit eligible to both employees of care organisations and home funded carers are proposed at a charge of 10 per year with a limit of two hours at a time Financial Implications Nil 14 (10) & (12) To implement the budget proposals 14.1 The 2014 budget agreed the Medium Term Financial Planning proposal to increase the charges for annual resident permits and introduce a charge for dispensations and variations. Full details are contained within appendix 3 enclosed. The key changes are summarised below; 14.2 Increase annual resident permits 1st vehicle from 35 per year to 40 per year 2nd vehicle from 50 per year to 70 per year 14.3 Introduce the following charges per bay for suspensions and dispensations; Daily 10 Weekly 30 Monthly 100 Administration fee The above recommendations also require and new or amended Traffic Regulation which is to be advertised at the same time as the new Traffic Regulation Order for the other recommendations within this report Financial Implications No further financial implications above those detailed within appendix 3. 19

20 15 (11) Loading Permits 15.1 Feedback from businesses across the County indicates they experience some difficulty whilst loading and unloading items to their premises, particularly if the loading area is not adjacent to their premises. This can result in a penalty charge notice being served Unless loading is prohibited a vehicle is permitted to load and unload for as long as is necessary. This is providing the items in question are large and/or bulky, the vehicle is required for the loading activity and is seen to be continuous The difficulty arises if the vehicle is left unattended whilst the loading/unloading is taking place. Whilst a short period of observation is undertaken to establish whether loading is taking place, it is possible a penalty will be served whilst the packages are being delivered In cases such as these a penalty is likely to be cancelled once evidence of loading is provided, e.g. delivery note To enable businesses to load and unload without fear of receiving a penalty the introduction of a loading permit providing a 20 minute period is proposed % (339) of respondents supported the introduction of loading permits to help local businesses. Responses were neutral in respect of the suggested annual charge of Recommendation - To introduce loading permits at a charge of 100 per year Financial Implications As this is a new permit new income will be generated. Anticipated demand is unknown; therefore income is difficult to assess. 16 (13) Adoption of enforcement, appeals and representations guidelines 16.1 Guidance from the Secretary of State recommends that Enforcement Authorities publish their guidelines with regard to enforcement and the exercising of discretion The guidelines detail the approach taken when undertaking enforcement and the consideration of challenges and appeals The enforcement, appeals and representations policy has been developed in conjunction with Mendip District, Sedgemoor District Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council, West Somerset and Somerset County Council parking managers. South Somerset District Council have not been involved in the development of the policy as the County Council does not currently undertake enforcement of their car parks The enforcement, appeals and representations guidelines were discussed at a meeting of the Parking Working Group in December The cross party members recommended the acceptance of the guidelines. 20

21 16.5 Recommendation The formal adoption of the guidelines, with any future operational changes delegated to the Parking Services Manager in consultation with the Portfolio Holder Financial Implications None. As this is confirmation of the guidelines currently in use, there is no financial impact. 17 Background Papers 17.1 Details of the responses to the individual questions along with comments received as part of the consultation are enclosed at: 17.2 Consultation Summary appendix 4 Consultation Comments appendix 5 18 Appendices (1) Impact Assessment MTFP Ref 185 (1a) Revised Impact Assessment (2) Impact Assessment MTFP Ref 186 (3) Extract from Cabinet Report Appendix H(i)[1] (4) Consultation Summary (5) Consultation Comments (6) Agency Agreement Schedule part 1 (7) Representations & Appeals Guidelines (8) Enforcement Guidelines 21

22 Impact Assessment Form and Action Table (Appendix 1) (Expand the boxes as appropriate, please see guidance to assist with completion) Why are you completing the Impact Assessment? Proposed New Policy or Service Existing service Change to Policy or Service Increase of existing charge Title are you completing the Impact Assessment on (which policy, service, MTFP reference, cluster etc)? Risk Rating MTFP or Paper Introduction of charges for parking dispensations MTFP Ref 185 Section 1 Description of what is being impact assessed Service Review or SCC Change Programme Service Review A proposal to introduce charges for parking dispensations. Parking dispensations are given to businesses with a legitimate need to park in contravention of a parking restriction (e.g. building firms carrying out work on a property in a resident s parking zone). Section 2A People or communities that are targeted or could be affected (for Equalities - taking particular note of the Protected Characteristic listed in action table) Businesses, rather than people or communities, are affected by this proposal. There may be a secondary impact on residents who live in a controlled parking area where businesses pass on the cost of a dispensation permit to the customer. Section 2B People who are delivering the policy or service This proposal will have no direct impact on people delivering the service. There may be some transitional impacts on workload and work environment if significant objections are raised with staff in a forceful manner; however this is considered to be unlikely and low impact in a service which is used to dealing with disgruntled customers. Implications of MTFP 2012/13 for staff in relation to Equality and Diversity will be dealt with corporately by the HR Policy Manager in association with the HR Group Managers. Section 3 Evidence and data used for the assessment (Attach documents where appropriate) Stakeholders will be consulted on the proposals and feedback from the consultation exercise will shape the final proposal and decision. Section 4 Conclusions drawn about the impact of the proposed change or new service/policy (Please use prompt sheet for help with what to consider): Key issues to be fed into relevant Action Table Equality No impact. Introduction of charge will not affect any protected characteristic group over another. Health and Safety czia Line185x IA Form and Action Table Dispensations V2-Post Page 1 of 6

23 Positive impact. Demand for dispensations is likely to drop following the introduction of a charge as businesses opt to park in safer locations. Sustainability Positive impact. Affected businesses are likely to rationalise vehicle usage. Community Safety Any potential increase in anti-social behaviour caused by neighbourhood disputes if the driver of the vehicle refuses to purchase a dispensation will be reduced. Civil Parking Enforcement provides for a quick and efficient financial penalty. These tend to discourage drivers and encourage compliance. Liasion with the police will also be undertaken if necessary. Privacy New additional personal data relating to applications for dispensations will be collected and held. The data will be similar to that currently held which is held securely on behalf of the Councuil. The data remains the property of the Council at all times. This new data will be held in accordance with required legislation and policies. Section 5 After consideration please state your final recommendations based on the findings from the impact assessment. Also include any examples of good practice and positive steps taken. No changes to proposals recommended. Impact is negligible. Section 6 - How will the assessment, consultation and outcomes be published and communicated? E.g. reflected in final strategy, published. What steps are in place to review the Impact Assessment Consultation to discussed at cross party parking working group. Outcome of informal consultation to be published on the Council website. The assessment and any identified impacts (following consultation) will be given due consideration within them decision making process for the Medium Term Financial Plan and published with papers for Scrutiny and Cabinet. The service will consider the feedback from the consultation when implementing and changes that are agreed as part of the Medioum Term Financial Plan. General Comments The assessment has considered where appropriate potential impacts on the following sustainability issues: Use of energy, water, minerals and materials Waste generation / sustainable waste management Pollution to air, land and water Factors that contribute to Climate Change Protection of and access to the natural environment Travel choices that do not rely on the car A strong, diverse and sustainable local economy Meet local needs locally Provision of appropriate and sustainable housing Other sustainability impacts such as health, safety and equality are considered within other areas of the overall impact assessment. czia Line185x IA Form and Action Table Dispensations V2-Post Page 2 of 6

24 Completed by: Steve Deakin, Parking Services Manager Date 22 nd November 2013 Signed off by: Date 22 nd November 2013 Compliance sign off Date To be reviewed by: (officer name) Review date: Oliver Woodhams, Strategic Manager Traded Services Steve Deakin Following publication of necessary Traffic Regulation Order Version 2 Date 14 th January 2014 czia Line185x IA Form and Action Table Dispensations V2-Post Page 3 of 6

25 Identified issue drawn from your conclusions Age Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Equality Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? How will it be monitored? No issue identified. None n/a n/a n/a n/a Disability No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Carers of people with Disabilities will be eligible to partake in a separate scheme for resident s parking areas. Gender Reassignment No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Marriage and Civil Partnership No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Pregnancy and Maternity No issue identified. Health visitors / Midwifes visiting new parents will be eligible to partake in a separate scheme for resident s parking areas. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a What is the expected outcome from the action? czia Line185x IA Form and Action Table Dispensations V2-Post Page 4 of 6

26 Race (including ethnicity or national origin, colour, nationality and Gypsies and Travellers) No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Religion and Belief No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Sex No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Sexual Orientation No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Other (including caring responsibilities, rurality, low income, Military Status etc) People on low incomes may be affected by these proposals, however impact is considered to be negligible any charges passed on by businesses will be a very small proportion of the cost of the overall service provided by (for example) a building firm. Separate arrangements will exist for businesses providing care services to households within resident s parking schemes. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a czia Line185x IA Form and Action Table Dispensations V2-Post Page 5 of 6

27 Areas of increased risk drawn from your conclusions None Health and Safety, Sustainability, Community Safety Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts/risk? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? Health and Safety Issues and Action Table How will it be monitored? What is the expected outcome from the action? None Sustainability Issues and Action Table None Community Safety Issues and Action Table None Privacy Issues and Action Table czia Line185x IA Form and Action Table Dispensations V2-Post Page 6 of 6

28 Impact Assessment Form and Action Table (Appendix 1a) (Expand the boxes as appropriate, please see guidance to assist with completion) Why are you completing the Impact Assessment? Proposed New Policy or Service Existing service Change to Policy or Service Increase of existing charge and introduction of new permits Title are you completing the Impact Assessment on (which policy, service, MTFP reference, cluster etc)? Risk Rating MTFP or Paper Form and Action Table Additional permits, charges & Others 1 Section 1 Description of what is being impact assessed Service Review or SCC Change Programme Service Review Introduction of Additional Permits, Charges and Other Matters Impact on residents affected by the proposed increase of charges to resident s visitor permits. Impact on business affected by the introduction of new permits. Impact on residents affected by the standardisation of a consistent permit policy. Impact of drivers within Somerset County Council who may be subject to parking enforcement or have challenged a penalty charge. Impact on healthcare organisations eligible for a carers permit. Section 2A People or communities that are targeted or could be affected (for Equalities - taking particular note of the Protected Characteristic listed in action table) Residents on low incomes or holders of disabled drivers blue badge. Businesses situated within resident parking areas Section 2B People who are delivering the policy or service This proposal will have no direct impact on people delivering the service. There may be some transitional impacts on workload and work environment if significant enquiries are raised with staff in a forceful manner; however this is considered to be unlikely and low impact in a service which is used to dealing with disgruntled customers. Implications of MTFP 2012/13 for staff in relation to Equality and Diversity will be dealt with corporately by the HR Policy Manager in association with the HR Group Managers. Section 3 Evidence and data used for the assessment (Attach documents where appropriate) Approximately 2,400 households across Taunton Deane, Minehead and Yeovil who held either an annual resident permits or a visitor permit. The majority of permit holders are situated within the centre of Taunton with smaller numbers in central Yeovil and Minehead. Various business organisations situated across the County were also consulted. Compass Disability were also consulted on the proposals. Section 4 Conclusions drawn about the impact of the proposed change or new service/policy (Please use prompt sheet for help with what to consider): Key issues to be fed into relevant Action Table Equality Overall it is considered these proposals will have a low impact. Holders of disabled drivers blue badges who are the registered keeper are unaffected by this change as

29 they receive the first resident permit free of charge. It would only be those residents who purchase visitor permits who would be affected by the small increase in charge. The proposed reduction in respect of the Carers Permit will have a very limited impact on disabled residents as carers with a Carers Permit will still be able to park to undertake visits. The extension of eligibility to include bona fide home carers will have a positive impact as they are currently ineligible for a Carer Permit. Low income residents who purchase visitor permits will be affected by the price increase, although any impact is considered to be low as the actual increase is low. The ability to purchase daily visitor permits at 30p is considered affordable. The introduction of the new business related permits is considered to have a low impact as these are additional services, enabling businesses to access parking within resident areas. Currently there is no entitlement. The confirmation of the enforcement, appeals and representations guidelines is considered to have a low impact as the guidelines have been used for some time with no negative impact. The adoption of a consistent permit policy will have a low impact as residents who currently have additional permits will be granted grandfather rights Health and Safety None. Sustainability None Community Safety None Privacy New additional personal data relating to applications for new business related permits will be collected and held. The data will be similar to that currently held which is held securely on behalf of the Council. The data remains the property of the Council at all times. This new data will be held in accordance with required legislation and policies. Section 5 After consideration please state your final recommendations based on the findings from the impact assessment. Also include any examples of good practice and positive steps taken. No changes to proposals recommended. Harmonising policies will eliminate current variations which are inequitable. The introduction of business related permits will support local businesses. Section 6 - How will the assessment, consultation and outcomes be published and communicated? E.g. reflected in final strategy, published. What steps are in place to review the Impact Assessment The introduction of new permits requires the publication of a new Traffic Regulation Order. This enables any individual or organisation to object to the proposals which must be considered and resolved prior to the proposals being implemented. Any objections will enable the impact assessment to be reviewed. Completed by: Steve Deakin, Parking Services Manager Form and Action Table Additional permits, charges & Others 2

30 Date 22 nd October 2014 Signed off by: Date 22nd October 2014 Compliance sign off Date To be reviewed by: (officer name) Review date: Oliver Woodhams, Strategic Manager Traded Services Steve Deakin Following publication of necessary Traffic Regulation Order Version 2 Date 14 January 2013 Form and Action Table Additional permits, charges & Others 3

31 Identified issue drawn from your conclusions Age As permits relates to an ability to drive, only a very small number of residents below the age of 18 are likely to be affected. Disability Not affected as carers will still be able to park and undertake home visits. Gender Reassignment Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Equality Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? How will it be monitored? None n/a n/a Not monitored as application for a permit is not reliant upon age. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Marriage and Civil Partnership Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Pregnancy and Maternity Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Race (including ethnicity or national origin, colour, nationality and Gypsies and Travellers) Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Religion and Belief Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a What is the expected outcome from the action? n/a 4

32 Sex Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Sexual Orientation Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Other (including caring responsibilities, rurality, low income, Military Status etc) People on low incomes who purchase visitor permits may be affected by these proposals, however impact is low. The continued availability of daily permits at 30p is considered affordable. Visitors at the more popular times of evenings and Sundays are unaffected as there is no requirement for a permit to be obtained. The proposals will only affect urban areas where car ownership is less essential for access to services and work None. n/a n/a n/a n/a 5

33 Areas of increased risk drawn from your conclusions None Health and Safety, Sustainability, Community Safety Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts/risk? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? Health and Safety Issues and Action Table How will it be monitored? What is the expected outcome from the action? None Sustainability Issues and Action Table None Community Safety Issues and Action Table None Privacy Issues and Action Table 6

34 Impact Assessment Form and Action Table (Appendix 2) (Expand the boxes as appropriate, please see guidance to assist with completion) Why are you completing the Impact Assessment? Proposed New Policy or Service Existing service Change to Policy or Service Increase of existing charge Title are you completing the Impact Assessment on (which policy, service, MTFP reference, cluster etc)? Risk Rating MTFP or Paper czzia Line 186 IA Form and Action Table Residents Parking FCR V3-Post Page 1 of 5 1 Section 1 Description of what is being impact assessed Service Review or SCC Change Programme Service Review Increase of Resident Permit Parking Charges MTFP Ref 186 Impact on residents affected by the proposed increase to resident s parking charges for resident parking permits. Section 2A People or communities that are targeted or could be affected (for Equalities - taking particular note of the Protected Characteristic listed in action table) Residents on low incomes or holders of disabled drivers blue badge Section 2B People who are delivering the policy or service This proposal will have no direct impact on people delivering the service. There may be some transitional impacts on workload and work environment if significant enquiries are raised with staff in a forceful manner; however this is considered to be unlikely and low impact in a service which is used to dealing with disgruntled customers. Implications of MTFP 2012/13 for staff in relation to Equality and Diversity will be dealt with corporately by the HR Policy Manager in association with the HR Group Managers. Section 3 Evidence and data used for the assessment (Attach documents where appropriate) Approximately 1,700 households across the County are holders of resident permits who would be affected by the proposed increases.the majority of permit holders are situated within the centre of Taunton with smaller numbers in central Yeovil and Minehead. The number of households who would benefit from the improved clarity in the policy is unknown as the exixtance of a didasbled drivers badge is not recorded by parking services. These stakeholders and others, including Compass Disability will be consulted on the proposals and feedback from the consultation exercise will shape the final proposal and decision. Section 4 Conclusions drawn about the impact of the proposed change or new service/policy (Please use prompt sheet for help with what to consider): Key issues to be fed into relevant Action Table Equality Low impact. Holders of disabled drivers blue badges who are the registered keeper are unaffected by this change as they receive the first badge free of charge. The proposals are an improvement as the vehicle only needs to be registered at the property. Therefore households where the blue badge holder is not the keeper will benefit. Additional clarity is also provided regarding the 2 nd vehicle. The proposal is to allow the 2 nd permit to be purchased at the first permit price. In cases where an

35 exclusive mobility vehicle is registered at the property, it is suggested this does not count towards the allocation. Low income residents will be affected by the price increase, although for households with one vehicle the total cost of the permit will remain a very small proportion of the total cost of motoring. A phased increase will allow residents on low incomes to mitigate the impact of increased charges. The new charges are more equitable as they eliminate arbitrary charging differences which currently exist between schemes. Feedback received during the consultation from residents has resulted in a number of objections to holders of disabled driver badges receiving free permits. Health and Safety None. Sustainability None Community Safety None Privacy New additional personal data relating to applications for dispensations will be collected and held. The data will be similar to that currently held which is held securely on behalf of the Councuil. The data remains the property of the Council at all times. This new data will be held in accordance with required legislation and policies. Section 5 After consideration please state your final recommendations based on the findings from the impact assessment. Also include any examples of good practice and positive steps taken. No changes to proposals recommended. Harmonising charges will eliminate current variations which are inequitable. Section 6 - How will the assessment, consultation and outcomes be published and communicated? E.g. reflected in final strategy, published. What steps are in place to review the Impact Assessment Consultation to be discussed at cross party parking working group. Outcome of informal consultation to be published on the Council website. Impact Assessment will be reviewed in the light of consultation results, and re-submitted prior to the decision on this proposal. Completed by: Steve Deakin, Parking Services Manager Date 22 nd November 2013 Signed off by: Oliver Woodhams, Strategic Manager Traded Services Date 22 nd November 2013 Compliance sign off Date To be reviewed by: (officer name) Steve Deakin Review date: Following publication of necessary Traffic Regulation Order Version 2 Date 14 January 2013 czzia Line 186 IA Form and Action Table Residents Parking FCR V3-Post Page 2 of 5 2

36 Identified issue drawn from your conclusions Age As permit relates to an ability to drive, only a very small number of residents below the age of 18 are likely to be affected. Disability Not affected as holders of blue badge will receive a first permit without charge Gender Reassignment Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Equality Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? How will it be monitored? None n/a n/a Not monitored as application for a permit is not reliant upon age. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Marriage and Civil Partnership Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Pregnancy and Maternity Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Race (including ethnicity or national origin, colour, nationality and Gypsies and Travellers) Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Religion and Belief Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a What is the expected outcome from the action? n/a 3

37 Sex Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Sexual Orientation Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Other (including caring responsibilities, rurality, low income, Military Status etc) People on low incomes may be affected by these proposals, however impact is low. The phased introduction allows those on low incomes to take mitigating actions to ensure charges remain affordable. The proposals will only affect urban areas where car ownership is less essential for access to services and work, and the cost of permits is a small proportion of the overall costs of car ownership. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a 4

38 Areas of increased risk drawn from your conclusions None Health and Safety, Sustainability, Community Safety Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts/risk? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? Health and Safety Issues and Action Table How will it be monitored? What is the expected outcome from the action? None Sustainability Issues and Action Table None Community Safety Issues and Action Table None Privacy Issues and Action Table 5

39 Appendix /15 to 2017/18 MTFP Proposal Document Proposal Name: Service: Lead Officer: Stakeholders and Partners: FP Ref: 55 Resident Permit Charges Full Cost Recovery Parking Services Oliver Woodhams & Steve Deakin This proposal only currently affects those residents of Somerset County Council residing in an area of high parking demand where controlled resident parking has been introduced at their request. However, in the event that new schemes are introduced, we would seek to recover full costs The current numbers of households affected by this proposal is approximately 2,200. Of this number about 500 households are further affected due to the presence of a 2 nd vehicle. For existing schemes that have already introduced resident parking permits, section 46a of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 enables a change in price with no statutory consultation required. Nonetheless, consultation has been undertaken with residents of existing schemes to ascertain views - details of the consultation results are set out in the Appendix to this proposal. Proposal Recommended: Further statutory consultation will be required for new schemes prior to implementation. Such statutory consultation provides an opportunity for any objections (which must be dealt with) to be considered before implementation. Increase in the charge for resident parking permits over the years 2014/2015, 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 to ensure the full costs of schemes are recovered, harmonising current charges in different districts as follows: Current Charges: Taunton Deane South Somerset West Somerset First vehicle - 35 per vehicle Second vehicle - 50 per vehicle 35 per vehicle (all vehicles) 8 per vehicle (all vehicles) Proposed charges (all Districts): 2014/ / /17 First Vehicle Second Vehicle Other than the price of the permit no other changes are proposed within this MTFP proposal. Related proposed amendments to change the criteria for eligibility, method of application and various sundry permit schemes will be subject to a separate decision. Residents will still be required to confirm their eligibility. Charges will be reviewed every 3 years (or more frequently as required) to ensure costs are in line with revenue.

40 Assumptions: Options Considered: It is assumed that the current numbers of resident zones and the consequent purchase of resident permits will remain, or increase slightly as new schemes come on board. It is considered unlikely that there will be requests for controlled zones to be removed. Permit levels are likely to remain at current levels as residents maintain ownership of vehicles. A number of charging variations have been considered, with the objective of recovering the full cost of running and enforcing residents parking schemes. The cost per permit of running a typical scheme has been calculated as follows (annual costs are shown, rounded to the nearest pound): Costs of enforcing permit area Permit processing costs 7.00 Maintenance of signs and lines 7.00 Other contract costs and overheads Income from enforcement activity (penalty charge notices) Net running cost of scheme per permit issued In addition to the ongoing running costs above, there are also set up costs associated with schemes which were originally included within the calculation. Charges originally proposed prior to the consultation period have been reduced to reflect the views of residents, who felt overall that the charges originally proposed were a little too high. It is apparent from feedback from residents of the Minehead area of West Somerset the existing scheme arrangements may need to be reviewed, particularly as all areas are shared use, with no resident permit parking areas. The review would delay the implementation of the new permit rates for this area and implementation plans will be revised to take this into account. Responsibilities Parking Services Manager to arrange Notice of Variation and liaise with Parking Contractor to implement new pricing structure. Strategic Manager Traded Services (in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) to review the level of charges in the light of any future changes to the number of schemes. Impact: Strategic Impact Service Impact External Users Continuation of Civil Parking Enforcement without financial support and achievement of linked County Plan and Business Plan objectives for controlling congestion to promote economic growth. Service provision to residents unaffected (apart from cost of service).

41 Impact contd: Service Impact Internal Users Impact Assessment Key Impacts: Other Implications as necessary None. Day to day administration of service is outsourced. Low impact on residents on low incomes. A phased increase will allow residents on low incomes to mitigate or plan for the impact of increased charges. The new charges are more equitable as they eliminate arbitrary charging differences which currently exist between schemes in different parts of the county. None Statutory / Regulatory Requirement to publish Notice of Variation within local press and locations affected and full cost recovery basis for proposed charges ensures we are compliant with Traffic Management Act legislation. Risk This proposal is considered to be a low statutory / legal risk. Dependencies Assumption number of permits will remain, or increase slightly. This will be kept under review to ensure income from charges is broadly equivalent to the cost of existing and any new schemes. Constraints None. Capacity No capacity issues. Administration of permit scheme is outsourced. Parking contractor has resource available to place signs at each location. Financial Implications: 2014/ / / /18 On-going Savings ( 27,000) ( 41,000) ( 32,000) Net Revenue: One-Off Savings On-going Pressures One-Off Pressures Capital Costs Capital: Capital Income Capital Receipts Impact of Revenue Impact Delay: Capital Impact Staffing Implications: 2014/ / / /18 Revenue FTEs Capital Redundancy Implications FTEs FTE Voluntary FTE Compulsory

42 Appendix 1: Summary of Consultation results Background As part of the review of charges relating to resident parking charges, consultation has been undertaken across the County. All residents who currently hold either an annual resident permit for their vehicle or have purchased resident visitor permits were invited to complete the consultation. The consultation available on the Council s website ran for the period 5 th December 2013 to 10 th January Paper copies of the questionnaire were available for those participants who requested them. The consultation was based on a proposal which sought to raise resident s parking permit charges to 70 for first vehicles, and 150 for second vehicles. Consultation process & response levels Prior to completing the questionnaire respondents were encouraged to read a supporting document. This provided background information to the proposals. Both the questionnaire and supporting document are available on request. A covering letter inviting parties to complete the consultation was sent to the following: 2,280 resident permit holders 123 residents who have purchased scratch cards only Compass Disability for distribution to their contact list and Facebook page Somerset Association of Local Councils District Councils Somerset County Council s businesses e alert Companies employing Carer s in Somerset Somerset Chamber of Commerce Yeovil Chamber of Commerce Bridgwater Chamber of Commerce Federation of Small businesses Federation of Master Builders National Federation of Builders National Landlords Association Landlords for Landlords Taunton Town Centre Company Over all groups, 423 responses were received, 284 of whom identified themselves as existing resident s permit holders. From these figures it can be surmised that 88% of existing resident permit holders did not respond to the consultation.

