|
|
|
|
CHAPTER 4: LOCAL AUTHORITY ROAD USER CHARGING AND WORKPLACE PARKING LEVY SCHEMES - ISSUES FOR CONSULTATION
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This Chapter sets out the issues related to the operation of local authority road user charging/workplace parking levy schemes on which the Scottish Executive is inviting views. The specific questions on which consultees are asked to focus are set out, in italics, at the end of each section and are numbered. In addition, a complete list of consultation questions is presented in Chapter 6.
4.2 Bringing schemes forward
Content of proposals
4.2.1 The Scottish Executive expects that an authority which wanted to introduce new charges would implement either road user charging or a levy on workplace parking. However, it intends that nothing in the legislation will prevent both measures being implemented by an authority in different parts of their area, perhaps with a road user charge in the central core and a workplace parking levy elsewhere. Similarly, the legislation will not preclude the possibility of authorities implementing both measures in the same place where they consider it necessary or desirable to meet local transport strategy objectives. However, the Scottish Ministers would scrutinise such proposals particularly carefully before confirming the necessary order.
4.2.2 Authorities wishing to establish a road user charging scheme, or to introduce a workplace parking levy will have to be able to demonstrate that it is in keeping with the objectives of their Local Transport Strategies. The development of these will be the subject of local consultation, and the Scottish Executive believes that this is the most suitable forum for discussion of the principle of whether or not to introduce a charging/levy scheme. However, it would be inappropriate for the fine detail of an authority’s charging or levy proposals to be set out in such a document. Detailed proposals for a charging or levy scheme should be set out in a separate document and this should be made available for public scrutiny and comment, given the likely impact of the scheme on the interests of many sections of the local community.
4.2.3 The Scottish Executive would expect a local authority to address the following issues when drawing up proposals for a charging/levy scheme:
Are there other issues which authorities should be required to consider when drawing up proposals for a charging/levy scheme? If so, what are they? (1)
Promoting an Order
4.2.4 Schemes will be implemented by means of an order which will have to be developed, approved and then made by the local authority, following prescribed procedures. Each order will have to be confirmed by the Scottish Ministers. To ensure full and proper public scrutiny of any proposals, it will be essential for authorities to follow clear procedures in promoting an order to establish a road user charging or parking levy scheme. The Scottish Executive takes the view that the Local Authority Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 would be a suitable general model to follow but with some scope to tailor procedures to the needs of the charging/levy context. Following this approach, there would be a formal requirement to consult interested parties, to publish notice of the proposal, to deposit plans and other documents for public scrutiny, and to invite representations.
Are the Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations an appropriate model to use in establishing a procedure for promoting an order? (2)
The duration of an order
4.2.5 Paragraph 3.2.11 above suggested that the Scottish Executive was minded to set the maximum duration of an order creating a charging or levy scheme at 10 years but to allow local authorities to set a shorter period, if they so wished. It proposed that orders could be amended or revoked at any time. It suggested that reviews of the order might be prompted by a review of the Local Transport Strategy and noted that any amendments to orders would be subject to the Scottish Ministers’ approval.
Should there be a limit on the duration of an order? If so, what should it be? (3)
Public consultation
4.2.6 The Scottish Executive is minded not to specify the public consultation arrangements to be followed before an order is made. Authorities may conclude that a Public Local Inquiry offers the best forum for scrutiny and debate. However it may not necessarily need to be a mandatory part of the process (although the Local Authority Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 mentioned above do make a hearing mandatory in certain circumstances). There is also an argument that the consultation process should differ depending on the magnitude of the proposed scheme and its likely effects on the area. A scheme which is relatively simple and small-scale may require a more simple consultation process. This could apply, for example, to temporary or intermittent charging schemes, under which charges would only apply at particular times of the year or at special events. The Scottish Executive therefore proposes that there should simply be a requirement on the authority involved to inform the public and to give due consideration to representations. An authority which failed to take reasonable steps to do this would be liable to have the order challenged in the courts. However, the Scottish Executive would welcome views on whether a Public Local Inquiry should be obligatory and, if not, whether public consultation arrangements should be specified nationally or left to the authority to determine.
Who should a local authority consult when preparing a draft order? Should there be statutory
consultees and if so, what bodies should be stipulated? (4)
Should a Public Local Inquiry be a mandatory part of the consultation process? If not, are there any benchmarks (eg in terms of the scale of the proposal) which could be used to determine when a PLI might be appropriate? Should the form of public consultation be specified nationally or should it be left to the discretion of the authority to draw up such arrangements? (5)
Should there be different procedures for amending an order? If so, what would be appropriate
procedures?
