PAPER A

POLICY COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting	Policy Commission for Safer Communities
Ref	Saf.PC.15/9/05
Date	15 September 2005
Time	1800hrs
Place	Committee Room 1, County Hall, Newport
Purpose of meeting	Formal public meeting
Attendance	Commission	Cllrs David Williams (Commissioner); Henry Adams; Vanessa Churchman; Susan Scoccia
	Cabinet
	Secretariat	Cllr Alan Wells
	Officers	Mr Andrew Shorkey; Ms Astrid Davies; Mr Rob Owen; Mr Peter Taylor
	Stake holders	Mr Norman Downie, RTA Associates; Mr Mark Chiverton, UNISON
	Apologies	Cllrs Heather Humby; Diane Tuson; Arthur Taylor
Agenda Items
1. Notes of previous meeting (Paper A)	The notes of the previous meeting were agreed as a true record of the evidence received.
2. Declarations of interest	There were no declarations of interest.
3. To receive a briefing on Decriminalisation of Parking Enforcement (DPE) from Mr Norman Downie of RTA Associates (Paper B)	Evidence received Background 1. Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) was a process by which the responsibility for non-endorsable stationary parking offences was transferred from the Police service to the Local Authority. 2. The powers to apply for DPE were contained within the Road Traffic Act 1991. 3. All Local Authorities in London had taken on responsibilities for parking enforcement by 1995. 4. In order to decriminalise parking enforcement Local Authorities would have to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for a Special Parking Area (SPA) Order. 5. An SPA is a geographical designation. 6. The application to the Secretary of State must demonstrate that the scheme is self-funding. 7. Currently Police forces were reducing traffic warden services. 8. Parking offences were now a low priority for traffic wardens. 9. Many traffic wardens were now recruited as Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). 10. Parking enforcement was decreasing as a trend. 11. Although Hampshire Constabulary had not reduced parking enforcement staff, it had not replenished vacant posts. 12. Managing ‘on-street’ parking would be an important aspect of traffic management. 13. Nearly every Authority on the south coast had DPE. 14. Over 130 Authorities in England and Wales had DPE (this figure includes nearly all major urban areas). 15. There would be no timescale as yet in which DPE must be implemented by Local Authorities. However, it would only be a matter of time that a two tier enforcement system would be tolerated nationally from a civil liberties perspective. Enforcement Powers 16. DPE would allow Authorities to make traffic orders and decide how they would be enforced. 17. Vehicles could be clamped and removed (this would be unusual outside of metropolitan areas). 18. The Traffic Management Act would allow for moving enforcement: e.g. infringements within bus lanes. Implications 19. An application for an SPA on the Isle of Wight would have to cover the entire Island as the Police service would object if this were not the case. 20. Due to the Island’s clearly defined boarders it would make sense to designate the entire Island. 21. Under DPE infringements would no longer be heard in the Magistrates Court. 22. Debt recovery would be processed through the automated Northampton County Court system. 23. The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) exists to hear disputed cases. 24. Income derived from DPE would stay within the local economy. 25. According to the Transport Research Laboratory: ‘DPE Works’. 26. Evidence from Winchester City Council (the first Authority outside of London to introduce DPE) suggests that DPE impacts positively on business viability and accessibility: Ø Increased parking availability and parking turnover; Ø Yellow line infringements reduced by half; Ø Increased off-street parking usage and related revenue. 27. DPE would provide protection from commuter traffic for residents. 28. DPE would improve road safety for cyclists and pedestrians that would be at risk due to reduced levels of parking enforcement. 29. DPE would allow Local Authorities to charge in car parks where motorists’ behaviour, due to a lack of enforcement, previously prevented this. 30. A level of illegal parking would need to be condoned for DPE to be sustainable; experience suggests that this would be the case in most authorities. For example High Wicombe ticket approximately 5% of contraventions. 31. The Island currently has the car park capacity to sustain DPE. The £50 parking ticket could impact upon this sustainability. Finance 32. The cost to set up the scheme would be approximately £330K. 33. The £330K figure projected would be based on an in-house DPE operation and considered capital purchases and initial revenue consequences. 34. A pessimistic projection suggested that there would be a deficit of £140K and £150K in the first year. 35. It could take at least 2 years to become cost neutral. 36. The cost of minimal ICT upgrade requirements was factored into the projected cost of implementation (ICT facilities were upgraded 18 months ago in anticipation of DPE). 37. There would be no specific financial assistance available from central Government to implement DPE. However, some Authorities have obtained funding via the Local Transport Plan (LTP). 38. Other than personnel there would be no resources transferred from the Police service to the Local Authority. 39. Presently income from parking enforcement would go to the Exchequer. 