43 Summary of responses relating to resident permits a. Category Number of % of Responses Responses Resident % Business 7 2% Other 14 3% Total % b. 284 respondents hold a resident parking permit c. Number of vehicles at respondents property Zero 21 One 220 Two 135 Three 31 More 15 d. Off road spaces at respondents property Zero 244 One 83 Two 53 Three 12 More 16 e. To what extent should parking be included within the Councils financial planning? To a large extent 49 12% To some extent % To a little extent 95 23% Not at all % f. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the approach that those who cause parking pressures should cover our costs Strongly agree % Slightly agree % Neither agree or disagree 71 17% Slightly disagree 42 10% Strongly disagree 72 18% g. What do you think about the proposed costs for resident parking permits? Overall Averaged Response A little too high g. What do you think about the proposed costs for resident visitor parking permits? Much too high % A little too high 51 13% About right % A little too low 18 4% Much too low 8 2%

44 h. If you currently have a resident parking permit how would the proposed changes affect you? It would not make a significant difference to me % It would make me consider not purchasing a permit 89 27% It would definitely make me not purchase a permit 34 10% Not sure 97 30% Selected comments / themes emerging from comments: Modern life means more cars, extended families with adult children Our cars are necessary as the bus service is too expensive and inadequate House conversions are a problem Only residents should be able to park There is too much enforcement There is insufficient enforcement The cost of permits is too high Why should there be a charge for permits? Reduce the level to be consistent rather than increase all The proposals for charges are too high, we are not living in London There is acknowledgment of abuse of current annual visitor permits. Council Tax should be used or increased to cover the cost Why should we pay to park outside our house? Proposed charges are outrageous These changes will make family support for children unaffordable Putting up the prices will have an effect on house prices Stop selling more permits than spaces We have to have 2 cars Extra controls are needed into the evening and Sundays Disabled drivers should not get free permits The scheme discriminates against those who live in cheaper housing areas Cars associated with the school run are a problem Residents should not be used as a cash machine The proposed charges are extortionate and unacceptable Motorcycles should not be exempt as they take up road space Sundays should be included Parking controls in the evening should be introduced Residents should be able to use the car parks for free if there road is full Standardizing the rates across the County is not appropriate as Taunton and Yeovil are different Residents should have one free permit per property These increase will make me think about moving There is no justification as to how the charges have been calculated Wasn t the service outsourced to a private company to save money Charges should vary according to demand

45 Impact Assessment Form and Action Table (Expand the boxes as appropriate, please see guidance to assist with completion) Why are you completing the Impact Assessment? Proposed New Policy or Service Existing service Change to Policy or Service Increase of existing charge Title are you completing the Impact Assessment on (which policy, service, MTFP reference, cluster etc)? Risk Rating MTFP or Paper Section 1 Description of what is being impact assessed Service Review or SCC Change Programme Service Review Increase of Resident Permit Parking Charges MTFP Ref 55 Impact on residents affected by the proposed increase to resident s parking charges for resident parking permits. Section 2A People or communities that are targeted or could be affected (for Equalities - taking particular note of the Protected Characteristic listed in action table) Residents on low incomes or holders of disabled drivers blue badge Section 2B People who are delivering the policy or service This proposal will have no direct impact on people delivering the service. There may be some transitional impacts on workload and work environment if significant enquiries are raised with staff in a forceful manner; however this is considered to be unlikely and low impact in a service which is used to dealing with disgruntled customers. Implications of MTFP 2012/13 for staff in relation to Equality and Diversity will be dealt with corporately by the HR Policy Manager in association with the HR Group Managers. Section 3 Evidence and data used for the assessment (Attach documents where appropriate) Approximately 1,700 households across the County are holders of resident permits who would be affected by the proposed increases. The majority of permit holders are situated within the centre of Taunton with smaller numbers in central Yeovil and Minehead. The number of households who would benefit from the improved clarity in the policy is unknown as the existence of a disabled drivers badge is not recorded by parking services. These stakeholders and others, including Compass Disability will be consulted on the proposals and feedback from the consultation exercise will shape the final proposal and decision. Section 4 Conclusions drawn about the impact of the proposed change or new service/policy (Please use prompt sheet for help with what to consider): Key issues to be fed into relevant Action Table Equality Low impact. Holders of disabled drivers blue badges who are the registered keeper are unaffected by this change as they receive the first badge free of charge. The proposals are an improvement as the vehicle only needs to be registered at the property. Therefore households where the blue badge holder is not the keeper will benefit. Additional clarity is also provided regarding the 2 nd vehicle. The proposal is to allow the 2 nd permit to be purchased at the first permit price. In cases where an

46 exclusive mobility vehicle is registered at the property, it is suggested this does not count towards the allocation. Low income residents will be affected by the price increase, although for households with one vehicle the total cost of the permit will remain a very small proportion of the total cost of motoring. A phased increase will allow residents on low incomes to mitigate the impact of increased charges. The new charges are more equitable as they eliminate arbitrary charging differences which currently exist between schemes. Feedback received during the consultation from residents has resulted in a number of objections to holders of disabled driver badges receiving free permits. Health and Safety None. Sustainability None Community Safety None Privacy New additional personal data relating to applications for dispensations will be collected and held. The data will be similar to that currently held which is held securely on behalf of the Council. The data remains the property of the Council at all times. This new data will be held in accordance with required legislation and policies. Section 5 After consideration please state your final recommendations based on the findings from the impact assessment. Also include any examples of good practice and positive steps taken. No changes to proposals recommended. Harmonising charges will eliminate current variations which are inequitable. Section 6 - How will the assessment, consultation and outcomes be published and communicated? E.g. reflected in final strategy, published. What steps are in place to review the Impact Assessment Consultation to be discussed at cross party parking working group. Outcome of informal consultation to be published on the Council website. Impact Assessment will be reviewed in the light of consultation results, and re-submitted prior to the decision on this proposal. Completed by: Steve Deakin, Parking Services Manager Date 22 nd November 2013 Signed off by: Date 14/1/2014 Compliance sign off Date December 2013 To be reviewed by: (officer name) Paula Hewitt and Michele Cusack Oliver Woodhams Review date: Following publication of necessary Traffic Regulation Order Version 2 Date 14 January 2013

47 Identified issue drawn from your conclusions Age As permit relates to an ability to drive, only a very small number of residents below the age of 18 are likely to be affected. Disability Not affected as holders of blue badge will receive a first permit without charge Gender Reassignment Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Equality Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? How will it be monitored? None n/a n/a Not monitored as application for a permit is not reliant upon age. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Marriage and Civil Partnership Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Pregnancy and Maternity Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Race (including ethnicity or national origin, colour, nationality and Gypsies and Travellers) Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Religion and Belief Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a What is the expected outcome from the action? n/a

48 Sex Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Sexual Orientation Not affected. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Other (including caring responsibilities, rurality, low income, Military Status etc) People on low incomes may be affected by these proposals, however impact is low. The phased introduction allows those on low incomes to take mitigating actions to ensure charges remain affordable. The proposals will only affect urban areas where car ownership is less essential for access to services and work, and the cost of permits is a small proportion of the overall costs of car ownership. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a

49 Areas of increased risk drawn from your conclusions None None None None Health and Safety, Sustainability, Community Safety Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts/risk? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? Health and Safety Issues and Action Table Sustainability Issues and Action Table Community Safety Issues and Action Table Privacy Issues and Action Table How will it be monitored? What is the expected outcome from the action?

50 2014/15 to 2017/18 MTFP Proposal Document Proposal Name: Service: Lead Officer: Stakeholders and Partners: Parking Dispensations/Suspensions FP Ref: 56 Parking Services Oliver Woodhams & Steve Deakin This proposal will primarily affect businesses with a need to park vehicles in contravention of parking controls for example, building firms carrying out work on properties within residents parking zones. As charges for dispensations/suspensions are not currently within the Relevant Traffic Regulation Order it will be necessary for a new or amending order to be drafted. This will require statutory consultation. Informal consultation has been undertaken with business representatives who are likely to be affected. Details of the consultation results are shown below in Appendix 1. Proposal Recommended: Introduce a charge for parking dispensations/suspensions to cover the costs of providing this service. Proposed charges: Daily Dispensation/Suspension 10 Weekly Dispensation/Suspension 30 Monthly Dispensation/Suspension 100 Administration Charge (per application) 10 Currently around 300 dispensations/suspension requests to park in contravention of current controls are issued each month, for no charge. This service is provided by our parking contractor who makes a charge to the County Council for the work they undertake. Charges will be introduced alongside a full policy covering eligibility, method of application and various related sundry permit schemes (e.g. carers (healthcare) permits, landlords permits) consultation on this policy will be carried out alongside the informal consultation on proposed charges, however the final policy will be subject to a separate decision. Charges will be reviewed every 3 years (or more frequently as required) to ensure costs are in line with revenue. Assumptions: It is assumed that the current numbers of dispensations issued will reduce once a charge is introduced. A reduction of 40% has been modelled and this will be kept under review.

51 Options Considered: Responsibilities A number of charging variations have been considered and the proposed charges above have been reviewed in the light of consultation with affected businesses and discussion with a Cross Party Parking Working Group of members. Parking Services Manager to arrange amending Traffic Regulation Order and liaise with Parking Contractor to implement new pricing structure. Strategic Manager Traded Services (in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) to review the level of charges to ensure charges are in line with costs. Impact: Strategic Impact Service Impact External Users Service Impact Internal Users Impact Assessment Key Impacts: Other Implications as necessary Continuation of Civil Parking Enforcement without financial support and achievement of linked County Plan and Business Plan objectives for controlling congestion to promote economic growth. Service provision to users of the dispensation service will be unaffected (apart from cost of service). None. Day to day administration of service is outsourced. No impacts on protected characteristics identified. Any other implications identified during statutory TRO consultation will be highlighted to decision makers via a revised proposal document. Risk Statutory / Regulatory Dependencies None. Constraints None. Requirement to publish new Traffic Regulation Order within local press and locations affected. This will enable anybody to object. All objections must be considered with objectors advised of the reason why we are have proceeded despite the objection. Full cost recovery basis for proposed charges ensures we are compliant with Traffic Management Act legislation. Low Risk. Capacity No capacity issues. Administration of dispensation scheme is outsourced. Parking contractor has resource available to administrate charging arrangements.

52 Financial Implications: 2014/ / / /18 On-going Savings ( 35,000) Net Revenue: One-Off Savings On-going Pressures One-Off Pressures Capital Costs Capital: Capital Income Impact of Delay: Capital Receipts Revenue Impact Capital Impact Staffing Implications: 2014/ / / /18 Revenue FTEs Capital FTEs Redundancy FTE Voluntary Implications FTE Compulsory

53 Appendix 1: Summary of Consultation results Background As part of the review of charges for parking dispensations and suspensions consultation has been undertaken across the County. All residents who currently hold either an annual resident permit for their vehicle or have purchased resident visitor permits were invited to complete the consultation along with business groups who maybe affected by the introduction of these charges. The consultation available on the Council s website ran for the period 5 th December 2013 to 10 th January Paper copies of the questionnaire were available for those participants who requested these. Questionnaire Prior to completing the questionnaire respondents were encouraged to read a supporting document. This provided background information to the proposals. A covering letter inviting parties to complete the consultation was sent to the following groups: 2,280 resident permit holders 123 residents who have purchased scratch cards only Compass Disability for distribution to their contact list and Facebook page Somerset Association of Local Councils District Councils Somerset County Council s businesses e alert Companies employing Carer s in Somerset Somerset Chamber of Commerce Yeovil Chamber of Commerce Bridgwater Chamber of Commerce Federation of Small businesses Federation of Master Builders National Federation of Builders National Landlords Association Landlords for Landlords Taunton Town Centre Company

54 Summary of consultation responses relating to parking dispensation and suspension charges a. Category Number of Responses % of Responses Resident % Business 7 2% Other 14 3% Total % b. To what extent should parking be included within the Councils financial planning? To a large extent 49 12% To some extent % To a little extent 95 23% Not at all % c. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the approach that those who cause parking pressures should cover our costs Strongly agree % Slightly agree % Neither agree or disagree 71 17% Slightly disagree 42 10% Strongly disagree 72 18% d. What do you think about the proposed costs for dispensations and suspensions Much too high % A little too high 94 24% About right % A little too low 14 4% Much too low 19 5% Comment Themes No specific comments have been identified regarding the dispensation and suspension charges. The comments provide a general view that, as residents have to pay for their permit others should pay also pay to park.

55 Impact Assessment Form and Action Table (Expand the boxes as appropriate, please see guidance to assist with completion) Why are you completing the Impact Assessment? Proposed New Policy or Service Existing service Change to Policy or Service Increase of existing charge Title are you completing the Impact Assessment on (which policy, service, MTFP reference, cluster etc)? Risk Rating MTFP or Paper Introduction of charges for parking dispensations MTFP Ref 56 Section 1 Description of what is being impact assessed Service Review or SCC Change Programme Service Review A proposal to introduce charges for parking dispensations. Parking dispensations are given to businesses with a legitimate need to park in contravention of a parking restriction (e.g. building firms carrying out work on a property in a resident s parking zone). Section 2A People or communities that are targeted or could be affected (for Equalities - taking particular note of the Protected Characteristic listed in action table) Businesses, rather than people or communities, are affected by this proposal. There may be a secondary impact on residents who live in a controlled parking area where businesses pass on the cost of a dispensation permit to the customer. Section 2B People who are delivering the policy or service This proposal will have no direct impact on people delivering the service. There may be some transitional impacts on workload and work environment if significant objections are raised with staff in a forceful manner; however this is considered to be unlikely and low impact in a service which is used to dealing with disgruntled customers. Implications of MTFP 2012/13 for staff in relation to Equality and Diversity will be dealt with corporately by the HR Policy Manager in association with the HR Group Managers. Section 3 Evidence and data used for the assessment (Attach documents where appropriate) Stakeholders will be consulted on the proposals and feedback from the consultation exercise will shape the final proposal and decision. Section 4 Conclusions drawn about the impact of the proposed change or new service/policy (Please use prompt sheet for help with what to consider): Key issues to be fed into relevant Action Table Equality No impact. Introduction of charge will not affect any protected characteristic group over another.

56 Health and Safety Positive impact. Demand for dispensations is likely to drop following the introduction of a charge as businesses opt to park in safer locations. Sustainability Positive impact. Affected businesses are likely to rationalise vehicle usage. Community Safety Any potential increase in anti-social behaviour caused by neighbourhood disputes if the driver of the vehicle refuses to purchase a dispensation will be reduced. Civil Parking Enforcement provides for a quick and efficient financial penalty. These tend to discourage drivers and encourage compliance. Liasion with the police will also be undertaken if necessary. Privacy New additional personal data relating to applications for dispensations will be collected and held. The data will be similar to that currently held which is held securely on behalf of the Councuil. The data remains the property of the Council at all times. This new data will be held in accordance with required legislation and policies. Section 5 After consideration please state your final recommendations based on the findings from the impact assessment. Also include any examples of good practice and positive steps taken. No changes to proposals recommended. Impact is negligible. Section 6 - How will the assessment, consultation and outcomes be published and communicated? E.g. reflected in final strategy, published. What steps are in place to review the Impact Assessment Consultation to discussed at cross party parking working group. Outcome of informal consultation to be published on the Council website. The assessment and any identified impacts (following consultation) will be given due consideration within them decision making process for the Medium Term Financial Plan and published with papers for Scrutiny and Cabinet. The service will consider the feedback from the consultation when implementing and changes that are agreed as part of the Medioum Term Financial Plan. General Comments The assessment has considered where appropriate potential impacts on the following sustainability issues: Use of energy, water, minerals and materials Waste generation / sustainable waste management Pollution to air, land and water Factors that contribute to Climate Change Protection of and access to the natural environment Travel choices that do not rely on the car A strong, diverse and sustainable local economy Meet local needs locally Provision of appropriate and sustainable housing Other sustainability impacts such as health, safety and equality are considered within other areas of the overall impact assessment.

57 Completed by: Steve Deakin, Parking Services Manager Date 22 nd November 2013 Signed off by: Date 16/1/2014 Compliance sign off Date December 2013 To be reviewed by: (officer name) Paula Hewitt and Michele Cusack Oliver Woodhams Review date: Following publication of necessary Traffic Regulation Order Version 2 Date 14 th January 2014

58 Identified issue drawn from your conclusions Age Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? Equality Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? How will it be monitored? No issue identified. None n/a n/a n/a n/a Disability No issue identified. Carers of people with Disabilities will be eligible to partake in a separate scheme for resident s parking areas. Gender Reassignment None. n/a n/a n/a n/a No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Marriage and Civil Partnership No issue identified. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a Pregnancy and Maternity No issue identified. Health visitors / Midwifes visiting new parents will be eligible to partake in a separate scheme for resident s parking areas. None. n/a n/a n/a n/a What is the expected outcome from the action?

59 Appendix 4 - Item 1 - Consultation Summary Questionnaire Summary Results This page shows the summary of the responses that have been received. 1. About You To help with the analysis of your response can you please confirm in what capacity you are responding. Option Results Resident 95% (404) Business 2% (7) Other 3% (14) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 1a. About You (continued) Do you currently have a Resident's Parking Permit? Option Results Yes 73% (285) No 27% (104) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 1b. About You (continued) You selected 'Business'. Please specify Business type: Option Results Retailer 57% (4) Builder / Associated Trade 29% (2) Landlord / Property Agent 0% (0) Other 14% (1)

60 Item 1 - Consultation Summary View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 1c. About You (continued) You selected 'Other'. Please confirm in what capacity you are responding. This question has been answered 17 times. View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 2. About You (continued) Please supply the first part of your postcode, e.g., TA1, BA20 This question has been answered 423 times. View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 3. About You (continued) How many vehicles does your household/business have? Option Results Zero 5% (21) One 52% (222) Two 32% (136) Three 7% (31) More than three 4% (15) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question

61 Item 1 - Consultation Summary 4. About You (continued) How many vehicles can you park off-road, e.g., garage, driveway? Option Results Zero 60% (246) One 20% (84) Two 13% (53) Three 3% (12) More than three 4% (16) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 5. Priorities and Principles Due to increasing demand for our services with decreasing funds, Somerset County Council has to make financial savings and consider all services it provides in future. To what extent do you think that parking should be included as part of this process? Option Results To a large extent 12% (49) To some extent 32% (135) To a little extent 22% (95) Not at all 34% (144) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 6. Priorities and Principles (continued) If you had to choose between different parking services, where do you think changes should be focused? (please number in order of priority 1= low priority to 6 = high priority) 1 - low priority high priority

62 Item 1 - Consultation Summary Dispensations/Suspensions Visitor Parking Permits Resident Parking Permits Business/Landlords Parking Permits Parking Enforcement Retailers' Loading Permits View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 7. Priorities and Principles (continued) One way of covering the costs of processing, issuing, monitoring and enforcing those who cause parking pressures is to ask them to cover our costs. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this approach? Option Results Strongly agree 28% (117) Slightly agree 27% (110) Neither agree or disagree 17% (72) Slightly disagree 10% (42) Strongly disagree 17% (72) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 8. Priorities and Principles (continued) If you disagree with this approach, why? This question has been answered 139 times. View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 9. Dispensation and Suspensions

63 Item 1 - Consultation Summary Do you feel that the proposed charges of 10 per day, 30 per week & 100 per month plus a 10 administration fee for Dispensations and Suspensions are: Option Results Much too high 33% (132) A little too high 24% (94) About right 35% (140) A little too low 4% (14) Much too low 5% (19) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 10. Resident's Parking Permits We are proposing changes that will impact on the Districts that currently have Resident s Parking Schemes and any future schemes. In this section we want to know your views on parking permits and the proposals that we are making. Is your current allocation of Resident s Parking Permits appropriate? Option Results Yes 67% (282) No 13% (56) Don't know 3% (12) N/A 16% (68) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 11. Resident's Parking Permits (continued) If you have answered No to question 10, please indicate the number of Resident s Parking Permits you feel would be appropriate per property: Option Results One 17% (28) Two 30% (48)

64 Item 1 - Consultation Summary Three 4% (7) More than three 4% (6) N/A 45% (73) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 12. Resident's Parking Permit (continued) Why do you think that level is more appropriate? This question has been answered 102 times. View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 13. Visitor's Parking Permits Currently, annual open visitor permits can be bought. There has been feedback these are being misused, do you agree or disagree that something should be done to stop this misuse? Option Results Strongly agree 43% (178) Slightly agree 19% (77) Neither agree or disagree 18% (73) Slightly disagree 4% (16) Strongly disagree 17% (70) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 14. Visitor's Parking Permits (continued)

65 Item 1 - Consultation Summary Our proposal is (as well as a Free of Charge allocation of 10 all day visitor scratch card permits per household) for residents to be able to purchase a maximum of 120 Daily Visitor s Permits per year. Do you think this is? Option Results Too many 15% (60) About right 49% (200) Too few 27% (110) No opinion 10% (41) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 15. to 22. Visitor's Parking Permits (continued) How far do you agree with the following statements? 15. It is more important to keep down the cost of resident's permits than visitor's permits. 16. Motorcycles should be exempt from needing to buy permits. 17. The cost for a 2nd permit should be higher than the cost for the 1st permit. 18. Any increase in charges should be introduced in phases, not all at once. 19. The current discount for low emission vehicles should be discontinued. 20. Residents who hold Blue Badges (Disabled Drivers) should continue to receive one free Resident's Parking Permit. 21. Giving each household (within Parking Schemes) a free allocation of 10 Visitor's Parking Permits (scratch cards) is a waste of money Strongly agree Slightly agree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree

66 Item 1 - Consultation Summary 22. New developments and property conversions within parking schemes should be ineligible for Resident's Parking Permits View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 23. Resident's Parking Permits Somerset County Council is proposing to standardise the Resident s Parking Permit Policy across the whole of Somerset. To cover the costs we are proposing that Resident s Parking Permits should be priced as below: 2014/ / /17 1 st Resident s permit nd Resident s permit Visitor permits up to 4 hours 50p all day 1.00 The above proposed charges per Resident s Parking Permit find the right balance between the need to cover costs and the ongoing costs for residents. Do you think the costs are: Much too high A little too high About right A little too low Much too low

67 Item 1 - Consultation Summary For the first Resident's Permit: For the second Resident's Permit: View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 24. Resident's Parking Permits (continued) Do you feel the above proposed charge per Visitor Parking Permit is: Option Results Much too high 47% (191) A little too high 13% (51) About right 34% (136) A little too low 4% (18) Much too low 2% (9) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 25. Resident's Parking Permits (continued) If you currently have a Resident s Parking Permit how would the proposed changes affect you? Option Results It would not make a 33% (106) significant difference to me It would make me consider 27% (89) not purchasing a permit It would definitely make me 10% (34) not purchase a permit Not sure 30% (97) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question

68 Item 1 - Consultation Summary 26. Business Parking Permits To support Local Businesses the proposals include the introduction of permits for businesses based in residential areas, which need a vehicle for use in their business. Is this a good idea? Option Results Yes 66% (263) No 34% (134) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 27. Business Parking Permits (continued) If no, why? This question has been answered 134 times. View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 28. Business Parking Permits (continued) What are your views of the proposed cost of 150 per annual Business Parking Permit? Is it: Option Results Much too high 21% (82) A little too high 17% (65) About right 34% (132) A little too low 12% (47) Much too low 16% (63) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question

69 Item 1 - Consultation Summary 29. Non Resident Landlord's Parking Permits To support Non Resident Landlords the proposals include the introduction of permits to enable them to visit their properties during the hours of control. Is this a good idea? Option Results Yes 61% (241) No 39% (157) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 30. Non Resident Landlord's Parking Permits (continued) Do you feel the proposed charges are: Much too high A little too high About right A little too low Much too low One Zone per District 150 Three Zones per District 300 All Zones in a District 600 View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 31. Retailer's Loading Permits To support local retailers and provide them with a safe loading window the proposals include the introduction of loading permits to enable them to load (where permitted) without risk of receiving a penalty for up to 20 minutes. Is this a good idea? Option Results Yes 86% (339) No 14% (56) View the responses to this question

70 Item 1 - Consultation Summary Report on responses to this question 32. Retailer's Loading Permits (continued) What are your views of the proposed cost of 100 per annual Retailer s Loading Permit? Is it: Option Results Much too high 22% (84) A little too high 14% (55) About right 43% (168) A little too low 10% (39) Much too low 11% (43) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 33. Other comments Do you have any other comments? This question has been answered 320 times. View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 34. What is your ethnic group? Option Results White 86% (341) Mixed or Multiple ethnic 0% (0) groups Asian 1% (2) Black/African/Caribbean 0% (1)

71 Item 1 - Consultation Summary Other ethnic group 1% (2) Prefer not to say 12% (49) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 35. Do you consider yourself to have a disability or long term health condition Option Results Yes 16% (62) No 71% (283) Prefer not to say 13% (51) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 35a What is the nature of your disability or long term health condition? Option Results Mobility 32% (18) Physical 32% (18) Visual 4% (2) Hearing 5% (3) Learning 0% (0) Mental 9% (5) Prefer not to say 19% (11) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 36.

72 Item 1 - Consultation Summary Do you consider your sexual orientation to be: Option Results Heterosexual 70% (268) Gay Man 1% (5) Lesbian 1% (3) Bisexual 0% (0) Prefer not to say 28% (108) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 37. What is your age? Option Results % (0) % (7) % (45) % (99) % (105) % (77) 79 or over 2% (9) Prefer not to say 14% (56) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question 38. What is your gender? Option Results Female 41% (162) Male 45% (181) Transgender 0% (0)

73 Item 1 - Consultation Summary Prefer not to say 14% (55) View the responses to this question Report on responses to this question

74 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments Appendix 1 Q2: Postcode of respondents BA 1 BA11 3 BA16 1 BA20 26 BA21 59 BA22 2 BA3 1 BA4 2 BA5 4 BA6 2 BA7 1 BA8 1 BA9 1 BS26 1 BS48 1 DT8 1 TA1 227 TA11 11 TA12 1 TA13 1 TA14 1 TA16 1 TA19 2 TA2 11 TA20 1 TA21 5 TA22 2 TA23 3 TA24 27 TA3 3 TA4 6 TA5 1 TA6 3 TA7 4 TA8 3 TA9 2

75 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments Appendix 2 Q8: Priorities and Principles Comments 1 Because I pay council tax, etc for the privilege of living in Taunton and am effectively discriminated regarding parking my own car at my home and having visitors, just because I live near the town centre. Parking restrictions and enforcement in Taunton is already very aggressive and it is incentive to find somewhere more 'manageable' to live. Parking and traffic in this town is already very difficult! 2 Inconvenience and disruption to traffic flow cause delays which often have knock on costs. These costs should be borne by those who make them happen 3 The costs of processing, issuing, monitoring and enforcing parking issues should not be born unreasonably by people wanting to park their cars outside their houses. The charges should come from enforcement of illegal parking and contributions from people visiting the street. The main reason for introducing resident parking zones is to ensure that residents are able to park and spaces are not taken up by commuters. 4 Because the public is paying for everything! People only have a finite amount of money to live by. It's disgusting that I have to pay to park outside my own home in the first place without adding more costs to living. 5 If you did less processing, monitoring, enforcing and over controlling there would be less in the way of costs 6 We are already paying for most of your costs through tax. 7 Part of your document talks about enabling drivers to park on yellow lines if theyy pay, I among other belive that the yellow lines were placed where they are with regard to road safely, else why are they there. It was NOT so you can charge drivers to park 8 Only certain areas of the town (Yeovil) are covered by residents parking zones. These are not well managed, we only see the inspector once a day, so people become aware of that and park accordingly. If you are going to have these zones, then police them properly and make sure those who contravene the regulations and don't pay for permits get fined. If you're going to have them, monitor them!! 9 N/A 10 I disagree with the proposal to increase residents' permit costs and visitor permit rules/costs. I don't believe that there are any parking issues where I live and consider that the current system works fine. The changes to visitor parking will only, in my opinion cause greater abuse of the system. 11 Because the scheme only runs from 9am to 6pm there are many occasions when I cannot park in my own street due to people without passes (visitors and residents). Increasing the charge to the levels indicated is just going to encourage more residents to not buy a pass and ruin it for those that do have one. Page 1 of 11

76 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 12 The fees for residents parking permits etc are already very high, and I feel that it is unjustified to raise these even further, especially whilst there are so few residents parking permits already available, and no options for parking anywhere near many houses without a permit. 13 We have had to endure huge increases in residents parking charges over the last few years, without consultation. I resent being asked to pay even more in the current climate, we live in a ordinary terrace street with people on average earnings, to expect us to pay so much for visitors to park feels that ordinary people are being penalised for not being able to afford a property with its own driveway. We do not live in a car park. 14 Whilst you mentioned inherited different schemes and rates, would not the proper approach and keep everyone happy would be to lower the rate of the highest schemes in line with the lowest. Increasing prices will put off people getting passes thus lowering your revenue. Surely the contractoriszation of parking services should of been researched if they were self funding in the first place i.e firm price contractor to support this activity, why should residents suffer. 15 It depends on whether you are blaming residents for 'causing parking pressures'. It's a no-brainer that residents will cause parking pressures because they need to park their cars. If you pass on the cost to landlords or retailers then I don't disagree. 16 Why is it viewed that homeowners who have vehicles that pay council tax and all over state contributions that are requested are viewed as adding a parking pressure. 17 Permits are already outrageously high. Should not go up and certainly not by the amount suggested. Also in our area masses of tickets are already given out that must raise a fortune in revenue. Need to realise you are here to serve residents not treat them outrageously 18 Monitoring and enforcing need not be so costly. 19 Why is Residents parking and their visitors a 'parking pressure'. I've lived here since before they came in and they were for our benefit so shoppers didn't park here when we needed access to our properties, they are only good for Saturdays now - the street is really quiet weekday day times - why not let businesses park here then? 20 Those who abuse the system or park illegally should bear the cost, rather than the rest of us who abide by the rules. 21 A bit of give and take is necessary as residents don't make the decision about the location of parking bays so shouldn't be heavily penalised for living in resident parking area as these are sometime lower cost housing. Although I do accept that they should pay towards the costs of administrating the tickets but not necessarily monitoring and enforcing. 22 I disagree because it would affect everyone regardless of those who cause 'parking pressure'. Resident permits are not an individual choice 23 In order to sustain vibrant and mixed urban communities, in which people can maintain reasonable work/life balance (such as working from home/childcare) which will most likely require them to have a vehicle parked at home during restricted hours Page 2 of 11