(6)4.3 The Level and Scale of Charges and Levies
General
4.3.1 The Scottish Executive believes that road user charging and workplace parking levy schemes should form part of a package of measures to influence travel choice or meet other objectives contained in an authority’s Local Transport Strategy, and would therefore not expect to approve a scheme which had revenue generation as its overriding objective. Authorities will therefore need to justify, both in their public consultation material and in the proposals submitted to the Scottish Ministers, the proposed level of charges or levies in terms of the economic and environmental costs and benefits associated with them and their contribution to Local Transport Strategy objectives.
4.3.2 In the case of both charging and levy schemes, the Scottish Executive is not, at this stage, minded to place a limit on the maximum charge or levy which can be imposed. The appropriate charge will depend very much on local circumstances and setting a national limit might constrain the design of a scheme. The level of charge or levy proposed will, of course, be one of the key issues scrutinised before the Scottish Ministers approve a scheme and authorities will be expected to justify the level of charges proposed. However, the Scottish Executive invites views on whether there would be merit in setting a national upper limit on the charge or levy which can be imposed.
4.3.3 The Scottish Executive would not expect to see charges or levies set permanently at a very low level, so that the cost has only a small impact on traffic levels and travel choice but generates a sizeable revenue stream. It is possible that some authorities might wish to introduce a relatively low charge or levy initially either to gauge its impact or to raise revenues to fund improvements to alternative modes to the private car, with the possible intention of subsequently increasing the charge/levy to influence travel behaviour. The Scottish Executive would be prepared to consider a proposal on this basis which formed part of a Local Transport Strategy. However, authorities seeking to raise early revenue to fund improvements might wish to consider whether Private Finance Initiative arrangements could be constructed in a way which would deliver improvements to other modes at the same time as or ahead of the introduction of the charge/levy. This would allow the charge/levy to be set at its optimal level from the outset.
The Scottish Executive seeks views on whether a national limit should be placed on the maximum charge or levy which can be imposed? (7)
If a national maximum were to be specified, what might appropriate figures be? (8)
Road user charging schemes
4.3.4 In the case of charging schemes, the Scottish Executive proposes to allow authorities full discretion to decide the times of the day, week and year when charging should apply, to impose different charges at different times or when special events take place and to impose a higher charge on days when air quality falls below appropriate air quality standards. The last suggestion would require appropriate air quality monitoring systems to be put in place and systems to disseminate air quality warnings to potential road users to influence their travel choices. The scope for varying charges will depend fundamentally on whether a scheme is paper-based or electronic, with the latter offering much greater scope for introducing different charging strategies and levels. Authorities would also be given discretion in deciding what arrangements should be made for occasional visitors to the area. Such road users may not have the appropriate in-vehicle equipment fitted in the case of electronic charging nor would they have the appropriate permit for a paper based scheme. A cash collection system at the point of entry into the charged zone or zones may be the only solution in such cases.
4.3.5 The Scottish Executive invites views on whether there should be a set relationship between the charge levied on cars and that levied on other vehicles such as lorries. Some differential may be appropriate, to reflect the higher external costs generated by heavier vehicles in terms of congestion, emission levels, noise and wear and tear on the carriageway and to encourage efficient delivery practices. On the other hand, businesses stand to gain considerably from the reduced congestion which the charge is intended to produce and it would be counterproductive if this benefit were substantially outweighed by the cost of the charge. Appropriate relative charges may vary according to local circumstances and this should be the subject of careful appraisal as proposals are developed. However, the Scottish Executive invites views on whether some national guidelines or maxima would be useful. These might, for example, set the maximum rate for different types of vehicle at some multiple (which might be more or less than 1) of the car rate.
Should there be a set relationship between the charge for light and heavy goods vehicles and the charge for a car? If so, what should the multipliers be? (9)
Workplace parking levy
4.3.6 In the case of the workplace parking levy, the Scottish Executive invites views on whether a standard levy should apply across the whole of the area covered by a scheme or whether different levies might be applied in zones within the area. The former option would prevent "cherry picking", whereby some parking might be taxed at a high rate simply to maximise revenue rather than to affect traffic or influence travel behaviour. On the other hand, the second option would enable an authority to impose a higher levy in zones where congestion is particularly bad. It would not seem appropriate for an authority to use differentiated levy rates to provide an incentive for town centre over edge of centre or out of centre development (ie by making the town centre levy lower than elsewhere). Given the common incidence of city/town centre congestion, this could well have a counterproductive effect on travel behaviour.
