4.5Table 7 shows that the cancellation rates for HBC and SBC are broadlysimilar at 20.2% and 22.77% respectively. Table 8 provides details of formalappeals that were made to the Parking Adjudicator and it can be seen that inScarborough a total of 3 appeals were successful compared with one inHarrogate. A greater number of appeals were refused in Scarborough (16)when compared with Harrogate (10). The number of appeals that wereuncontested by SBC (12) was much higher than the figure for HBC (1) andthe reasons for this will be explored further with both.4.6The information provided in the reports provides some useful initialcomparisons between the CPE operations in Harrogate and Scarboroughhowever, it must be remembered that the SBC scheme was only in operationfor two thirds of the 2007/08 financial year and therefore direct comparisonsare not possible. It must also be remembered that the two areas covered byCPE are quite different in terms of geographical size, seasonal differences intraffic patterns and the nature and extent of various types of traffic restrictions.The publication of national statistics in due course will allow the CountyCouncil to place the performance of both the SBC and HBC operations in amuch wider and useful context than is possible by making comparisonsbetween them both.
5.1The effective management of on-street parking is consistent with pursuing theCounty Council’s corporate priorities.
6.1This is not a matter which requires further consultation.
7.1This report and the associated appendices require publishing on the CountyCouncil website and making available in libraries.
8.1It is recommended that:(i)Executive Members note the annual reports for 2007/08 produced byHarrogate Borough Council (HBC) and Scarborough Borough Council(SBC) covering civil parking enforcement (CPE).(ii)This report and the associated appendices are published on the CountyCouncil website and made available libraries.
NYCC – 18.09.2008 – Exec MembersCivil Parking Enforcement – 2007/08 Annual Reports/3