Agenda item

(1)       Within Kent, the 12 District/Borough and City Councils were responsible for the practical application of parking policy and enforcement under 12 individual Agency Agreements.  Changes to legislation, brought about by the introduction of the Traffic Management Act 2004 gave powers to the appropriate authority to issue a penalty charge notice to any vehicle double parked or parked adjacent to a dropped kerb. The current agency agreements between Kent County Council and the 12 district authorities required KCC to give written permission to the district authorities prior to their commencing the powers.

(2)               There were three main aspects to the new powers –

            Parking adjacent to a dropped kerb at a crossing point (Dropped Kerbs for Community Use which are usually identified by the use of tactile paving; :

            Double parking – defined as parking 50cm or more from the kerb:

            Parking adjacent to a dropped kerb outside residential premises:

It should be noted that the prohibition of parking at a dropped kerb at a crossing point included where a footway, cycle track or verge had been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway; and it applied equally where the carriageway had been raised to the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.

(3)       Additional Civil Enforcement Officers would not be employed to undertake the enforcement and it would be carried out as part of normal day to day enforcement. There was therefore no additional cost in staff time. There may be a limited additional income through the issuing of PCN’s but it was to be noted that parking enforcement was a necessary tool to ensure good traffic management and road safety, not to generate an income stream.            The penalty charge for the offences was set at £70, which was discounted by 50% if paid within fourteen days.

(4)       Enforcement of double parking and parking at dropped kerbs would assist those with visual or mobility impairment as the enforcement action would aim to remove inconsiderate parking to allow ease of access.

(5)       Members were informed that the report would be submitted to JTBs and the issues raised during debate would be included.  

(6)       During debate the following issues were raised:-

(a)       were the District/Borough Councils completely aware of the legislation and who was or was not responsible for making fines – Existing powers were already in force, and the function was to be delegated to District/Borough Councils at their request.  There was a need to monitor where the problems existed in the County to enable the disabled to cross the road safely.

(b)       Mr Northey asked for clarification as to what double parking actually meant, and ‘parking adjacent’.  Mr Lloyd stated that it was 50cm or more from the kerb.

(c)        Mr Whiting asked how cycle lanes were affected – cycle lanes had their own rules, and would be included in the report JTBs.

(d)       Mr Collor asked how it affected vehicles that were loading/unloading – Mr Holliday stated there were different rules to follow, and would also be included in the report to JTBs.

(7)       Mr Holliday informed Members that the following had been omitted from the recommendation in the report, and would included in paragraph (8) below:-

‘introduce a double parking and parking adjacent to dropped kerbs with the exception of private driveways’

(8)       RESOLVED that:-

(a)               the new powers to undertake civil parking enforcement at dropped kerbs and for double parking to be formally adopted by Kent County Council be noted; and

(b)               the permission to the 12 district authorities to evoke parking contraventions in relation to vehicles parked adjacent to dropped kerbs with the exception of private driveways be noted.