Should there simply be one rate of levy across the whole of the area covered by a workplace parking levy scheme or should authorities be able to designate different areas where different levies would apply? (10)
4.3.7 The Scottish Executive considers that the administrative structure of a levy scheme — in terms of the duration of a licence (and whether this should coincide with a calendar or financial year) and the payment facilities offered (eg lump sum or instalments) - should be left to local discretion but views are invited on this issue.
Should the administrative structure of a scheme be left to local discretion? (11)
4.3.8 There may be occasions (eg a special event) when a licence holder would wish to park more vehicles on the premises than permitted by the licence. A supplementary licence might be appropriate for such circumstances. The charge to be paid per car could be higher pro rata than for the annual licence to offset the additional administrative costs. Views are invited on this proposal.
How should a workplace parking levy scheme cater for occasional use? (12)
4.4 Penalties
4.4.1 The Scottish Executive seeks views on the levels of penalties which should be imposed on road users who fail to pay a charge or building occupiers who are found to be in breach of their licence.
4.4.2 In the case of road user charging, the enforcement regime will entail a civil penalty charge system similar to that operating where parking enforcement has been decriminalised under the Road Traffic Act 1991. One option would therefore be for the penalty charge to be set at a similar level. Alternatively the penalty could be related to the level of the road user charge. The Scottish Executive also invites views on what level of penalties should be imposed for repeated violations as a means of discouraging frequent non-compliance with a charging scheme.
4.4.3 In the case of a workplace parking levy, the enforcement regime will, again similarly to decriminalised parking, involve a penalty charge notice which would be served on building occupiers who are found to be in breach of their licence. The Scottish Executive considers that the penalty would need to be substantial to serve as a deterrent. The Scottish Executive’s initial proposal is for a penalty of one half of the full cost of an annual licence fee (calculated on the basis of the number of non-exempt vehicles parked at the time of the inspection). Given that the underlying objective is progressively to reduce parking provision, it would not be appropriate in those circumstances to require the occupier to take out a new annual licence for a greater number of vehicles (although this option would be available). The Scottish Executive envisages that where a breach of the licence has been identified, it would be made clear to the building occupier that the inspector would return regularly, so that the risk would exist of paying penalties that in total exceed the licence charge.
What should be the level of penalty charge on motorists who do not comply with a road user charge or on a building occupier who breaches the terms of a licence? (13)
What level of penalty charge might be appropriate for repeated violations? (14)
4.5 Exemptions and Privileges
4.5.1 The Scottish Executive would welcome views on what national exemptions or privileges, if any, should be specified in national legislation and what might be left to local discretion. A complex system of exemptions and privileges can be expected to increase the cost of administering a scheme and make enforcement more difficult. The Scottish Executive recognises that it will also be important that any exemptions or privileges are perceived as fair by those who will not benefit. In addition, the primary objective of road user charging and workplace parking levies is to combat congestion and pollution and a wide ranging list of exemptions will dilute the impact of these measures.
Exemptions for disabled people?
4.5.2 The Scottish Executive proposes a national exemption for emergency vehicles. The Scottish Executive seeks views on whether a national exemption might be justified for disabled people for whom an alternative to the car is not always viable. One option would be to grant exemption to vehicles which display a valid Orange Badge. However, there are currently almost 134,000 Orange Badges on issue in Scotland and the numbers vary markedly between local authorities. A blanket exemption could, therefore, lead to relatively large numbers of exemptions in some cases where charging/levy schemes are brought forward. In addition, Orange Badges are issued to individuals rather than vehicles, which would complicate administrative arrangements and potentially provide a further incentive to fraudulent use, for instance by other household members. As an alternative, a national exemption could be made for vehicles which have been adapted for use by a disabled person and are exempt from vehicle excise duty. In the absence of such national exemptions, authorities would be free to propose their own exemptions for disabled people.
Should there be a national exemption from charging and levy schemes for vehicles which display a valid Orange Badge? (15)
Should there be a national exemption for vehicles which have been adapted for use by a disabled person and are exempt from vehicle excise duty? (16)
Exemptions for two wheel vehicles?
