POLICY COMMISSION
BLUE PAPER
|
RESPONSIBLE BODY Policy
Commission for Safer Communities |
|||
|
PROJECT NAME Decriminalising Parking |
REFERENCE NUMBER Saf3/05 |
||
|
1 PURPOSE OF ENQUIRY AND PROPOSED OUTCOME 1.1
To deliver a policy to cabinet to enable the authority to apply to the
Secretary of State to decriminalise parking on the Island. 1.2
To increase levels
of safety on Island roads. 1.3
To improve traffic
flows at congestion black spots. 1.4
To ensure that
revenue from parking infringements remains in the local economy. 1.5
More efficient use
of resources. |
|||
|
2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1
That Cabinet
identify the resources required to implement Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement at the earliest opportunity; 2.2
That Cabinet
determine a timeframe for implementation to enable the Council to apply to The Secretary of State for Transport
for a Designation Order; 2.3
That Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement is implemented as a fully in-house operation. |
|||
|
This body of
work and the above recommendations were agreed and accepted by the Members of
the Policy Commission for Safer Communities on Thursday, 2 February 2006.
Cllr David Williams Commissioner |
|||
|
3 BACKGROUND TO PROJECT THE NATIONAL CONTEXT: 3.1.
Under the provisions
of the Road Traffic Act 1991 Local Authorities outside of London were
permitted to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport to decriminalise
the enforcement of certain parking offences in a designated area.1
3.2.
According to the
Department for Transport: ‘[decriminalised parking enforcement] 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 3.3.
Decriminalised
parking enforcement 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 3.4.
Local Authorities
must submit a detailed proposal to the Secretary of State outlining their
case for a Special Parking Area Order: an Order designating a specified
geographical area where parking enforcement will be decriminalised. The proposal must demonstrate that the
scheme is self-funding. 3.5.
Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement powers can only be taken up once the Secretary of State has
considered such a proposal and, following consultation with the appropriate
Chief Officer of the police, made an Order designating an area as a Special
Parking Area. However, there is scope
for the extension of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers: The Secretary
of State is enabled by order to ‘add to the list of parking offences
enforceable in a Permitted Parking Area]/Special Parking Area outside London.1
3.6.
According to the Department
for Transport ‘Some authorities outside London have approached the Department
about the possibility of extending the scope of Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement contraventions. This is because Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement has highlighted the offences, such as parking at taxi stands and
parking on or near pedestrian crossings (an endorseable 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
3.7.
According to Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement consultant Norman Downie, parking enforcement by the
police is decreasing as a trend.4 3.8.
Although the Government have reserved powers to
require Local Authorities to take on DPE5, there is no
prescribed timeframe in which Decriminalised Parking Enforcement 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: 3.9.
A project to deliver Decriminalised Parking Enforcement
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. 3.10.
There are a number
of factors driving the Council’s application to decriminalise parking
enforcement on the Isle of Wight: 3.10.1
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 based on the Isle of Wight are transferring to Police
Community Support Officers and the remaining 3 Traffic Wardens 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
3.10.2
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 3.10.3
The
Local Transport Plan 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 3.10.4
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 Decriminalised Parking Enforcement. 3.10.5
Currently, all revenue from penalties issued
by police or Traffic Wardens goes to the Treasury whereas under Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement, this money could be retained in the local economy. 3.11.
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 |
|||
|
· 4 CONSULTATION EVIDENCE ·
4.1
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 4.2
Commission meeting notes and written
responses to this consultation are identified in the appendices to this blue
paper. |
|||
|
5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED 5.1
FINANCIAL: 5.1.1
As a return against
preliminary costs may not be realised Decriminalised Parking Enforcement
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. 5.1.2
According to the
consultant, there could be an operating deficit in year 1 of up to £150K. 5.1.3
It could take at least
two years to become cost neutral. 5.1.4
Income derived from Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement can be retained by the Local Authority to fund Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement operations. 5.1.5
Surplus income from ‘on-street’ parking
enforcement would have to be ring-fenced for highways matters and
environmental schemes. 5.1.6
Authorities with a high Comprehensive
Performance Assessment rating may have more freedom to spend surpluses. 5.1.7
The Commission’s research suggests that
there would never be significant surpluses generated by Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement. 5.1.8
Other than personnel, there would be no
other resources transferred from the police service. 5.1.9
Traffic Wardens are currently on a higher
rate of pay than Isle of Wight Council Parking Attendants. A job evaluation following the roll-out of
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement in Southampton resulted in the salary of Parking
Attendants increasing significantly. 5.2
STRATEGIC: 5.2.1
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). 5.2.2
It is essential that
the consultation process is thorough and open in order that there is no
misunderstanding resulting in a public perception that Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement is a revenue raising scheme, particularly as the project’s
financial viability is based on its self-funding status. 5.2.3
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. 5.3
OPERATIONAL: 5.3.1
An application by The Council to the Secretary
of State for a Special Parking Area Order would have to cover the entire
Island as the Police service would likely object if this were not the case. 5.3.2
Due to the Island’s clearly defined boarders
it would make sense to designate the entire Island. 5.3.3
Under Decriminalised Parking Enforcement
infringements would no longer be heard in the Magistrates Court and debt
recovery would be processed through the automated Northampton County Court
System. 5.3.4
The best time to implement Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement 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. 5.3.5
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. Failure to do so could result