77 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments costs should be met from general (council) taxation. Monitoring and enforcing parking restrictions should be met from general (council) taxation if it is a county council responsibility. 24 The is a totally biased survey for Somerset County council...it has nothing to do with residents views, its's all about screwing us for more money...disgusting!!! 25 The fee apparently only covers the running cost, so the best solution is to discontinue the parking permits. You wont do that because it s a money making scheme for the council. Another tax 26 WE SHOULD NOT ISSUE TICKETS, BUT DEVELOP A PLAN FOR PARKING THAT IS GOOD FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS ALIKE, 27 I live next to Yeovil hospital. We know the scheme is abused by a minority but charging residents more for having visitors is discriminatory. The housing is a mixture of Housing association and low value housing. We live here because we don't have a choice in most cases. I would much prefer to live in a leafy suburb with well maintained grass verges ( not rutted mud baths because cars park on them) Resident permits are abused, I don't know how,would love to see registration checks with dvla 28 As I pay my Council Tax I feel I am being hit twice 29 Current style of daily visitors permits - you have not given an expiry date, are we able to use them when the new permits are put in place? Question not answered in proposed parking <br>scandelous at the increase in charge for visitors permits, that is deplorable <br>annual increase for first vechicle permit is unacceptable, (we are not living in London were income is higher 30 Family and friends should be able to visit our home without us having to incur the costs. The current visitor permit is adequate, cost effective and there is no need to change it! 31 residents and their visitors are being penalized and being charged to park in our own street already, without being charged extra to make up gov shortfalls, otherwise it will become a cash cow to make income as you see fit 32 Only allow residents to park. Too many visitor permits; are abused. If visitor permits more than 2 days, special dispensation to be sought. 33 I resent being told that by wishing to park in the vicinity of my house (it is not possible to park outside as the bay directly outside my house is a 1 hour bay to which residents have no additional privilege), that I am creating 'parking pressures'. 34 The enforcement officers are spiteful and unreasonable, they are being paid to reach targets regardless of the individual needs or circumstances of those they target. They are petty and autocratic. Take them off our streets please. 35 Residents should not be forced into paying more for their permits as there is no increasing costs associated with this. 36 We already contribute via the current parking pass payment as well as council tax contributions. Given that there is nowhere Page 3 of 11

78 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments else for us to park it seems unfair and that residents are an easy target to squeeze for extra contributions to council funds. 37 Parking Pressures; is too vague a term to give a reasonable answer. Residents cause pressures, but really should not be penalised. Illegal parking and misuse of parking services certainly should be hit with the full cost, and those charges could attract a high charge than the cost of the service to subsides residents. Rather than asking residents to pay increasing costs, it is almost certainly the case that there are inefficiencies that can be eliminated (e.g. bring admin back in house). 38 House owners should not have to pay for a permit. Enforcement is not enough; does not cover 9am-6pm, people park without any permit mornings and afternoon, how will this be improved? The ridiculous increase of permit costs is really taking advantage of the permanent home owners. You have already made the decision to make home owners life difficult by increasing to such costs, no doubt the consultation is ready to go and any thoughts from residents will have no effect? 39 The problem is there have been too many permits issued per area and the misuse is high. There has been blatant selling of the visitor permit and abolishing them is an excellent idea. 40 Qu 7 is badly worded - does this mean people who park irresponsibly such as on double yellows or in disabled bays (when not displaying blue badges) or does it mean all people who wish to park in Somerset who, to some extent, are causing parking pressures. Also it would have been more statistically relevant to seperate out opinion across different 'user groups'. In this format there is potential for confusion by what you mean and therefore a bias response 41 The cost of producing permits and visitors parking slips should be covered by the current charges, enforcement is generally not needed and the cost of enforcment must be covered by current parking offences. An example of a service being commissioned out and services being diminished or costing more, we pay council tax if you want to charge us more for these services, the council should be braver and increase council tax costs. 42 I agree that costs of administering the system should be covered but I don't agree that residents should bear the burden of covering that cost as we already pay council tax for the properties. I think the free street parking for non-residents should attract a fee. 43 Your table 6 does not allow the same priority to be applied to two parts of the service, this may be intentional but it would help to explain if that is the case. Also to explain that the changes you refer to are those proposed in the consultation document (if that is the case). If you are suggesting that some but not all of these changes might be adopted it would be helpful to say that, the rest of the documentation appears to present them as a package. 44 At present as a resident with parking permit restrictions I think time and money would be better used preventing others from using parking places they are not paying for. Daily we are attacked by parents of the local primary school because we want to park in our roads where we pay to 45 its a service that scc needs to provide Page 4 of 11

79 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 46 A fundamental principle should be to eliminate parking fees in Town Centres in support of retailers and business interests. They already pay business rates. 47 There is no shortage of parking space in Minehead and therefore residents aren't taking priority over visitors even in the height of the summer. There is also no shortage of free parking for those residents who are prepared to walk a short distance and therefore whilst raising the cost of parking for residents by 100% would be reasonable, raising it by over 500% in year one will deter locals from paid parking. The vacated spaces will not be used by visitors and therefore the income will reduce. 48 Don't enforce in those residential areas and you won't have any costs, thus no need for residents etc to pay double what they are currently paying. Your proposed increases are disgraceful. I agree with enforcing parking on highways. 49 The question makes no sense - are you asking if residents are causing parking pressures or commuters etc. If the first then I would strongly disagree, if the latter then I would strongly agree. 50 Trying pas cost to residents is simply unfair if you don't make enough money off illegally parked motorist then there simply can't be a problem so if you feel strongly enough that you are not making money simply scrap the the permit scheme. 51 Your question is to vague. As a resident who pays council tax and car tax why should I also have to pay to park outside my own house. 52 We are already paying a substantial but acceptable amount to park here. 53 Generally it does not impact on residents the few people who park illegally 54 Currently money is wasted in the process of issuing parking permits, receive multiple letters and separate envelopes when sending off for parking permits. Could move to online. 55 By increasing the cost of parking and making parking more difficult you are increasing the pressures on local businesses. It will discourage the public/customers to park in small town centres to shop and make it more difficult for small businesses to operate. More parking restrictions and higher costs are a barrier to business and the economy, the council should be looking to encourage the growth of local businesses not take more money from them and the public. 56 Needs to be more transparency around what costs and income associated with the parking service are 57 Greater clarity needed with question: : do you mean increased no. of residents with cars or more people parking illegally? I do not afgree with increasing cost for residents as this would not solve the problem fairly. 58 I believe that the Council is placing more parking restrictions and charges purely to generate income. It would clearly also generate income if the Council then recovered costs related to enforcement. Win win. Restrictions should be put in place purely, and only, where there is a definite need due to potential traffic congestion. Thsi doesn't include placing restrictions in quiet residential areas to force people to use pay car parks. Page 5 of 11

80 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 59 Just another tax on road users. Treated like a cash cow by government from national down to local. If the income from parking fines doesn't cover the cost of enforcement then your costs are too high or it is not really required! 60 Finance should be sought from elsewhere. 61 parking is difficult enough at present priority should be given to improvment at no additional cost 62 Having to pay through the nose to park for a short period near a shop or business that is not too far for my aged legs to cope with is a great disincentive to visit shops. That assumes that there is anywhere to park at all! (So much business goes online to the detriment of local businesses.) PS. I did not understand 6 above. 63 As a resident I should be able to park one car, in my street with out extra costs. 64 LIVE AND LET LIVE. WITH THE PRICE OF PETROL AND BUS JOURNEYS IN SOMERSET PLUS THE LACK OF RAILWAYS, WE CAN HARDLY MANAGE TO PAY TO GET TO WORK NOW 65 enforce parking restrictions properly fines to help with extra costs 66 The residents are not causing the problems, so why penalise them. You are not allowed to use us as a cash cow to prop up the Tory Council 67 From the proposed changes, it seems that you assume that the residents who are parking legally are the ones causing parking pressures, when instead people who park illegally should be the ones who are made to cover the costs. 68 To choose we need to know what the costs are and what they cover. 69 It is too vague and generalised. It depends whom you blame for the 'pressure'. One of the largest causes of parking problems is commuters to Taunton, not residents. Residents should NOT have to pay for the 'pressures' caused by commuters. AND WHAT ARE DISPENSATIONS AND SUSPENSIONS?!! 70 Charges should already cover as well as the many tickets given out. Proposed increases are outrageous 71 Because you think first of increasing revenue without fully controlling costs. No other business would dare to publish such a scandalous increase in costs up to They would simply be out of business. FIND SAVINGS INSTEAD. Seriously! 72 If issuing penalties does not cover your costs there is no need so you can save money by doing less patrols. What other costs are there? Do not put up the cost of a residence permit. I only have one car. Having visitors to their home is a fundamental right people should have. Now you are trying to fleece them. If my mum comes to my house to look after my baby 3 times a week I have to pay 156 a year? And a large motor bike create as much pollution as a small car and more noise! Permit them! 73 Why should the people who have to park on the roads outside their houses have to pay to park there. Surely this should be free, as they are already paying taxes, ie council tax, road tax etc. Why should they poor more to live on their own street, surely they should have free permits. If anybody else parks there they should be penilaised Page 6 of 11

81 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 74 This seams like a way to bring in high rises in penalty charges which will encourage issuing of more tickets to generate easy revenue, rather than find ways to encourage better systems of providing parking. 75 Exactly what does Council Tax cover? I was under the impression that parking was paid by it. 76 I find this very hard to understand. Badly worded. Please explain what you mean by parking pressures. 77 Residents have not choice other than to accept charges for parking permits. Given all of the other financial pressures that we are under, it seems very unfair to impose yet higher charges on people who cannot escape it. 78 It is penalising your residents and their temporary visitors. They are your customers; they pay your wages; is this fair? 79 parking restrictions - disabled parking for instance - never enforced as indiction, mobiles 80 Penalising Residents by increasing costs for Resident Permits and Visitor Permits - both annual and scratch cards - is outrageous and unreasonable. Increases of 100% for Resident Permits, 200% for Visitor Permits and 500% for Day Visitor Scratchcards is disgraceful and excessive. 81 N/A 82 I do not understand if question 6 is asking which group should be preferentially charged or preferentially left out. I believe that public roads should not be used for private parking. This means that adequate space needs to be designated for storing private cars and the appropriate charge made. Vehicles carrying out services should be allowed to stop and carry out their business without charge anywhere on a public road provided it can be made safe to do so. 83 The question is not clearly worded because the term; cause parking pressures; is not defined. In a broad sense anyone who parks on a public highway causes some parking pressure. However, I believe that everyine who pays council charges directly or indirectly should be entitles to free parking in the area near their residence without addional charge. To only charge those who live in areas where third parties create the parking pressure is discriminatory and unfair. 84 The promise at the outset of parking permits, was that the charges WOULD NOT go up 85 There is no pressure on you to minimise your costs and level of beaurocracy. You could also increase the administration costs to the customer under any pretext of increased costs. It is vey unfair to residents parking in areas of older terraced houses who have no choice where they park. Councils are already making record amounts from shopping car parks so there is no need to hit residents who seem to be viewed as a soft target. 86 why should certain areas be penalised by costs of parking outside there own house just because where they live 87 because to continue to make it difficult o park on our own street (as council tax payers) is discrimination because we live near the town centre. As a family, with a disabled daughter and elderly mother, the proposed changes will make it impossible to carry on normal lives. Whereas it is important to have some restrictions, it is wrong to move the goal posts now and make it hard to carry on with our normal lives. We wouldn't have moved here, if we had known about these Page 7 of 11

82 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments changes at the outset!! 88 My parents enjoyed free parking outside their property until TDBC brought in Residents Parking Charges. Over the last 12 months, they had visits 3 times every day from a Home Care Agency, various other Health Care Visitors and it was necessary for my Sister and I to purchase Visitor Permits as we often had to stay over for long periods and were finding the Daily Scratch cards were not adequate for us or the Care Agency Staff (who did not have access to their own Permits). 89 if the cost of the service was borne eqully by all council tax payers we might see a better attitude towards seeking a more holistic approach to parking prblmes 90 Fines fine - increase. Not fair to ask residents to pay so much more. 91 You must try to encourage small businesses to continue running and consideration should be given to the history of the space and the assistance individuals give back to the council 92 Its not the motorists fault that so much of town centres has been sold off to town centres, by charging or fining people you simply drive people to use out of town shopping or the internet instead, its an incredibly short sighted option to charge people to park in town centres. 93 imposing parking charges discourages people from coming into the town. increased footfall is good for the town. charging businesses for parking/loading, etc., is unreasonable and discourages businesses from coming to Yeovil. 94 Who causes parking pressures, is there a particular group of people or a particular area causing this problem. 95 Will we see more parking attendants? Because at the moment they seem to be in groups in town! 96 Parking pressures are often caused by the design and layout of our towns, which have evolved over centuries, and are not always the fault of those who need a vehicle for their personal, work or business use. 97 Because your costs should already be covered by funding from central government which comes from everyone who pays tax. Those ;who cause parking pressures; usually have little alternative. However is they are breaking the law, then the council should seek suitable redress. 98 Before parking permits were introduced Yeovil District Hospital workers caused the parking problem due to lack of parking at their place of work and so parking issues should be looked at place of work, each area should be looked at individually not a blanket cost across whole county 99 It depends, those who have a commercial interest that increases pressures over and above normal everyday activities should be charged. But we want a thriving business environment in town and residents going about their daily lives should not have to cover the costs of providing a service. 100 The Issues here are caused by 2 main employers and staff trying to park all day for free at the expense of local residents, who are paying more tax (the permits), this is not fair. In the evenings then the residents coming home cannot always use Page 8 of 11

83 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments permits as all free space used by non holders as system runs for limited times, so what is one paying for? ANSWER NHS staff and Yeovil College users 101 I agree with people who park illegally to cover the cost via a penalty notice. (If this is what you refer to as a Parking Pressure) I don't believe residents with no other form of parking space and who have no choice but to park on the street they live in should have to cover this cost. (Are they also known to be causing a parking pressure?) 102 Cost to OAP's already high 103 Q7 is very unclear and ambiguous. I think it is asking whether those people who contravene the parking regs should be subject to higher fines? If so then I strongly agree. 104 There are other parking places in town for people to use 105 why should residents that live in a parking permit area have to foot the bill?????????????? 106 Emphaiss becomes economic rather than for safty or other vaild reasons for regualting parking 107 I have no issue about covering costs to some extent but the proposed hikes over the next 3 years have the whiff of income generation, like a lot of speed cameras nationwide. 108 WE PAY ENOUGH NOW AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED A SPACE 109 we all need cars but they need to be rationed for the number of spaces available. visitors permits are vital. we cannot always put a new 'day permit' on by 8am. 110 Residents and businesses need transport for varying reasons. The pressure to own/run a car is led by economics and therefore we should not be penalised for adding to parking pressures by paying higher fees for a second or third car in any household. In addition to this lifestyle choices to have visitors should not be dictated by parking issues. 111 As an original resident to the parking permits i would query the cost of a third party being involved with the purchase of the perrmits and why SCC felt the need to change this involving a company from miles away. 112 people should take responsibility for the cost of parking their cars 113 I pay extortionate rates. More than my neighbours who have off road parking. Why should they get cheap residents passes for their first vehicle? I think the first resident's permit for people with no off road parking should be free. For people with parking off road - no account is taken of how many off road spaces they have! Their permit and all second car permits should be astronomic. Taunton should be made more bike-friendly, as it is dreadful The question is loaded - why are there parking pressures - what has caused them? To simply say that those who create parking pressures is too wide a remit. After all most parking pressures are caused by the Council's policies and actions. For instance houses being built without sufficient parking; heavy-handed attitudes to parking charges - the list goes on.<br>the whole area should be looked at afresh and sticking-plaster approaches should be stopped immediately before irreparable Page 9 of 11

84 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments damage is done 115 A tax should cover all 116 Bureaucracy puts costs up 117 Enforcement is the key. However, this has declined significantly since the parking operation was taken over by SCC. The document published shows a 'system' which is not based on a sound strategy but on a short term need to extract further cash from those who already pay. 118 If you divert all the money made from parking fines into running the Residents Parking Scheme, then you wouldn't have to 'rip off' the residents. In our road, Whitehall, more money could be made by monitoring more in the evenings and especially the weekend evenings. 119 The only thing I think grossly unfair is, those Victorian type houses which have no means of providing off street parking, they should have free permits because a large number of them have their front doors opening on to the roadside with no access round the back. 120 Because it will go over the top 121 Residents should not be making extra contributions, parking permits are expensive enough.people are already struggling to make ends meet. Maybe freeze council managers wages/ bonuses instead? 122 Taunton has a lack of easily accessible in town parking as it is. You start increasing prices and making shopping more difficult. the town centre will decline even more. 123 Parking applies to all road users 124 We pay for a service 125 I don't have a car and it seems to me that I as a resident, are covering the costs of my visitors 126 i disagree with the huge charges being placed on people who do not have any option but to park within the street 127 As a resident who reply on the car for work and who already pay for a parking permit and pay council tax which generally increasing, my wages are not increasing and fines ae not the answer. There are also not enough residents spaces in Belvedere Road itself. 128 The current charge for a parking permit is totally viable to ensure that car users may retain the independence of having their own transport. In my area there are still spaces available, even in the evening where restrictions are not imposed, and I believe it is greedy to charge more for parking - parking is currently inconvenient but not financially damaging. 129 Central government (Mr Pickles) is constantly saying that recovering costs is one thing but making a profit is another entirely. I had always believed that any money from was ring fenced; for transport It is unreasonable to ask the residents to fund other projects i.e. Bus subsidies Page 10 of 11

85 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 130 Residents Parking permits should be included in the annual council tax 131 WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO PAY TO PARK OUTSIDE OUR OWN HOUSE WHEN 90% OF THE TOWN DOES NOT! 132 It will have high impact on our monthly expenses and vehichile maintence.its become very hard keep increasing fuel charge tax increase maintence cost increase. 133 Road managment/maintenance responsibility of council - we pay rates. Where do our rates do? 134 Whena landlord visits a property it is usually when most people have gone to work and the street are half empty so no problem is caused. 135 residents parking brought in to enable traffic management re commuters and start up park and ride 136 No system - no costs. Residents parking not required in our street 137 The current permits (resident & visitor) include admin fee. All Gov Dep (Nat & Local) are do more with less resources (funding; people). Don't just throw money at the problem to solve issues. Don't penalise resident complying with council policy on parking outside their homes; don't have drives or garages. Target system abusers. No visitors permits post 15/16 certainly won;t solve the problem. Make pay & display car park charges reasonable &; people will use them. 138 I very strongly feel I should not have to pay to park outside my OWN Home 139 As usual its;hammer the motorist; Page 11 of 11

86 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments Appendix 3 Q12: Residents Parking Permits 1 Our economy and even the prosperity of Taunton depends on cars and being able to park easily and without the hideous levels of hassle we experience now. My house has four bedrooms and we are only allowed one residents permit. The problem slap lies with out of touch planners who can't plan an estate (Prioiry Park) to accommodate appropriate levels of parking and traffic (e.g. the dustbin lorry...!) 2 Although it does not affect our household, there are residents who require two cars. If we could afford two we would as it would make life easier for us but you should not be penalised for having two cars per household. It is enough that we are already having to pay for the privilege to park on our own street. 3 It is essential that a resident parking permit is affordable for a first and second car. Having the visitor parking permit available is also very useful as we have friends visit on a regular basis and where they are not able to get the train this helps them out. 4 Most families had two cars, the cost of permits is extortionate already. I find it money-grabbing! 5 There are lots of houses with lots of permits resgistered to those addresses, and this is pushing other residents out who maybe only have one car. It might make people consider how important a car is to them! 6 Not everyone has a garage 7 Many houses operate under a house share principle, i.e up to 5 individuals within a house. Therefore 2 cars only having permits is unrealistic, and there are so few areas which are not parking permitted it makes other options unfeasible. 8 Roping road is a residential road with families and parking only on one side of the road, many houses do not have sufficient off road parking for modern day family parking. Cars are a necessity in this area because public transport is abysmal! 9 Due to lower parking spaces than the amount of houses in the E11 area I believe that each house should only be entitled to one permanent parking permit per household, expect for certain circumstances. 10 We had our driveway altered to allow parking but feel discrimsted against because others do nt bother to park all their vehicles on the space they have. I agree thst visitor permits sre abused but why should we have our right to a visitors permit be withdrawn for those who abuse. If the new res permit will be allowed if we have the spa ce but use it for visitors then we could park as residents. We currently cant do this. 11 To allow the flexibility of modern life be recognised with childcare pressures and regular visitors to our homes when we only have one car. 12 These houses are small, 2 permits per household is fair for the space available. 13 The allocation is fine for us as we work in Taunton and can walk to work so only have one car. However we would have to seriously worry if we both worked outside the town centre as public transport is very expensive and not extensive enough for Page 1 of 7

87 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments that to be a viable option. I would also worry for families with older children. As people stay living at home for longer due to house prices, what do families do about parking if they have more than two cars in the family as they all need to get to work 14 Not having a visitors permit is ridiculous! The cost of the proposed new permits is daylight robbery, 1 a day is scandalous. As for allowing business/landlords permits... the clue is in the application for a 'residents permit'. Why should a Landlord be allowed to park if they don't actually live in the house, sheer stupidity! 15 Myself, wife and son all have a car, we all work outside town so need three cars and my son does shift work. With only 2 residents permits, my son has to use a visitors permit, although he resides at the property. He is breaking the rule by using it but what option is available. I have no doubt the people who make these rules live in houses with a massive drive enough for a dozen cars. Am I right? 16 it allows for one car per resident 17 I think it is more appropriate to monitor the parking. I can only speak for the area in which I live but it is a known fact that there have been no parking control officers monitoring this year and visitors don't bother buying tickets and then park outside the properties owned by those who have purchased permits for their vehicles. This need serious attention. 18 These houses were built 100 years ago &; areas outside is only sufficient for 1 car per property. When some properties are converted into 2 flats; each flat has 2 driver occupants, this results in 4 per property. Where is fairness in this? 19 One per household as standard. After that households to make other arrangements. There are more permits out there in our section than there are spaces available at the present time. 20 There are three full-time employed adults at this address, all with cars. Assumign a 'normal' family unit is two adults and one or more children (if there are none, the problem above is not relavent). In time, the child/ren will have a car and it is normal for both working adults to each have a vehical to allow their individual commutes to work. Therefore, three resident permits per household (children will have to share the car) for houses that have ZERO off-road parking is a more sensible idea 21 Unless single occupancy, most homes have 1 or 2 cars. bedsits/rented rooms should not be able to apply for more than 1 or 2 permits. Permits are currently issued without giving thought to the amount of parking spaces available - this already feels like a money making scheme. 22 Purely personal, we have 2 cars and occasionally need to park out on the road 23 The level of permit should be factored to the space on street - a one size fits all will not achieve transport objectives. 24 Because 2 vehicles are enough per household in this area of town. Parking would be easier if ONLY RESIDENTS parked in the permit zones 25 Because space in the street where I live is finite. Especially as the residents in the Gloucester Court flats can park in there own designated parking space, as well as in my street. Very poor. Page 2 of 7

88 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 26 Car Parking charges if they have to be applied should be incorporated into existing charges such as Council/business tax tax. 27 I do not think that any form of parking permit is appropriate. 28 Most households have two cars. The reason annual visitor permits are misused is due to not being able to have enough residents permits 29 I need somewhere to park 30 Live in one bedroom property and only have one car 31 Fairest solution givenm lack of space. 32 Most families have at least two vehicles! 33 to encourage more off road parking where it is available 34 N/A 35 Most households have 2 or more cars and they need to have space to park outside there home! More than 2 cars should use parking permits for visitors but 2 should be aloud as residents. 36 AS IT IS NOW 37 if you can afford two vehicles, you can pay for it, the second vehicle to attract a much bigger premium. 38 Because there may be at least 2 members of a household working/doing business in different locations every day so they can't share vehicles 39 we do not qualify at present for ANY resident permits at all even though we own the residential property 40 Two is more than enough as there is rarely enough spaces to park on our road due to the number of large vans and visitors parking there. 41 My family includes five adults, which is our way of trying to live economically. Why should we be penalised? Why can't the ratio be based on number of adults per household? 42 I have lived in my house for 10 yrs, during which my daughter has grown up &; learnt to drive. It isn't right that as both myself &; partner have cars that she is not able to park outside our own home. For her to leave her car in a 'Non permit area' &; walk back several streets is not safe this time of year and also puts her insurance premium up. When i moved in there was no Residents parking, surely i cannot have to be expected to move house just so that my daughter can also own &; park a car. 43 Most households now have 2 vehicles 44 WE HAVE THREE RESIDENTS IN THIS HOUSE. TWO RESIDENTS PERMITS AND A VISITORS PERMIT. THE BOOK OF VISITORS PERMITS ARE ADEQUATE FOR VISITORS TO THE PROPERTY Page 3 of 7

89 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 45 Castle Cary Town Council believe that the parking restriction in force in the town centre (2 hour waiting) are appropriate. We would not want to loose any of these spaces in our Town Centre for residents parking or other permit bays. 46 Because of family members why should they have to park miles away from where they live 47 Not applicable 48 Availability of space 49 2 adults and at least 1 older teenager at home 50 Residents in Ilminster should have the same opportunity to purchase a parking permit as other residents in Somerset District Council. North Street is entirely residential and yet residents are not able to purchase a permit. Please consider extending the scheme to Ilminster, the present administration of parking permits could easily include permits for Ilminster and would of course help with the funding issues. 51 It reflects my needs. 52 Estate size limits vehicles. All the 'Buy to let' properties with multiply occupancy - abusing Visitor Permits for a a time. Cause the most grief. 53 N/A 54 Because there is only room for one vehicle per household 55 see restirctions 56 Because of available parking space 57 Pro rata, I expect that the average household owns (requires to park) two cars) 58 It moves with the times, and I suspect the average household has a least two cars. 59 Most people in our area have drives or an ability to provide a drive if needed, if living in an area without a drive one parking permitted area should be enough. 60 We currently have two resident's parking passes and two visitor passes, this is because we run a tourist self catering cottage and must be able to offer our guests free parking (to them) without it costing us too much 61 As we currently do not have a residents scheme it would seem sensible to allow home owners to have access to spaces to park their cars 62 I am a resident, I own a car, I pay Council Tax and Road Tax therefore I should be entitled to a resident's permit whether or not I choose to purchase one. 63 because it stops none residents parking where they shouldn't. but dose cause proublems with parking of health professionals visiting more than one at a time. 64 Because we have a four bed house and only one off road space. And we have a disabled daughter who has to have visits Page 4 of 7

90 Consultation - Comments every day and an elderly mum, who comes with her car to help us care for our daughter - parking in our neighbourhood can be quite an issue for us. 65 There is such a problem with parking in residents areas that one vehicle per household would help to alleviate some problems and encourage householders to use their front garden areas for parking 66 Its not right if a household can apply for lots of permits as their cars then take up the spaces 67 There is no residents scheme in my street in Wincanton (Mill Street). Although the south side of the street is limited to one hour only, the north side has unlimited parking and this is the side that naturally residents on the north side use. Once again this year, this very limited space has been used by car owners to park their vehicles on a long term basis whilst (presumably) they have gone elsewhere on holiday (on the Berrys Bus maybe?). This anomaly does not seem to be fair. 68 I disagree with residential parking permits 69 Space is a premium and no house has a right to more than one vehicle 70 Two cars per household seems a fair number. 71 I agree with the curent level of permits allocated on family homes - any more would be unfeasable with such limited parking. I have however been informed that the property next door, recently turned into bedsits with facilites to house 6 tenants, is able to apply for a permit for each residents rather than the 2 it would previously have been allowed when it was a family dwelling. This puts increased pressure on neighboring properties often meaning we cannot park our car where we can see it. 72 N/A 73 Family size houses with no off road parking need at least four permits as children grow up live at home for longer but need to drive for pleasure and work reasons 74 There is no right and wrong answer. Q.11 and 12 is dependent upon specific circumstances of each householder and the parking pressures in each street. Where I live (Alfred Street ) I disagreed with the introduction of the residents parking scheme in the 1st place as it simply was not necessary and in my view was just a revenue making exercise for TDBC. SCC are now taking the costs of parking on the roads to unreasonably prohibitive levels. 75 Most houses have two cars 76 please do not alter. it's vital we keep them as now 77 n/a 78 Presently 2 per proper family occupied house is aceptable our complaint would be the cost of each permit, as in the begining the costing was kept to a very low level as we live here.now it feels like another tax which is used to against us as we happen to live in town. 79 parking is very limited in our street,it is already being abused and it will only get much worse Page 5 of 7