4.5.3 The Scottish Executive invites views on the possibility of a national exemption for powered two wheel vehicles. Such vehicles do not constitute a significant proportion of the total amount of traffic on Scotland’s road, even in urban areas. There might be congestion and environmental benefits if car drivers were to switch to powered two wheel vehicle use, particularly scooters and mopeds, for some journeys but any increase in their use would have road safety implications. In the case of a road user charging scheme, including them could present practical difficulties, such as the mounting of electronic on-board units or secure display of permits. The Scottish Executive is inclined to leave decisions on exempting such vehicles to local discretion.
Should there be a national exemption from charging and levy schemes for powered two wheel vehicles? (17)
Other exemptions? (road user charging)
4.5.4 In the case of a road user charging scheme, the Scottish Executive is minded to leave other possible exemptions or privileges to local discretion. These might include exemptions or lower charges for buses and taxis, delivery vehicles, or residents or a cap on the number of times a day that a particular vehicle (such as a delivery vehicle, taxi or vehicle belonging to a local resident) must pay a cordon charge. These should be matters for local discussion and consultation before a scheme was introduced.
Should any other exemptions from a road user charging scheme be specified in national legislation? (18)
Exemption for vehicles not used for the journey to work? (workplace parking levy)
4.5.5 In the case of a workplace parking levy, the Scottish Executive takes the view that only private cars or motor vehicles used for the journey to work or in the course of personal business should be subject to the levy. This would mean that a licence would not have to cover vehicles such as dust-carts or other vehicles which are not associated with the journey to work. A similar argument might hold in relation to public service vehicles (such as buses) and other vehicles (such as lorries and other delivery vehicles) parked at their depots or bases. On the same lines, there may be a case for exempting vehicles parked at premises for repair, maintenance or storage purposes since a levy on these vehicles would be unlikely to have a significant effect on travel patterns. However, the Scottish Executive does not, at this stage, see a case for an exemption for vehicles used for the journey to work by employees required to work unsocial hours.
Should vehicles not used for the journey to work or for personal business - such as delivery vehicles (including taxis) — public service vehicles (such as buses) and vehicles parked at premises for repair, maintenance or storage purposes be given a national exemption from counting towards a workplace parking levy scheme licence? (19)
Exemption for certain types of premises? (workplace parking levy)
4.5.6 There may also be a case for exempting certain types of premises from the scope of a workplace parking levy. The Scottish Executive is minded to propose that the levy should apply to workplace parking at buildings owned by public bodies such as central and local government offices, schools, colleges and hospitals in the same way as it will apply to any employer. In the case of local authorities, this might seem anomalous, as the levy paid would simply be transferred from one local authority account to another. However, the receiving account would be ring fenced for transport purposes and the reduction in the resources available for other purposes which the levy would involve should encourage authorities to consider what they might do, as employers, to reduce car parking provision and car commuting, for example through green commuter plans. It will be important to have transparency in all such transactions. Equally importantly, there is an argument, on grounds of equity, for not exempting buildings occupied by local authorities and other public bodies. However, views on this general issue of how a levy might apply to workplace parking owned by public bodies are invited.
Should there be national exemptions from a workplace parking levy scheme for particular types of public buildings such as schools, colleges and hospitals? (20)
Should there be national exemptions from a workplace parking levy for all buildings occupied by local authorities and other public bodies? (21)
Exemption for buildings occupied by charities? (workplace parking levy)
4.5.7 The Scottish Executive does not propose to introduce a national exemption to the levy for buildings which are occupied by charities, but proposes that authorities should be able to make local exemptions. An exemption for charities could cover their offices as well as employee parking at educational establishments or hospitals which are run charitably. Some of these buildings will only have a small number of parking spaces, and may be exempted if the levy applies only above a specified threshold (see Section 4.6 below). But the size and nature of properties occupied by charities varies considerably. Consequently the Scottish Executive feels that exemptions in this category should be left to local discretion.
Should there be a national exemption from a workplace parking levy scheme for buildings which are occupied by charities? (22)
Exemption for employers already charging for workplace parking?
4.5.8 The Scottish Executive is aware that some employers already charge employees for workplace parking. There is therefore an argument that this already provides an incentive to their employees to review their travel decisions. Building occupiers which charge realistic amounts for parking might, therefore, be exempted from a levy. The Scottish Executive is not convinced of the merits of this argument or the practicalities of an exemption on this basis. It would be necessary to establish that the charge made was not a token one, and was not returned to drivers by other means. In addition, unless the revenue from the charge on employees is used to fund transport alternatives (see next paragraph), there seems no reason why such employers should escape the levy which other employers are paying.
