5
Report to Scrutiny Panel
Name of Scrutiny Panel
Economy and Environment
Meeting Date
3 March 2016
Subject
On Street Parking
Wards Affected
All
Report of
Type of Item
(please tick )
Director of Economy and Environment
Review existing policy
Development of new policy
Performance management (inc. financial)
Briefing (inc. potential areas for scrutiny)
Statutory consultation
Council request
Cabinet request
Member request for scrutiny (CCFA) X
Why is it coming here?

Panel Member Request for scrutiny
What are the key points?





An overview of “On-Street” Parking in the Borough including:
Impact of obstruction and damage to footpaths;
Pavement parking;
Inconvenience to service vehicles (eg. gritters, ambulances and waste and recycling
collection vehicles);
Council / Others legislative powers – monitoring and enforcement.
Possible courses of action
 This report is designed for information on the current position
Contact Officer
 Debbie Harrison, Parking Operations Manager
Should this report be exempt?
 No
1
Report to Scrutiny Panel
1.
Background
Overview of On Street Parking
1.1.1 The Council took over the responsibility for the enforcement of ‘On Street’ parking
from the police in November 2006 following the decriminalisation of parking in
Calderdale and carried out enforcement under the Road Traffic Act 1991.
1.2
In 2008 the legislation changed to Civil Parking Enforcement and enforcement is
carried out under the Traffic Management Act 2004.
1.3
The parking enforcement is carried out by Indigo Park (formally Vinci Park)
following the outsourcing of the enforcement team in 2010.
1.4
The Council is now responsible for the enforcement of parking restrictions both on
street and in Calderdale managed car parks. These include enforcement of:










Yellow Lines
Resident bays
Pay and Display bays
Loading Bays
Disabled Bays
Taxi Bays
Bus Stop Clearways
School Keep Clear Markings
Dropped Kerbs
Double Parking (more than 50cms from a kerb)
1.5
Obstructive parking, where there are no formal parking restrictions in place is a
police matter, but this type of incident is not categorised as a priority by the Police.
1.5
In 2014/15 - 10,820 Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) were issued to vehicles
parked in contravention of ‘On Street’ parking restrictions compared to 12,595
PCN’s in 2013/14. Note: There is a decrease here due to the suspension of
charges in 2014/15, due to the error found within the TRO’s.
1.6
The current parking enforcement contract is due to expire in March 2017 and a
report is due to go to Cabinet in April 2016 relating to the procurement of a new
contract.
2.
Main issues for Scrutiny
Pavement Parking
2.1
Calderdale Council occasionally receives complaints regarding motorists parking
vehicles on footways but is in no way inundated with such requests. Out of those
that it receives there are only a few that the Council are unable to deal with by way
of issuing a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2
2.2
Parking on a footway is not currently an offence unless the vehicle has a gross
weight in excess of 7.5 tonnes (includes any trailer).
2.3
It is an offence to obstruct a footway (Regulation 103 Road Vehicles (Construction
and Use) Regulations 1986, which states, “No person in charge of a motor vehicle
or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road (includes footway) so
as to cause any unnecessary obstruction”). Proving this offence is very subjective
and is down to the independent interpretation of a Police Officer and subsequently
a court.
2.4
Any driving on a footway is also an offence and one would have to initially drive
onto in order to park, however, this is a moving traffic offence and a Police Officer
must witness the driving offence before being able to prosecute; it can't be dealt
with retrospectively.
2.5
Currently formal waiting restrictions (yellow lines) cover parts of the adopted
highway which include the footway, so if such a restriction was present and a
vehicle was parked on the footway behind the yellow line/s the Councils Civil
Enforcement Officers (CEO’s) could issue a PCN for contravention of the waiting
restrictions.
2.6
The issuing of a PCN does not remove the vehicle from being parked on the
footway. It provides a financial penalty and a reminder to the driver that they
shouldn’t park on the footway.
2.7
In order to remove the vehicle, we would have to tow it away. The Council does
not currently tow/remove any vehicles due to the following reasons:





