PAPER C
POLICY COMMISION
BLUE PAPER
|
RESPONSIBLE BODY Policy
Commission for Safer Communities |
|
|
PROJECT NAME Decriminalising Parking |
REFERENCE NUMBER Saf3/05 |
|
1 BACKGROUND TO PROJECT THE NATIONAL CONTEXT: 1.1.
Under the provisions
of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (RTA) Local Authorities outside of London were
permitted to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport (SoS) to
decriminalise the enforcement of certain parking offences in a designated
area.1 1.2.
According to the
Department for Transport (DfT): ‘[decriminalised parking enforcement] (DPE)
powers allow local authorities to take over responsibility for enforcing
parking contraventions from the police and to retain the funds received from
penalties to fund their enforcement activities.’1 1.3.
Decriminalised
parking enforcement (DPE) powers were initially implemented by the 33 London
Boroughs during 1993/94.2
By 2006 in excess of 140 Local Authorities outside of London had also
taken up DPE powers.3 1.4.
Local Authorities
must submit a detailed proposal to the SoS outlining their case for a Special
Parking Area (SPA) Order: an Order designating a specified geographical area
where parking enforcement will be decriminalised. The proposal must demonstrate that the scheme is self-funding. 1.5.
DPE powers can only
be taken up once the SoS has considered such a proposal and, following
consultation with the appropriate Chief Officer of the police, made an Order
designating an area as a SPA. However,
there is scope for the extension of DPE powers: The SoS is enabled by order
to ‘add to the list of parking offences enforceable in a PPA [permitted
parking area]/SPA outside London.1 1.6.
According to the DfT
‘Some authorities outside London have approached the Department about the
possibility of extending the scope of DPE contraventions. This is because DPE
has highlighted the offences, such as parking at taxi stands and parking on
or near pedestrian crossings (an endorsable offence), which are not always
effectively enforced by the police who cannot give priority to parking enforcement
as they have higher priorities for deployment of their resources. Another
problem where the police are not always able to act is in dealing with double
parking, which is basically an offence of obstruction.’1 1.7.
According to DPE
consultant Norman Downie, parking enforcement by the police is decreasing as
a trend.4 1.8.
Although the Government have reserved powers to
require Local Authorities to take on DPE5, there is no
prescribed timeframe in which DPE must be implemented by Local
Authorities. However it [will] only
be a matter of time that a two tier enforcement system will be tolerated
nationally from a civil liberties perspective.’4 THE LOCAL CONTEXT: 1.9.
A project to deliver DPE on the Isle of Wight was
initially considered by The Roads & Transportation Committee in July
1999, when officers were instructed to prepare a submission to be referred
back to members for final approval.
This project was put on hold as there was no budget available to carry
out the preliminary work required.
This budgetary issue remains. 1.10.
There are a number
of factors driving the Council’s application to decriminalise parking
enforcement on the Isle of Wight: 1.10.1
The Police Service increasingly need to divert
limited resources to higher priority areas.
This is strongly illustrated by the fact that 2 of the 5 Police
Traffic Wardens (TWs) based on the Isle of Wight are transferring to Police
Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and the remaining 3 TWs have applied to do
likewise: although the Hampshire Constabulary have not reduced parking
enforcement staff it has not replenished vacant posts. There has been a visible decline
in the number of Penalty Notices issued for parking offences since 2001: 6200
in 2002; 5000 in 2003; 4500 in 2004; and 2500 in the first six months of
2005.6
1.10.2
Currently there are
in excess of 72,000 vehicles registered on the Island and these are
supplemented by 14,500 visiting vehicles at any one time during the peak
summer months. Growth projections
suggest that there will be approximately 105,000 vehicles on Island roads by
2020.6 1.10.3
The
Local Transport Plan (LTP) seeks to
improve accessibility for all, reduce congestion and help to increase travel
options and encourage travel by sustainable means, ‘whilst taking into
consideration the needs of those for whom use of the private car is a
necessity.’7 1.10.4
The Traffic Management Act places a duty on
The Council to keep traffic moving and gives Government reserved powers to
require The Council to take up DPE. 1.10.5
Currently, all revenue from penalties issued
by police or TWs goes to the Treasury whereas under DPE, this money could be
retained in the local economy. 1.11.
