PAPER E1

 

Purpose: For Decision

 

Committee:    REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE

 

Date:               3 DECEMBER 2002

 

Title:                REVISED POLICY FOR RESIDENTS PARKING       

           

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR TRANSPORT

 

IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 13 DECEMBER 2003

 

 

 


SUMMARY / PURPOSE 

 

1.      To approve a new policy for Residents’ Parking in the light of the considerations made by the Parking Task Group.

 

CONFIDENTIAL / EXEMPT ITEMS

 

  1. None

 

BACKGROUND

 

  1. At present, the Council operates several Residents’ Parking Schemes with differing parameters. Traditional on street schemes are administered by the Traffic & Transportation Section whilst, residents who live within 100 metre radius of a Pay & Display parking area are eligible for a discounted car park permit.  A separate, town-wide scheme operates in Yarmouth. Any Parking Strategy should encompass a consistent approach to residents’ parking Island-wide, but be flexible enough to reflect local circumstances.

 

  1. The present eligibility criteria for on street schemes are inappropriate and have lead to a number of anomalies. There are also inconsistencies in the hours and days of operation, which vary from one hour to 24 hours. Because of this, no new schemes have been introduced pending a policy revision for some time although requests for them continue to be received.

 

  1. Residential streets on the fringes of town centres and near railway stations and ferry terminals often attract commuters, shoppers and other visitors who park for long periods. This results in local residents having difficulty in parking near their homes if they do not have private driveways or garages. Resident’s parking schemes are often introduced to assist those living in the area, they are particularly applicable to areas with older terraced housing where there is seldom any off street parking. In view of the constraints these schemes impose on both residents and non-residents, considerable care must be taken to ensure that they are justified. Such schemes also have an important role to play as part of a demand management strategy.

 

  1. The Car Park Task Group, which has been considering residents parking, recognize the need for standardization and based on the experience of the 15 existing on street schemes recommend that days of operation should be Monday to Saturday inclusive with limited waiting throughout the day (typically 8am to 6pm) that permit holders would be exempt from. This will enable the vacant spaces to be used during the day by short stay visitors but allow residents to park all day.

 

  1. They also feel that zonal systems rather than individual schemes should be created and they should be considered on the basis of independent factual evidence rather than resident’s perceptions.

 

  1. The level of charges for motorcycles was also considered in relation to the cost of car permits as the Group considered they were too low, (£7pa against £60).  Members should be aware that no charge is made to park motorcycles in car parks and on street areas where charges are in force in recognition of their sustainability.

 

  1. The present criteria require 80% of properties to have no alternative off road parking, and the principle of a scheme accepted by 80% of the residents, be they car owners or not. In practice this has been difficult to accurately monitor.  An alternative method of assessment could be demand based. Where there was evidence (from survey results) that daytime parking occupied at least 75% of the available on street spaces in roads, which were predominately residential, a scheme could automatically be considered. A small proportion of spaces (25%) should be set aside exclusively for resident’s use to ensure that other demands did not totally exclude them.

 

  1. This should preclude streets that are traditional short stay town centre areas although any permanent residents could be eligible for a permit in an adjacent road.

 

  1. Upon the introduction of a scheme that is within the catchment area for an off street residents permit, that facility will be withdrawn.

 

12. The level of charges for permits also has to be addressed. At present the fee is £60 per annum, which has been rising steadily to bring it into line with the £80 fee charged for residents permits in off street car parks, whilst the charge for Yarmouth permits is only £15 p.a.

 

  1. The charge set should be consistent with the demand management strategy set out in the LTP.  Parking charges are generally considered as a method of regulating the use of a scarce resource rather than a source of raising revenue, indeed the uses to which any surpluses are put are strictly controlled.  Current policy is targeted at the use of the car rather than ownership, and whilst the cost and availability of parking is a factor in deciding whether to own a car or not, I do not feel that punitive charges for residential parking is productive in terms of LTP objectives, indeed a car owned by a resident parking near him home not only means he or she is not using it, but they are denying that space to someone else who has driven to the area.

 

14. A survey of charges levied by other Authorities reveals a wide range, some charge different rates for first and subsequent permits and offer visitors and business permits.