91 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 80 Living in town should mean you only need 1 car. If you have no off road parking that should be free. Houses with no parking should not be at a dis-advantage. Extra cars should pay a large price to make cycling more attractive. 81 For a registered, compliant, reinspected HMO 82 Residents Parking schemes are fundamentally flawed due to the over-complicated administration and fees let alone the issuing of more permits than spaces exist. Again the question of parking should be looked at in the round and not as individual areas. 83 It doesn't affect me as we only have one car but some families may have three. They may go to work by car in different areas. This is about parking outside of our homes and we should not be told how many cars one house should have, or to have to pay extra for the privilege. 84 MOST OF THE CARS PARKED IN MY ZONE HAVE NO OFF STREET PARKING BUT AT LEAST TWO CARS 85 It should be 1 per car 86 there are many house in this area full of bedsits.. they have about 6 permits per house.. also some families have 4 permits.. far too many. you can't park outside at night.. it's crazy, It has let to the police getting involved due to fights etc. over parking spaces. 87 Currently we are ok with residents parking permits, but we have 2 sons in the armed forces, serving our country, who come home on leave and some weekends. With the removal of the visitors permit and restricting scratch cards, we feel this would seriously make living where we do difficult. We also have a large immediate family and find that even now our visitors have to park in car parks. 88 The increase from what we are currently paying is to great and Somerset County Council have not increased the fee levels we receive. 89 I think two vehicles & one visitors is enough for a household 90 has worked satisfactorily since permits began 91 Multi occupation that now exsist. Not suitable for students etc when home. 92 more homes have children still living at home with cars 93 Because if you have 2,3,4 vehicles in one terrace house parking a problem 94 One permit per household is appropriate with charges for further charges for additional ones, however, there is not enough residents parking in Belvedere Road and people do not park responsibly. 95 The majority of houses in my area will have the average two adults and potentially children in family properties. There is unlikely to be a need for more than two permits in this case. I accept that in other areas there may be a need for additional permits based on children over 17 learning to drive etc. Page 6 of 7

92 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 96 It should remain at TWO residents permits per property as most families have to have two cars in order to fund the mortgage with two jobs and there is no adequate public transport system. 97 we would like resident parking brought in we are a sheltered housing scheme with limited parking spaces and many of us are disabled but find it hard to park as worker in Street us our close as a daily car park.quite often tenants say to me they are afraid to s their car incase they can't park on return, this is totally mad as the reason most have cars are because of their disability. 98 IF BOTH PARENTS HAVE A CAR AND THEY HAVE CHILDREN WITH CARS, WHERE EXACTLY ARE ANY GROWN UP CHILDREN MEANT TO PARK? THIS IS A TOTAL INFRINGMENT OF RIGHTS OF ANYBODY OVER HOW CARS THEY CAN OWN IN A HOUSEHOLD AND PROBABLY NOT LEGAL! 99 As parking slots are few and one for house, some places 2 to 3 occepent scause lot of difficulties to regular users 100 Need correlation with no. of car owners/property 101 limited space 102 Because we have a 6 bedroom house and a one bed flat gets 2 permits Page 7 of 7

93 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments Appendix 4 Q27: Business Parking Permits 1 My answers to the questions about business parking permits are on the basis of small businesses using one vehicle. 2 Often open to abuse and used as a convenient way to avoid paying car park fees-vans are parked all day with a visitors permit now anyway!!! 3 Taxi driver, use on occasion 9 spaces,shops (they could park at Kilkenny) 4 There are not enough residents' parking spaces at the moment, without congesting residential areas even more with large commercial vehicles. There is also the important aspect of the safety of citizens - commercial vehicles are invariably larger than domestic vehicles, with greater exhaust pollution. 5 Business vehicles tend to be large vans taking one and a half car spaces thus making it difficult for residents with a car to park. 6 There is limited space already without having the street filled with commercial vehicles. I am opposed to this. 7 Because in our area, business vehicles parked on the road already cause a hazard, especially as one business has its premises close to a sharp bend. This will make matters worse and cause additional driving hazards. 8 Businesses should not be operating in residential areas if they do not have their own off road parking. 9 Residents should have priority, business should be kept out of residential areas. 10 I think this restricts parking for residents and could be abused 11 Increased business costs 12 It will be abused. 13 There are no businesses without parking in my street 14 Yes, but not if the result of this is an increased cost to resident permits. 15 This is just another revenue making scheme contributing to more small businesses going out of business in this current economic climate, A case in point is the free parking in Princes street that was tuned into a LOADING BAY which you are now going to charge businesses for the use of!!!! 16 This will definitely 'cause pressure on parking' 17 This could encourage other vans and lorry a rather than residential cars. 18 Can't always park near your house now let alone letting business park around here too 19 We have too many people now who use permits and do not reside here-why can't they use a car park? 20 In this street there is not enough space for residents so business vehicle shoul park elsewhere 21 We have local businesses (take-aways) that have residential permits, and their cars are parked on our street just during their Page 1 of 7

94 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments opening hours, causing lack of space for residents. 22 Priority should be for residence whether they are business or residential. This is open to abuse. 23 Happy for them and their customers to use the street in business hours (not on Saturdays), but there are too many people in the zone for them to leave it overnight (when it's difficult to park). 24 We physically cannot park outside our property and therefore why should we be penalised for running a business from home to pay an extortionate amount for parking on the road outside our property which obviously is not as secure as a driveway. Will we get a dedicated parking space marked for residents as at present in high summer parking on the sea front is at a premium and we are often unable to park anywhere near our property if at all and very rarely outside. 25 Most of the time there is not enough spaces for residents,by allowing business vehicles will increase the problem 26 Depends how you define; needs; 27 They have the option to purchase season tickets for council car parks. Residential streets should remain for residents only 28 Everyone should pay the same for all vehicles 29 It's not clear from the question how many permits businesses would be entitled to - so impossible to respond intelligently. 30 Most people now have to pay to park for work, why should businesses have to be exempt? 31 Business should have the same right as residents, if there is a business in a residential area, than they should have a yard. What about landlords, with five tenants, all with cars. Is that a business? 32 limit in numbers per business to two. 33 the parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas should be discouraged 34 businesses could well flount their rights. Take up vital spaces required by elderly, or those with young children. Large commercial vehicles could be parked in small residential areas and not least for someone living in a cottage which sits below road level a large vehicle parked outside my property TOTALLY removes my access to natural daylight! 35 I live in an area close to town centre but most of the houses have multi occupants needing more than one parking space which makes for difficulties allowing businesses to have spaces would increase such difficulties. 36 businesses are struggling already without extra outgoings - they need to survive not be driven under by more financial pressures 37 This has to be very restricted. Currently too many take up spaces &; often more than 1 vehicle per business. 38 It would be abused and as at present the residents parking area would be full of commercial vans. 39 Residents permits are for residents, not businesses. The businesses can leave their cars at home or use a car park. People need to be able to park close to home. 40 They already have too high a financial burden to carry. Council tax rates are beyond a joke and having to pay for parking on Page 2 of 7

95 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments top of rates and road tax is immoral 41 We already struggle to park during business hours because of people associated with the business parking in our road. Giving them permits would make the situation rose. 42 Business vehicles are often larger, businesses should not take priority over residents, businesses should find alternative parking as other workers do. Business vehicles increase traffic in residential areas and residential areas are not suitable for large business vehicles. 43 The residential parking bays are oversubscribed already. Most businesses based in residential areas have their own off road parking. 44 I live in Belvedere road, where we have much misuse of permits, however most business use the area to drop, load etc appropriately. Except the care agency in the road, which uses the use of the resident parking bays throughout the day and night to visit the office, not to visit clients!! 45 It depends if the space they take affect residential parking 46 Do you need some rules about businesses run from home? Will they be eligible for both resident and business permits? Is there a limit on the number of business permits? There might be significant numbers of vehicles registered for use in the business eg a car hire company! 47 They choose to have their businesses in this area knowing parking is limited for the residents 48 another cost that will be handed on to the local residents, end up paying for our own plus part of the local businesses permits 49 Because if it requires a van that takes up more spaces in the resident street parking. Where I live 9 time out of 10 it can be difficult to park. 50 All residents do not leave their homes from 8.00 am pm. With business parking residents will not be able to return home as and when required. Residents are paying for the priviledge of being able to park within relatively close proximity to their property. You are proposing to greatly increase the fees, with no guarantee that residents within a zone will be able to park when required! 51 Business vehicles, which have this right in our area already, tend to be large and parked in the street over the weekend and overnight when pressure for parking spaces is at its highest. 52 There is a distinct lack of parking places as it is. 53 There are no local businesses where I live, the clue is in the title RESIDENTS PARKING. 54 Businesses need to make accommodations for there own parking. Not in residential areas 55 not enough space for residents tio park near thgeir property now 56 The proposed cost is far too high especially as it is only for one zone, businesses already pay high enough rates as it is to Page 3 of 7

96 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments be expected to pay 150 per year to be able to park is excessive. They should have a free parking permit for the first vehicle at least. There should be as few barriers to small businesses as possible, if you encourage the local economy the council will in turn generate more money as there is more money coming into the area which leads to greater income from tax etc. 57 How does that support local business? Add a charge add another add another! 58 There already is not enough room for residents let alone businesses 59 will be too many vehicles 60 Although businesses are more likely to use spaces emptied by residents that drive to work, this is not guaranteed with many businesses working odd hours or shifts. Also one work place is likely to need many parking permits not just a handful! 61 I have to pay parking for my work, this should be purely for residents I brought the house as it's close to town so I can walk. 62 I do not feel businesses should be favoured just because they are in a residential area 63 businesses choose where to locate if they need a vehicle and the location doesnt have parking they should choose to set there business there 64 I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY PERMITS 65 large vans etc are an eyesore in residetial areas &; a restriction for emergency vehicles 66 There has been a lot of abuse from certain businesses parking their vehicles for weeks at a time, using their 'dispensations'. Allocation one little used stretch of one of the roads for this if you think it is necessary, and then POLICE IT. 67 Unclear as to number of businesses based in residential areas and therefore extent of need/use. If someone works from home does this mean they get an entitlement to another permit? 68 They can park in public car parks like everyone else who has a business with the exception of loading or if they need to access their business very often they should relocate their business. 69 Businesses should not be in a residential area 70 Cause Businesses have enough costs are are already struggling. How can a corner shop issue a permit to a customer. Stupid idea!!! 71 We have no businesses here 72 There are enough public car parks available for local business use, maybe a business permit for use in public car parks rather than in residential areas. 73 Because this opens the door for companies in predominantly residential areas to have residents/visitors and business permits Meaning that companies run from these areas could considerably reduce spaces. For example taxi companies run from residential property have their residents allocation and then business allocation covered by a street full of taxis Page 4 of 7

97 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 74 as is not many parking spaces for residents and if business start using them off my road I want be able parking anywhere (as few businesses on my area) 75 I don not fully understand what this means. Explain what the implications might mean. For instance would businesses be allowed park large vehicles outside of my home if they had a business elsewhere but within my zone?!!! 76 Not enough parking spaces for resident most times 77 How do you easily define what it business use and what is private? If, say, an electrician uses his family car for work as well as for non-work purposes, would he get away with it, while the electrician with a van would not? 78 Why would business users be able to park in residential areas. Perhaps the business permits could be limited to buiness hours, say 8:00am until 6:00pm 79 still park 80 Business vehicles should NOT be parked in residential streets for ANY reason. 81 There is not enough room in our area to allow other vehicles to take the very limited parking slots. 82 THIS ISN'T 'SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES', IT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF TAXING THEM 83 More businesses would start appearing in residential areas - allowing any permitted parking only encourages businesses to locate to in residential areas - if a businesses is essential, then all parking for the business should be done under a purchased permit - covering parking for visitors to the place of business as well as company vehicle. 84 There are no business based where we live 85 businesses need to provide parking as part of their business planning. currently we are affected by a business whose staff take all the spaces available in our street leaving no space for someone returning during the day 86 Businesses need to be able to carry out their legitimate business without being burdened with additional charges. Business needs to be encouraged not penalised, 87 Because there is not enough spaces for residents 88 I need to know more about this to compare what is in place now against your proposal.the question says; to support local businesses;. How is charging for parking going to support local businesses? In constrained times many businesses cannot afford additional costs. 89 Parking is already very limited. If you run a business you consider costs of parking before deciding on location. 90 It's hard parking in our street as it is allowing businesses to park will mean less spaces for us 91 residents need to have priority. It is not right that we are unable to park at home but day business people can use our spaces. 92 Too often its abused Page 5 of 7

98 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 93 Encourages people to run business from residential houses which is not ideal for the neighbours 94 Because it discourages businesses to open at all 95 They have enough trouble paying business rates, additional charges could mean the difference between trading and closing 96 Not applicable in this area. 97 Will cause unneccesary conjestion and have an impact on resident's being able to park outside their own home 98 These vehicles are often larger than domestic vehicles 99 It will Send small businesses out of town and proberly out of business 100 The roads will be clogged up with business vehicles 101 Like 'Visitor permits they are liable to misuse. I would hope that parking officials are lenient with vans that are clearly labelled as service or builders vehicles while they are temporarily working on property. 102 Because a vehicle could be a small car or an metre long road train. 103 why should they be excluded 104 We believe that priority should be given to shoppers &; residents not shop owners. 105 They take up to much space 106 Local businesses pay extra rates already 107 It depends whether there is enough room for residents 108 In these times of recession local business should be given all the help that they need not subject to further costs and taxation 109 disincentitve to much needed businesses 110 because the majority of business vehicles are large vans and take up too much space 111 residential areas will become a huge carpark for huge vans etc. 112 Their vehicles could take up spaces during the day meaning that residents can't park in their street. Where there are car parks nearby, why not give discounted season parking tickets to encourage the business in residential areas. 113 STATION ROAD TAUNTON HAS TOO MANY TAKE A WAYS WITH TOO MANY CARS 114 Because its a resident area and its a struggle to find a parking space already. 115??? 116 My point about reviewing parking still stands. Let's be realistic about who stands these costs - the consumer. Squeezing motorists this way will only lead to increased costs to the households as they will all be passed on - except for households who =have no-one to pass them on to - and household budgets - like the Council's - are limited! 117 Perhaps a dedicated white lined 'space' outside of the business premises would be a better idea, then only they could park Page 6 of 7

99 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments there and won't inconvenience a household won't be misused then. 118 Because it doesn't matter what type of vehicle it is, business or private. They should be classed the same. It would be still be for the purpose of enabling you to park outside your own home. 119 You will put more and more cars vans in the street. This is resident parking brought in for residents and not businesses. 120 Not enough space for residents as it is 121 If you work or shop in the town centre you pay to park your car, this should be the same for Business in the town centre, there are a few business around here, where the boss has a permit for his car and his staff pay in the local car park. That's just wrong, also they don't live around here, so should have to pay like everyone else in a car park. why am I having to subsidise there business? 122 Because there is no room in our road, Whitehall, for the amount of residents - let along businesses. 123 Minehead is too small and unaffected to justify any introduction. Increased overheads will just be passed on 124 This should be strictly restricted to those businesses without off road parking and to a minimum of one vehicle per business. The permits shoud alos be resticted to between the hours of 9am and 5pm so as to impact on the resident parking availability. 125 As you are aware businesses based in residential areas don't pay business rates. On that basis SCC will not issue Permits hour max-not enough spaces to accomadate more 127 Not enough spaces to accomodate. 128 n/a 129 Over Night all lengthy wans will occupy private roadside parking will cause problem for households 130 If businesses don't have vehicular parking on their own land they should relocate to proper business premises rather than trade from a residential area 131 You are penalising local businesses 132 Businesses should use car parks. 133 Parking permits for core business vehicle number pro rata to size of business should be free to encourage businesses to be successful in community. Local business park permit only for local business in that parking zone. 134 How do you define a Business Permit? Would this include any vehicle insured for business purposes Page 7 of 7

100 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments Appendix 5 - Q 33 Other Comments 1 Residents' parking in Quay Stree/Quay West car park, Minehead. Use of Quay West off-street car park is now banned to residential passholders, with the result that on-street congestion has increased and Quay West car park is usually empty. This should be sorted out between district and county. 2 The proposals will mean that we will pay around 220 per year to allow us to park outside our own home. This is in a low income area. It penalises those unable to afford a house with off-road parking and as such is effectively taxing those least able to afford it. I simply cannot accept that a rise from 90 p.a to 220 p.a. for our house is simply to 'cover costs'. Besides this the current enforcement in our area is ineffective at best. Most problematic parking happens after restricted hours (due to traffic from county cricket ground) and this is unpoliced. This unfair and unbelievably extreme rise in cost is totally unacceptable. This is a service provided to secure the economic well-being of the town and as such should be part of the council tax bill rather than thoughtlessly penalising the lowest earners and most vulnerable. 3 We have a disabled daughter, whose disability doesn't allow for blue badge and we have numerous visitors per week who struggle with the parking arrangements in our area and we rely on the current visitor permits hugely + the scratch cards. It's always hard to function as a normal family on account of parking in our street and we wished we had never, ever moved here!!!!!!! Taunton is not quite the lovely place to live, as made out...!! 4 Why are the proposed costs for resident's permits so high? I understand that costs need to be covered for issuing permits, enforcement, admin, etc. but the proposals seem to focus on charging people in the less affluent town centre areas - the reason these streets have parking problems in my experience is because of the high number of multiple occupancy dwellings (low income residents who are already struggling) and the fact that non-residents park there for their convenience on the weekend (often people from more affluent areas further out of town - are these people being charged in any way for the parking services that should benefit the whole county/district??).if visitor's permits are being abused, this should be investigated and charges applied to those who are causing the problem. Perhaps there should be tighter restrictions on how a visitor's permit can be used rather than making it unaffordable for those who are not abusing the system. I live near the county cricket ground and when there is a match on at the weekend/evenings we are unable to find a parking space on our street. And yet our household will be charged 220 per year for this service?? That is outrageous. 5 The present system is being abused by residents, and vans are often parked all day and night in resident spaces. Also, why is the parking scheme for Somerset being administered by a body in Yorkshire and not Somerset? Parking wardens do not act on cars etc parked in carpartks during school drop off and pick up, or if these cars are parked in resident bays without a permit.are there special rules for parents dropping off /picking up children, whilst residents must park elsewhere, often Page 1 of 50

101 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments paying car park charges if parents are occupying their spaces. Residents have to play musical cars, especially on evenings, as the number ofresident permits issued far exceeds the number of parking spaces available for residents. 6 Residents' permits are essential, as before the introduction of this scheme our streets were used as free car parks and residents were constantly unable to park anywhere their own homes. I also think Sundays should be included in the scheme. 7 We pay to park here because we LIVE here, businesses MAKE money and therfore if they want to park THEY need to use pay and display like KIlkenny (its only the same as businesses in town hve to) school drop off and pick ups are an issuee and parents can be very inconsiderate.the timings 8am to 2000hrs are a joke especially when two areas of zone 2 are limited waiting which are 0800to 1800 which allows unrestricted parking for the taxi firm from 1800 which has on a regular basis in excess of 9 taxis plus the private vehicles of the drivers so although the council is making a very good revenue for residents parking this doesn't guarantee the residents any parking whatsoever, might i suggest that if there are no residents spaces available that residents are able to use the closest pay and display car park to their zone free on charge on the proviso their residents parking permit is displayed. As part of our jobs we Work nights and return home after nights and have to sit in the car and wait for someone to go to work so that we can park before coming into our home to sleep or wait for the taxis to move ( is there any provision for emergency services shift workers) 8 We have already accepted now that we have to pay for the privilege to park by our street.we are being discriminated against by not having a driveway or garage.however, although some may say that the visitors permits can be abused, the vast majority do not and now we again will suffer the consequences. Having to pay for these scratch cards is a nightmare as they limit the amount of time you can have guests for. What if we have visitors that were staying for 3 days? And if we hadn't got up in time the next day to put on a new daily one, we get fined. Its just unreasonable, not practical and will make life extremely difficult for us. Getting rid of the visitors parking disc is absolutely disgraceful. We will have to turn away visitors. We are happy to have the system as it is now and would even be prepared to pay slightly more for permits but to remove the right to have guests to stay on top of already having to pay to have our own car near our home, it is simply unreasonable. It will also mean we would have to re-evaluate working from home as it would make clients visiting us so difficult. We need a proper visitors disc for our home life and our work life.please RECONSIDER! 9 I think the parking fees are really low compared to other boroughs! I used to pay 200 a year in London but over a year. Higher fees but allow people to pay monthly. I am fed up with the abuse of visitors permits and was shocked when I moved to Taunton at how low the parking fees are. I also suggest resident specific parking so visitors cannot park. I live on Westgate Street. 10 The time of resident parking varies within zones, where I am it is between 0800 and 2000 which is excellent but other roads Page 2 of 50

102 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments are from 0800 to Will the time ranges be standardised, if so, to what? I think the monies made from current resident parking charges more than cover the costing of administration, so where else does it go? 11 We have two vehicles in our household, so that myself and husband can both get to work. We have no drive or garage where we can park off road so are forced to buy permits. We pay the same council tax as houses in our council tax band who do not have resident parking bays and can park on the road outside their house for free. Why should I continue to pay the same council tax but then also have to pay to park? Also in Yeovil we do not receive the same services as people who live in other parts of the county so should not pay the same rates. I feel that once again I am getting less for more money. This form does not allow you to express your views and is unfair. If these charges increase to the levels suggested I will have to consider moving from the house I have lived in for ten years as I will be unable to afford to park. I work part time and for two permits at the rate suggested I will be spending near to a months wages. Disgusted! 12 Resident parking zones are in part designed to reduce people's reliance on the personal car, however this is an inappropriate way to do this. Right now there is little alternative to using a car for many people. For instance, I live in Taunton and work in Sidmouth. If I were to use public transport this would require a 2 and a half hour trip to work (by train to Exeter and bus to Sidmouth or bus to Honiton then bus to Sidmouth). I therefore have to drive to work. If I worked in Taunton then I could consider not having a car, however, visiting family in Chard, Crewkerne, Martock and East Lambrook would be very difficult. This means currently a car is the only real choice. The County Council would be better off increasing public transport services, decreasing costs, and encouraging more use of these services. They should also support the re-opening of railway lines such as that between Taunton, Ilminster, Chard and Crewkerne. Specifically regarding the proposed cost increases I think the rises for 1st and second permits should be minimal if at all and there should be an increase in enforcement charges. 13 If you go ahead with the proposed cost of being able to park outside my house it will be cheaper for me to park elsewhere! 14 Absolutely disgusting! Perhaps consider a cut in council tax for houses with no option but to buy overpriced permits. 15 the low emissions discount penalises those who cannot afford to change their vehicle to low emissions, is it about the space the vehicle takes up or the emissions a non moving vehicle when parked has no emissions, there is already discounted road tax to allow for the environmental implications. Businesses can offset the parking cost, residents cant, Business can also claim back the VAT, residents cant. business vehicles should not be allowed to use residential permits. Why would a landlord need to visit a property when the occupant is not at home, this is an infringement, it should be with the permission of the occupant and visitors permits should be used. Landlord could use the permit for free parking at any time unrestricted. 16 We already have difficulties with people parking inconsiderately in order to avoid purchasing residents parking permits or visitor parking permits. This new proposal will make matters worse. The Blue Badge system for disabled people is already Page 3 of 50

103 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments widely abused. A disabled person's car takes up the same space as any other resident's car and therefore should be subject to the same charges. 17 You talk about treading everyone equally, I do not think it fair for people to have to pay to park on public highway outside their homes unless everyone in all areas is required to do so. I understand that, in town, shoppers would take the available spaces and we residents would have nowhere to park but a nominal charge to cover the cost of the residents permit is surely enough. Because we live in town does not mean we have to be cash cows for the council. If you want to save money get rid of half the traffic lights in Taunton and put in mini roundabouts. the saving would be enormous and traffic would flow better. Also turn off the lights at the park and ride at night. Big waste of money. 18 Dont just look to make money you are there to serve and provide a service, try cutting cost though reducation of staffing hence costs. 19 Standardising is a little lazy. Taunton and Yeovil are not the same size, do not attract the same level of visitors. Just because Somerset County Council has farmed off this service to a private company does not mean you should use a blanket policy for both towns. Try a little harder, the lack of effort is obvious. 20 The proposed increase is to high. Residential permit parking is controlled between 09:00 and 18:00 Monday thru Saturday, however most residents work during these hours so in reality they are paying to park for one day a week. I suggest that restrictions are placed 24/7 for permit holders only. 21 I would be concerned that any visitor could only visit me every other day during the week 22 Most residents permits are based on a street where parking is for residents only.where as some,including my street,the parking outside our homes is also a one hour limit stay. This is often abused with people parking for over the 1 hour limit and a very scarce appearance of traffic wardens / carpark attendants to deal with this. As a result of this many residents struggle to find a parking space on a regular basis which they pay for. For this reason I do not agree with the ridiculously high increase for a second car and where I have no problem with a small increase with the cost of a permit I do not feel it's justified for the consecutive years increases to be so much st resdnt permit sh be cheaper. Proposal = 1/2 the annual cost of vehicle excise duty which is too much to park not very near to my home when there's abuse going on). 2. The 1st 50 visitor cards should be cheap. 1 visitor a wk at current price (20p x 50 = 10) is not too much to ask (having already paid for a res permit) and can't be abused as much as the current visitor permits seem to be. 3. So, create a standard pack - 1 res permit + 50 cards for 50 ( 60 in 2015/16 etc). Charges outside the basic pack could be increased. 4. Houses with no off-street parking (and no way of creating it) shd be charged less for the resident &; visitor permits than those who do. 5. Your proposal will massively penalise the non-abusers in order to try to stop the abuse it (and balance the books) BUT you are not proposing to prevent abuse by better policing Page 4 of 50

104 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments and/or the prosecution of offenders. My vehicle excise duty is 190 but there is at least quite a lot of effort to prevent abuse / prosecute abusers. You can't raise the cost to the law-abiding resident so that it's approaching that of parking in a car park just to prevent abuse - more effort needed to prevent, detect & prosecute abusers. 24 People should have one residents permit per house hold free. Then increase the penalty for parking without a permit. Traffic wardens should not penalise residents for technicalities on scratch cards such as scratching off all the correct dates but accidentally not writing which house address they are visiting. Also traffic wardens should not issue tickets to residents whose permits have expired by one day on the change over. This is just a pathetic misuse of man power to try and gain extra funds. 25 The increases proposed will lead a large number of residents to not buy a permit. You will have a decrease in income Well done :) 26 When on any journey, a sign Free Parking; encourages me to stop to undertake necessary shopping; also casual shopping. 1 hour is usually adequate. 27 The proposed changes make the cost of living far too high. I would still need to purchase a permit, as there is no where to park within a 2 mile radius of my home without a parking permit, and would not be able to do my job without my car, however, the 100 increase per permit I do not feel can be accurately justified in anyway, and would make a significant difference in my living costs. 28 I think the question about whether I would decide not to purchase a residents permit is ridiculous as I would not have a choice as a car owner 29 Parents parking outside the school to collect their children park in dangerous places. This should be patrolled more effectively by parking services. Some residents parking for prolonged periods on single yellow lines are seemingly ignored by parking services. This is unfair to other residents, who pay the appropriate charges. 30 Think again, The parking enforcement is over the top in quiet residential areas!, So now we contract out services that become more expensive which is real progress in pissing off everyone. Another costly decision paid for by the ratepayers of this county. I for one will not be renewing my permit. 31 Yes. I currently have one car and I have my own driveway/parking area. I am the home owner and resident and if I want a resident's permit I currently have to pay the price for the second permit. This is already inequitable, as I am not going to be parking two cars on the road. The new price for a second permit is outrageous for people in my situation! We should all pay the same price, one car, one permit. One permit per vehicle parked on the street it would be equitable. There are times when people block my parking place and I have to park on the street. There are times when I have visitors who stay for a week or so. At the moment I have a visitor's permit which I can use for these occasions and so I do not need to purchase a Page 5 of 50