References: 1 Department for
Transport, 2005, Road Traffic Act 1991:
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Consultation, London, p.1 2 National Parking Adjudication
Service 3 Department for Transport, 2005, List
of English Local Authorities with DPE Powers. London 4 Overview and Scrutiny
Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence: 15.9.05,
Isle of Wight Council, p.1 5 Downie, Norman, 2005, Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement Briefing Paper, RTA Associates. P.1 6 Information provided by
IWC Traffic
and Transportation Service 7 Isle of Wight
Provisional Local Transport Plan, p.86 |
|
|
2 PURPOSE OF ENQUIRY AND PROPOSED OUTCOME 2.1.
To deliver a policy to cabinet to enable the authority to apply to the
Secretary of State to decriminalise parking on the Island. 2.2.
To increase levels
of safety on Island roads. 2.3.
To improve traffic
flows at congestion black spots. 2.4.
To ensure that
revenue from parking infringements remains in the local economy. 2.5.
More efficient use
of resources. |
|
|
· 3 CONSULTATION EVIDENCE ·
3.1
The Commission has consulted widely through
formal and informal meetings, public advertisement, iwight.com and written
correspondence with: · Town
and Parish Councils, · Hampshire
Constabulary, · Isle
of Wight Councillors, · Isle
of Wight Council officers, · the
Safer Communities Partnership, · the
local business Community, · Community
Forums, · the
Isle of Wight Rural Community Council, · the
local community, · UNISON · RTA
Associates 3.2
Commission meeting notes and written
responses to this consultation are identified in the appendices to this blue
paper. |
|
|
4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED 4.1
FINANCIAL: 4.1.1
As a return against
preliminary costs may not be realised DPE cannot be progressed to implementation
until members have formally passed a resolution to adopt the scheme and fund
the preliminary work required. The
estimated cost for preliminary work is £330K. No budget has yet been identified to fund DPE. 4.1.2
According to the
consultant, there could be an operating deficit in year 1 of up to £150K. 4.1.3
It could take at least
two years to become cost neutral. 4.1.4
Income derived from DPE can be retained by
the Local Authority to fund DPE operations. 4.1.5
Surplus income from ‘on-street’ parking
enforcement would have to be ring-fenced for highways matters and
environmental schemes. 4.1.6
Authorities with a high CPA rating may have
more freedom to spend surpluses. 4.1.7
The Commission’s research suggests that
there would never be significant surpluses generated by DPE. 4.1.8
Other than personnel, there would be no
other resources transferred from the police service. 4.1.9
Traffic Wardens are currently on a higher
rate of pay than IWC Parking Attendants (PAs). A job evaluation following the roll-out of DPE in Southampton
resulted in the salary of PAs increasing significantly. 4.2
STRATEGIC: 4.2.1
Growth in parking
enforcement activity should be balanced by advances in viable alternatives
for car users. It is recognised that
this project has clear links to the enquiries into delivering a £50 Parking
Permit for Council Car Parks (E2/05) and the Highways Private Finance
Initiative (PFI) (E3/05). 4.2.2
It is essential that
the consultation process is thorough and open in order that there is no
misunderstanding resulting in a public perception that DPE is a revenue
raising scheme, particularly as the project’s financial viability is based on
its self-funding status. 4.2.3
It is also recognised that the Council is
seeking to rationalise its enforcement activity on the Island and that a
clear link can be drawn to the ongoing enquiry into the establishment of a Corporate
Enforcement Department within the Council (Saf4/05) and the Accredited
Community Support Officer Scheme (ACSO). 4.3
OPERATIONAL: 4.3.1
An application by the Council to the SoS for
an SPA Order would have to cover the entire Island as the Police service
would likely object if this were not the case. 4.3.2
Due to the Island’s clearly defined boarders
it would make sense to designate the entire Island. 4.3.3
Under DPE infringements would no longer be
heard in the Magistrates Court and debt recovery would be processed through
the automated Northampton County Court System. 4.3.4
The best time to implement DPE would be
during the post Christmas winter months as it would allow sufficient time for
staff training prior to the Spring/Summer when demand for parking increases
significantly. 4.3.5
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. 4.3.6
Superficially there will be no noticeable
change for road users other than the organisation which employs enforcement
officers. However, there may be a significant increase in the number of
penalty notices issued as this will be the sole remit of parking attendants
whereas this is a somewhat secondary role for the police. 4.3.7
As the Council will have the power to
determine where parking is permissible and prohibited it is likely that, in
view of the aspirations of the Local Transport Plan, gradually more areas may
become subject to enforcement. 4.3.8
According to the UNISON representative, although
staff had no issues with the concept of DPE there were certain reservations
about being transferred to a private contractor: ‘pay and conditions have
suffered as a consequence of DPE externalisation.’1 It was
highlighted that ‘staff would prefer that parking enforcement is preserved
in-house within a public service ethos.’1 During a fact finding visit, Commission
Members were informed by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) that
they regard their PAs ‘as a public face of BDBC [that] provided a service to
the community beyond the issuing of penalty notices’.2 4.3.9
It is important to note that, although not
widespread, PAs enforcing on-street parking contraventions are on occasion
the targets of verbal and physical assaults.
