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     OPTIONS APPRAISAL

 

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

 

 

7       CUSTOMER IMPACT (VALUE FOR MONEY)

 

7.1               The Options were reviewed using the Council’s Value for Money checklist.  Option A was judged to offer reduced levels of service for the community.  Option B was judged to offer improved levels of service for the community whilst potentially generating surplus resources that could be used to improve the service further. 

 

 


8                     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 Decriminalised Parking Enforcement 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 Decriminalised Parking Enforcement 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 Decriminalised Parking Enforcement 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:

 

Impact

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

 

 

9                     Operational Risk Assessment, by Peter Taylor, Traffic and Transportation Manager

 

Nature of risk

Risk score

Possible controls

Discrepancies between lines/signs and Traffic Regulation Orders resulting in an inability to enforce contraventions

 

 

2 x 2 = 4

 

 

 

Prior to implementation survey lines/signs and Traffic Regulation Orders in accordance with an agreed implementation programme to ensure discrepancies are identified and remedied.

 

Following implementation, Parking Attendants to survey duty areas and report discrepancies in accordance with an agreed programme.

Failure to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that a full review has taken place to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of Traffic Regulation Orders

 

3 x 1 = 3

Demonstrate transfer of records to Geographical Information System 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 Traffic Regulation Orders 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 Penalty Charge Notice levels nationally

2 x 1 = 2

 

Increase provision of on-street parking liable to Decriminalised Parking Enforcement to generate higher incidence of contravention

Council opts to set/reduce Penalty Charge Notices at/to a lower level

2 x 2 = 4

 

Increase provision of on-street parking liable to Decriminalised Parking Enforcement to generate higher incidence of contravention

Risk to Council’s reputation through inappropriate ticketing by in-house Parking Attendants

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 Parking Attendants

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

 

 

 

10  EVIDENCE / BACKGROUND PAPERS / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

·         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