40. There would never be significant surpluses generated by DPE. 41. Surplus income from ‘on-street’ parking enforcement would be ring-fenced for Highways matters and environmental schemes (‘Excellent’ CPA rated Authorities would have more freedom to spend surpluses). 42. The ring-fencing, of surpluses is becoming increasingly relaxed for a wider variety of purposes. 43. Most Authorities enforce at the maximum permitted level of £60 (£30 payable within 14 days). 44. The Police’ Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) was currently £30. 45. In Reading surpluses generated over 5 years were used to finance the scheme. Implementation Process 46. The biggest single task during the set-up process would be the review of all ‘lines and signs’ to ensure that they corresponded with existing Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). Failure to do so could result in successful challenges to the issuing of enforcement notices. 47. Steps to DPE: Ø Business Plan – in-house or outsourced Ø Formal agreement with police Ø TRO lines and signs review Ø Application to the Secretary of State Ø Consultation with statutory consultees Ø Become member of the National Adjudication Service (NAS) Ø Implementation of PR strategy Ø Implementation of IT set-up Ø Recruitment of personnel Ø Determine procedures (e.g. how long to observe unloading vehicles, etc.) 48. Policies need to be established: where and when enforcement will occur; how seasonal variations will be dealt with; how demand will be reacted to and prioritised. 49. Changing policies would alter the financial balance initially projected. 50. It is usual for Authorities to implement DPE for less than the projected set-up costs. 51. An inconsistency in the condition of ‘lines and signs’ would make it difficult to cost DPE precisely. 52. It would not be necessary to deal with all ‘lines and signs’ prior to the implementation of DPE; DPE could be phased in based on priority areas. 53. It should take a minimum of 1 year to from a formal decision to implement DPE – Peterborough achieved implementation in under a year. 54. There are good and bad times to implement DPE: it would be more advantageous to ‘go live’ during the post Christmas winter months. Contracting Out 55. Contracting out DPE could save 1/2 to 1/3 of the projected set-up costs. 56. Advantages of using contractors: Ø Provision of capital (Manchester City did not spend any money on setting up DPE) Ø Experience and expertise facilitates a quicker start-up which in turn generates an earlier cash flow and financial balance Ø Extra enforcement can be provided for special events and seasonal peaks 57. Disadvantages of using contractors: Ø Not good at dealing with correspondence about parking tickets Ø Contracting out can cost 20% more than providing an in-house service 58. Generally, an ideal set-up from a consultant’s perspective would be to contract out frontline enforcement activities and maintain administrative functions in-house. 59. Externalising/contracting out does not significantly affect the implementation time frame. 60. The DPE contract would be excluded from EU procurement restrictions. 61. A number of Authorities have contracted out and then brought DPE administration back in-house. 62. Sandwell Council started in-house and then contracted out. Public Relations 63. Delivering the correct PR message is extremely important. Members must deliver a consistent message that DPE is not about raising surplus revenue. DPE is part of the wider transport context to manage traffic more effectively to improve the economic activity of town centres. 64. Reactions to DPE: Ø Media: Neutral (at best), usually mixed with some positive aspects. Ø Traders and retailers: Initially hostile. However, the increased turnover of vehicles in turn increases the number of shoppers that have access to retail establishments leading to positive opinion. On occasion retailers ask for increased levels of enforcement. Ø Residents: Positive. Residents protected from the impact of displaced motorists that cannot park in town centres. Ø Drivers: No problem, except for delivery drivers and ‘white van man’. Ø Pedestrians and Cyclists: Benefit from a safer highways environment. Staffing 65. Staff turnover is a particular issue when considering DPE. 66. There would need to be an estimated 30 parking attendants to enforce DPE. 67. It would be appropriate to start DPE at a lower staffing level, assess any noticeable change in parking behaviour and then increase personnel as required. 68. Traffic wardens are protected under TUPE. They have a right to be transferred to the Council workforce where their existing terms and conditions, including pension rights, must be maintained.
4. To hear representations from UNISON with respect to concerns over the potential implications of DPE for staff (Paper C)	Evidence received 69. Staff would not have a problem with the concept of DPE. 70. Staff would embrace the opportunity to learn new skills and take on more responsibilities. 71. Staff would be apprehensive about any move to externalise parking enforcement. Car park attendants are not well paid. Pay and conditions have suffered as a consequence of DPE in externalisation. 72. Staff would like to maintain what is seen as the public delivery of a public service. 73. Staff would prefer that parking enforcement is preserved in-house within a public service ethos. 74. Of the nine Authorities in the south that have implemented DPE only 2 have externalised in any way. 75. Islington came into disrepute when they externalised DPE.
Action required