Southampton City Council has experienced an increase in such assaults
on staff since DPE was rolled out.
PAs in Southampton are now provided with training in self-defence and
aggression handling. Traffic Wardens on
the Isle of Wight are currently issued with body armour and given
self-defence training. 4.4
LEGAL: 4.4.1
The National Parking Adjudication Service
(NPAS) exists to hear disputed cases that are not resolved locally. 4.4.2
In the event of a
disputed case, a nominated elected member from the Isle of Wight Council may
be required to sit upon a committee compiled by the National Parking
Adjudication Service to adjudicate as a tribunal on Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
(parking ticket) issues. 4.4.3
The Secretary of
State believes it would be prudent for all authorities applying to enforce
decriminalised parking to request the legal powers to wheel clamp even where
they have no plan to introduce wheel clamping in the immediate future. This approach would obviate the need for
an authority to apply for a further designation order if after some
experience of the new system it decided that it would after all like to
introduce wheel clamping. 4.4.4
It is important to
note from the outset that once the above offences are decriminalised there is
no provision within the Road Traffic Act 1991 to recriminalise. Any application to the Secretary of State
will be unable to be revoked without a change in the legislation or annulment
by either House. 4.4.5
The Police will
continue to enforce endorseable offences such as obstruction but all other
matters, including such tasks as yellow line enforcement, will be the
responsibility of the Council. 4.4.6
As with current
practice within the parking enforcement team, the Council should have clear
guidance on possible exemptions and/or dispensations it would be willing to
give. Those exemptions and
dispensations to include such persons as military on active duty, those having
stopped under order of the Police, breakdowns, blue badge holders, fire,
police and ambulance etc. This is to
ensure a consistent and fair approach is adopted by the Isle of Wight Council
in the exercise of its enforcement function. 4.4.7
As one of the reasons
for an issue of a PCN is the contravention of a TRO it is essential that all
extant TROs are reviewed to ensure that these have been legally executed as
this will be a potential challenge to any PCN issued. Such review should include not only their
valid endorsement but that the terms are clear and effective. 4.4.8
It will be necessary
for the adoption of a specific policy in relation to wheel clamping to ensure
that it does not turn a short term problem into a long term problem. It would be inappropriate for example to
clamp a vehicle that would result in major obstruction of traffic or fire
exit. 4.4.9
Parking attendants
acting on behalf of Local Authorities will automatically have the power to
remove vehicles which are parked or broken down in contravention of parking
controls under Regulation 5A of the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles
Regulations 1986. The Local Authority
will then have further powers to charge motorists where a vehicle was towed
away, stored or disposed of by an authority under Section 102 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act (RTRA) 1984.