Should organisations which already charge for workplace parking be partially or fully exempt from a workplace parking levy? (23)
Exemption for employers applying green commuter plans?
4.5.9 Some employers encourage their employees to shift from using their cars for commuting by, for example, funding alternative modes of transport through company transport plans or green commuter plans. The Scottish Executive is keen to see this approach being developed. There may, therefore, be a case for allowing organisations with effective green commuter plans to offset their liability for levy by the amount that they could clearly demonstrate that they had spent on promoting and supporting measures designed to reduce car journeys. However, it could be argued that effective green commuter plans should lead to a reduced need for parking provision and so the employer should benefit from a lower levy bill even without any exemption. In addition, the authority would have to be able to distinguish between effective and ineffective green commuter plans and to satisfy itself that the expenditure which employers claimed to have spent on such plans had genuinely been used for that purpose. This would introduce a significant extra volume of bureaucracy into the running of a scheme and to open up the possibility of significant complaints and appeals. It must, therefore, be questionable whether such an exemption would be worthwhile.
Should employers funding green commuter plans be partially or fully exempt from a workplace parking levy? (24)
4.6 Thresholds
4.6.1 In the case of a workplace parking levy, the Scottish Executive invites views on the possibility that the primary legislation should give a power to the Scottish Ministers to specify a threshold, based on the number of vehicles or parking spaces, above which the levy applies. A threshold exempting a limited number of vehicles, for example, would be particularly valuable to many small businesses, some of whom would gain complete exemption. It could also reduce the need for enforcement, although enforcement activity would still be needed to ensure that occupiers were not evading the levy by claiming a small user exemption to which they were not entitled. Where buildings are occupied by more than one employer and a car park is shared, the threshold exemption might apply only once to the building. However, as with exemptions generally, thresholds would dilute the traffic reducing impact of the levy. In addition, it is not immediately clear why small employers should receive privileged treatment in this area.
4.6.2 One possibility would be a simple absolute threshold which exempts a small number of vehicles - say the first 5-10 - parked at a site. This would reduce the administrative effort involved in compiling and managing a register of building occupiers and permitted parking. It may also be that it would not be cost effective for authorities to target small sites.
4.6.3 There are 2 obvious alternative approaches. The first would involve exemption for a small percentage of vehicles parked at each site. However, this would mean that all buildings would still need a licence and administrative effort would not be reduced. In addition, in large developments, a low percentage exemption could constitute a large absolute number of vehicles. The second would involve imposing the levy only on spaces in excess of the current planning standard. This would be administratively difficult, since assessment would have to be undertaken on a building-by-building basis. It would be possible to make by-and-large assessments according to building size, type and location. But it would be necessary to recognise the degree of arbitrariness that such an approach would have, given the range of standards across the country, and there would be considerable scope for disagreement over their application. This approach could also mean that a majority of spaces at many locations would be exempt from the levy, thus diluting its impact.
Should the primary legislation set a threshold on the number of vehicles parking above which the levy would apply? If so, how should it be specified and at what level should it be set? (25)
4.7 Enforcement
4.7.1 In a workplace parking levy scheme, the Scottish Executive proposes that where a car park is predominantly used by non-employees, eg at a retail centre, a building occupier should be required to mark out the places for employee use to facilitate quick and effective enforcement of the terms of a licence. Alternatively the holder of a licence could have a duty to provide the authority with satisfactory evidence that supports the figures contained in their licence application. A licensing authority that was not satisfied that the licence sought accurately reflected employee parking at the premises could make its own assessment of the number of employees actually likely to park on site. The final assessment of the company’s liability could be a matter for adjudication.
What arrangements are required to enable an authority to enforce the terms of a workplace parking levy licence where a car park is predominantly used by non-employees? (26)
4.8 Appeals and adjudication
4.8.1 The Scottish Executive proposes that the primary legislation will provide for an appeals procedure and the appointment of independent adjudicators. Authorities which introduce a charging or levy scheme would be subject to the appeals process, the administration costs of which would be met from the charge or levy (including penalty charge revenue). Appeals against a charging scheme penalty might arise in the event of equipment malfunction or if a stolen vehicle was involved in a transgression and there might be other extenuating circumstances which the authority might wish to consider.