in successful challenges to the issuing of enforcement notices. 5.3.6
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. 5.3.7
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. 5.3.8
According to the UNISON representative, although
staff had no issues with the concept of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement
there were certain reservations about being transferred to a private
contractor: ‘pay and conditions have suffered as a consequence of Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement 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 that they regard their Parking Attendants ‘as a public
face of the Council [that] provided a service to the community beyond the
issuing of penalty notices’.2 5.3.9
It is important to note that, although not
widespread, Parking Attendants 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 Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement was rolled out. Parking
Attendants 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. 5.4
LEGAL: 5.4.1
The National Parking Adjudication Service exists
to hear disputed cases that are not resolved locally. 5.4.2
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
(parking ticket) issues. 5.4.3
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. 5.4.4
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. 5.4.5
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. 5.4.6
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. 5.4.7
As one of the
reasons for an issue of a Penalty Charge Notice is the contravention of a Traffic
Regulation Order it is essential that all extant Traffic Regulation Orders are
reviewed to ensure that these have been legally executed as this will be a
potential challenge to any Penalty Charge Notice issued. Such review should include not only their
valid endorsement but that the terms are clear and effective. 5.4.8
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. 5.4.9
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 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 |
|||
|
6.1
The options in this case are quite
straightforward, either: 6.1.1
A. Recommend no further action; or, 6.1.2
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. 6.2
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. 6.3
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. 6.4
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. 6.5
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. 6.6
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS: 6.6.1
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 Department
for Transport for the appropriate powers. 6.6.2
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 Penalty Charge Notices from
issue to debt recovery, permit management, car park management, etc. 6.6.3
Many Councils have chosen to tender out the
enforcement services associated with Decriminalised Parking Enforcement 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. 6.6.4
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 Decriminalised Parking Enforcement
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. 6.6.5
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. 6.6.6
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 Decriminalised Parking Enforcement in mind and can be
adapted at minimum cost. 6.6.7
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. 6.6.8
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. 6.6.9
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. 6.6.10 The
responsibility for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement can never be completely
delegated to a contractor. The law specifies that the Council issuing the Penalty
Charge Notices must themselves consider representations against the issuing
of Penalty Charge Notices. An
in-house resource would be required to satisfy this obligation. 6.6.11 The
processing of Penalty Charge Notices requires significant amounts of capital
investment in the form of IT and related equipment plus accommodation. The
externalisation of Penalty Charge Notice 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 Penalty Charge
Notice 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 6.6.12 The
Council already has in place an IT system from a reputable supplier which is
capable of being adapted to Decriminalised Parking Enforcement at minimal cost
and disruption. 6.6.13 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
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement 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. 6.7
OPERATIONAL RISKS: 6.7.1
Fundamental to the effective operation of Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement, is the need to have up to date Traffic Regulation Orders
which accurately reflect the lines marked on the carriageway. The condition
of the lines and signs is also crucial as the National Parking Adjudication
Service 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. 6.7.2
A number of authorities had experienced
practical difficulties with remedying discrepancies between lines/signs and Traffic
Regulation Orders through their term maintenance contractors. To overcome this it is proposed to have a
dedicated maintenance crew within the parking services organisation. 6.7.3
The Department for Transport will expect to
see evidence within an application that a review has (or is being) undertaken
to review the accuracy and appropriateness of the Traffic Regulation Orders.
The review should also consider the accessibility of the Traffic Regulation
Orders as National Parking Association adjudicators will routinely require
detailed presentations of the Traffic Regulation Orders that apply at a
location. The Council has already transferred its records to a geographical
information systems database which is suitable for this purpose. 6.7.4
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. 6.7.5
Ultimately, if Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement is 100% successful then it would in theory become self-defeating:
if everyone parks in accordance with the waiting restrictions and no Penalty
Charge Notices are issued then Decriminalised Parking Enforcement is no
longer financially sustainable. The phenomenon has not been experienced by
any other authority that has taken up the powers. 6.7.6
Under Decriminalised Parking Enforcement, the
Government sets and reviews maximum Penalty Charge Notice 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. 6.7.7
The level of the Penalty Charge Notice is
set so as to achieve a high level of compliance with parking controls and
meet the objective that Decriminalised Parking Enforcement should become self financing as soon as is
practicable. 6.7.8
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. 6.7.9
Although the Council could opt to set a
lower charge, this would make the scheme unviable. 6.8
RISKS TO PROJECT DELIVERY: 6.8.1
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. 6.8.2
It may be possible to fund the capital costs
through the Integrated Transport block of the Council’s Local Transport Plan
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. 6.8.3
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. 6.8.4
References: 1 Overview and Scrutiny
Team, 2005, Notes of Evidence: 15.9.05,
Isle of Wight Council, p.4 |
|||