It is the Secretary of State’s view that there should be a presumption
that Local Authorities will include a vehicle removal service as part of
their decriminalised parking enforcement operations. 1 Overview and Scrutiny
Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence: 15.9.05,
Isle of Wight Council, p.4 2 Overview and Scrutiny
Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence: 18.10.05,
Isle of Wight Council, p.1 |
|
|
5.1
The options in this case are quite
straightforward, either: 5.1.1
A. Recommend no further action; or, 5.1.2
B. To recommend to Cabinet that the Council
apply to The Secretary of State for Transport for a Designation Order. In this case there will be a number of
subsequent operational decisions that will have to be taken, the options for
which are set out below. 5.2
Although the Council may decide not to take
any further action at this stage, the Traffic Management Act 2004 does make
provision for the Secretary of State to direct Highway Authorities to adopt
these powers, however there is no expectation that this will happen in the
near future. 5.3
Alternatively, the Chief Constable may give
notice to the Authority that they no longer intend to support the Traffic
Warden Service as was the case with Kent Constabulary. To date Hampshire Constabulary have not
taken this stance and have been supportive of Council’s in their area that
wish to adopt these powers. As more and more Local Authorities adopt these
powers there may come a time when they wish to standardise arrangements. 5.4
The Traffic Management Act 2004 places a
network management duty on Local Traffic Authorities to ‘secure the expeditious movement of traffic
on the authority’s road network’
and the effective enforcement of yellow line waiting restrictions is a fundamental
tool in achieving that. Although performance monitoring measures have yet to
be put in place, if an Authority is considered to be failing in its duty, The
Secretary of State may appoint a ‘Traffic Director’ to carry out the Local
Authority’s obligations at the Local Authority’s expense. 5.5
In adopting the powers the Council is
committed to them as there is no mechanism to reverse the process, they
therefore need to ensure that a robust business case has been prepared and
the risks identified and control measures put in place. This has been one of
the main tasks of the Commission. 5.6
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS: 5.6.1
From a value for money perspective, a view
has to be taken on whether all or part of the parking service provision is
best carried out in-house by Council services, outsourced to a contractor or
a hybrid of the two. This decision fundamentally affects the work required by
the Council to deliver the project. The proposed methods of service delivery
will also need to be clearly identified within the application to DfT for the
appropriate powers. 5.6.2
There are two main elements to the new
service: firstly, the on-street enforcement function and, secondly, the back
office administrative tasks of processing the PCN’s from issue to debt
recovery, permit management, car park management, etc. 5.6.3
Many Councils have chosen to tender out the
enforcement services associated with DPE as they are either new services or
considerable extensions of existing services. Whereas 15 years ago there was
virtually no commercial market for the provision of such services, there is
now a fiercely competitive marketplace with tenderers vying for what are
typically 5 year multi million pound contracts. 5.6.4
There are several potential benefits of
contracting out parking enforcement services, the principle ones being: ·
Contractors can provide the set up capital
required. This can cover the main capital items as well as related items such
as Pay & Display equipment and the renewal cost of lines and signs. ·
Good contractors have a wealth of experience
and are therefore able to establish a DPE regime in a new area faster than a
local authority. This can translate
into better enforcement and better cash flow to the authority in the early
stages. ·
The majority of contractors have good links
to the relevant IT system suppliers and if required can provide a
comprehensive IT service instead of the authority having to procure,
implement and manage a system separately. ·
Contractors are better able to overcome difficulties
of staff recruitment. They would be
responsible for any issues relating to staff transfer. 5.6.5
There are also potentially negative aspects to contracting out: ·
Unless the specification is well designed
and managed an authority can end up with an inflexible and unresponsive
service. ·
A client side is still required to monitor
arrangements with the contractor. ·
Contracting out typically costs more than
doing the work in house. ·
Contractors can engender bad publicity for
the Council. ·
Contractors tend to react slower to changing
Council needs. 5.6.6
In terms of the identified benefits, the
Council is already well placed in terms of IT systems. The current system has recently been
replaced and was procured with DPE in mind and can be adapted at minimum
cost. 5.6.7
Staff transfer is not likely to be a
significant issue for this Council, Hampshire Constabulary have indicated
that a maximum of three traffic wardens would be eligible to transfer across.