4.8.2 In the case of a workplace parking levy, the Scottish Executive considers that there are at least 2 issues which might give rise to appeals. Firstly, there may be a dispute between the building occupier and authority over the number of vehicles to be provided for in a licence issued in respect of a property where parking is predominantly used by customers. The independent adjudicator would be responsible for deciding, on the balance of probability in the light of evidence provided, the figure at which the licence for the forthcoming year would be set.
4.8.3 The second issue could arise from a site inspection. The Scottish Executive considers that it must be a matter of fact how many vehicles are parked on-site at the time of an inspection, and whether or not the building owner or occupier is in breach of their licence. However, a car park may be quite large, and it may take some time to count all the vehicles in it, during which time vehicles may arrive and depart. The Scottish Executive considers that appeals should be allowed on the grounds that exempt or ineligible vehicles had been included in the count, that the inspector’s record of the occupant’s licence was incorrect, or that a mathematical error had been made in the count.
4.8.4 The Scottish Executive envisages a two stage appeals procedure, for both charging and levy schemes. If a dispute cannot be resolved between the authority and the road user or building occupier, there would be a right of appeal to an independent adjudicator. Rather than establish new bodies, an option that has initial appeal to the Scottish Executive would be to extend the remit of parking adjudicators involved in the Parking Adjudication Service which is currently being established in Scotland.
What provision should be made for appeals and independent adjudication? (27)
Should the independent adjudication service be based on the Parking Adjudication Service? (28)
4.9 The use of proceeds from road user charging and workplace parking levy schemes
4.9.1 Chapter 3 of this paper has stressed that the Scottish Executive recognises that local authorities will retain net revenues from charging/levy schemes and that projects aiming to improve local transport, particularly by promoting attractive alternatives to car use, should have the first call on these revenues. The potential of charging to generate large amounts of net revenue suggests that some authorities would, on the face of it, be able to fund substantial infrastructure projects. In many cases, this might be an appropriate response to local problems. However, in other cases, such projects may not offer the best value for money in terms of promoting the objectives of the Local Transport Strategy or may actually be poor value for money. This will be an issue which the Scottish Ministers will wish to scrutinise particularly carefully when approving schemes and, as noted in paragraph 3.2.15, the proposed legislation will not, therefore, restrict expenditure entirely to transport-related matters.
4.9.2 It will therefore be important that authorities proposing charging or levy schemes include in their public consultation material and in their submission to the Scottish Ministers both an estimate of anticipated net revenues (after set-up and administrative costs have been deducted) and a statement of how the net revenue will be used for a minimum period after implementation. The Scottish Executive is minded to say that the period should be at least 10 years, to tie in with the maximum period for which an order could remain in force.
4.9.3 The Scottish Executive would welcome views on whether the statement of intended use of revenues should be written into the enabling order. This would have the advantage of making it binding. It seems to the Scottish Executive that local authority priorities should not change dramatically over the 10 year period proposed. If this approach were to be adopted, the authority would have to bring forward an amendment order to change the purposes for which it was intended to use revenues during the 10 year period, or to establish a new spending plan at the end of the period.
How far ahead should proposals look in explaining how retained revenue will be used? Should the period be longer or shorter than the 10 years suggested by the Scottish Executive? (29)
Should an order giving an authority power to introduce a road user charging or workplace parking levy scheme, contain a statement setting out the intended use of revenues? (30)
4.10 Off-street parking
4.10.1 The Scottish Executive is aware of the need to prevent the introduction of a levy on workplace parking from displacing parking to public off-street car parks, particularly where car park operators are prepared to offer long term contract parking to companies or individual commuters. It seems to the Scottish Executive that there are three options in relation to such car parks:
4.10.2 The Scottish Executive feels that leaving public off-street car parks outside the ambit of the levy would weaken its potential impact if operators did not increase charges to reflect the introduction of the levy. On the other hand, increasing charges to reflect the introduction of the levy would provide operators with windfall gains unless the levy was payable. The Scottish Executive is also concerned that excluding public off-street parking from the scope of the levy would leave a potential loophole over the definition of "public car park" that might be exploited by the owners of workplace parking spaces, who might seek exemption from the levy by designating part of its car park as a "public" car park. Consequently the Scottish Executive’s initial preference is for the levy to apply to long stay and contract parking at public off-street car parks, whether owned by the private or public sector, but not to short-stay parking (possibly defined as 4 hours or less).
What measures are required to prevent the displacement of workplace parking to public off street car parks following the introduction of a workplace parking levy? (31)
Should a workplace parking levy apply to long stay and contract parking at public off-street car parks? (32)
|
|
|