105 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments resident's permit at the second permit price. On one occasion a couple of years ago the entire road was dug up opposite my house and I could not get my car into my parking place, and this went on for a week. Under the new system this would have cost me over 7 just for the week. I appreciate that people abuse the visitors' permits but why not enforce parking regulations against these people if that is so? the address is on the permit. 32 I feel that tripling the price of a second car permit is very excessive especially in areas where there is NO free parking within a safe distance of the address. 33 I think the different visitors scratch cards are a really good idea as I waste all day scratch cards when someone just pops in for an hour or so. Having the 4 hour ones would be very beneficial to me and lots of other residents. 34 The E11 area struggles with to many houses and not enough spaces due to various reasons. As the council struggles for funds it should be suggested that the council look at 'free' areas i.e. unused cycle lanes, and large areas of yellow lined bays and widen road areas to provide A) More parking for residents B) More funding in the form parking permits and fines for the council. For example Eastbourne Terrace has currently no all day parking in front of houses parking due to a 150 metre rarely used 2 metre wide cycle path which allows cyclist to travel the wrong way up a one way street with no connection to another cycle path and makes cyclists cross a blind junction to Eastbourne road with has caused motorist to break hard to avoid cyclists, this cycle path could be 6 bays for residents both sides of the road like Eastbourne Road and roads in the area which are still wide enough for HGVS and emergency vehicles. Also Haydon road has a left turn lane for one street at the far end of the road (again rarely used) this could also provide any extra 6-8 spaces. The problems in this area are 'out of working hours' 35 We support wholeheartedly the Residents Parking Scheme-we also think it a good idea about the Visitors Scheme-far too many Visitor permits are being used all the time, by non residents on a daily basis for work. We also disagree with businesses using RESIDENTS parking permits-they do not live here. 36 When the scheme was originally introduced (when my mother owned this property) I was not in favour of it but since moving here ourselves I gave seen the benefits of the psrking scheme apart from a neighbour who continually uses a visitors pass as a resident but I feel the visitors scheme could work if some sort of check on who who using the permit were to be made. I accept prices will rise be,cause oof gov cuts but dont see why people living in permit areas should be made to pay more for the priveledge of parking outside their own property and genuine visitors being penalised. 37 As a resident of an area close to the (dying) town centre I appreciate the need for parking controls but when many houses on my road are owned by one landlord and converted into bedsits/houseshares it massively increases the pressure on parking, if shared accomodation was limited to one permit per shared house it would not only encourage car sharing but also reduce the strain on permanent resident parking as many of these houseshare occupants are only transient in their Page 6 of 50

106 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments occupation. Also providing 2 free permits for disabled persons is unfair, redressing the balance to a single free permit would still be adequate. Also the cost increases are not proportional to any increases that there may be in enforcing the service - if what you say is true it must currently be running at a massive cost to council tax payers - i'd like to see audited costings for my area BA20 published and verified independently to prove that these price increases are justified and not profiteering by a private company that has been contracted to run the "service". 38 This policy indicates a100 percent increase in cost of permits over the next three years, we already pay an adequate amount and given the number if tickets given out perhaps you should concentrate on collecting the debts from them. This would make me consider moving house rather than not having a permit which is a ludicrous question to ask. All together this is exasperating. 39 I object to paying for a permit and still not be guaranteed a space. I don't want a designated space but our zone is so over subscribed when I get home from work I struggle to get a park. Those who don't work for a living have permanent ease of parking as they don't contribute to society by living off my tax. I already pay road tax as well. 40 This increase is disgusting and will impact on many hard working families and people who cannot afford it. I have already been contacted by residents who are worried and are considering moving out of the area as they have 2 vehicles. As a County Council we need to be putting in more residents parking zones not increasing the price of those that have them. 41 Residents and their visitors should not have to pay any more 42 Scrapping the permanent visitor permit will really affect me with young children - being able to quickly grab and give my parents a visitor permit if they need to drive over and look after the children for an hour is so much easier than scratch cards, but most importantly, they rarely need to stay 4 hrs or the whole day, so I'll be getting through so many of these scratch cards just for several one hour visits from them. Parents with young children especially will be vulnerable to this change - and it's not right just because there are a handful of people who mis-use the permit. 43 Don't overcrowd the street. Don't raise the charges so horrendously that you reduce residents social networks and often windows to the world. It's difficult in Taunton to be able to do anything without a car since the town centre is so dead. For instance, most adult learning courses are held out of town. Happy to pay for parking, but not this much - shame on you for this level of greed. 44 I agree with residents permits, as they allow us to park outside (or at least near) our home, where we have lived for 14 years, without problem. However we are being penalised for living in the town centre. Making households such as ours, who are already on a tight budget, responsible for making up the shortfall in the council budget is unfair - if we lived in Galmington, for example, we would not have to pay these extortionate charges. The current cost of these permits, when purchasing both residents and visitors, is already high and we strongly disagree with the new proposed charges. Page 7 of 50

107 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 45 I think that your underlying assumption that parking permit prices need to be increased to cover costs is ridiculous. 1) Last year parking services showed a profit for Somerset CC. 2) Combining schemes from different districts should have the effect of reducing overall overheads and costs. This seems to be a somewhat underhand ploy to increase revenues by targeting a group of people who cannot refuse to pay because they have to park outside their own house. 46 To increase the permits from the level they are at present to 70 over three years in the current climate and with the cost of living increasing is almost unbelievable!! We are not Taunton we are a small seaside town struggling to attract tourists who already pay a ridiculous amount to park on the seafront at 1.50 an hour and now residents are being penalised for not having private driveways or any means to park elsewhere on their property who have to use the road, often unable to park in summer anywhere near our properties let alone outside and I sincerely hope that in all these inflated increases there is going to be included; marked out residents parking spaces; so that when we arrive home with a car full of children and shopping we at least dont have the nightmare of trying to offload it all with a long walk back home!!!! The visitors permits at 10 days for free is a joke - my family live away and now I will have to pay through the nose for them to park., Where the ridiculous idea came from that these are abused I know not but mine are used solely for visitors to my property. 47 I think the proposed increase in the cost for resident parking is absolutely outrageous. I am usually one of the first to defend increases in services as I work for the council and understand the huge financial pressures they face. But equally as a resident this level of increase in parking is totally unreasonable. A 50% increase over three years for one car and a 260% increase if you have two is I'm sure totally unmanageable for most households. And a five fold increase in visitor parking is daylight robbery. If you said 20p for up to 4 hours and 50p all day that would be reasonable if you limit the number each household can have. I worry for elderly or vulnerable people who rely on their family to help them out, it could cost them a fortune to have visitors. It would mean less people would be able to afford them so the council would end up spending more enforcing and chasing people for payment of parking tickets. I appreciate the job the wardens do so that people don't park in the road I have to pay to park in. But I urge you to reconsider this massive hike, which I believe is far more than is reasonable and think about what people can actually afford or bring in a payment plan. 48 I find the rising cost of the residents permits and the decision to scrap the annual visitors permits disappointing. Whilst i can understand that the annual visitors permit scheme can be open to misuse, to my family (who has two cars and pays for the appropriate residents permits for them) the annual visitor permit is essential. I have lots of visits during the week for my daughter, who has cerebal palsy, to provide physic and other important medical services and i do not get enough scratchcards in the year to cover these visits. We have to have two cars for my husband to be able to get to work and for me to be able to access medical appointments for my child. We will struggle to afford the rising costs of the permits and do not feel we should be penalised for buying a house without any off road parking. I also fail to see how it costs more than we pay Page 8 of 50

108 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments now to administer the residents permit scheme. I would strongly urge you to reconsider the high cost rises and the decision to scrap the annual visitors permits. 49 The proposed price increase from 35 to 45 with subsequent yearly increases is ridiculously high...way above inflation. Totally disagree with the increase in charges and to the change in visitor permit policy - I don't abuse the use of our visitor permit yet it seems we'll be penalized. I'm extremely angry about this whole matter. A change of local government is required. 50 in the area where I live it would be better to raise the Parking time limit to 10.00pm at night. This would stop many people who come home at 6.00pm and leave for work before 8.00am who do not have a permit. 51 We have no choice other than buying residents permits as all the neighbouring streets are the same. Without one we would be unable to park anywhere near our house. Both my husband and I are essential car users in our jobs and it is absolutely ridiculous to charge an additional amount for the second vehicle. The cost you propose is a significant rise and the changes are penalizing families who need two cars and have regular visitors/child carers. The number of visitor permits you propose would be in no way realistic for many. Having no limit on how many can be bought would be far fairer. 52 Q13 - I agree strongly that something should be done to prevent misuse of visitor permits however I STRONGLY DISAGREE with the only solution proposed by the council. If traffic wardens have noted the same vehicle displaying a visitors permit (which, to be valid, must display the address being visited) for a period of weeks to months then they should be required to visit said address in order to ascertain that the visitor permit is being used for a genuine visitor. There should be NO WITHDRAWAL of an annual visitor permit available to households.i would also be interested to know how much council staff pay annually to park at the council offices, this would have been useful information to inform the discussion regarding business parking. Please publish these rates. 53 if you are concerned that visitors permits are being used by residents why not simply make them 45 too? then there is no financial incentive to misuse. 54 I support the idea of the parking scheme being self-funding. However, I assume SCC has taken on the permit schemes form a number of authorities in order to make an efficiency saving. This then, by definition, indicates that the new system should be able to achieve the same purpose in less time (at reduced cost). Otherwise it would not be an efficiency saving at all. In relation to the parking charges then, the average cost should decrease and not increase, unless the existing schemes are already heavily supplemented by central funding. I therefore hope the new; self-funded; permit costs are based on the costs of the new efficient system, and not the former inefficient systems, in order to create a fair proposal. 55 If this scheme aims to standardize charging across the areas but says that this would mean a price rise for all areas, some more than others. Surely to standardize, it should be raised or lowered to equal out the charges? Also this is a completely Page 9 of 50

109 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments unavoidable charge for residents, if it is to rise to 150 in within the next few years that will have huge impact on all residents and it would make me consider living elsewhere. This is an additional tax of several hundred pounds per year per household and in this street as in many others, no other parking options are available. Residents should be allowed to park out side of their homes and have visitors over when they want without incurring huge costs and fines. As previously stated, this is just another tax and an unfair one which residents are powerless to stop. As in the letter I received it mentioned the council wished to gather peoples' views on the issue but with no indication that these views would have any bearing on the outcome. 56 I am grateful that the council is consulting on the proposed changes. However, I think this consultation is flawed. It should be a genuine attempt to get informed input from the public. Insufficient information has been provided to enable informed input to be provided. The 'consultation document' on the website consists solely in a list of proposed charges. There's no explanation of how the charges have been arrived at or how they correspond to the costs of running the scheme. Neither is there any explanation of the legal basis on which the charges are to be imposed. Among other things, this lack of information makes it very difficult for consultees to comment on whether the levels of charges really are appropriate. I suggest the consultation is restarted with a proper explanation of how the charges have been calculated. In the absence of such an explanation, it is very difficult to understand how it can cost so much to administer what on the face of it is a pretty straightforward system. 57 I would like to know where you have got your feedback from?? I have lived here for 4 years and have never been asked my opinion on parking permits in my area. I have friends all over Taunton and neither have they! The new changes are for the benefit of everybody... other than the residents, who are being robbed. Typical Somerset County Council... money,money,money!! 58 Most houses in the zones have more than 3 cars in a household, wife, husband and child. How can 3 residents have permits? 59 It is ridiculous using an office in Oldham to issue permits. Poor decision. They are unable to process electronic/ telephone payments. You have to send documents by land mail. Verification of residency is no excuse, as Yeovil District council take my monthly direct debit for council tax quite smoothly, thus providing ultimate proof. I also manage to pay for garden waste collection electronically. If the service remained local, maybe link up would have been possible. 60 The free residents Blue Badge Permit, should apply to either the driver OR passenger, if resident (on electoral role) at same address. 61 I think that the proposed increases in residential parking permit charges, 100% in my case, are far too draconian. In addition the policy on visitor parking will also more than double the cost of me reveiving visitors over a twelve month period. All in all I think the proposed policy is flawed and should be re-thought. Page 10 of 50

110 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 62 As this is about parking in Somerset, the scheme should be managed by a Company in Somerset. The current company in Oldham are out of date with technology (can't pay by debit card and cheques are outdated), inefficient and incompetent. They have made errors and mistakes for the last two years when dealing with my applications. Their customer service leaves a lot to be desired 63 I do agree that all of Somerset should be paying the same for parking. But this is not what is happening, as people who do not live in permit parking don't pay for the privilidge of parking on the road where they live. I think it is an insult that we have to pay to park on our street. Instead of charging us to park in our street, allocate parking permits because we are residents of that road and pay our council taxes, Charge for visitors permits but at a reasonable price not hiking the prices up to be inline with the London Borough charges! 64 The present system seems to work well. Why tinker with it? 65 I would like to see the introduction of parking bays for residents only. As mentioned earlier and along with my neighbours we purchase permits for our vehicles and we respect that we all like to park outside our own property. It does not give us any rights and more often than not visitors to the area will park outside our properties rather than on the opposite side of the road which can remain empty all day. also they think by parking outside a property they are exempt from purchasing a ticket and of course this is not monitored in any way and certainly not throughout You need to address the loss of revenue from those not bother to purchase a ticket to park and I am addressing this to the seafront which is busy in the height of the season and those in the knowledge don't buy tickets. This should be addressed BEFORE you hike up our parking permits. We pay regularly because we have no choice! 66 I feel that we should pay less and have less restrictions not 'more' regarding parking in Somerset. Parking in general should be free in towns like Taunton, why are we allowing supermarkets like Morrisons to charge 7 days a week up to 11 o'clock at night, this is very short sighted as it does not encourage shoppers to spend money in our high street shops, or in pubs or restaurants in the evening. We are now paying the price for years of Council mis-management. SCC employed highly paid finance directors who placed our money in Icelandic banks (against advice to the contrary), and then lost large amounts of this money, this is part of the reason we are now having to re-coup the cash through parking schemes. I and many others are not impressed; 67 As a pensioner I regret that I have to spend money on posting a request for renewal of permits, when in the past I was able to walk to the office thus saving postage. Also having to chase up the failure of delivery of such permits costs a more expensive telephone call. There is also the irritation caused by the export of jobs to another county - loosing the spending of the persons no longer employed in this area. 68 We do not want our visitor permit system to change or increase in cost thank you Page 11 of 50

111 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 69 as i said A CASH COW.!!! 70 Any vehicle with a ;permanent; visitors badge should be checked for the abuse. Their registered address should be looked into against place of ;visiting;. First vehicle should be ;FREE; as part of the general rates but subsequent vehicles should be charged for. 71 Once again SCC is seeing the local people as a good source of money. Due to the inefficiencies of SCC (SW one, hush payments, payoffs etc) you feel the need to fleece the local population whilst you still continue to spend spend spend regardless of the current climate. This, as before, is a targeted questionnaire that seeks the answers from the public that have already been decided - not fair and balanced as it should be but then this is the SCC why should we expect any different! 72 The biggest change to this proposal is that my ability to have visitors to my home is being significantly reduced!!! This is not good. At present I can have 465 days of visitors at the cost of 60 (365 days at ;20 with my annual visitors permit 100 days at 20 for the scratchcards). This new proposal is totally unacceptable and I no not consider there to be a misuse of annual visitors permits on my road. I consider it removing my freedom for me friends and family to visit me at my home and I would not have moved to this property if this scheme had been in place at the time of purchasing. I ask you to seriously reconsider this decision. 73 These proposals appear to be blurring a line. Residents parking zones should remain for residents and for friends or relatives visiting a home. There is no reason why visiting landlords can't use a car park. They can surely park outside their own homes at the end of the day, they don't need to take up other residents spaces. A loading zone window for business sounds like a fair proposal, but again, why should residents, particularly those in mixed residential/business areas have to put up with a likely catastrophically high loss of space to businesses if businesses are issues permits and therefore have no chance to park near their own homes. The proposals re visitors permits seem to be a good idea as it reduces the number of permits out there and there are already more permits than there are spaces, but allowing motocycles to fill up the bays and issuing permits to landlords and businesses will make a bad situation much worse. Also, one of the reasons stated for allowing motorcycles to take up spaces for free was on 'green credentials' while the discount for 'green vehicles' is to be scrapped. This is inconsistent. 74 It's an outrage that we have to pay to park outside our own homes, which we have bought and paid for, on top of council tax and road tax. We should have parking permits issued free of charge to residents and meters at the roadside for visitors to our street. 75 No evidence has been provided as to why the costs of the permits will be so much, the phased increase from pounds seems very steep and unjustified. The change in charges for the visitors permits is increasing five fold again without Page 12 of 50

112 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments justification of where the money is going. If the use of pay by phone parking is being introduced how this going to prevent people not visiting just using the parking spaces and paying by phone like using a car park? In line with changing the parking permits is there any intention to change the duration of the parking arrangements i.e. currently Mon-Sat 8am - 6pm. Will there be an opportunity to formalise the parking better, marking out the bays rather than leaving it for a free for all which often leads to spaces that are unusable. 76 This is an outrageous proposal designed to increase revenue via the back door. Given that I am not guaranteed a parking space because of inadequate enforcement and misuse by local businesses I feel aggrieved and frustrated that we are now going to be expected to pay more for this 'service'. 77 we have no option at our house, we have to buy a parking permit or get rid of our car. penalising low income households who only have on street parking is discriminatory and blatantly richist. You are looking to make money off those households who can least afford to lose it, where as larger properties with off road parking will not be affected in any way.this is a shocking attempt to generate revenue. a different scheme would be to look at selling commuter permits; to utilize the unfilled residents parking areas during the daytime whilst leaving residents permits as they are. you may also want to look at actually enforcing the current parking restrictions, I see large delivery vehicles unloading on North street (braking both the law around stopping in bike lanes, and the loading restrictions there) daily and no one seems to bother enforcing anything there. if you want quick cash rather than hitting up the lower income houses for any loose change you may want to start there. 78 In the consultation you talk of all residents paying the same, also saying that this means that everyone's payments would rise, some more than others. This isn't quite right is it? For all to pay the same some the highest would reduce or stay the same. I think to make all rise, past the highest payers at present, in the first instance, is unfair to those on lower payment schemes. it might not correspond with some of my answers but to work on a percentage rise in line with inflation might be more appropriate. The rises you suggest in percentage terms are too great. 79 The questions in this survey are ill thought out in too many cases. The general public without a business grounding, will be ignorant of the costs to businesses of which they can classify as taxable (relief) expenses. Many of the questions do not make the distinction between the current system and the proposed one, nor offer an alternative. What is clear is that the proposed changes reflect the 'out of touch' nature of the department - census data (although out of date until the 2012 one is published) will give an idea of how many cars per household there are. It would seem that the proposal ignores the modern demographics of a 'normal' family unit, penalising those where two adults work and separately commute, and where they may have a third person in the house (e.g. dependent) of driving age. I would suggest that internal departmental costs could be drastically reduced via the usual methods, and where external processing agencies are utilised; are replaced by a robust electronic system that allows online-processing and minimal administration by people (as it befitting for a modern, forward- Page 13 of 50

113 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments thinking council). Let me know if I can help further. 80 Enforcement is not good, the time for permits should be extended and should be effective from at least 6am - 10 pm and enforcement must be checked more regularly within these times. Too many vehicles are parked in the early afternoon and beyond without any permit without being caught by the enforcement officer, often there is no room for permanent home owner residents to park at any time even with a permit. Works vehicles, vans in particular should not be given permits and should be parked away from the houses or left at their work place to leave room for maybe 2 smaller cars. Home owners should have a free yearly permit. Bedsits/shared rented rooms should not be entitled to any residents permits. If you have not lived in a resident parking permit area, I do not believe you can have a reality grasp on how bad, annoying and frustrating the situation is. I have lived in my since 1984 and have seen the changes. 81 I think the proposal is wrong. These costs seem really high, I feel that I will have to limit the amount of visitors I have due to cost. This could also have a massive affect on the resale of my house. I feel that the current system more than pays for itself and I haven't seen any misuse of parking permits. 82 Allowances should be made for small businesses in terms of charges. There needs to be better enforcement of parking regulations - some areas of Taunton and Bridgwater are routinely chock-a-block with dangerously and inconsiderately parked cars. Priority should be given to those who need to own a car for work or business purposes or those who are disabled. Public transport, walking and cycling should be promoted alongside these changes. 83 I appreciate the need to increase revenue but how much does the administration and monitoring of these permits cost? Will there be an increased presence of wardens to police these changes? I'm happy with the current pricing and process in my zone (E14) but perhaps more checks on the misuse of visitors perits could be undertaken to ensure these aren't abused? Perhaps inputting a definition of a visitor (no repeat stay within x number of days/time etc) might stop this? 84 This is not a particularly good consultation paper as it is aimed at too diverse a group -Residential permits held by owner occupiers have a completely different agenda to retailers and business users. There is no mention of the differing restriction times that are allowed in different zones for example. Some residential areas are restricted until 2100 hrs where in others the permit restrictions end at 1800 hours. The proposal to abolish the reduced permit price for low emission cars because it is allegedly discriminatory to low income families is a load of rubbish - I am a low income family who specifically purchased a low emission car because it would benefit me in the long run - I think it is discriminatory and totally against the government green policy to suggest that someone aspiring to make a difference should have to pay more. As a residential permit holder I am prepared to pay for my permit but am disillusioned that while you would discriminate against me for having a green car it is alright for other households to clog the streets with multiple cars. 85 I support the idea of bring the charges made across Somerset into line. This is based on the service being delivered across Page 14 of 50

114 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments Somerset. Qu 25 - the possible responses will lead to bias. There are plenty of people who require a car for work or commuting - and seeing the decrease in public transport due to decreasing public subsidies this is only likely to rise - so they will need to purchase a resident permit and the option of not considering purchase [2 of the responses] is not viable. The 2 other responses are positive affirmation of the proposals and therefore introduce bias. 86 I am a council tax payer and would therefore prefer that the council raised council tax to cover services rather than tax residents in this way. Where are visitors supposed to park if they visit without affordable permits? The vegetation in our roads is so overgrown that it is difficult to park on the road currently. Parking enforcement officers should focus their efforts on ensuring traffic is flowing in the town centre rather than in quiet residential areas, (another example of raising revenues in a stealth way). As mentioned before how much money does issuing a permits cost? I would sincerely recommend that you adopt a lean process review to reduce your spending on this service, the price we already pay should cover your admin costs. It is a sad example of services being commisioned out of somerser county council and being a poorer and more costly service to residents. Unfortunately I have little faith in 'consultation' as you want to make more money out of already struggling households. My recomendation - make 1st permits around 40 per year, second permits 60 and visitors permits 40 per year and concentrate parking enforcement in town centres to ensure traffic flow. 87 The scale of increase in the cost for the resident's permit in TA1 is much too high % in 2014/2015. If you are bringing them into line over all areas, then the other areas should catch up with TA1 in 2014/1015 with current charge + the rate of inflation. The cost of parking should not be borne by residents only, as they have paid their council tax in the areas concerned. Charges should be introduced for non-resident parking - currently limited to 2 hours in our area - to spread the load of the cost of administering the scheme..householders who are temporarily non-resident because they are undertaking rennovations to their property should be entitled to parking permits at the resident rate rather than the 'suspended bay' rate, as they are still paying council tax.your question about whould the proposed changes to the cost of residents permits would affect us did not give a choice of response to register that it would affect us (increased cost well above inflation) but that it would not affect our behaviour - if you don't have off street parking then you have no choice but to buy a permit. Run the scheme from Somerset creating local jobs, not Lancashire 88 I am a single resident in Belevedere road, with one car permit. Frequently I have difficulty parking, and frequently I see misuse of the parking spaces. It is very obvious the cars which arrive 8am in the morning, driver gets out &; goes about their daily work, returning at 5-6pm!! Where &; how are they getting these permits. There seems to be not way at the moment to monitor this. Hopefully some of the proposed changes may help, as long as it is not of huge increases in the cost of resident permits. Even though the residents who use the permits as they should have NO guarantee that there will be spaces available. I definitely agree that some changes have to be made regarding houses with MOC status, of which there are Page 15 of 50

115 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments many in Belvedere Road. These houses & roads were originally built to accommodate a family, now can house up eight &; upwards, meaning that the road space is not enough for the amount of extra car spaces. Regarding the proposed charges to trade &; builders using the road, I think that its a huge fee to ask &; a better solution should be found i.e allowing residents visitors permits to be used for any builder trade that they need for their property. 89 I don't object to paying more but If I am to pay more to park by my house it would be nice to be able to actually park near!!! perhaps bays could be drawn up so that one car doesn't take up two spaces by parking inconsiderately. It would also be useful for disabled desginated areas to actually be checked. I think there are disabled bays outside some houses that do not have disabled people therefore losing another space. 90 What about a time limit on non-resident landlord permits like the 2 hour limit on carers? If landlords need to be there longer (for re-decorating etc) they could use the dispensation system. Are you dropping the opportunity to purchase scratch cards from 2015? This isn't clear. 91 Something needs to be done about peoples without permits believing they have the right to park in permit areas. Also the permits should be affordable to ALL residents in the area. I'm disabled but do not qualify for a blue badge and rely on my car but with proposed increases I will not be able to afford a permit and therefore not be able to park anywhere near my house, I think the nearest place I could park would be about a 5 mile walk which means I would then be stuck there as I can only walk 50 meters on a good day!!!!!!!! 92 our household do not want parking zones, they are just a money making exercise by the council, they will not be enforced as wardens have enough to do. make the savings by working smarter and more efficiently and effectively 93 Outsourcing this service to a business in Oldham who have no knowledge of the area is a step to far. Keep it in house. 94 I, and other residents, feel very disconnected from parking services. There is no inexpensive alternative to the scheme and attempts to gain information have been ignored until now. As previously explained we are discriminated against in Gloucester Street, as the Gloucester Court flats can use their own designated parking bay, and the street itself. Incredibly short-sighted decision that has caused resentment, and at least 1 resident to sell-up. I need a vehicle to earn a living so have to fall into line. Others in the area flout the rules by parking up to 4 vehicles. I can only assume that car park tariffs will increase. I fully understand that cost have to be covered, but there is also a flip-side cost of visitors avoiding the Town. 95 I live close to the town centre and feel that if residents are paying for parking permits then the roads should be made exclusively permit parking seven days a week and 24 hours a day as often on an evening or a Sunday if we go out in our vehicle it is very difficult to park back in our street as other non permit holders use our street. 96 I don't currently live in a resident parking zone, it would at times be useful, but I would sooner have the slight inconvenience of not been able to park right outside my property sometimes than pay out annually what your proposing. The current prices Page 16 of 50

116 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments are about right 97 I strongly feel that purchase of permits should be possible online. All data should be accessible by traffic wardens anyway, using license plates, so the cost of such a scheme should not be excessive. 98 Nil 99 As previously stated, when parking permits were originally introduced it was to ensure that private residents were able to guarantee a parking space within close proximity to their home. For this priviledge! - we agreed to pay a permit fee. It seems that the council is now trying to renage on this agreement by introducing business permits. This will defeat the whole object of resident permits!!! It is already very difficult to park as a resident, there does not seem to be any more spaces available. Please do not make life even more difficult. Please keep to the original principle!! 100 question 25: asks would you be put off buying a permitt!. What choice do most people in this scheeme have, where else are we going to park ( miles away ) you have us by the short & curlies &; you know it. So much for the Councilors PROMISE when first introduced that the price would never rise. SCC you have not got a clue have you. 101 Regarding the proposed continuation of a free Residents Permit for Blue Badge holders. I think this should be discontinued. Disabled residents are not necessarily poor. The system should be fully inclusive. It seems very unfair that a Blue Badge holder earning say 40k or more per annum receives a free permit where a worker on minimum wage earning say 12k per annum has to pay for theirs. The Blue Badge holders get plenty of financial help with their motability cars, normally top of the range models, and pay no V.E.D. They should not have to be subsidised by the higher charges levied on those that pay for theirs. 102 The Pay &; Display in Holway Avenue should be scrapped, so that only Residents and Visitors can park 103 I am glad you are doing this - as a resident I think the charges could be higher. We used to pay 150 pa in Brighton for a permit. 104 Care should be taken to avoid building new homes in areas where there is high pressure on parking unless these new sites include off road parking which must be adequate for the number of dwellings. The idea that first time buyers (ie those who buy one bedroom flats) don't own a car is nonesense. 105 I AM DISABLED. We have two cars as it is sometimes necessary to use the larger one. This makes no difference to the fact that I need to be able to park conveniently and I should not be penalised simply because we are in a different car. 106 I appreciate the idea of standardising residential parking fees across the county; why do West Somerset residents only pay 8??? However, you're not fooling anyone by using this as an excuse to raise fees. If that was the case all areas would be at 35 as Taunton is, not straight up to 45 across all areas (in the first year). This is simply a money making exercise and it is appauling that you try to make this sound like you are doing it to be fair to residents. Be honest about your reasons and Page 17 of 50