Although the Council has experienced some problems in recruiting seasonal
parking attendants last summer, generally the employment market for this sort
of work is better than that faced by a number of mainland authorities. 5.6.8
The experience of the other local authorities
visited by Commission Members suggested that contracting out is a more
economically viable option for larger authorities than for smaller
authorities. 5.6.9
Administrative and IT services could also be
provided by any external organisation that was providing parking enforcement
services. However, there is little
evidence that this would reduce costs as the issuing and processing of
parking tickets is a labour dependent task. 5.6.10 The
responsibility for DPE can never be completely delegated to a contractor. The
law specifies that the Council issuing the PCNs must themselves consider
representations against the issuing of PCNs. An in-house resource would be required to satisfy this
obligation. 5.6.11 The
processing of PCNs requires significant amounts of capital investment in the
form of IT and related equipment plus accommodation. The externalisation of
PCN processing has a varied history in other local authorities, whilst
externalising the on street and off street enforcement is relatively common
this is much less so for PCN and permit processing. The issue here is
frequently the quality of correspondence provided by the contractor. Indeed,
many authorities have chosen to bring this aspect back in-house in order to
improve the quality of communications with members of the public.1 5.6.12 The
Council already has in place an IT system from a reputable supplier which is
capable of being adapted to DPE at minimal cost and disruption. 5.6.13 The
particular circumstances for the Island suggest that at the present time an
in-house operation for parking enforcement would best suit the Isle of Wight,
especially in terms of flexibility of labour if the roles of Parking
Attendant and Community Warden are to be more closely aligned in the future.
It should also be borne in mind that one of the advantages to the Island of
DPE would be the retention of income within the island’s economy, given that
there are currently no Island based contractors who could undertake this
service delivery it is inevitable that some money would go off Island. 5.7
OPERATIONAL RISKS: 5.7.1
Fundamental to the effective operation of DPE,
is the need to have up to date Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) which
accurately reflect the lines marked on the carriageway. The condition of the lines
and signs is also crucial as NPAS will uphold any appeals if there are
discrepancies. This can have a
serious effect on cashflow, a point stressed by all the authorities we have
contacted. 5.7.2
A number of authorities had experienced
practical difficulties with remedying discrepancies between lines/signs and
TROs through their term maintenance contractors. To overcome this it is proposed to have a dedicated maintenance
crew within the parking services organisation. 5.7.3
The DfT will expect to see evidence within
an application that a review has (or is being) undertaken to review the
accuracy and appropriateness of the TRO’s. The review should also consider
the accessibility of the TROs as NPAS adjudicators will routinely require
detailed presentations of the TROs that apply at a location. The Council has
already transferred its records to a geographical information systems (GIS)
database which is suitable for this purpose. 5.7.4
Such a review is a major undertaking as
there are at present some 375,000 metres of kerbside restrictions and 47
different types of restriction across the Island. It would not be viable to
undertake a full review prior to making an application. It is therefore proposed to establish a
rolling review starting with the main towns where parking infringements have
the greatest impact on traffic flows. 5.7.5
Ultimately, if DPE is 100% successful then
it would in theory become self-defeating: if everyone parks in accordance
with the waiting restrictions and no PCNs are issued then DPE is no longer
financially sustainable. The phenomenon has not been experienced by any other
authority that has taken up the powers. 5.7.6
Under DPE, the Government sets and reviews
maximum PCN levels nationally. The system of initial and excess charges for
paid parking is replaced by a system of civil debt, owed to the local
authority, known as penalty charges. 5.7.7
The level of the PCN is set so as to achieve
a high level of compliance with parking controls and meet the objective that
DPE should become self financing as soon as is practicable. 5.7.8
Current Fixed Penalty charges are set at
£50, discounted to £30 (£80 for HGV/ Coaches, discounted to £50) if paid
within 14 days. The new maximums would be £60 discounted to £30 if paid
within 14 days. However this would
rise to £90 if it was necessary to go to the next step of issuing a Charge
Certificate. 5.7.9
Although the Council could opt to set a
lower charge, this would make the scheme unviable. 5.8
RISKS TO PROJECT DELIVERY: 5.8.1
As with any project,
insufficient resourcing in both financial and human terms will have a
negative impact on delivery. The financial business case identifies some
£185,518 capital and £144,101 revenue set up costs however the marginal
operating forecasts suggest that there will not be sufficient surplus income
in coming years to offset these. 5.8.2
It may be possible to fund the capital costs
through the Integrated Transport block of the Council’s LTP settlement, but
rises in car parking charges may have to be considered as a source of funding
the revenue shortfall. The impact of
the £50 permit is likely to have a negative overall effect on car parking
income generally. 5.8.3
The business case also assumes a marginal
increase in off street revenue of some £54,000 due to displacement. However,
if spare capacity in car parks is taken up by £50 Island Residents’ permit holders
this income may be at risk. 5.8.4
References: 1 Overview and Scrutiny
Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence: 15.9.05,
Isle of Wight Council, p.4 |
|
7 Financial / Reputational Risk Assessment by Tracy Ringer, Business
Development Manager - Finance
In-house = enforcement and back office functions operated by the Council
Hybrid = back office function operated by the Council, enforcement function outsourced to a contractor
Outsourced = enforcement and back office functions outsourced to a contractor
|
Nature of Risk |
In-house |
Hybrid |
Outsource |
Possible controls |
|
V6 Business Case is not
robust enough – possibly due to subsequent decision on £50 parking permit |
1x4 = 4 |
1x4 = 4 |
1x4 = 4 |
Re-do business case to take
£50 permit decision into account. Consult other authorities who have used RTA
Associates to verify robustness of their business cases once implemented |
|
Set-up costs cannot be paid
back through scheme operation |
2x4 = 8 |
2x4 = 8 |
2x4 = 8 |
Potential funding sources
(LTP/Prudential Borrowing/ reserves) all require payback. Some risk may be
transferred if initiative is outsourced although contractor would incorporate
this into their contract price and this would be on a long-term basis. |
|
Income generation (to
offset costs) does not achieve expectations |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
Reduce no. of operatives.
