Workplace parking levy for Scotland

A plan to give Scottish councils the power to introduce a workplace parking levy has divided opinion. Andrew Forster reports

Nottingham’s levy is now £415 per space

Nottingham’s levy is now £415 per space

The Scottish Government’s plan to give councils the power to implement a workplace parking levy has stirred up debate between supporters who see it as a new revenue stream for transport improvements, and detractors who see it is as a tax on work. Broadly the same power is already available to local authorities in England and Wales through the Transport Act 2000. Nottingham City Council is the only authority to have implemented a scheme so far and its experience has been  informing the Scottish debate. 

The proposed Scottish workplace parking levy powers have been tabled by the Green Party as an amendment to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. The SNP administration agreed to support the amendment as part of a deal with the Greens to ensure Parliament passed the Government’s 2019/20 budget (LTT 15 Feb). 

If a local authority uses the powers, employers in the area will have to apply for a licence for car parking. The cost of the licence will be based on the maximum number of vehicles that each workplace car park can hold, with a set charge for each space. Employers will be free to pass the charge on to staff. As well as employee parking the legislation covers business visitor parking and parking used by people attending education.

The powers include a national exemption for hospitals, NHS properties and blue badge holders. This was insisted on by the Government. Councils will be free to apply further exemptions.

Funds raised from the levy will be ringfenced for delivering transport improvements.

Opposing voices

Business representatives, trade unions and staff associations have all attacked the proposed powers in evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s rural economy and connectivity committee, which is scrutinising the legislation. 

Insurance firm Aviva says it has already done a deal with First Bus allowing staff to travel free of charge between Glasgow city centre and its office in Bishopbriggs. It wants the legislation amended, with councils required to exempt employers who have already carried out “every reasonable measure to reduce car use”.

“In circumstances where the employer has already invested in promoting other forms of transport, it is extremely difficult to see how the levy will have any impact on car use at all,” it says. “However much it is presented as an environmentally-friendly measure, the reality is the levy is a straightforward tax on business and, potentially, their employees.”

The Scottish Retail Consortium says business rates are already paid on parking spaces and so the levy “potentially introduces double taxation”. 

The Scottish Trades Union Congress says the levy is a “tax on workers”. “While the levy will be raised on employers, it is likely to be passed onto employees,” it says. As a flat tax, the union says it will have a “disproportionately negative impact on those with the lowest incomes”.

Public services union Unison Scotland’s evidence draws on experiences in Nottingham. “In Nottingham, our members found that increases to the workplace parking levy were widely passed on [to employees], had hit members hard and were not applied in a fair way. Unison members were in a recent dispute with the council after it proposed changes which led to a 60 per cent increase in the levy charges for hundreds of low-paid staff.”

Teachers’ union the Educational Institute for Scotland says essential public service workers should be exempt from the levy. Travelling by public transport is “problematic” for many teachers, it says. “Most teachers take work home, and this includes large amounts of marking or teaching materials. Taking cars to school allows teachers to efficiently and safely carry heavy loads between their places of work and homes.”

Social workers have also complained about the levy. “The sheer volume of casework social workers engage in on a day-to-day basis means that public transport is not a feasible option when carrying out statutory duties, which may involve multiple visits at multiple locations,” says the Scottish Association of Social Work. 

Edinburgh and Nottingham

The SNP administrations leading Edinburgh and Glasgow councils have expressed interest in using the power, with the City of Edinburgh Council being most enthusiastic. It estimates the levy could raise anything between £3m and £15m a year to invest in public transport infrastructure.

Edinburgh opposes any national exemptions being written into the Bill. “Any provision to limit local discretion by setting nationally directed and blanket exemptions is unhelpful. These decisions should be taken locally.”

Nottingham has given evidence about its scheme to the Parliament committee. The city introduced a levy in April 2012, which applies to employers providing 11 or more spaces. There are exemptions for fleet vehicles, blue badge holders, and 100 per cent discounts for the ambulance, police, fire and qualifying NHS premises.

The levy was initially set at £288 per  space a year and has risen gradually to now stand at £415. 