The funding/resources required to implement a towing policy outweighs the
number of reports we receive.
For removal/towing of any vehicle, Cabinet approval is required.
As an authority, we have no in house experience in towing and/or removals.
There are no current systems or contractors in place.
There is no policy or procedure in place.
2.8
The CEO’s as a matter of course, deal with any vehicle they observe parked on
the pavement in contravention of any parking restrictions. Where they receive an
alleged report of pavement parking and we are able to enforce this is subject to a
Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) being in place. Where there is no TRO in place, the
customer would be referred to their local Neighbourhood Policing team.
2.9
The police (under Regulation 3), do not require a TRO in place in order to tow a
vehicle they believe to be causing an obstruction. There is no parallel provision in
the 1986 Regulations to enable the Council to do this.
3.
Maintenance
3.1
In terms of damage to pavements and the general infrastructure, this is a
persistent and borough wide problem and is not unique to Calderdale. It almost
certainly accounts for most of the damage we encounter. Vehicles that mount the
pavement loosen the stone flags making them dangerous and potential trip
hazards.
3
Irresponsible parking also causes issues for our winter maintenance (gritting)
activities, and waste collections and there have been instances where, despite our
best efforts, the route(s) has had to be withdrawn or amended as the road is
inaccessible.
3.2
In 2013/14 the Council received 65 claims relating to trips/slips on the footways.
These vary from damage to kerb stones, uneven flag stones to missing/damaged
utility covers. The potential cost of these 65 claims is £285k.
In 2014/15 the Council received 44 claims relating to slips and trips on the
footways. The potential cost of these claims is currently £297k.
It should be noted that these are only potential costs, as many of the claims are
still being investigated and remain unsettled. The cause of the defect in the
footway, which is alleged to have caused the injury, is not proven to be pavement
parking, but in some cases it is likely to be so.
4.
Additional Factors taken into consideration:
4.1
Calderdale was founded on textiles, engineering and other manufacturing
industries. The housing varies from the barn and mill conversions in the more rural
areas to rows of cramped terraces on narrow streets in our town centres. The
district generally has a relatively low proportion of detached/ semi-detached
houses and a far higher proportion of terraced housing, which is where the issues
of pavement parking tend to occur. These types of older properties were designed
without appreciation of future vehicle use which leads to the current conflict.
Should a TRO be introduced for pavement parking it is likely that more vehicular
displacement and parking issues would occur on other parts of the highway
network.
4.2
Car ownership has increased significantly over the last 10 - 20 years and in many
areas can outweigh the available kerb space, with most households having one or
more vehicle(s). With many roads across the borough being narrow, mounting the
pavement with two wheels is sometimes the only option available to them to avoid
causing any unnecessary obstructions to other vehicles, including emergency
services and refuse vehicles. These types of roads cannot accommodate parallel
parking fully on the carriageway whilst also allowing vehicles to pass freely and
safely.
4.3
In order to enforce pavement parking, should the relevant TRO be introduced, the
road/footpath needs to be clearly signed (as it does for any parking enforcement to
take place). Not only is there a cost for the erection of signage, it is finding an
appropriate location for it, so it does not obstruct properties, but it is clear to a
motorist. In the small rows of terraces, this can sometimes prove difficult and
become confusing for the motorists.
4.4
Sign Clutter - The DfT issued a Traffic Advisory Leaflet in January 2013 (01/13)
with advice on reducing ‘sign clutter’ as it was identified that many authorities have
an over provision of signs which can have a detrimental impact on the
environment. It can also dilute or confuse the important messages, resulting in
4
confusion and information overload for drivers in addition to creating a
maintenance liability for the Council.
4.5
In terms of enforcement, consideration needs to be given to the Traffic Penalty
Tribunal (TPT), which considers appeals against PCN’s from drivers, where the
Council has previously rejected them. The first thing TPT ask when considering an
appeal is where are the signs to support the restriction and was it clear to the
motorist? If we are unable to demonstrate this, it is likely that the appellant would
win their appeal and potentially affect the reputation of the Council.
4.6
It is believed that many motorists who park on the pavement, do so in
consideration to other motorists and to avoid obstructing the carriage way and flow
of traffic. It is recognised that this is sometimes to the detriment of pedestrians
and other vulnerable road users as well as causing an inconvenience to service
vehicles such as waste/recycling, emergency services, gritters.
5.
Consultation
CMBC Disability Liaison Officer (also a member of the Disability Partnership
Calderdale Group)
6.
Options
6.1
The principal options are:





Maintain the current situation
To promote a Borough wide pavement parking TRO
To promote a localised pilot TRO
To pursue a communications / persuasion campaign against pavement parking
Use waiting restrictions as a proxy to facilitate pavement parking enforcement
It is recommended that we maintain the current situation as we are not inundated
with complaints and have received none whatsoever from any emergency services
or directly from the disabled, with a more proactive approach taken on receipt of
reports of pavement parking. Where we receive a number of localised reports, a
small media campaign will be carried out, in partnership with the police, where we
letter drop and then follow up with localised enforcement.
It is believed that the promotion of a borough wide TRO would cause more
problems than it would resolve in terms of displacement on the highway network.
7.
Conclusions
7.1
It is acknowledged that pavement parking can be a problem and can cause
obstructions for pedestrians and vulnerable road users and can cause an
inconvenience to service vehicles, in addition to causing damage to the footways
infrastructure.
7.2
It is possible to ban parking on footways or verges independently of the main
carriageway. In 2011 the DfT gave all local authorities special authorisation to use
new signs alongside a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), but consideration of this
needs to be proportionate and only introduced where appropriate.
5
7.3
A method of assessment and prioritisation would need to be developed when
considering which roads would be appropriate for a pavement parking restriction
order and all other solutions explored prior to this. Consideration would need to be
given to the class of road, width of road and footpath, availability of residential
parking and the pedestrian activity.
7.4
All waiting restrictions (yellow lines) require the promotion of a TRO. The above
authorisation from the DfT does not relieve local authorities of this substantial task
for footway parking, it simply authorises the use of these new signs in the highway
to show that footway parking is prohibited.
7.5
The cost of a TRO still has to be met by the local authority, the typical cost due to
the legal requirements of consultation/advertisement being £3,000 to £5,000, with
an approximate timescale of 12 -18 months to implement.
7.6
The DfT did agree to consider amending the regulations to allow local authorities
to introduce pavement parking bans without the need for a TRO (similar to Bus
Stop clearways), however no timescales have been given as to when this might
happen.
7.7
There is no quick and easy solution to pavement parking problems and it is very
much a balancing act, but where possible the issue is best addressed by the
police. There is a great reliance on individuals not creating the problem in the first
instance. The local authority does have powers, subject to introducing a TRO,
(with the erection of the necessary signs) to ban pavement parking, but as above,
at a cost.
7.8
The Council has a Minor Traffic and Parking Improvement Policy. Where requests
are received for enforcement of pavement parking, other alternatives could be
considered such as the introduction of formal waiting restrictions. Again this
involves a TRO, but may reduce the requirement for additional signage.
8.
Appendices
None
9.
Background documents
The official reasons for withdrawing the Bill
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151204/debtext/
151204-0001.htm#15120444000003
The Bill paper and background documents:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201516/pavementparkingprotectionofvulnerablepedestrians.html
The briefing paper for MPs debating the issue:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01170/SN01170.pdf
The BBC article (includes the legal position):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34988833
6
10.
Documents available for inspection at
Not applicable
7