Extend on-street pay and display areas to generate additional revenue.
Outsourced option should have contract price set. Conversely, if contracted
out, no opportunity to increase income flows if possible |
|
Initiative does not
ultimately become at least cost neutral on an annual basis. |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
Reduce no. of
operatives. Extend on-street pay and
display areas to generate additional revenue. Set budget to financially
support the initiative in light of future potential of police to reduce their
priority for DPE. |
|
Impact of £50 parking
permit may affect revenue profiled for DPE from off-street parking |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
Set budget to compensate
for this revenue stream, or reserve established to be used if needed |
|
Changed parking strategies
may affect financial balance |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
Ensure DPE is an integral
part of parking strategy consideration to mitigate financial implications |
|
Traffic Regulation Orders
unable to be applied |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
Ensure adequate review and
action regarding lines and signs |
|
Difficulties in recruiting
staff – hence lower ability to enforce |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
Consider profile of
function and integration of TUPE staff |
|
Loss of ability to
multi-task staff - if contracted out |
1x2 = 2 |
1x3 = 3 |
1x4 = 4 |
Current/new staff could be
used in a variety of ways if initiative retained under in-house control |
|
Loss of money to local
economy – due to there being no Island based DPE contractors |
1x2 = 2 |
1x3 = 3 |
1x4 = 4 |
In-house option would give
authority ability to direct any surpluses to local highway/ transport issues |
|
Initial decision on
delivery method incorrect |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
1x2 = 2 |
Easier to move from
in-house option to outsourced, than from outsourced to in-house |
Risk score methodology:
|
X |
Likelihood |
= |
Risk |
|
|
1 – Low, under £250,000 |
1 – Very unlikely |
|||
|
2 – Medium, under £500,000 |
2 – Possible |
|||
|
3 – High, under £1m |
3 – Probable |
|||
|
4 – Catastrophic, over £1m |
4 – Very likely |
8 Operational
Risk Assessment, by Peter Taylor, Traffic and Transportation Manager
|
Nature of risk |
Risk score |
Possible controls |
|
Discrepancies between lines/signs and TROs resulting in an inability to enforce contraventions |
2 x 2 = 4 |
Prior to implementation survey lines/signs and TROs in accordance with an agreed implementation programme to ensure discrepancies are identified and remedied. Following implementation, PA’s to survey duty areas and report discrepancies in accordance with an agreed programme. |
|
Failure to demonstrate to the SoS that a full review has taken place to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of TROs |
3 x 1 = 3 |
Demonstrate transfer of records to GIS database Demonstrate detailed rolling-review programme starting with the main areas where parking contraventions have the greatest impact on traffic flows |
|
Inability to remedy discrepancies between lines/sings and TROs due to a lack of dedicated resources |
2 x 2 = 4 |
Provide dedicated maintenance crew within parking services organisation |
|
100% compliance achieved rendering service redundant |
3 x 1 = 3 |
Periodically review levels of compliance and limit the level of on-street enforcement activity to reduce compliance levels as required |
|
Government reduces the level of maximum PCN levels nationally |
2 x 1 = 2 |
Increase provision of on-street parking liable to DPE to generate higher incidence of contravention |
|
Council opts to set/reduce PCN at/to a lower level |
2 x 2 = 4 |
Increase provision of on-street parking liable to DPE to generate higher incidence of contravention |
|
Risk to Council’s reputation through inappropriate ticketing by in-house PAs |
2 x 1 = 2 |
Clear policy guidelines. Staff training and performance monitoring. Customer complaints monitoring. |
|
Risk to Council’s reputation through inappropriate ticketing by externalised PAs |
2 x 2 = 4 |
Build penalty clauses into contract. Customer complaints monitoring. |
Risk score methodology:
|
Impact |
X |
Likelihood |
= |
