Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration

The report considers the issues relating to the management and provision of parking in Stockport, outlines the position of other AGMA Councils and considers the procurement opportunities offered by an AGMA procurement framework.

The Scrutiny Committee is requested to comment on the report, prior to its consideration by the Executive Meeting.

Officer Contact: Ian O’Donnell on 0161 474 4175 or email: ian.odonnell@stockport.gov.uk

The Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copiers of which had been circulated) regarding the issues relating to the management and provision of parking in Stockport, outlining the position of other Greater Manchester Councils and examining the procurement opportunities offered by an AGMA procurement framework. The report proposed utilising the AGMA framework for Parking Enforcement Services and cash collection, as was currently used by Salford and Trafford Councils for their parking enforcement operations. Indigo (formerly Vinci Park) was the incumbent supplier.

The Executive Councillor (Supporting Places) (Councillor Martin Candler) attended the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

With the agreement of the Chair, Melvyn Matier, UNISON Shop Steward, addressed the meeting.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         It was clarified that new members of staff would be employed on different terms and conditions by Indigo. The terms and conditions of existing employees would not be affected by the TUPE transfer. In response to a Member’s question, it was confirmed that the service had recently recruited a member of staff.

·         More information was required on the maintenance costs of the current pay and display machines.

·         If the Council did not use the framework for enforcement, a separate procurement exercise would be necessary for cash collection.

·         If the Council used the framework for the enforcement service it would enter into a two year contract (extendable by one year plus one) and achieve increased deployment (or see a reduction in costs). This in turn would lead to an increase in enforcement activity and penalty charge notices.

·         The Council would maintain control of setting the specification for the service. Local accountability for the deployment of patrols would be maintained and the contractor would be instructed to monitor areas/streets by the Council as necessary.

·         A Member expressed concern that savings would be achieved by paying staff less in the longer term and issuing more tickets, particularly in the town centre where the Council was trying to attract people to visit.

·         Civil Enforcement Officers would remain in Stockport and be dedicated to working in Stockport. There would be no compulsory relocation of staff. However, supervisory staff would not necessarily be based in Stockport and cash collection would take place at Salford.

·         The provision of hand held computers was necessary to issue Penalty Charge Notices and enable it to be monitored where every Civil Enforcement Officer was and how many Fixed Penalty Notices they had issued.

·         The budget for the service was now operating in deficit due to the loss of car parks such as that at Great Egerton Street to facilitate the Redrock development.

·         There would be break clauses in the contractor with the operator for poor performance.

·         Concern was expressed that training was included with sickness in an analysis of non-productive time by the Civil Enforcement Officers.

RESOLVED – (Eight for, one against) That the Executive Councillor (Communities and Sustainability) be requested to reconsider the proposals in the light of the concerns expressed by Members of the Scrutiny Committee.