117 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments you will find people more accepting. 107 The letter sent to residents contradicts your information on the questionnaire, the letter states rises to support a lack of gov funding, the survey states its to cover costs. Which is it? I see this as a stealth tax on vehicle owners, who cannot live anywhere with private driveways. Many homeowners have children who are unable to afford to buy or rent within Taunton so continue to live with their parents, they need cars for work, especially night or evening work. More effort should be made on visitor permit abuse, reducing the cost of legitimate visitor permits. Any additional vehicles registered to a household should be checked to ensure they are owned by different people, consequently allowing them to purchase parking permits at the same price as the original permit. The schemes in Taunton were brought in to prevent the abuse of commuter traffic parking all day in residential areas. I'm a civil servant - no pay rise for years, this will tip my income over the edge. Why no direct debit option? Lets go back to no permits and a free for all! You won't need to pay wardens and their mopeds then! 108 The E14 area is already experiencing parking problems and the additional development plans for this area will only exacerbate the issue. 109 Why does a blue badge holder get a free permit when the seem to park anywhere they want? How can you charge me more money for someone to visit me at my owned property. If your not making any money then best scrap all permit areas and have done with it. Or is this just a xxxxxxxx questionnaire where you make us feel like we have a say but we really don't? 110 This whole consultation is a complete sham. You have already made up your minds that you are going to impose these preposterous and extortionate charges simply to line your own pockets. As a resident that had a parking scheme thrust upon them despite mass protests from the residents who live here, its a complete failure. What is going to happen with bedsit properties? They often have several cars all registered at the same address. We dont want parking permits we would like the parking permit scheme got rid of completely. 111 I think the increases are way too steep over each year. You ask us questions on this consultation in a manner that fails to let us express our concerns. You ask whether it would stop us buying a permit but how could it as we have to park somewhere. Your first year increases could be appropriate but by year three you are out pricing the residents of a relatively low socioeconomic area. 112 I think that increasing the price of the parking permits and removing the visitors' permits is the wrong thing to do. I have to pay road tax, council tax, the parking permit cost and fuel excise duty and it is almost becoming prohibitive to drive a vehicle. I imagine that this is a revenue generating excercise for the County Council knowing that they have to save 100m going forward. It seems that rather than trying to cut costs in these hard times that more money is being extorted from those hardest hit. 113 As I live in a rural area much of this Questionaire is irrelevant but I have tried to make educated responses.my Husband has Page 18 of 50

118 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments and uses a disability permit(bluebadge) 114 I feel that each Resident should have the right to 1 parking space outside their property even if there was a higher charge for the permit. At the moment non residents are using their visitors permitsw to park all day which is very unfair. Plus there are 2 taxis which now park along this street. There appears to be too many permits allocated for the available spces. 115 The questions in this survey do not allow you to truly articulate your views and the options given for responses are not satisfactory, as they are often guiding your response to what feels like a predetermined conclusion. Some questions you should also have the opportunity to note if you have no particular view rather than being made to choose yes or no. The changes proposed to residents parking are much too high. The changes proposed to visitor parking are also excessive and do not reflect that only recently charges were introduced. Are other solutions for monitoring and stopping abuse of visitor parking permits. 116 These proposals will have a far worse impact on Minehead residents and visitors than other districts owing to the lower current charges. A lot of Minehead residents are pensioners and will have trouble affording/adjusting to the new level of charges.there is no mention of short term/all day parking in this consultation which perhaps should be taken into account at the same time. One effects the other. 117 The council should not see parking and the motorist as a cash cow. Due to the state of public transport, people now often have to rely on their cars. If you increase the cost of parking in town centres then you erode the viability of town centres as a thriving economy and you will push people to shop at out of town centres and multinational companies which take money out of the area and invest very little into the local economy. A thriving local economy leads to a happier and more positive atmosphere amongst the public which is what the council should be aiming for. 118 Don't understand the rationale behind removal of LEV exemption. I don't have an LEV but this clearly provides an incentive. If there is a desire to protect low income families then price permits according to registration dtae,seems quite a blunt instrument and gioes against need to encourage measures to limit impact of climatte change.if there is abuse of visitors permits, this should be tackled. 119 Residents parking permits are a source of income for the Council - both in terms of the permit itself, and also in forcing visitors to the town to use a paying car park. You haven't asked or consulted on whether residents permits per se are necessary. 120 When did the council decide that it was a good money earner to charge road users for parking outside their own homes. How does the introduction of additional charges on business for the privilege of loading and unloading help any local business. More costs will only increase the carnage that is happening on the high street. When all the high street stores have closed who will you then target for your spending money! These businesses are already paying rates for nothing from Page 19 of 50

119 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments the council. 121 I'm not a huge fan of charging people to park their car outside their house- in my honest opinion it is morally wrong All resident's should receive 1 free parking permit. 122 Stop selling more parking permits than there are car parking spaces! You are just ripping residents off. Make the areas/zones smaller and more manageable 123 If these proposals go ahead, I also propose that the no parking in these zones is extended to Sunday's and night-times, I am a shift worker, when I work an evening shift and come home at 10pm there is often no where to park anywhere near my house as it is close to the town and people come to park free here to walk to the pub. I need my car for business I am a Care worker in the community, my company now has to pay for a Carer's permit for me 10 pounds per year and I have to pay for a resident's parking permit x2 as my husband also needs his car for work, we are being penalised for going to work and holding down an honest job. 124 No doubt the Council tax will rise again eventually! surely this can be taken into consideration with regard to residents permits. 125 The proposed much higher cost of a second permit is unfair on people living in shared accommodation. Currently my housemate pays 35 and I have to pay 50 as he lived there first. As it's a relatively low amount it doesn't bother me too much but if that gap were to grow disproportionately (to 70 and 150) it would be ridiculous! 126 At a time when nobody is receiving a payrisein lin eiwth inflation let alone anything else and in many cases at risk of paycuts/reduced hours (as in my case working for SCC) to DOUBLE the parking permit costs in 3 years is ridiculous. It is said this is to make it fair and bring everyone in line with eachother costs wise then why can't the areas paying less be increased so everyone is paying more or less the same rather than raising it by such a large amount for everybody. My car has been parked a 10 minute walk away all week because I can't get a parking space in my road anyway. However, I do support the crack down on misuse of visitor permits. 127 viisiter permit canot always be used due to resedents permanently parked in very limeted parking areas 128 More disabled spaces for short term use. AND ensure that they are not used by non-disabled people. 129 I started completng this consultation but got to Question 6 and did not understand the questions. The wording of the questions is ok if you work in Parking Service or have some knowledge but I have no idea what suspension; means or the complexities of permit parking or loading etc.sorry but it needs to be alot simpler. 130 I no longer drive because of my sight but totally accept that in these hard times prices will need to increase - even for my Visitors Pass. Many Thanks for all you do. 131 Question 25 is misleading as I have to have a permit This is just a money making scheme for the council Most of the time I Page 20 of 50

120 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments can't even park in my road People parking and taking up two spaces there should be allocated parking bays for each house or each car. Albemarle road should be one way and no passing bay to make more parking spaces. 132 From my observations, we do not have sufficient checks during the control period thus some people are able to park illegally without penalty, sometimes denying a space to a resident or a visitor with a permit 133 Getting rid of the annual visitor permit is discriminating against those on low incomes that do not have their own car. It will cost much more for those without cars to have people park to visit them which is very unfair. The visitor permit should stay but price should increase and possibly make the permit limited to a few number plates so those not covered by it would still need to buy day tickets thus limiting the misuse. 134 parking on grass verges & other areas should not be allowed 135 People should be able to park outside there homes without the price being too much. Putting up the permit prices will have an effect on house prices as people will have to pay a lot more to park outside there home. Speaking from my own experience the house we bought wouldn't have been as appealing had we known that we would have to fork out hundreds each year just to park our cars outside. Unfortunately being a working household we need 2 cars and 2 permits whether they be visitor permits or resident permits. This is the same for a lot of houses and this is where you will find people abusing the visitor permit. This consultation doesn't give the people an opportunity to say what they think, Only allows us to help the council solve there problems. 136 I think some larger businesses should be charged more than smaller businesses. The increases in the residents permits seems a lot! But I don't like the thought of people abusing the annual visitors permit, and this should be stopped. 137 It is against the law to use residents parking to generate income for the Council. Residents parking is to allow us to have a fighting chance of being able to have the car near the property. Before residents parking it was almost impossible to go out during the day, and get parking within a mile of my property. Without residents parking you would end up with an unsightly and grubby group of multi-occupancy dumps for the use of the scuzzier side of the population, instead of the vibrant and lively community currently here. The area supports a large number of small businesses, and a lot of foot traffic, jammed onto tiny pavements. Widen the pavements, encourage bikes, squeeze cars out, get the big traffic onto the new roads being driven through by the station. Re-design the lay-out of the car park, separate exit and entrance, extend the residents parking all the way along Wood Street. 138 If there is a problem with visitor permits being misused, then solve it by enforcing the current rules, rather than simply taking more money from everyone. The 100% increase in the price of a resident's permit over the next 3 years seems like incredibly poor value unless there is a drastic improvement in the chances of finding a parking space when i get home from work. The fact that the current scheme in Yeovil ends at 6 pm means that the resident's permit is useless when it's needed Page 21 of 50

121 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments most. The street i live on is generally deserted during the day, because the residents are at work, whereas in the evening, as well as the residents, there are normally plenty of vehicles from elsewhere. I currently walk to work, but if the proposed price rises go ahead, i would have to think seriously about renewing my permit or simply driving to work and parking there where it's free for the day! this should be addressed directly, rather than punishing everyone. The existing terms and conditions explain the circumstances under which a visitor's permit can be used, 139 The questions below (34 onwards) are not easy to answer if 2 people in the same household have different needs - I am able bodied but have filled it in as my partner who is disabled as I am his carer and the permit is in his name. I'm not filling it in twice. I was not informed that, when he got a Blue Badge, my partner did not need to pay for resident's parking so need not have bought a permit; this could be stated clearly, perhaps on the letter sent with the permit. The process to transfer the permit when there's a change of vehicle could to be stated clearly, perhaps on the letter sent with the permit. 140 WE ARE IN YOUR EYES A BUSINESS OR A LANDLORD? WE ACTUALLY FEEL THAT WE SHOULD BE TRATED AS RESIDENTS AS WE WERE BEFORE THE PARKING WAS OUTSOURCED. COSTS OF PARKING HAVE ALREADY INCREASED DUE TO BEING CLASSED AS A VISITOR AT OUR OWN PROPERTY 141 It appears that the visitor permit may not continue in favour of scratch cards which would be limited and expensive. I do not agree with this, you should still be able to purchase at least 1 visitor permit per household for the year. 142 Consideration should be made on permits based on vehicle size and costs should be proportionate to the size of your vehicle, if a van is three times the size of someone's car it makes sense for them to pay three times as much for their permit. The permits for low emission cars is a nonsense that has solely been introduced as a perk for the affluent. 143 I really don't like the idea of vouchers for the visitors pass, we have a separate visitor pass that can be used at our discretion and that is much better. I am also strongly against the vast increases in costs for the permits that are proposed. We just want the vehicle permits to discourage non residents form parking but not to cause a financial strain or inconvenience to ourselves (i.e. the voucher visitor system). It seems to me that the council is using the need of residents to have a space to park as a way of making themselves money. Having a parking space outside of a residence is not an optional extra and a small administration fee to cover costs is acceptable but anything higher than this is not. 144 I live in an area which does not have off road parking, is used daily by commuters or shoppers and which is facing increased pressure due to the new Chip Lane/Staplegrove Road junction. The proposed increases will hit poorer households most. Many of the wealthier properties in streets such as Elm Grove etc have off-road parking so will not have to pay. Others in inner Taunton, in ordinary residential streets with much lower incomes, will be forced to pay a hugely increased amount. This is an iniquitous tax which will hit poorer households most. It is important that the council makes public all relevant expenses and accounts to prove that it is not using residents parking charges in order to subsidise other services. Page 22 of 50

122 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 145 Increases are a disgrace and should be scrapped 146 I do not run a car but need the facilities for visitor parking permits when family/friends are with me 147 The costs suggested for Residents parking is reduiculously high. Why should home owners be penalised when all your are really trying to stop is visitors to the area whio try to avoid carpark charges parking in the streets close to town. We should be given fee permits as we already pay our council tax and road tax the same as people who live outside of town, but we are now being expected to subsidise the fact they made parking outside our own homes vertually impossible during the day. To have to try to find and extra a year (that i didn't have to pay or expect to pay when i moved to the area) is completely unacceptable espacially when we have no choice but to park on the roadside as no off street parking is available The council should be trying to make money from those who abuse the permit parking system; ie: those who park in permit only bays without a permit (people who work in town at the hospital who are too lazy to get out of bed early enough to use public transport or those who try to avoid public car parking costs) 2. It does not cost more than 35 per year to process a residents or visitors permit - the costs occured are in enforcement of those who misuse.<br>3. Visitors should not be limited by scratch cards or times. This will impact on the elderly, mothers with babies or children who socialise at home and on the retired. It would affect my household as I am employed 28 hours per week and have two children under 5; my mother and mother in law provide the childcare at my house so we use the visitors permit for them alone 4 times per week. With all the essentials a baby needs; plus the weight of the carseat etc it is not acceptable to ask them to park in a public car park to provide this childcare so I can go out to work and pay my taxes. 149 I have a residents parking permit which I purchase every year to enable me to park my vehicle outside my property, along with the other residents frequently forces me to park in another road. I also pay my car road tax which entitles me to keep my vehicle on the road and sometimes frustrates me that I also have to pay to be allowed to park close to my property. The costs of which should be representative of the type of vehicle you own. Residents who own a transit van should not be paying the same for a parking permit as someone who owns a mini. Also the vicinity of the availability of parking spaces should be investigated, as living in a small cul-de-sac of 8 properties there are 2 available parking spaces, causing some residents to park in adjacent roads where the parking permits are not valid. The cost of permits should be decreased and the parking areas should be increased, thus creating more income. 150 The percentage increases in the costs are exorbitant. 151 The general concept of the parking permit is good. It means I get to park MOST of the time near my own home. I'm happy to pay for this. 152 You MUST do better to REDUCE your costs of operations. This is a disgraceful misuse of monopoly power. You should simply NOT allow your costs of operations to get out of control. These levels of charges are just ripping off a captive market. Page 23 of 50

123 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments It is absolutely disgraceful. A gradual rise per annum about the rate of inflation might be appropriate These charges are ALL about generating more revenue. You ought to be made to publish your costs of operations each year (in detail), let the public decide if they are reasonable and if not, then bring in a private organisation to tender to do better. 153 It's easy. You charge a fee to to issue the permits and your enforcement is paid for from the penalties people pay. If you don't collect enough money from fines there obviously isn't a problem and you do not need to spend as much on patrols!!! Why not make it simple and give every house up to 2 residents / childcare permits for 50 each. If visitor permits are being misused by the same vehicle every day, it can't be rocket science to catch that person and fine them for misuse? But taking the word of nosey neighbours who might have grudges against other residents is not OK. Visitors can be family looking after children several days a week and these changes will make it less of a viable option for parents. I think it is wrong to put a massive cost on people just to receive guests in their own home. And why should Yeovil residents pay the same as Bristol city centre?i like the idea of scratch cards IN ADDITION TO the annual pass. Currently having several people round at once is impossible. Can't even have a children's birthday party! How about you build more affordable parking for other people near residential areas instead like at Yeovil Hospital? 154 I pay for a parking permit, yet twice a week I have to pay to park my car as there is no space in the residential area. My car has been damaged when having to park away from my home. There is a large car park (Fairfield) by my address and then, two lots of pay & display along Salthouse Lane.I believe the Salthouse Lane pay & display should be turned into part of the residential permit area. This will allow the residents of Wellington Flats to park their cars by their homes, with no problem. 155 These new proposals seem quite reasonable to me. I am in my eighties and don't have a car. I have purchased a Visitor's Permit each year for the use of a friend who comes once a week (less than 4 hours) to do our shopping. I have a supply of scratch cards which have been issued to various workmen and 'casual' visitors - certainly no more than twenty a year. I am fully aware that the visitor's permits have been misused e.g. in my road alone - a gentleman parking on a Monday ; then catching a train to his work in another area ; picking up his car on a Friday evening. The Practice has now ceased but I'm convinced that similar misuse of Permits is exercised elsewhere.currently the requirement to operate the permit system doesn't apply between 6pm & 8am. Will this continue?? If not I should need more permits as I sometimes have evening meetings in my house and also friends to supper - after 6pm! 156 As I said I think it is ridiculous to be charged for living outside your own house, to have the charges be highered to an ludicrous rate. Way way over the top, why do we have to pay more taxes than anyone else, when we are already paying council tax &; road tax. We should be given free permits &; if people park here they get fined. Just because we live closer to the town we are penalised, surely this is not right. Page 24 of 50

124 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 157 Removing visitor permits for people may have a negative effect - care from family or support for childcare is needed for many and by removing it altogether can cause issues. People who need residential parking shouldn't be penalised for having regular visitors and by removing this can lead to problems. People shouldn't need to justify or explain to others personal circumstances, so one annual visitor permit should remain in place. 158 I am concerned about restrictions on people using places of worship. It is already difficult to park around churches to attend services and at a time when the buildings often form the hub of a community I would be very concerned if the proposed changes impact on congregations and make it even harder to get access to the buildings especially when many members of the congregations are elderly and have restricted mobility. The devil is always in the detail and this can't be seen in each community from the information as laid out in your document. There should be some discretion which can be exercised to ensure these valuable community resources are not impacted upon. 159 I, and other residents in Ilminster feel that we are rights as residents and council tax payers of Somerset County Council are being ignored. We should be entitled to purchase a residents parking permit as do other residents in the County and are happy to pay any fees for this service. 160 I don't see why I am having to pay so much to park outside of my own property! And that I am having to pay for visitors to come to my house. Many houses have two cars especially those with 2 adults and children, therefore the prices for having 2 permits is ridiculous!! I can understand a slight increase as it takes up 2 spaces but almost double is just daylight robbery, especially in difficult times already! The prices for visitors permits is ridiculous. Rather than making us pay extra for actually having visitors, why don't you note persistent offenders using a visitors badge every day. The wardens should surely notice which cars are on a visitors permit every day?! I.E - If the same car has a visitors permit displayed for more than 2/3 days a week they should be penalised with a ticket. But making me pay 1 for a somebody to come and see me all day is ludicrous! I expect price increases every so often but you are increasing prices by 850% for West Somerset and almost doubling prices for Taunton... How can you get away with such massive price increases?! I am all for parking permits as parking needs to regulated, and I am happy to pay towards the costs, but this is outrageous! 161 As a resident with no parking facility I would rather pay a higher resident parking fee to secure a space outside or near my property. Where there is definately insufficient parking in the zone it does not make sense to allow * 2 resident and a visitor allocation per household. The visitor permits have been abused in this area with visitors parking on a daily basis all day presumably to go to work. Unfair. Will a daily charge make a significant difference? I do hope so. * There is definately not enough room in this area for ONE vehicle to park per household. 162 I feel that the increases proposed are to high and likely to make current resident permit holders stop purchasing them and park in other none restricted streets which already experience parking problems. This will impact on their already difficult Page 25 of 50

125 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments parking will be great and reduce the funds coming in to the council. I understand increased costs and reducing budgets but this is the same for everyone and I feel that the council is being to greedy when incomes have to go further and further, and when all said and done in a large majority of cases residents have parking problems because outsiders do not want to pay care parking fees so leave their cars in residential streets to save them money. The resident becomes the easy target. 163 This is a massive increase and should not be done like this. There should be support for working people who need cars and have no other choice. The pice for one permit is going to be more than I pay for both mine and my wife's at the minute. 164 Though I appreciate the need for costs to rise in line with inflation resident parking schemes should not be used to generate profit for SCC. The visitor annual permit should be retained as any abuse has a very minimal impact on others. If genuine abuse is identified by (the very few) parking enforcement officers offenders should be warned of possible sanctions. The proposed cost of scratch cards will have an impact on the quality of our household (three retired persons) as it will restrict visitors both family and friends. The cost should only reflect the administration costs. 165 Q5 comments-parking Restrictions are already badly affecting businesses in town Q25 comments-i have to have a permit but cannot afford increases Q28 comments-local Businesses are struggling already 166 Q29 comments-non Resident Landlords are the bain of this Estate 167 I strongly disagree with motorcycles not having permits, as if they park longways on a road they take out a complete parking space for a car that is paying for a space to park with a permit. The parking scheme was the best thing ever introduced in this area BA Q6 answer - 6 to all sections apart from Retailer's Loading permits-1 Make St Augustine St and Winchester St one way system, it worked when Wessex Water were carrying out work. Also stop grid lock at busy times 7 days a week during cricket season or even yearly Maybe residents with one vehicle purchase a place outside your home at an extra cost yearly Really pleased Visitor's Permits are going to be phased out, hopefully this will stop the daily workers parking using it as a cheap car park. Also some residents just buy a Visitors car pass, which you are at the lost revenue. 169 With the reductions to the bus service, people are increasingly going to need cars to get about, go to school, work, etc. The policy needs to recognise that if people cannot park legally, either because there are no spaces or because they cannot afford the permits, they will inevitably park illegally and gum up the streets for other people. 170 I have a holiday cottage on Quay St Minehead which is available for letting throughout the year. Currently I have an annual Visitor permit costing 35 which has no specific vehicle registration number. My Visitors then put the permit on their car for one week, they are there and then leave it for the next visitor. The new proposals do not cover this scenario. A non resident landlord's permit would not help as presumably it would specify my registration number. When I visit my property I use the visitors permit as I only visit when it is empty. The maximum number of 120 daily visitor tickets will not be sufficient as one Page 26 of 50

126 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments has to pay for parking 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. A residents permit would only specify one registration so would not be of use. I know there are several holiday cottages along Quay St who are presumably in the same position.i would be prepared to pay more for a similar permit to the one I have now so I ask you to consider this amendment to your new scheme. It would be a fairly simple matter to check that such applications are for holiday cottages that advertise to avoid misuse. 171 How would you deal with illegal parking? I believe that you will need to enforce the rules to make it work. Remember, if you are chrging businesses, they will pass this cost on to their customers. 172 Parking a vehicle parking within 25 metres of road junctions and pedestrian crossings should not be allowed even for loading and unloading. Fines for this should be high. 173 enforce all parking rules that are currant DISABLED 174 To charge the NHS at all is yet another expense at the cost of peoples health. They should not be charged at all. Even 10 is too much. There are so many people in need of care at home that those companies who provide help will pass on the charge to its customers; and consequently the individuals needs will not be fully met. I would hate to be sitting in my own waste waiting for a helper to find a free parking space. 175 All streets should allow where possible a free parking for up to 1 hour. Residents with a permit unrestricted parking. This would allow trade to prosper and deter commuters.it would increase Park & Ride and would be easily understood and enforced.this survey would never pass the CRYSTAL MARK for good, understandable wording! 176 While I do not use these permits I do feel they are a fairer way to help ease parking problems and also help to lower the misuse of these services, as a disabled driver I think a little better control of parking can only benefit everyone. 177 I would reiterate that penalising Residents by increasing costs for Resident Permits and Visitor Permits - both annual and scratch cards - is outrageous and unreasonable. Increases of 100% for Resident Permits, 200% for Visitor Permits and 500% for Day Visitor Scratchcards is disgraceful and excessive. 178 If any one point is worthy of close examination and immediate change, that is the Blue Badge Scheme, which is oversubscribed and hugely abused. Those who have ACTUAL, PROVEN disabilities ought to get an ample helping of fair play. Far too many people are entitled; to a Blue Badge, despite being very well able to run into shops and run around supermarkets. Some work all day ( in charity shops, for example) where they are constantly standing or walking. General abuse of the Blue Badge (a lifeline to those who depend upon having one) is rife. Planning permission of every type should be subjected to vehicle parking restriction. 179 I consider the principle behind a residents' parking permit is to PERMIT residents to park and make non-residents illegible to park. I accept that a charge needs to made to cover costs but I do not accept that it needs to make money. I pay council tax Page 27 of 50

127 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments which includes roads etc thus like those in non parking zoned areas I have paid. 180 People should be able to park in their own street, and if permits are the solution then I think most would be prepared to pay for the knowledge that they will find a space outside or near their home. New developments should take resident parking into consideration and allow enough road space or allocated parking spaces for each household 181 IF THE COUNTY COUNCIL IMPLEMENTS THESE DRACONIAN CHANGES THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE WILL REAP THE RESULTS AT THE NEXT ELECTION. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS TO INCREASE CHARGES BY SUCH AMOUNTS,&; TO LEVEL UP SUCH A WIDE RANGE OF CURRENT CHARGES IN DIFFERENT AREAS.WHAT IS THE COUNCIL DOING TO KEEP ITS OWN COSTS IN CHECK? I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN UNIMPRESSED BY THE EFFICIENCY OF THE OLDHAM OFFICE WHEN I NEEDED TO BUY MORE SCRATCHCARDS WHICH I FORMERLY USED TO GET AT THE DEANE HOUSE. THE PAPERWORK TO APPLY FOR NEW PERMITS, UNCHANGED SINCE TDBC DAYS, IS AS BADLY DESIGNED AND WORDED AS IT COULD BE. ABOUT THE ONLY PROPOSAL I AGREE WITH IS THE NEED TO ELIMINATE ABUSE OF VISITORS PERMITS, BUT SCRATCHCARDS WON'T STOP THE WRONG PEOPLE PARKING, AND WHERE CAN YOU PARK A CAR FOR 1/DAY? WE KNOW TIMES ARE HARD BUT THESE PROPOSALS SOUND AS IF THEY COME FROM A DESPERATE AND GREEDY COUNCIL WHO PRETEND TO BE ACTING IN THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY OR SPECIFIC PARTS OF IT, AND WHO IMAGINE THAT INCREASES OF 100% TO 300% WON'T HURT IF SPREAD OVER 3 YEARS. WE HAVE TO PARK. STOP TRYING TO PROFIT FROM THAT NECESSITY. 182 Some of the proposed permits costs appear to be a little low, when you consider this is for a whole year and in comparison with current general car parking fees, I understand small businesses struggle with extra costs like parking, business is business though, premises should be built with parking in mind, failing this parking should be taken into account when embarking on a venture - some of the proposals are a little stark especially when considering Hospital parking fees 183 Where we live and run a holiday business in Minehead there must be a sensible option for us to purchase both residents parking permits as well as visitor parking passes. There are several properties on Quay street that need to operate this way and bring much valued business into the town. Your proposal of a ;one size fits all; solution will not work and will force us to sell up. 184 it is essential that resident permits are introiduced into Mendip area we have been waiting for a long time for their introduction this consultation should also suggest the extension of the schems to other areas in somerset, otherwise we are being discriminated against and we continue to be frustrated by being unable to park outside our own homes. 185 This has to be one of the most inept, unintelligent and incoherent surveys I have come across. Questions are biased, leading and inaccurate. E.g.Q5 is dishonest and confusing-it would have been better to ask 'Should the provision of parking services Page 28 of 50

