I have provided a lot of information, but I am going to concentrate on the Council’s interest – not on the interests of the traders.

Three questions:

  1. Were the charges in force in Malton before the trial (18 July 2006 - 17 September 2007) increasing income, or had the Council priced itself out of the market?
  2. Did the trial adversely affect the Council’s financial interest?
  3. Did the reimposition of the old fee structure after the trial raise the Council’s income above the pore-trial levels?

Committee concluded:  “During the trial, taking all factors into account, it is difficult to argue either way with certainty as to the success of the trial”. It follows that the committee REJECTED the officers’ conclusions that the trial had failed.

Committee also concluded that: “ “Whilst over the period of the trial, the figures show some decline in overall revenues across all Malton car parks,  there was evidence from previous years that income was declining and the rate of decline reduced during the trial period, but it was not apparent that this was  as a result of the trial.”

I want to examine this statement:

Refer to the bundles.

  • The officers say that up until 2005, revenues from car parks increased.
  • On 1st April 2005 the Council increased charges by 25%
  • Immediately afterwards, revenue declined.
  • Evidence for this:
    • Revenue for months April May June 2006 less than for April May June 2005  by £2,701 (5.68%)
    • Chart 1 shows a downwards trend.
      CHART 1
    • In the 12 months July 2007 - June 2008, the Council received revenue from all Malton car parks which was less than the year before the trial by £7,329.
    •  This 12 month period includes the last two months of the extended trial, during which the revenue was £1,199 more than the same months of 2005.

It follows that, if there had been no trial, the downward trend in income would have continued during the trial period, and therefore the Council could not have expected to receive, during that period, the same amount of revenue that it had received in the year before the trial.

In fact, the Council could not have received during the trial period £4,893 more than  it received the year before the trial (£13,421 - £7,329 - £ 1,199).

It’s no good saying that other factors may have come into play, because I am not aware of any substantial changes which occurred during this 3 year period – other than changes in car park tariffs. 

It follows:

    • Imposing a 25% increase on April 1 2005 did not result in an increase in revenue;
    • Chart 2 shows that the revenue received during the trial showed an upwards trend;
    • CHART 2
    •  Reimposing the previous level of charges in September 2007  did not result in raising revenue to the pre-trial levels.
    • The Council has priced its Malton car parks out of the market: if the Council seriously wants to increase its revenue from car park fees in Malton, there MUST be a big reduction in fees.



Privacy Policy