Agenda item

(Report by Head of Network Management)

(1)       The 12 Kent District/Borough and City Councils were responsible for the practical application of parking policy within a framework set by the County Council. The report summarised the current situation with regard to the management of footway parking.  There was a general concern that cars parked on pavements were a problem in many parts of the County. The main concerns were:-

-           Parked cars caused serious obstruction on the footway which caused a safety issue to pedestrians.

-           Cars caused damage to the structure of the pavement.

-           Uneven pavements resulted in trip hazards for pedestrians and created an unsightly environment.

(2)       Without the implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order, the responsibility for the enforcement of footway parking remained with the Police. However, this was not a high priority for them and the Police might only choose to enforce if the parked vehicle was causing an obstruction to other road users. There was a public perception that all parking issues were now dealt with by the Local Authority and it was expected by the public that Civil Enforcement Officers would deal with the issue of vehicles parked on a footway. The Police would support the implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order allowing both the introduction of signs which would act as a visual deterrent to the motorist and the enforcement of footway parking by Civil Enforcement Officers as part of their day to day functions.

(3)       The report updated a previous HAB report of September 2004 concerning problems caused by vehicles parking on footways and the proposals to introduce a pilot scheme in Canterbury, with a view to investigating whether such prohibitions could, in future, be applied more widely.  In March 2007, Canterbury Council introduced a footway parking enforcement pilot scheme, by means of a Traffic Regulation Order, in 4 areas in the City’s enforcement area which were identified following verbal and written complaints from the general public. For the first month written warning notices were issued and formal enforcement commenced on 1 April 2007. Each of the areas in the trial were covered by the normal enforcement beats and the frequency of enforcement was not changed for the specific purpose of dealing with footway prohibition.

(4)       The costs incurred by Canterbury Council for the signs, erection of signs and advertisements for the trial totalled £3500. During the first 9 months of the trial up to 24 January 2008 a total of 31 Penalty Charge Notices were issued, of which 29 were paid and 2 were cancelled due to inaccurate enforcement. The income generated through the issue of fixed penalty notices totalled £960. However no extra staff resources were required and ‘set up’ costs were a one off expenditure.  The trial indicated that  footway prohibition was not a substantial income generator and unlikely as a specific enforcement activity to become self-financing. However, as part of other routine enforcement, the trial had elicited an income of £960 that would not otherwise have been collected.

(5)       Based on the figures from the pilot scheme it would take 3 - 4 years to recoup the initial set up costs required to enforce footway parking, however other trial areas might incur less initial costs, dependent upon the size of the location and the amount of signs and advertising that was required.

(6)       There was anecdotal evidence that the enforcement of footway parking in the pilot areas had been successful in reducing the problem and the general public had been generally supportive of the concept. The issue of Penalty Charge Notices to offenders appeared to have raised awareness and had increased compliance with the regulations which was shown by the relatively small number of Penalty Charge Notices issued and the high acceptance of liability for this contravention.

(7)       The instances of parked cars causing obstruction to pedestrians in the pilot area had dramatically decreased leading to an increased safe environment for footway users. Damage to the structure of the pavement had also reduced, resulting in fewer trip hazards, an improved environment and a future saving on repairs carried out by the Highway Authority.

(8)       Canterbury Council had reported to Members of their Joint Transportation Board with proposals to extend footway enforcement into 3 further areas that had objective evidence of a problem; had the support of local residents; were within existing enforcement areas; and where problems could not be resolved through cost effective physical measures such as bollards.

(9)       Maidstone Council along with Gravesham Council would also be reporting to Members of their Joint Transportation Boards to request Members approval to commence the enforcement of footway parking at specified locations within their areas.

(10)     The Board supported the proposal that District/Borough and City Councils continue to introduce and increase the enforcement of footway parking. This could be carried out on a gradual approach, in areas which had objective evidence of a problem, had the support of local residents, were within existing enforcement areas and where problems could not be resolved through cost effective physical measures.