Representatives of the Stockport NHS Foundation Trust will attend the meeting to outline their plans in respect of staff parking charges at Stepping Hill Hospital.
Minutes:
Ann Barnes (Chief Executive) and James Sumner (Deputy Chief Executive) from the Stockport NHS Foundation Trust attended the meeting to answer questions from councillors about proposals to increase the cost of staff parking at the Stepping Hill Hospital site and concerns that this would lead to increased parking on neighbouring streets as staff sought to avoid paying the charges.
Ann Barnes and James Sumner gave an overview of the situation at the Hospital and the reasons for the increase being proposed. It was stated that the Trust’s policy changed in April 2016 to give parking priority to patients and visitors, because a disproportionate number of the spaces on site were used by staff – of the approximately 1650 spaces on site, 825 were designated for staff only, and 495 patient only, with the remainder mixed use but often being taken by staff. The Trust regularly received complaints from patients that they were late for clinic appointments due to difficulties in finding a parking space.
Pressure on parking had grown as attendances and admissions had increased, meaning more parking for extra patients but also for the associated increased staffing need.
The Trust also had to deal with increased inappropriate parking, such as double parking, which needed to be handled sensitively given the nature of the visits to the hospital.
The income from staff parking charges was insufficient to provide additional parking capacity as the current cost was low in comparison to other similar organisations.
The Trust had actively encouraged the use of the Hazel Grove park and ride to ease pressure on capacity and for environmental benefits, but take up from staff and patients had been low as the difference in price was small. It was hoped the increase in parking charges would make this a more attractive alternative.
In order to facilitate increased capacity within the hospital site, the Trust was considered a three year plan that would involve selling land within the current site footprint which would then give a capital receipt to allow for the construction of a new mutli-storey facility.
Councillors then asked questions, including:-
· The increased parking charges in themselves would not overcome the lack of capacity, and there was concern that the increased revenue would be used to offset budget pressures elsewhere with the Trust. Could any assurance be given that the revenue would be reinvested in parking facilities? In response it was stated that revenue from parking would contribute to these costs for expanding capacity on site.
· The Council had implemented a number of Permit Parking Schemes around the site to compensate for the problems caused by those using or working at the hospital. Given the longstanding problem, why had action not been taken sooner to address it? In response it was stated that capacity had been increased in the past, and other measures put in place to address parking, but these had not been sufficient to keep pace with the growth in the number of people attending the hospital, and the resultant increases in staff to care for them. The Trust and its partners continued to work to reduce attendances at the hospital, but this was a long term challenge. There were short term pressures, such as the construction of the surgical centre, which once complete would ease the pressure, but there had been disproportionate growth in demand. It was reiterated that the Trust’s long term aim was to build a Multi-Storey Car Park, but financial constraints had limited these options.
· Clarification was sought on what parking enforcement was done on site. In response it was stated that the Trust enforced parking through a private contractor and had done for a number of years, but that it was becoming increasingly difficult to administer, given that often infringements could be attributable to lack of capacity.
· In order to make the Park and Ride option more attractive, had the Trust considered providing a shuttle bus directly onto the site? In response it was stated that this had been considered but not pursued due to the prohibitive cost to either the Trust or the user. The Trust had also worked with the Council on developing travel plans and encouraging cycling, but these had not significantly reduced demand for parking.
· What more could be done in conjunction with Council, and others, to address these challenges, such altering Woodsmoor Station to provide train access to the Hospital? In response it was commented that the Trust had repeatedly attempted to lobby for the extension of the platform at Woodsmoor, but had been unsuccessful. The Trust encouraged public transport access to the hospital, but the longer term strategy was to reduce the hospital and the unplanned demand through the Stockport Together transformation programme.
· Further information was requested about the plans for increased parking. In response it was stated that the option being considered was to relocate staff in the low quality buildings on the north east part of the hospital site with a view to disposing of this area, but prior to that to remove the buildings to provide temporary car parking while a 800-900 space multi-storey car park was built to the rear of the site. Once plans had been drawn up these would be shared with councillors.
· Clarification was sought on which staff charges would be increased. In response it was stated that parking charges for staff were weighted by salary so that those earning more would pay more. The minimum monthly charge was increasing from £7 to £10, and the largest monthly charge from £32 to £60. Staff could pay through salary sacrifice to minimise the impact of the increase.
· Councillors received a lot of complaints about inappropriate parking by hospital staff on nearby residential roads. Did the Trust keep details of all staff vehicles, regardless of the possession of a permit? In response it was stated that it would not be appropriate to keep details for staff if they did not have a permit, nor would it be cost effective to do so. If inappropriate parking by staff was reported to the Trust and those responsible were identifiable, then the Trust would address this.
· Had the Trust considered eligibility criteria for staff parking that gave weight to distance etc., and less weight to those who could use the Park & Ride? In response it was stated that consideration had been given to weighting of permits, but given the type of staffing and their varying needs it would become cumbersome and onerous to administer. It was hoped that increasing capacity and refocusing the provision would achieve the desired aim.
· Health devolution and the increased powers over transport being devolved to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority might mean that proposal to extend Woodsmoor Station may be given a more favourable consideration. In response it was acknowledged that devolution to the City-Region was changing the landscape for public sector organisations, including the Trust. It was also commented that partners in Greater Manchester were involved in detailed work on their estates which may also yield opportunities for improvements.
Councillors also made comments, including:-
· Parking associated with car park was a long standing problem, and the Trust had engaged with local members previously to seek to address them.
· The Council had installed many Permit Parking Schemes around the site, but much of the parking problem occurred during the day when people were at work and not needing parking near their house, so as public highway it should be open to all.
· The reasons for increasing charges were acknowledge, and that alternatives to parking on site were available, but concerns were expressed that the charges increase would not do enough to address the issues and would simply displace staff onto residential streets rather than using more considerate options like the park and ride.
The Chair asked that the Area Committee be kept informed as the Trust’s plans as they developed in order to be better able to respond to residents when concerns were raised.
RESOLVED – (1) That Ann Barnes and James Sumner be thanked for their attendance and presentation.
(2) That the Area Committee would welcome further engagement from the Stockport NHS Foundation Trust in relation to their future plans for the Stepping Hill Hospital site.