128 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments pay its way? Should it be subsidised? or, Should SCC charge more than the actual costs in order to subsidise other services?' It would have been more sensible to tell us the actual costs of providing parking services so we can judge whether or not your proposals are fair. Without this info is is impossible to answer some questions. I see little evidence of SCC's concern to support local business, the environment and local residents during these hard times. I wish my Council Tax was not paying for the duffers who designed and agreed this inadequate consultation survey. The poor design of this survey is highly likely to result in the results not being taken seriously; it cannot therefore be considered a meaningful consultation exercise. Badly done, Somerset County Council. 186 Publicly maintained roads should be used for travel and business but not for long term private parking. Any council initiative should be encouraging the removal of vehicles not being used for transport or business. 187 As a carer earning little more than the national minimal average wage i find any proposed increase concerning.my duties involve working variables shift patterns including weekends and with no access to off road parking. It is not always possible to park appro[riately especially at night. Therefore with the proposed increase in permit revenues could each zone be for resident only/visitors to that premisses at all times.i would also like to point out over the last two years the issuing authority have returned my permit proof of residence and confirmation of residents permit in three seperate envelopes. Surely one envelope be sufficient saving postage and expenditure. 188 Seven days a week during cricket for residents only not free for all other people.make St Augustine St &; Winchester St one way. Would Somerset County Council consider looking into residents being able to park outside their own home if they only have one car and are willing to pay extra, so they can go out more often. Plus pay toward the cost of marking the bay and house number. About time residents are stopped buying visitors permits for there second and third cars or selling them onto friends &; family that work in the town. This i think is costing you money. Residents with transit vans and people carriers should pay more for there permit. 189 I am very concerned about the cost and the limited number of visitor permits to be allocated. I live in an area where there are a large number of eldery people. The cost of 60 p.a for vistor permits would be prohibitive to many and if people on benefits were helped, this would not include people like myself who are just over benefit level. Also many of the eldery have sons/daughters who visit them every day. How will they manage on 120 vouchers?i really do feel that the scheme is very unfair and far to regimented. There really must be some give and take. You are dealing with humans and each person has a different situation. They cannot be categorised. 190 Your bais in fovour of motorcycles is unjust they are no greener than low emissions vehiclesless so if you take noise polution into consideration. The arguement about displaying the permit is is ludicrous or can't you wardens bend down to inspect it. The other thing is that motorcycles when parked take up the space of a small car so surely should pay to park. how the low Page 29 of 50

129 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments emissions discount discrimates against low income households i fail to see your logic as a vast increase in permits surely discrimates more against low income households. The other thing is if we are going to pay much more for parking it should be 24/7 as we still get people on sunday to go into the town shopping. 191 First, I strongly object to the decision of the council to send out a letter about consultation without including the basic details of the proposed chnages in the letter. People receiving the letter have no idea from it of the magnitude of the proposed increases. The council should send out a second letter.second, in order to understand the council's reason for the proposed increases, the costs of running the parking service before/after privatisation and the projected budget for 2014 should be provided. For 2014, the proposed increases, compared to 2013, are 29%, 40% and 500% for first vehicle, second vehicle and all day visitor permits. This is outrageously high at a time when inflation is about 2%. When the council privatized the parking control system in Taunton Deane a claimed benefit was that it would save costs. This appears to have been a highly misleading claim or the council is trying to use parking charges as a cash cow to create savings in other area where it is able to use the surplus. Current residents living in controlled areas have no option other than to pay whtever is decided. This is grossly discriminatory compared to those living outside the areas. 192 I am a resident living in a victorian terraced house with roadside parking and therefore have to purchase an annual Parking Permit. As a pensioner on a low income which does not keep pace with inflation I would be hit hard by the proposed increases in residents parking if they were implemented. While I do understand that charges will go up, your proposal is extortionate. You may have inherited different schemes but it is NOT fairer to make all resident charges the same when some areas are much more affluent than others. 193 I feel regardless of the feedback SCC will still go ahead with the changes and the consultation is just a tick exercise. Due to poor financial management residents are having to foot the bill. It seems totally unfair to allow non resident landlords to have a permit when they are some of the people abusing the visitor permits and using them to park all day because they work in the town centre. I think SCC should review parking areas, zone d in Yeovil could be extended now that the Box Factory has gone and access is no longer required for large lorries 194 I am completing this on behalf of a 93 year old resident who has no car. She has a visitor permit only. Due to her age and disabilities, she does need friends and family members to be able to park whilst visiting her. It will be very confusing for her to administer scratch cards. She has a hairdresser come to the house, I visit regularly and never know how long I am going to be there. She is a blue badge holder - can concessions be made for people like this to be issued with an open ended visitor badge. Surely there cannot be hundreds in her position? 195 Only way to save money is to get rid of parking fees in car parks n cut back on traffic wardens who only seem to stand around chatting to each other Page 30 of 50

130 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 196 parking at the bottom of Wookey Hole road has been hijacked by businesses and town users. This area was promised to Portway residents when their gardens were reduced to make way for the ring road. Residents only parking needs to be installed as soon as possible, as promised by Harvey Siggs, so that we can deliver and collect children to school etc and know that our space will be there when we return minutes is not long enough for a business owner 198 Yes get rid of Somerset Highways in its current form 199 To be restricted to around 120 visitors permits per year would in no way work for my family as we have various different visitors most days to pick up/visit/help our disabled daughter, etc - and the proposed costs for the scratch cards are prohibitive - when we are operating on a restricted budget!. If these changes take place, I have no idea what we will do! We do not abuse the current residents visitor permit - it is essential to us lading normal lives in what is already a difficult environment for parking. It seems that we, unlike other residents elsewhere in Taunton are being discriminated against, for having cars and accommodating frequent and necessary visitors each day. We have a four bed house with only one parking space, so it would be even more difficult if we were to have a second car. Would compensation be given if we had to consider moving home? Please tell us what we do after the 120 very expensive passes are used up in a year...please!!!!! 200 Road parking has been better controlled by the issue of permits to prevent daytime parking by workers and others in our sreet. an unfair increase in the cost of permits will effect many residents in a way we had not expected or consider fair for our current payments including council tax. 201 Residents' and Visitors 'Parking Charges should remain unchanged. Residents in these areas are being financially disadvantaged through no fault of their own. The only way I could support any change to the current charging levels is if monies collected were used to keep the Streets and Roads concerned regularly swept and clear of leaves, mud and detritus;. South St in Taunton is a disgrace and TDBC have blamed the Residents' Parking Scheme for them not being able to access the roadside with their mechanical road sweepers! Plough the money collected back in to keeping the streets and pavements clean and keep the Visitors' Permits charges as they are and I might be persuaded to change my opinion on the matter. 202 Loaded questions, badly worded consultations. Does this comply with consultation institute guidance? Doubt it. What other form of consultation have you undertaken with affected parties? 203 Small businesses must be given as much access to their properties as possible. The history of how some loading bays have been acquired over many years must be taken into consideration in individual cases. Our business is the key holder for your barrier for your Saturday traffic control scheme which we have to open several times a week to allow access for ambulances, police, fire engines and Wedding cars for the Methodist church. When it is closed vehicles try to pass between the barrier, on Page 31 of 50

131 Consultation - Comments the pedestrian pavement in front of our property damaging the shop window cills. We have held our loading bay for 43 years which has been reduced from 2 bays to 1 bay. The door immediately opening onto the bay is a second fire escape for the two businesses one on the ground floor and one on the first floor. 204 The residents parking costs over the next few years are extremely high; what can residents expect for their money, more CEO's patroling zones on a regular basis? Just because the council has to make savings people within residents parking schemes should not be having to pay higher costs to help the council carry out their parking services duties. 205 The parking enforcement officers need to be more aware of parking infringements away from control zones. For example there has been a car parked for about a week outside Mill Street that hasn't been moved and has both offside wheels on the pavement - definitely infringing the pathway. There is also a long term 'stayer' (ie has been there for about a week once again) further down the road that has two bald front tyres - easily noticeable (I acknowledge that this may not be a matter for the civil officers, but their is also a citizen's duty for the officers to perform maybe. 206 The whole idea of parking charges/permits is just another way of the council to make more money and beleaguer residents and businesses to find yet more money in what is still a 'down' economy.these charges just discourage businesses from opening in Yeovil or carry on working in Yeovil (e.g., a builder who has to park outside the building on which he is working). Everyone, residents and businesses, already pay rates - that should be enough. 207 yes - It always seems stange to me that the permit times are 8-6 only. Nothing infuriates me more than when I get home from work at 7pm to find someone who pays NOTHING has parked outside my house. And then on a Sunday Dog Walkers and Sports watchers fill up all the parking spaces for free - THIS IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR. PLEASE MAKE ALL PERMITS 24HRS 7 DAYS PER WEEK - think of the extra revenue you could get from fines!! for info - I am a resitent in Holway Road - parking permit area E This scheme was introduced to ease commuter parking and just cover the cost of administering it, the increases proposed are only aimed at making a profit from those who cannot park off road. We have no alternative but to pay and feel that this increase is unacceptable, we pay enough in council tax and this is just another tax! Also the time of parking restrictions apply should be identical, our area is 8am to 6pm but the next area is 8am to 8pm and all that happens is people in that area park in our road after 6pm. 209 No. 210 Where will Visitors park when the Visitor Permits cease in 2015? Presumably we won't be able to have any!! 211 The residents in our area have really been struggling with parking since the arrival of new businesses (Waitrose and Tincknell) as well as the other workers that use our car parking area as free all day parking. This makes it impossible for residents to park near to their houses between 8.30am and 6.00pm. The road was widened some years ago with double Page 32 of 50

132 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments yellows being put on the road and a special 'parking area' for residents was formed but without residents parking permits it is not a resident area but free all day parking for workers in Wells who drive. PLEASE INTRODUCE A RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME IN OUR AREA! 212 There is no reference to alternative safe parking areas, so close to town, where lighting is adequate. 213 I feel strongly that whatever the enforcement is it should be strongly enforced. Evening patrols would result in many fines being given, at the moment we just don't see any enforcement after 6pm. We would accept some increase in parking permit charges but the second vehicle increase seems unacceptable high. 214 Q25 answer-it would make a difference to me, but I need a car so therefore I have no choice My Husband and I are pensioners, who need access to a car. These increasing costs will have an impact on us and our ability to pay. Pension payments have not increased in line with these costs. My family live 180 miles away &; when they visit, they stay for long periods. Again this will have an impact on our ability to py for their parking. Misuse of visitors parking permits shoud be dealt with directly rather than penalising resident's across the county The administration of the parking permits has been contracted out to a private company, invariably having an impact on the cost of running such a scheme which residents subsequently have to pay for. 215 i do not agree with the charges for health professionals. i have cancer &; need to see doctors regularly. 216 I would like to know why cutting the administration costs are not considered, and what is the annual income of the Parking Services Manager? 217 Visitors permits - I am disabled and live alone. None of my family lives nearby so when they visit it tends to be for the day. I also look forward to friend's visits, but for me there is a BIG difference in scrathcards at 20p &; 50p a time &; I will really miss the annual visitors permit as I do hope for family visits at least 20x a year (current cost for annual permit 20)I'm quite out out that misuse of the visitors permit by some is penalising people like me who really depend on it. 218 We have had issues with car vandalism and feel very aggrieved that we cannot always park near our home, particularly when there are proposals to charge us even more for a permit. It seems that no one is actually monitoring the impact regarding the over-allocation of permits. It is all very well charging residents to park outside their properties but if there are more permits issued than there are spaces available, we are effectively being charged for a service that the council cannot guarantee to provide. It should be noted that some properties, my own included, do not have any off-road parking or space to create it. If a home is bought by a developer to be converted into bedsits (a business essentially), there should be a permit cap placed on the property the same as there would be for any other property in the area. My son is learning to drive and will be purchasing a car. As he will be the second permit holder, his permit stands to cost him far more than any of the tenants in the property next door who are all able to purchase a permit at the lower rate because each of the rooms is considered a Page 33 of 50

133 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments separate dwelling even though the property is the same size as my own. 219 We are all struggling to make ends meet. Increasing parking charges it is just another nail in a lot of peoples coffins Unless one has a parking space (off road) or a garage life is becomes more expensive with visitors permits not being issued and scratch cards more expensive with shorter times. if you want visitors to stay it is harder for them. I also feel very sorry for small businesses as most are struggling. 220 Too many employees bring vehicles home at night & day, also vehicles too big taking up room for two or three vehicles. The parking for residents are parking permits are very oversubscribed where in this district it is full of bedsits and some houses have as many as three or four cars, Which doesn;t leave any spaces for ordinary householders to find a space (coupled with the complaint above) 221 Is any of this in interest of tax payers &; council tax payers or is it just another local county council cash cow? How many thousands of pounds were spent on consultation fees? 222 The proposed Visitor permit with Scratchcards sounds complicated! Please keep it as it is- simple for everyone! (Even if more expensive). I am more concerned about 'Blue-badge misuse than 'Visitor permit misuse. One lady regularly parks outside our house on double yellow lines, displays her blue badge then strides off the half mile into town! With all the proposed permits for businesses, landlords and retailers how much research has been done to check the number of spaces available- can you keep selling permits for spaces that don't exist? On our street alone there is a range of parking restrictions in place: pay and display only, residents only 8-6, residents only 9-6, residents or pay and display 8-6, or 9-6 on some signs, anyone for 30 mins, no parking! Keep costs down, keep it manageable, keep it simple for everyone, please! 223 1) I do not understand why the charges need to be standardised across the three towns concerned: we all expect to pay more to park in a public car park in a large town than in a small town, and the greater benefits of living in a large town with its greater amenities should be reflected in higher permit charges.2) Where several working adults live in one house, either as members of the same family or as a house-share, it seems unfair to have different charges for the first and second permits, if all of the residents need a car to get to work.3) Non-resident landlords need permits, of course, but they will not be visiting their properties frequently, so the proposed level of charging seems excessive when compared with the likely far higher level of activity of business vehicles for loading or parking. Could another system be introduced for landlords based on the number of times they park, such as a variation on visitor permits? This would be much fairer. 224 It seems ludicrous to have a consultation on parking when parking is a tiny part of what should be your overall transport policy for the county 225 Most people live in houses without off street parking because that is what they can afford, the extremely steep increases in parking permit costs will cause hardship to these households and I think a lot of people will try and avoid purchasing permits Page 34 of 50

134 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments A lot of cars are now low emission cars and have either zero or low road tax which has been introduced by Government, but now because Government has cut your spend has been cut local residents are going to be penalised. I think a slight rise in permits is exceptable but certainly not the rises you are suggesting. I feel very penalised as I have always purchased residents and visitors permits, never abused either permit, it is the households that abuse the system that should be penalised especially around the visitors permits. I don't think there should be a blanket cost of permits across all of Somerset., it should be about each council area. 226 I live in Mitchelmore Road, where nearly every house has a driveway. Because of the proximity of the nearby hospital, the council forced the current parking scheme on residents. Residents had no parking problems. Following the introduction of the scheme, most of the road is empty of cars, and the cars that used to park in the road moved to other nearby roads not covered by a scheme. This scheme was simply a cash earner for the council without residents support. I will not subscribe to any new scheme if the costs are dearer, currently 35 residents and 15 visitor, and where the visitor conditions are not as good as present. Regarding visitor misuse, I have not seen any cars in this road that could be workers using visitor labels. I think Mitchelmore Road should not be included in any future scheme. There are lines painted in the road to prevent parked cars blocking driveway entrances, and that should be sufficient. 227 The Council & parking policies should be about enabling residents to park conveniently near their homes and conveniently and cheaply for shopping/other local services to support a thriving business sector. It should ensure parking is done safely and minimises inconvenience to others. The service itself should be efficient and easy to access, the outsourced service is neither, when we moved paperwork was lost. The service was poor compared to be able to walk a few hundred yards to the council offices. When we moved and requested help securing parking outside our house we got zero assistance resulting in hassle on the day. We also witnessed cars being ticketed in Westgate Street at 19:40 on a Saturday night when there was ample parking on the street. That ticketing was clearly about making money and nothing to do with the safety and convenience of residents. So in conclusion the proposals regards resident parking permits is simply a money generating scheme, increasing already extortionate fees, placing more restrictions on residents and impacting negatively on their social lives with visitors. It will do nothing to improve services for residents. 228 I am opposed in principle to residents' parking. It effectively means the annexation of the public highway for private use. All roads should be kept open to the extent of the full width and not be allowed to effectively become an extension to someones property which the general public are expected to maintain. If you own a car you should buy somewhere to park it and not expect others to provide space for you. If the public are to provide space then the charge should be set at a level to discourage second/third vehicle ownership. People should be encouraged to walk and cycle more. 229 Badly worded questionnaire, emotive language used, presumption about choice. There is also muddling of different issues : Page 35 of 50

135 Consultation - Comments eg finance, environmental, commercial etc. I would like to be provided with the details of the annual account relating to the parking service so that evidence based judgement can be made. 230 It would be better to do away with them and go back to having a free for all, as well as getting rid of yellow lines. This is being introduced overseas. It would appear to be an extra postcode tax as I stated in the beginning for those who choose to live in certain areas 231 The prices cannot continue to rise when the amount of spaces are not available - If I was guaranteed a space then a small price rise would be inevitable but these severe price hikes are way too high. I currently cannot park near my house as I believe too many permits have been sold for the amount of houses & also inconsiderate parkers. 232 I do not agree with the withdrawal of the Annual Visitor Permit. This is a convenient tool for our house that has no provision for visitors to park other than on the street. With 3 small children in our house, childcarers and family come to the house whilst myself and my husband both have to go out to work. The cost of the proposed scratchcards increase from 20p a day to 1 a day is an unacceptable increase. The increase of our only residents permit from 35 to 70 is far too high. I do not think that Motorcycle exemption is right or fair. In theory motorcyclists who travel to work in Taunton could all come and park in our street all day long and clog up our streets preventing residents from parking outside their own homes. I believe that residents who have no other option than to park on the street because of lack of driveways or garages should not be penalised any more than they already are. 233 Parking permits should be enforced 24 hours per day 7 day a week. This would stop non-permit holders from parking in the street and making permit holders park elsewhere As there is to be an increse in the cost of resident permits could the hours of resident parking be extended. 2- Where we are in Penn Hill Yeovil, could the area of resident parking be extended to allow for more vehicles. 235 The price increase for residents parking permits to bring them in line - how about for the first year charging an average of all the different costs of permits in operation as a starting point then increase them annually until a suitable level has been reached. This way all permit holders are treated equally. 236 I do not feel qualified to provide answers to many of your questions regards residents parking permits as i am not involved.my purpose in wanting to be involved is on the somewhat narrow effect of parking in Burnham-on-Sea high Street. Much of the space is taken up with Loading bays only which for much of the day are unused. in any event few if any of the shops sell goods sufficiently lage to satisfy a Parking Warden that they come within definition of loading.i suggest the more correct term would be Unloading Bays to enable deliveries to be made to retailers and for the time to be restricted to mornings before midday after which general parking could be allowed. unless you have a disabled badge (and my application was refused) parking for ordinary motorists is very limited. Page 36 of 50

136 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 237 All I am going to comment on this is that the council will do what it wants, so no point in form filling. I am very resentful at having to pay to park outside my house with no garautee of of a parking space. Neighbours who can knock down walls, can park for free on their front gardens and side walks to our garages, where as we have smaller gardens and no side lane to do the same since the road is now a cul-de-sac. We cannot access our garage at the end of road into Eastleigh Road so have to detour up East reach into Victoria Street. Very inconvenient.we have a block of flats built behind us which will no doubt lower the value of our homes and i have to wade through water when getting into my car after rain because of lack of runoff to drain. therefore i make no further comment on parking permit prices going up as you can guess what they would be. >One very unhappy permit holder. 238 It is not right that in a small street drivers with drives should be allowed to take up room on the street when others haven't got room to park. Also the people who have money and 2 cars can pay for 2 permits and lots of visitors passes and thereby take up badly needed parking places, which people need. Being retired we do not go out all day and return at 6pm. If we go out in the afternoon when we get back we invariably cannot park. Sometimes we have heavy packages in the car, children and awkward items. We feel that we are paying for a residents parking permit that does not allow us the freedom to go and return when we like. To increase the cost of this permit is rubbing salt into the wound. We have lived in our house 42 years and the introduction of parking permits has not helped the parking situation at all and at particular times of the day it is actually WORSE! 239 See Scanning A 240 I am sorry for possibly boring you my comments<br>i am a 76 yr old widower- have a serious heart condition and arthritic joints- i live alone. I have not reached the stage of a blue badge requirement yet. Ref to misuse of permits- I have two sons who help cater for my need who park regularly in the street. if they didn't help me the social services would be involved. How can one resident and one visitor be fiddled? My sons are not misusing my visitors permit as i've stated they visit me regularly, they have to. I have very few visitors - who al pay road tax, council tax and every other tax.any price increase in the said charges would hit me financially surly for OAPs some form of reliefis possible. Any interset on my small amount of savings wouldn't feed my budget. With due respect sir you will be old one day. I hope things will be better for you. I find it very tough going. 241 Q6 comments - Visitor parking permits & Resident Parking permits - 1. No other boxes completed The existing system of visitor permits facilitates carer visits and should be continued There is no mention of contractors working on properties within parking zones. 2. Will SCC Agencies be charged the same as local traders when working within parking zones? 243 This is nothing more than a cash cow for SCC. The majority of people who live in the town centres are from the poorer Page 37 of 50

137 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments working classes. Many are struggling to make ends meet without having to pay for the simple ;privelege; of parking their car on the street somewhere near where they live. Charging 220 to park 2 cars on your street by 2016 simply outrageous!! The residents parking scheme introduced by TDBC is established now and we all have to live with it; but SCC should not use it as a simple revenue spinner. Surely the whole point of the residents parking scheme is to protect residents and businesses in these areas from congestion caused by commuters and shoppers visiting the nearby town centre? Yet the people who live in the most sustainable places within the County (and should be applauded for doing so) are to be penalised for this. What about looking to redress the balance by improving public transport, or increasing car parking charges within the town centre? Does SCC really want the homeowning families who live in the town to move out to places like Monkton Heathfield leaving the town centre housing as bed-sit land? 244 It is very unfair that some people have to pay to park just because of where they live it should apply to the whole of Taunton to make it fairer. When the scheme was introduced we were assured that we would have a chance to discuss the parking after it had been in use for a year. This never happened. If the roads were marked into bays this would allow more cars to park as people would have to park closer, this would avoid people parking too far apart. The scheme should be in force later into the evening. This would allow residents to park before the roads were open to anyone to park. 245 We feel we are penalised enough at present for having to pay for the right to park near our property and a lot of the time have to park in a different street because of misuse of the system. It needs longer monitoring hours and preferable 24/7 validity of the time zones to stop other parking after 6pm and on a Sunday especially when the cricket is on- we are afraid to go out as we know there will not be anywhere available to park.several houses in our area are now converted to flats and they each get a permit putting a considerable strain on available spaces. We also are aware of the misuse of scratchcards, residents living in the street are issuing them to friends to park here for work. We are also aware that some residents have not purchased a permit and park elsewhere during the day and move their vehicle back here after 6pm- how is this fair on the rest of us. 246 as with all surveys you ask the wrong questions, for example can you afford to pay this amount? why not increase the fee in relation to the annual rise in pensions? It should be noted that pensions did not rise by 50%. Road fund goes up in line with inflation, why not do the same, or would it be that N.C.P having grasped yet another cash cow have started milking already? The fact that parking wardens are often seen walking in pairs may not help the finances. 247 I think motorists have been stung too much in recent years and these proposed increases appear to be another part of this. I say this as a one-car household; and as someone who tries to walk, cycle, bus or train my journeys. I have no choice but to park my car at the kerb-side, so have to 'take the hit' of any additional charges. We have a number of visitors to the house in any one week and the increase in visitor parking would hit us particularly hard. Page 38 of 50

138 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 248 THIS IS JUST A MONEY MAKING PROPOSAL WITH NO BENAFIT TO RESADENTS AT ALL 249 It is VITAL that VISITORS PERMITS exist as per the current arrangement. If a visitor stays Overnight, it is not always possible to put a new Day Permit on by 8 am. It there is Misuse, then this needs enforcing by the Parking Wardens - that is what we are paying for! Their machines can log when a permit is on a car for more than 14/21 days - and then a Parking Ticket could be issued. Landlords should be able to use Visitors permits - in the same way builders/electricians operate - they do not need a Special Permit. There needs to be Flexibility in the system - and the New Proposals are too RIGID and will penalise residents, and have a dramatic effect on our daily life. 250 My main concerns regarding the changes is the restrictions proposed for visitors. It will require visitors to wake early to ensure a new permit is displayed each day they remain parked. The cost is prohibitive to a relaxing lifestyle for both visitors and residents. Misuse of permits is already managed and I would request that no changes are made. I am of course aware that the cost for permits will increase, but I strongly oppose the need to make living in our street difficult to go about our daily business without thinking about parking restrictions and cost each day. Houses with multi occupancy of adults increases as house prices and rent becomes ever increasing and beyond the reach of young adults. However, the increase to the cost of transport, mostly required for employment is also becoming an extra strain on those earning low or minimum wage. 251 As previously commented in boxs the whole parking fiasco has got out of hand and i think many of us wished we had never signed up for it.the visitors permits are not being misused in most cases but the scratch cards definitely are in my opinion, alot seem to be used by friends of residents for parking cheaply for work. 252 too many people are abusing visitors parking permits,when they came out first it said parking permits were to be left on the paper and put on the dash not cut out and stuck on the windscreen.and people park outside of our house when they live two roads down and near the bottom of our street?? not on 253 It should be made fairer for people who do not have off road parking. No account of whether a property has parking is taken when setting council tax, based on the old rates. I get extremely irritated by people parking outside my house sometimes for days on end, with no details of the owner or where to find them, meaning I could not unload my heavy shopping from my rental car. Why do I have to have my address on my visitor's permit and other people with permits do not have to say where they live? I have to use my visitor's pass for my hire car while my car is in the garage. Most unsatisfactory. Recently this has become more of a problem. I also resent having to deal with offices outside Somerset about parking, who often lose letters! Bring back the face to face contact with the local council office! Why is it thought good to send money outside Somerset for a much worse service? 254 Q1 Comment - Currently have annual Visitor parking permit 255 1/ Mr Deakin's letter of 17 December advised that with reduced central government funding, SCC needs to ensure that any Page 39 of 50

139 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments services that are provided are self funding. I agree with this but you have not explained how, after the economies of a central national administrator, you need to increase charges by approximately 100% over 3 years I think you should first reduce your number of Chief Executives from 6 (7 with South West One) to 1, and tiers of management from 2/3 with SW1) to 1 like Wiltshire. 2/ I would like least change in Q6 to Residents permits, but after telephoningyour office, I was advised to put 6 not I have stated in this Consultation that parking is just another method for the Council to squeeze the motorist - who incidentally - is a voter in most cases. There is only so much that can be squeezed out of residents. What other methods are the Council thinking about as to how to raise money? Perhaps toll-booths on High Streets to charge pedestrians - especially when people will not be able to afford to use their cars anymore! 257 Q6 didn't allow me to put more than one same answer for each scenario, so my answers are in fact 3, 6, 2, 2, 6, It is unfortunate that we have to pay to park outside of our own homes in the first place. But I certainly don't think we should have to be charged by the number of visitors we have and there should be no limit on the number of visitors we have either. It is nobody else's business. We live here and everyone has different needs. I don't understand what is meant by the fact they are being misused. If a relative calls in for a cup of coffee and then needs to go to the hospital for an appointment or to visit someone there, or needs to pop to town, what difference does it make. It is our visitors permit - and not everyone knows people that live in a residents parking scheme. By the way, out street is fairly empty during the day, so I don't know what is meant by misuse. What about if we had a friend or a relative come to stay with us for a month - we should not have to pay extra for this. The only other thing I can think of by misuse is that some people may be buying visitors permits instead of residents permits to put on their car permanently - if that is the case, then that resident in my view should be contacted individually and given a penalty. 259 THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN RESIDENTS PERMITS SHOW A 100% INCREASE IN TWO YEARS LUDICROUS CENTRE GOVENRMENT ARE TRYING TO CUT COSTS AND SOMERSET CC SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT FROM A SERVICE WHICH MANY RESIDENTS CANNOT AVOID HAVING TO PAY. GET REAL 260 Q28 Much to low We do not want it. Yes Visitors permits are being misused. I see them each day parking to go to work in the town. Some dat we do not see a warden why not? 261 Firstly i work all week so my permit is only needed for weekends. i think that disabled should pay in all car parking spaces. Quay West/Quay Street in Minehead has no free car parking spaces. so we have to buy parking permiting and you know that now adays each house has at least two cars in it, and if like me ( and there are quite a lot in Quay Mineday) we still have childen living at home they too have cars. We all work so are cars are not parked here though the week see above. Q13 Was not aware they are being misused in Quay West area. Q14 What would happen after 2014 when they area no longer Page 40 of 50