Chris Carter, Nottingham’s head of transport strategy, told MSPs: “It is important to say that the charge is only for spaces that are actually used, so if a business has contracted and is only using half of its car park, it only has to pay for the spaces that it uses. 

“We are up to about £9.5m of [annual] income, and about £500,000 per year goes into running the scheme, including the business support element,” he said.

The council says the number of workplace parking spaces liable for the levy fell from more than 32,000 before implementation to 24,970 in 2016/17. “Some employers have definitely redeveloped their car parks,” said Carter. “Nottingham Trent University is a good example of that. It had a number of surface car parks and it decided that it no longer required them.”

On whether the levy had influenced business locational decisions, Carter said: “We have not been able to identify any particular business that has moved out of Nottingham as a result of the levy.”

But he added: “When we have discussions about inward investment, the levy always comes up as a factor, but there is a trade-off in that businesses and offices want to come to the city centre because of the good public transport access. 

“The tram is a good attractor for people to invest in the city. Different businesses have different needs and, depending on those needs, they will see a high-quality public transport system as being important or – if they are particularly dependent on cars or business travel – as less suitable.”

Conservative MSP Jamie Greene quoted a BBC website article citing an employer who had moved from Nottingham to Derby citing the levy as an influence. Carter replied: “You can probably find one example, but I am not aware that there have been any significant movements out of Nottingham as a direct result of the levy.” 

Public sector employers had generally passed on the levy to their employees, he said. “When it comes to private businesses, probably half of the larger employers have passed it on, and fewer of the smaller employers. That is the broad picture.”

Carter said the council recommended that employers who pass the levy on should vary the charge according to  employees’ salaries, he said.

Nottingham wants to help other cities implement levies. The council’s written evidence to the Scottish Parliament says:  “Nottingham has the expertise and is willing to support other authorities thinking about taking their own scheme forward with less risk, reduced costs and quicker timescale than we could achieve (three to five years is probably now a realistic timescale). There is the opportunity to buy into Nottingham’s established back office and online management systems for more streamlined delivery.” 

English interest?

Liberal Democrat MSP Mike Rumbles praised the evidence provided by Nottingham but said it had also left him perplexed. “You have operated the scheme for seven years, so why has not one single authority in England and Wales copied you?” 

That may be about to change. Sue Flack, a former director of planning and transport at Nottingham City Council and now an independent consultant with a specialist interest in workplace parking levies, told the committee that a number of English authorities were now considering using the levy powers. 

Several London boroughs have shown interest including Sutton and Merton working together, Hounslow and Camden. 

“Birmingham City Council is at the very early stages and is carrying out a feasibility study on a workplace parking levy in the city centre, complementing city centre parking strategies and the forthcoming clean air zone,” she said.

“The mayor of Leicester [Peter Soulsby] was recently re-elected with an increased majority after including a WPL in his manifesto. Reading Borough Council is undertaking a comprehensive parking survey with the eventual aim of developing a borough-wide levy on a similar model to Nottingham. 

“Oxfordshire County Council has progressed a levy scheme for Oxford and is currently considering the pluses and minuses of a levy against a possible congestion charging scheme. 

“The Greater Cambridge Partnership undertook a series of projects to support a levy scheme but have not progressed further. It is my understanding that this is mainly because the current mayor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was not convinced of the benefits.”

Mibbes aye, mibbes naw

Glasgow City Council has called for the powers to be more wide-ranging, covering all non-residential parking, such as shoppers’ car parks as well as workplaces (LTT 17 Dec 18).  Anna Richardson, the council’s convenor for sustainability and carbon reduction, told MSPs: “That does not mean that we are necessarily in favour of that approach, it means that we want to explore all the options and, by doing so, perhaps make the scheme of interest to local authorities that do not have as strong a travel-to-work situation as Glasgow has. 

“In Glasgow we have made a clear case that we are working on our transport strategy and, as part of it, we would like to be able to explore the workplace parking levy. I cannot be stronger in my commitment, based on what Glasgow City Council has said so far.”