Risk |
|
1 – Low |
1 – Very unlikely |
|||
|
2 – Medium |
2 – Possible |
|||
|
3 – High |
3 – Probable |
|||
|
4 – Problematic |
4 – Very likely |
|
· Blackburn and Darwen Borough Council , 2005, From http://www.blackburn.gov.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.8216 ·
Department
for Transport, 2005, Department of
Transport Annual Report 2004, London http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_028529-08.hcsp · Department for Transport, 2005, Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside of London. London. From http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/divisionhomepage/032070.hcsp ·
Department
for Transport, 2005, List of English
Local Authorities with DPE Powers. London, From http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/page/dft_foi_610327.pdf
·
Department
for Transport, 2005, Road Traffic Act
1991: Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Consultation, London, http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/pdf/dft_localtrans_pdf_507572.pdf · Department for Transport, 2005, Roads and Local Transport Research Programme: Research Compendium 2000 – 2001. From http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504930-02.hcsp · Department for Transport, 2005, Traffic Management Bill: Regulatory Impact Assessment, From http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_026228.hcsp ·
Downie, Norman,
2005, Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement Briefing Paper, RTA Associates ·
Downie,
Norman, 2005, Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement Presentation, RTA Associates · Improvement and Development Agency, 2005, Wireless Commended: Liverpool City Council’s wireless devices improving council services, From http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk/idk/aio/87650 · Isle of Wight Council, Isle of Wight Provisional Local Transport Plan · Kent County Council, 2005, Parking Management in Kent, From http://www.kent.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DC873C31-9FCD-4892-8FF2-D4FCC0EA1D7E/0/nov05item10.pdf · National Parking Adjudication Service, 2005, National Parking Adjudication Service. From http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/accessible/welcomeEN.asp ·
Overview and
Scrutiny Team, 2005, Cabinet Briefing
Paper, Isle of Wight Council ·
Overview and
Scrutiny Team, 2005, Enquiry Scoping
Document, Isle of Wight Council ·
Overview and
Scrutiny Team, 2005, Policy Commission
Briefing Document, Isle of Wight Council ·
Parking News
Enforcement Supplement, 2004, ‘Making those Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement Decisions’, (Issue 223,
June 2004) · Reading Borough Council, 2005, Transport and Streets: Parking Enforcement, From http://www.reading.gov.uk/general.asp?id=sx9452-a77fae85 · Road Traffic Act 1991, Office of Public Sector Information, London. From http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_1.htm#tcon · Thorne, Justin, 2005, Briefing Paper on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement, Isle of Wight Council · Traffic Management Bill 2004, Office of Public Sector Information, London. From http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040018.htm Consultation:
Meetings: ·
Overview and
Scrutiny Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence:
15.9.05, Isle of Wight Council ·
Overview and
Scrutiny Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence
(Southampton): 16.9.05, Isle of Wight Council ·
Overview and
Scrutiny Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence
(Winchester): 22.9.05, Isle of Wight Council ·
Overview and
Scrutiny Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence
(Basingstoke and Deane): 18.10.05, Isle of Wight Council ·
Overview and
Scrutiny Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence
(Traffic Wardens): 21.11.05, Isle of Wight Council Responses by Correspondence: ·
Mr T Dymott ·
Mr A Gray ·
Mr T Kelly ·
Mr M C Pay ·
Cllr George
Brown ·
Cllr Geoff
Lumley ·
Brading Town
Council ·
Gurnard
Parish Council ·
Nettlestone
and Seaview Parish Council ·
Brighton and
Hove Borough Council |
|
|
Prepared by: Date: |
Cllr Susan Scoccia and
Mr Peter Taylor, Traffic and Transportation Manager 25 January 2006 |