140 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments avaliable. Q15 Should both be kept low. Q18 Do prices need to go up Q19 Did know about this Q21 Leave visitors permit as they are. Q25 nearest free parking in Quay West would be half a mile away. Q27 NA in this area 262 Q25 - comment - ROB ME Q28 - comment - Don't know Q32 - comment - Not needed Q13. What is the misuse? Q14. You only propose to issue these for 2014/15. What happens after that. Are we no longer allowed visitors? Q18. I don't agree with any increase at all! Q19. What Discount? Q22. They would still be residents though wouldn't they? Q24. See comment for Q14 Q25. If there was an alternative to buying a permit, I would already - but there is no where else to park. Several of your questions are worded unfairly giving me no opinion to answer as I would like to. I have added my own boxes or left the questions unanswered. Do you honestly think that an increase from 8 to 150 is fair? 263 I think there should be a ban on issuing permits who have any vehicle larger than a normal family sized car because some vehicles like vans for example are so large that they take up almost 2 spaces which at busy times make it impossible for other residents to park there cars. This is especially a problem in smal narrow roads and cul-de-sacs. 264 Permits should be for 7 days Trailors should be also included in paying for a permit We are pensioners and putting charges up is getting beyond it. We know for a fact that a Warden does NOT come up our street everyday. Taxis should be classed as a business and charged for each vehicle Visitor permits should be left as they are 1.00 for 10 Our son pays for a permit in the area where he lives so why should we have to put a ticket in his car when they visit us and also vice versa. 265 Q13 comments-no misuse in my opinion Q14 comments-leave parking as it should be looking at charges it would be dropped in 2015/2016 anyway Q17 comments-our house has more than 3 cars Q18 comments-no increase whatsoever Q19 comments-void question No discount for low emission vehicles Q21 commemts-after 2015/2016 they won't be used anymore Q23 comments-stupid It has taken me 3+ months to get a new residents permit for Minehead, surely getting the basics right, first, is more important than proposing; stupid price rises. How is a rise from 8 to potentially 150 viable for people. I can understand if it went up with the price of inflation or 5% but a 1875% is criminal I park my car outside the property from 6.00pm until 6.00am and on a Sunday All day, if my vehicle was classed as a 2nd one a year pass of 150 would be more than if I 'Pay at meter' for a Sunday. 266 Please see see Word doc P:\Parking Services\Consultation\Responses Consultation Q Misuse of permits was greatly reduced when 2nd visitor permits were abolished so this argument cannot be used for changing the present system For us (and many like us) the proposed visitor allocation is unworkable as we have 4 children plus driving grandchildren in addition to friends and workmen, plumbing, electricity, decorating etc etc. Terraced streets don;t have the luxury of driveways and standing areas. I expect most who conceive these ideas are not affected by these limitations. The questions have been slanted to produce the results that will suit the SCC and possibly a rip off What percentage of households that have residents parking actually know and fully understand your intentions. I doubt if you will Page 41 of 50

141 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments dare to have a series of public meetings because you would be found out, as with previous ones, that integrity, honesty and common sense are not always employed by councils. Names and address supplied on paper copy of form Monitoring statement comments-english Nationals are on reducing consideration. Female and Male ticked - household<br>see full response - Consultation Q33 N 268 Standardisation of price across the County is a stupid idea. Charges should vary according to demand. There is a need for a complete strategic overhaul of parking in Taunton and possibly the County. This is just a tinkering to extract more cash to make good your financial shortfall imposed by Govt. You have cut the physical presence of attendance, made the permit system more complicated. Your performance has been poor at best and you are asking us to pay more. No way! 269 No Of course it will affect us, especially with the recession ongoing and other rising costs. No. 29. Non-resident landlords permits we agree to in principle. The cost should be significantly higher. Could there be a restriction as to how long they are allowed to park - we feel this may be abused, like using the permit for parking for shopping or going to the train station etc.to finalise. Coming home late in the evenings from work, 50% of the time I cannot park in our zone. The godsend has been the Taunton Deane Offices parking after 6pm. which is included in our wo3 zone at weekends and bank holidays. We are very worried if Taunton Deane offices are sold and they move into County Hall, we will lose the car park use. Whitehall does not have enough parking especially as we have to share with flats in Station Road. With all the above issues, we seriously think it should NOT be decided behind closed doors and views should be aired at a public meeting. We think it was disgusting that you managed to arrange all this over the very busy Christmas and New Year period when you knew people probably wouldn't remember that this Consultation as taking place. 270 We note that your covering letter states in respect of dispensations and suspensions that; We would charge people the amount of money it costs us to deliver that service; without making a profit, only covering costs;.yet in the charging structure the cost is on a daily basis. We do not understand how the delivery of the service increases beyond the administrative oneoff set-up cost of the dispensation or suspension, and feel this is contrary to your objective. 271 The vast majority of commercial parking acts in town centres are committed by trucks and delivery vehicles from outside the are/county. How do you propose to apportion costs and income on Companies that run fleets cross boarder? 272 This is obviously a means of getting more money out of residents and as a dweller who is over eighty (but not disabled) I think that this is grossly unfair as I have not means of parking except on the road and also I have no rear access only a pathway. 273 As you see form(s) not completed! I think this is absolute daylight robbery. Once again the motorist has to foot the bill - because they're an easy target.being a law abiding resident of Taunton I object to the proposed type of visitor's permit-due to misuse. The council know full well who was abusing the system so why didn't they sort it? I hope these proposals never Page 42 of 50

142 Consultation - Comments reach fruition but like most Council policies I expect it's all done & dusted. Resident of 274 My daughter and family live in galmington and three sometime four visits a week. With this new system it will be much more expensive. Surely some plan can be though up to orevent misuse of said permit 275 Q6 answers-residents Parking Permits; Retailer's loading permits-1, Visitor Parking Permits; Business/Landlords Parking Permits-2, Dispensations/Suspensions; Parking Enforcement-3. The current scheme works very well where I live and I know of no abuse of Visitors' permits. If there is abuse in some areas then this is what the traffic wardens are for, so therefore it is dealt with already. The cost of a new scheme would be too expensive to administer at a time of 'decreasing funds'. Much better to keep the exsisting scheme in operation with a reasonable annual increase. It would seem unfair to try and make up your 'decreasing funds' from residents who have NO OTHER OPTION but to park on the street. I am a senior citizen and my well being depends on still being able to run a car &; receive visitors. I have a small car but still pay the same as someone with a large vehicle taking up twice the space, perhaps small vehicles could pay less? I didn't understand why a parking scheme was introduced in my street in the first place as I never experienced a parking difficulty at that time. 276 The increase of 100% for residents permits over 3 years is extortionate. When I received my last resident permit visitors permit and utility bill each was returned in a seperate envelopes. What a complete waste of money. If you could be more efficient you would not have to make such large increases. 277 Q6 answers Visitor Parking Permits; Resident Parking Permits -1 All other -3 I think it is quite grotesque to impose such large increases, for the right of a householder to park in the road near to their property. I suspect there may be inefficiencies in the adminstration and beauracracy of the present system, and its recent outsourcing and in future funds may be redeployed to this area such as 'Parking Wardens' I shall watch for this carefully. I presonally have found the visitors permit useful &; helpful. 278 I think charging 1 a day for visitors parking is far too much, as our children come to visit more than 10 times a year and stay a few days at a time. If someone buys a pack of visitors permits will they last from one year to the next if not used, as they will have to be bought just in case someone visits. 279 Ref Q25- As we currently have no ''off-road'' parking facility we are obliged to purchase a Parking Permit regardless of the cost!! Therefore the proposed increse in cost we regard as too high as a parking space cannot be guaranteed. Ref Q26 Yes if one vehicle No if more then one vehicle General comment- As parking spaces are not clearly defined in our area it is often the case that bad parking impacts on the number of spaces available. Could this not be monitored as part of the parking enforcement? 280 The mixed dual use parking bays should be abolished. Care homes etc. should be issued with visitor passes. It is unfair on permit holders as they have to share available spaces with often against stiff competition from people who have made no Page 43 of 50

143 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments contribution to the scheme. they pay the same as holders who do not share. Also this would bring about other benefits; 1- Much more easy and therefore cheaper to police 2- Posible more revenue from fines 3- Encourage more residents to buy passes and therefore increase revenue. 4- satisfaction from holder as they would be getting more for their money and therefore happy to pay more. I can see no logic in charging more for further passes per household, there are no additional costs to you.it's your job to run the perking scheme, not to get involved in social engineering. There should be a choice between the visitor vouchers and a much more expensive yearly pass. Some people require daily visitors i.e elderly, infirm, young people with childcare needs. Passes should bear an address and only be valid in the close area. this would discourage abuse and make it easy to check proper use. 281 We have 3 registered residential care homes in the Everton Road Area. Currently we have one visitor permit for each house which covers 6 vehicles and staff cars to be used depending on who is on duty and the mobility of the residents. Residents did not wish to have disabled parking bays allocated outside each house. We have been established in the area for 20 years and employ 17 local staff. The current cost for parking permits for the 3 premises is 45. Any increase in cost will have to be absorbed as Somerset County Council have not increased our fees. Any further details please contact 282 We have a visitors permit but usually when friends; family visit at a weekend there is never any space left anyway!! 283 Services that we all use should be run in the local area not from other parts of the country. They should be run by the Local Authority not private firms who's sole aim is to make a profit. 284 Will you have any control over double yellow line parking. This is an area that causes problems to traffic flow and problems for pedestrians. A large number of blue card holders do not seem to be aware of the problems they cause to other motorist and pedestrians alike. 285 I understand from the letter that I received that one of the changes to be made was to bring everyones parking permits prices inline throughtout Somerset, so why then are the proposed price increases increasing by 10 per permit on the highest price. Surely South Somerset and West Somerset should be brought into line with Taunton Deane at 35 - not increase all to 45.And why the increase on the second vehicle? This just seems like another money making exercise, that we will have no choice in. Pressures on parking would be reduced if parking was considered when houses are split in to multiple bedsits. I live in an area of large Victorian town houses which are gradually being split into bedsits resulting in 4 or 5 cars per building trying to park in an already congested area. I do agree that the abuse of visitor permits has to be stopped but completing removing the option for them is punishing everyone. And then adding to that increasing the cost of the scratch cards is a double punsihment. 286 I would not like the charges to increase on resident/visitor permitts. 287 Business Permits for All Zones at 600 will not be purchased!!!! Therefore Pointless. Having spoken to more than 105 Page 44 of 50

144 Consultation - Comments Landlords and local businessmen and women, the overall opinion is that a figure of 150. for All Zones would be acceptable and raise more revenue. 288 Q4 - DOUBLE YELLOW LINE OUTSIDE Q5 - This does not help us with property values in the whole area. Could put people off from living here! No Local buses! Q7 - I thought you contracted payment etc to Oldham to save money Q10 - Change of hours and days 8am-9pm 7 days Q16 - Take up the space As a car! Visitor permits 50p-no. 1 yes Priory Area Taunton. We have not got spaces for all average days/evenings. Multi use of house, for students in rented property increase the problem when they are home from uni etc, or others during term time. Terrace houses now have been sold as flats, one up one down which has doubled the need for on street parkingfor residents. We have 24 hour call out vans as well. To put up charges will not solve the problem, we have even used local car parks of an evening as when we arrive home the streets are full with the cars of people parked and gone in to town for a meal or a drink!. Moving out after midnight. We would like the service to be 9am-9pm Monday-Sunday (cricket) Most people would be much happier to have this service, as value for money. Q33 for 289 I have completed this survey as a resident but I also work as Community Midwife. I note that there would be a restriction of 2 hours for NHS Carers permit, some visits take longer than this, in particular for home births. 290 I think the present arrangements for annual visitor permits are satisfactory, and I would be willing to pay more per annum, but I think the books of vouchers idea will be more expensive to administer and unfair. My visitors don't always stay for as long as 4 hours, but a guest might stay a few days, so would be more costly. I don't know of misuse in my area, and as my permit has my address printed on it, if abuse is suspected by the traffic warden or other residents, the permit ought to be withdrawn. When my permit arrived, it was clearly stated in the terms and conditions, that I could lose my permit if I misused it. I feel as though I am being turned into a parking machine. Do local businesses know that they will have to pay an annual fee if they want to deliver things to me? Does the local NHS hospital know about the Health professionals/carers permit? I don't think the NHS can afford this. I don't own a car, but I wonder why the annual costs increase each year. If the administration costs don't already cover the service, then why not abolish the scheme altogether? 291 Personally I think the parking charges in Somerset are far too high. I have just moved here from Lancashire and find the charges on car parks and parking permits very expensive. I am a pensioner living alone and cannot afford to take my car out and park within Taunton Dene - the cost adds alot of money to my weekly spending. I live in an area where resident parking scheme is in operation and if i cannot get my visitors cars up my drive then we have to pay for a permit between certain hours of the day, This is to pay to park outside my own home - come on Somerset you are letting your residents down. Please try to help residents and in particular pensioners. Thank you. 292 Some of the previous questions were ambiguous.<br>1/ The main priority is that residents who have no off-street parking Page 45 of 50

145 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments should continue to be able to park on the street near their homes at a reasonable price. An increase to 45 is reasonable, but the subsequent proposed increases to 60 and 70 are way above inflation and too much.2/ It is reasonable to regulate visitors' parking when it is being abused - which it is. 293 you mention the misuse of visitors permits and therefore the need to end such, and to replace with scratch cards only. The abuse is only be a small minority. Why not act on the information you are given by local residents who report such abuse, rather than punishing all of us? If residents knew there would be a severe penalty, they will soon stop abusing the scheme The % increase of the permits is ridiculous. Many of my neighbours pay for a permit, which they never gain the benefit of. They leave for work at 8am and return after six!! 294 i) An increase in the costs of providing a residents parking scheme is to be expected over time, but the rate of increase is disproportionately high. ii) There is no justification for equalizing charges when countil tax levels v other property related costs continue to vary.iii) Why not increase the penalties for parking offendors? iv) If there is evidence that permits are being abused, why not withdraw entitlement from offenders? Otherwise everyone is penalized for the faults of a few v) It would be better if the costs of permits rose in line with inflation each year. To double some costs in three years looks like a cynical attempt to make money, not recover expenses vi) Consider a self-regulation scheme for the enforcement of residents ; other parking restrictions, or add enforcement to CPSO's duties. 295 The new proposed charges are to high. Why do we need to subsidise other areas that have it so cheap. The proposed charges for additional vehicle that are registered at the same address is outrageous. Lots of these are young people or unemployed/low income. We have so many bedsits in the area l live. These take up a lot of the parking spaces that the residents can't use. I am happy to pay a sensible fee to be able to park on my road throughout the day. Before the system come in l was unable to park on my road due to the workers trying to find free parking. I feel that the parking attendant to not carry out the duties in checking the car permits/visitors permits as cars are still using the resident parking areas. 296 If the price increse goes ahead please make sure your inspectors police the areas more often and check current visits permits are checked 297 Having just moved to the Yeovil area I was aware that there was a residents permit scheme in operation and felt that 35 was a reasonable charge for one year of parking in permitted areas. I am fit and healthy and don't mind walking a bit from my car to my house. I have already had issues with the fact that the signposting around my area is both inconcistent and ad hoc and would like to see some standardisation of signage and charges/permit areas, however increasing the rate for a permit in my area would make me seriously consider whether I would buy a permit (I would find non permit parking). Visitors parking on a ticket by ticket basis may indeed be a good way to go, allowing for day periods as opposed to loaning out a visitor permit. Page 46 of 50

146 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 298 The problem with removing Residents Parking permits when properties are newly built or converted brings many problems not least if a property changes hands either by way of sale or change of tennant who decides who will be next in line for the only available permit?? this along with many other of the suggestions require much more thought and discussion with our communities and representatives as it has not been thought through as it is being presented. Please consult more widely. There will have to be changes in enforcement at the very least. 299 Two free residents parking permits should be issued to every council tax holder in a permit zone. This is fair as council tax is very high and permits to park your car where needed should be included 300 i feel that if an area has been identified as having a parking issue all those residents should be consulted about how it effects them and if they think a resident parking scheme effects the way they enjoy living where they are at present. 301 WE UNDERSTAND THAT RESIDENTS PERMITS HAVE RISE TO COVER COSTS BUT BY A SLIGHT AMOUNT A YEAR. RESIDENTS PERMITS SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED IN ANY WAY ON THE AMOUNT OF PERMITS ALLOWED PER HOUSEHOLD THIS IS A VIOLATION ON OUR RIGHTS TO HAVE AS MANY CARS AS DEEMED NECESSARY TO OUR FAMILY. VISITORS PERMITS HAVE BEEN ABUSED IN THE PAST THE TICKET SYSTEM IS A GOOD IDEA BUT YOUR PROPOSAL IS FAR TO EXPENSIVE AND AMOUNT OF PERMITS IS FAR TO LOW TO SAY HOW MANY TIMES OR HOW LONG OUR VISITORS CAN STAY IS AGAINST OUR HUMAN RIGHTS, YOU ARE BASICALLY STATING THAT WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED APPROX' 2 1/2 VISITORS A WEEK A BLATANT VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS. 302 This questionnaire has failed to ask complete questions and has been constructed to steer the respondent down a certain path. As a resident who has to pay to park outside my own house i feel the parking space should be for my house exclusively. If it is deemed a public road then all of the public should pay towards the permit. There are more cars than spaces and if i have to pay for the privilege of parking then i think it should be exclusive. As far as residents permits go i think they should include sundays also. 303 over all my conclussion about residence parking permit price increase is not favarable 304 i dont wat to pay extra for my residence permit & visitor permit. 305 as a road tax paying driver I already pay for the use of the road and therefor should not have to pay twice. If you dropped all the restrictions and enforcements you would not have to charges us to cover their costs. this is extortion. 306 Q6 Visitor Parking Permits, Resident Parking Permits & Retailer's Loading permits all -1 Q13 What evidence exists of misuse? Surely if there is misuse this can be addressed by parking enforcers. Q25 These options are not relevant to the question At present I already pay for a residents permit, knowing full well that there are many times when I cannot find a parking space within my zone and have had to pay to park legally. Part of my road where I live is given over to free parking for 2 hours so I am paying for the privilege of not being able to park (legally) There is a greater volume of cars in my area as Page 47 of 50

147 Consultation - Comments so many of the terraced properties are let out to multiple occupancy so maybe the landlords should shoulder some financial burden themselves. Q25 it is not an option to have or not have a permit I do not have a choice I have to have a permit and so it will make a considerable financial burden on me as a pensioner I am wholly opposed to the removal of the visitors permit. If as you say this has been abused, then surely it can be policed by the traffic enforcers as part of their remit. 307 Q4-But parking position of cars in road often means access/egress to drive obstructed Q13 Feedback?Credited or surveyed? When publishing your report please include the full cost of this consultation. 308 I totally disagree with the rise in parking permits, this will impact on the sale viability of each property in the parking permit area. We are currently considering not purchasing any permits in future therefore this will reduce the councils income of 3 permits, instead of the current income of 2 residence parking permits and 1 visitors permit per annum. Seems a bit of a no brainer to me, the council are impacting on the working community who can not afford a detached home with drive and garage, therefore reducing his annual income considerably if he does not have the possibility to park on their property. I strongly disagree with the councils proposal. 309 You arediscrininating between resident +non resident landlords. To charge 150/zone/year is much too high. Icall at my 3 properties to collect rents every fortnight. This equates to 6/fortnight/property. This will have to be recouped via the rent and will put further financial pressure on tenants. When I call to do maintenance alone or with electrician, gas man etc. the streetsare usually half empty so parking is not a problem. My properties are HMO's and shared housing so from my point of viw it is difficult to get hold of permits. A landlord permit is essential but not at the price you are suggesting. I would suggest 50/Landlord as he/she can only park at 1 property at a time. As a West Somerset Councillor i will be taking this matter up as i feel the level of fee is amatter for each L.A to set their own fees. 310 Every household should be allowed i affordable permit. beyond this i have no strong view which is why i have not answered all the questions.because i work early hours my car has to be left most afternoons at least. I therefore have to have a permit. This makes question 25 a loaded question. 311 Regarding the visitors permits. As it stands 15 per year is too little (it has never gone up since inception), however, to go to the other extreme of 1 per day could lead up to 365 a year spent on a permit if the need arose which seems ridiculous. Why can't you just put up the visitors permits to a decent yearly amount ( it would cost less money than scratchcards for sure). I can't remember if more than one visitor permit is allowed or not, but if so, make the second visitor pass more money than the first. 312 for explanation of Priory CAs view see separate Priory Docs comment on changes regards original scheme adopted 10th Jan, example of building/parking costs for St Augustine St, deprivation information for Priory and Trinity, TDBC parking changes letter from 2009, an initial extra income prediction Page 48 of 50

148 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 313 Q1 Visitors only Q14 With an annual permit Q24 As No annual permit 314 Since the introduction of permits, sold to us as a convenience, has proved to be any thing but, they are a complete inconvenience, the enforcement against permit holders for minor indisgretions is aggressive, and encouraged by the management to maximise revenue, an opinion held by everyone I speak to Over the years since introduction this scheme has soured the relationship between residents and the council, these wardens are trained and pressured into behaving like stasis ready to jump on any resident for the most trivial reason 315 Stopped buying permits at previous price increase ; many not able.town will end up converted to HOMOs if families are pushed out by ever increasing costs and limitations on parking.cost = 450% increase for Mhead Increasing just this area to 35 = Big increase to revenue. Visitor for 313 days for 120 days = 500% increase in cost for less. I will be getting a 1% pay rise this year. Fully support 120 cards to combat misuse. These should be 50p all day with no free allocation. This would still represent a 50 increase in permit fees. To suggest removing low emission discount while offering it for the same reason to motor cycles is ridiculous both should be charged.your document suggests that blue badge holders would be entitled to 2 free permits - It should be One. Landlords to use visitors permit/car park/out of hours. No other business is being given dispensation to visit their premises unless vehicle is required for business. No benefit to our house. Tax to those living in a sustainable location. Many will have no choice but it will impact on family life /cost of living 316 I would prefer you to remove the residents parking permits rather than increase the charges to such ridiculous levels. I don't actually believe that you currently run the scheme at such a loss to warrant the proposed increase in charges. It was run much better by Taunton Deane. 317 I appreciate that parking charges may need to increase slightly but the proposed changes are far too expensive. Targeting residents who comply with council policy easy soft targets); asking them to pay so much more is completely unacceptable. Somerset Council should be targeting people abusing the system & that doesn't mean policy abiding residents should be penalised. Additionally, by having no visitors permits post 15/16 will not help the situation. 318 Q6 Resident Parking Permits-1 Q10 We have 3 adult drivers with cars which with the new proposals would cost us 370!! in This is outrageous. I pay car tax & Council Tax Q11 Free permits to all adults in their own home Q14 Shouldn't have to pay to visit family friends Q18 Not at all!! Expensive enough as it is Q21 35 a year is plenty high enough to pay to park outside your own house Q23 Far too high an amount!! Q25 Although where would I park!! I do not feel I should be penalised because others want to park in my street to visit the hospital or go into town. Residents should have ;FREE; permits for every car in a household I pay Council Tax &; Car Tax so it is ridiculous to have to pay to park outside my OWN home. My wages don't double in 2 years so why should residents parking fees??!! 319 Q18 comment-five years Page 49 of 50

149 Appendix 5 - Consultation Comments 320 Q1-Visitor two bed &; Breakfast/relatives Q5-Parking income OVERALL provides a surplus Taunton DEane etc!! Get them to reimburse you Q6-all answered as 1 except Parking Enforcement-4 Q10-Fluctuations occur as family sizes increase/decrease this should be flexible within reasonable allowances Q11-on occasions Q13-Misuse in Taunton where workers pay 1500 tp park otherwise Q14-Too inflexible for holiday lets/b&s's/large Families Q19-we don't get one Q21- Keep visitor permits Q25-If SCC continues to provide free parking in Quay West P&D-we will consider using that option Q29- They should get a Resident's permit Q31-Existing flexibility should apply Your proposals are like a 'Poll Tax' which only applies to residents with a lack of parking facilities. Everybody benefits from Civil Parking Enforcement and any small cost met from Council Tax/Business Rates. Our property has Five beds &; 2 car frontage and lots of empty spaces nearby.we get 2 residents permits which prevents proper use as large modern family home, letting rooms or B&B. 4 neighbours with no road frontage and 1 bed flats get 2 permits This gross unfairness, if applied will affect value &; saleability or our home. Page 50 of 50

150 Appendix 6 - SCHEDULE AGENCY AGREEMENT RELATING TO CIVIL PARKING ENFORCEMENT SOMERSET CIVIL PARKING ENFORCEMENT POLICY 1. Introduction 1.1. Local authorities across Somerset have agreed the following policy statement in respect of Civil Parking Enforcement This is in line with current best practice and aims to provide clarity, consistency and transparency within the enforcement process, based on compliance with the Department of Transport s Parking Policy and Enforcement Operational Guidance to Local Authorities and with the aspirations of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and the Local Government Ombudsman This policy represents a foundation upon which fairness and discretion can be applied. The importance of flexibility in these matters has been recognised by the courts and, as a consequence, decisions made by councils must take the circumstances of each individual case into account It is important to recognise that each case will be considered on its own merits. Matters of proportionality, objectivity, fairness and reasonableness should be paramount Based on these overarching policies, two sets of operational guidelines have been produced by the parking managers in Somerset, one addressing the detail of enforcement procedures and the other addressing the way representations are handled. These guidelines will be subject to ongoing review. 2. Policy Statement 2.1. The Council will provide information about the Enforcement Service in various accessible formats The Council will respond promptly to enquiries seeking information about Penalty Charge Notices and the procedures for processing them The Council will take advantage of proven technology to provide an efficient and effective enforcement service The Council will publish an annual report showing details of the number of Penalty Charge Notices issued and the outcome Civil Enforcement Officers administrators and managers will be trained in accordance with current best practice. All those involved with issuing and processing Penalty Charge Notices will be polite, open, honest and helpful at all times Civil Enforcement Officers will always issue a Penalty Charge Notice when they believe that there is a contravention of a Traffic Regulation Order. Any Part 1 Civil Parking Enforcement Policy.docPage1of 2

151 SCHEDULE AGENCY AGREEMENT RELATING TO CIVIL PARKING ENFORCEMENT challenges, representations and appeals will be dealt with later based on the evidence gathered by the Civil Enforcement Officer Challenges, representations and appeals will result in a Penalty Charge Notice being cancelled if the statutory grounds or the mitigating circumstances as set out in the operational guidelines are met Challenges, representations and appeals where the statutory grounds or the mitigating circumstances as set out in the operational guidelines are not met will be rejected. A full explanation will be given in writing together with a request for payment and an explanation of the formal appeal process Where the manager is satisfied that the evidence supporting a Penalty Charge Notice is sound and appropriate contact details are available for the owner or driver of the vehicle, outstanding debts will be pursued, through the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Part 1 Civil Parking Enforcement Policy.docPage2of 2

152 Somerset Civil Parking Enforcement Service Appendix 7 - Guidelines for dealing with Challenges and Representations Third Edition August 2014