 

Table A

 

Authority

Annual Charge

Cambridge City

£41 car,    £20.50 m/c’s

Dover

£30 or £50 depending on area

Chelmsford

£16 first permit, £30 for 2nd, £45 for 3rd and £60 for 4th

Chester

£60

Derbyshire

£26 first permit, £50 for second

Enfield

£53

Kensington & Chelsea

£70 car; £18 motorcycle

Camden

£82

Tower Hamlets

£55

 

  1. Determining an appropriate level of charge is a balance between making it affordable and cover administration costs. The high level of take up in Yarmouth together with the Town Council’s involvement in permit issuing has meant that the costs were able to kept to a minimum. I anticipate a considerable expansion of residents’ parking zones if a more flexible policy is adopted and recommend that a significant reduction on the present charge could be considered.

 

  1. I recommend that an annual charge of £40 p.a. per vehicle should be charged for motor vehicles with a limit of two per household. Motorcycle charges should be increased to £10 p.a. These charges should be reviewed after 1 year to ensure that they are sufficient to cover administration and enforcement costs.

 

17. At present, residents’ parking schemes are enforced by the Police, primarily through the traffic warden system, and have traditionally been seen as low priority, however legislation does provide for them to be enforced by Local Authority attendants. If Decriminalised Parking Enforcement is introduced, this will be academic, but pending a decision upon this, I am recommending that the Council’s parking attendants take on responsibility for enforcement to give it a higher profile than has been the situation in the past and allow a more reactive response to complaints. It is likely that the equivalent of one additional full time attendant may have to be employed.

 

18. Schemes should only be introduced where sufficient alternative facilities are available to accommodate the displaced parking.

 

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

  1. Residents’ Parking schemes are consistent with the demand restraint strategy set out in the Council’s Local Transport Plan, and the corporate objective of developing the Island’s transport network for the benefit of local people.

 

CONSULTATION

 

  1. The revised policy has been developed from the considerations of the Car Park Task Group, written and verbal representations from existing permit holders, and consultations carried out on previous Traffic Regulation Orders relating to Residents’ Parking Schemes.

 

  1. All new schemes or amendments to existing ones will have to be formally advertised through the Traffic Regulation Order process that involves both statutory consultation and comments from the general public.  At the same time, consultation with Town and Parish Council’s will be undertaken through the Parish Protocol process.

 

FINANCIAL / BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

 

  1. Overall, the schemes should be self-financing. The proposed charges have been aimed at a level considered to be affordable and it is anticipated that this is sufficient to meet the relevant administration and enforcement costs. However, there will be a need to review these at an early stage. Any initial shortfall will have to be contained within the overall car parking budget.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

  1. The relevant powers are contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.  The procedure for introducing Traffic Regulation Orders is set out in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996. Any formal objections will be considered by the Regulatory Appeals Committee, and there is a six week period after the making of the final Order when it may be challenged in the High Court on procedural grounds only.

 

OPTIONS

 

a.         To continue with the existing policy

 

b.         To discontinue Residents Parking Schemes

 

c.         To introduce the new policy as outlined in the report.

 

d.         To introduce a modified policy.

 

 

EVALUATION / RISK MANAGEMENT

 

  1. There is dissatisfaction amongst a number of subscribers to existing schemes, whilst demand for new schemes continues as pressure on street parking increases. To continue with existing policies or discontinue the existing schemes would not satisfactorily address either of these issues.

 

  1. The revised policy seeks to provide a more flexible approach to parking distribution by providing residents in areas of high demand with priority, without sterilising the area for other short term uses.

 

  1. The risks associated with preferential parking are primarily those of displacement. To mitigate this, schemes should only be introduced where sufficient alternative facilities are available to accommodate the displaced parking.

 

  1. The experience of other authorities has been drawn upon, and post scheme monitoring is recommended to resolve any unforeseen issues.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

28. That Option C is adopted.

 

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

Agenda for the Environment & Transport Select Committee 21st January 2002.

 

Notes of the meetings of the Car Park Task Group held on 26th September and 3rd October 2002.

 

 

CONTACT POINT:   Peter Taylor – Engineering Services 823777 [email protected]

 

 

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services

E FOX

Portfolio Holder for Transport