Agenda item

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       The Kent district councils were responsible for the practical application of parking policy within a framework set by the County Council.  The report set out the principles of the parking framework and provided a summary of data for 2006/07 and an update on progress last reported to the Board on 19 September 2006.  Important new work areas had included reviews of parking stock and provision of additional spaces, a pilot to control footway parking and investigations into a clamping/ removals trial.  In August 2007 Government published guidance for the introduction of new parking enforcement legislation under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act (TMA).  The report outlined the implications as well as opportunities for Kent authorities in terms of working more closely together on best practice, providing improved customer facing services and using the provisions in the legislation to help tackle congestion.

(2)       A balanced integrated transport system, with good quality travel options for all was essential to counter the negative impacts of traffic growth.  Effective management of parking was central to the effort to deliver the outcomes set out in the Vision for Kent (Keeping Kent Moving) and Towards 2010.  Towards 2010 also had a target to remove unnecessary yellow lines and provide additional parking spaces.  The objectives, and measures to achieve them, were detailed in the second Local Transport Plan.  Broadly this comprised the implementation of Local Parking Plans and the promotion of best practice across the County through the Kent Parking Group. 

(3)              The best way of developing effective local parking systems and integrating them with transport and planning objectives was through a Local Parking Plan.  Parking Plans had been developed or were under review for Ashford, Canterbury, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Malling, Dover, Thanet and Shepway.

(4)              In August the Department for Transport published a consultation document “Parking Policy and Enforcement: Operational Guidance to Local Authorities.” The guidance set out proposed changes to the current Decriminalised Parking system to bring parking management in line with the objectives of the TMA.  The new system would be called Civil Parking Enforcement and would include enforcement of additional parking and some moving offences by camera as well as a new banded penalty charge rate.

(5)       The Kent Parking Group (KPG) included the 12 district councils, Kent County Council and Medway.  The group had links to other parking authorities, enabling the sharing of best practice outside of Kent and was represented at the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS).  KHS was also represented on a South East Authorities forum on parking.

(6)              The KPG sought to promote best practice by sharing benchmarking data, to work together on training and support systems, to collaborate on procurement and act as a lobbying focus on issues of common concern.  The group successfully co-ordinated the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement in Kent.  More recently the KPG had been instrumental in helping to set up a South East group of the British Parking Association.  This was assisting the introduction of Civil Parking Enforcement including joint working with the private sector and should help to improve efficiency in the longer term. 

(7)              Good enforcement was essential for the effective implementation of parking policies.  All 12 Kent district councils had delegated powers to run enforcement systems and issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).  PCNs were currently charged at £60.  This was discounted by 50% if payment was made within 14 days.

(8)              A wide range of benchmarking data was collected and analysed through the KPG to determine the effectiveness of the parking service and develop best practice.   A summary table with the headline operational data was shown at Appendix 1 of the report whilst Appendix 2 of the report detailed on-street income reported to KHS.

(9)              In 2006/07 there were 226,334 PCNs issued in Kent, a slight increase of 1% on 2005/06.  The percentage of tickets waived following representation or rejected at appeal was 17%, in 2005/06 it was 16%.   Overall there was a net deficit in on-street parking of £298,076.  This figure was income from charging and enforcement compared to the cost of operating the service.  In 2005/06 the net deficit was £80,838.  The figures did not include off-street car parks, which were the responsibility of the district councils. 

(10)          The provision of public managed parking spaces across the county tended to change fairly dramatically over time reflecting the dynamic nature of local parking systems.  The data for total managed parking spaces in Appendix 1 illustrated this.  The causes could range from new development on public car parks reducing the overall managed stock to the introduction of residents parking schemes increasing the overall managed stock.  Over the past six years the overall trend had been for a small increase of some 1.0% per annum. 

(11)          Comparisons of the Kent authorities in the past had highlighted some wide variations beneath the headline data.  The variations were due to differences in local policies including observation times and expired tickets waiver policies, Parking Attendant (PA) training, the effectiveness of signs, lines and associated Traffic Regulation Orders.  The KPG members had worked to resolve the issues and determine a best way, indeed the Group’s Waivers Policy on Enforcement and Cancellation of PCNs had been commended nationally (NPAS annual report - June 2007) and the Kent authorities praised for their openness in publishing it. 

(12)          The success of parking enforcement depended on the quality of the staff delivering the service and good training was a key part of this.  The majority of PAs and administration staff had undertaken training courses during 2006/07.  Courses had included NVQ enforcement training, break away techniques, job shadowing and disability awareness training linked to inspection of Blue Badges co-ordinated by KHS.

(13)          Local parking teams had continued to review provision to ensure parking schemes remained effective, contributed to sustainable transport objectives and catered for additional demand. Reviews had included Sevenoaks, Canterbury, Ashford, Swale and Maidstone. In Maidstone reviews of residents parking schemes had been completed following public consultation in the north and south zones of the town.  Some 30 additional bays had been introduced where yellow lines had been removed.  Parking on single yellow lines was now permitted on Saturdays in around 60 streets.

(14)          Kent had been supporting the expansion and enhancement of Park & Ride schemes as part of efforts to tackle congestion.  Schemes were under review for Tunbridge Wells.  Planning was in hand for a new site at Park Farm to the south of Maidstone in 2008/09 and a further site to the north, potentially linking with the successful 101 bus service to Medway. Canterbury was considering a fourth site to the north west of the city.

(15)          Following an earlier report to HAB, Canterbury Council had introduced parking enforcement on footways at 5 locations across the district.  This was a trial scheme which ended in March 2008 at which time a decision would be taken on whether to extend enforcement to other areas subject to resources and a local consensus.

(16)          A scheme for clamping/ removal of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) as well as persistent evaders was currently under investigation.  Subject to a robust business case being developed this might lead to a pilot for Ashford, especially covering Ashford Business Park where foreign HGVs had been parking in contravention of an overnight lorry ban,  and potentially several other east Kent districts.  It was understood that a scheme had the support of Kent Police as well as local people although there were concerns over potentially high set up costs and whether the issue might simply move elsewhere.

(17)          A review of the Kent guidance for introducing Disabled Parking Bays was underway with district officers and disabled users to take into account the Disability Discrimination Act and new Disability Equality Duty.

(18)          Government had recently published, for consultation, Parking Policy and Enforcement: Operational Guidance to Local Authorities.  A key part of the TMA, this set out proposed changes to the parking enforcement system and was due to come into force on 31 March 2008.  The main elements were:-

·      The new system would be called Civil Parking Enforcement and Parking Attendants would become Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) and Special Parking Areas and Permitted Parking Areas would be called Civil Enforcement Areas.

·      It was recommended that all CEOs hold a nationally accredited qualification such as a level 2 certificate in parking offered by City & Guilds.

·      It would be possible to enforce additional parking offences in Special Enforcement Areas including parking adjacent to a dropped kerb which had been lowered to assist pedestrians, cyclists or vehicles crossing or joining the carriageway and double parking (+ 0.5m from kerb to wing mirror).

·      Differential parking penalties were proposed. These could be set depending upon the seriousness of the contravention, for example a higher rate could be applied to parking on a yellow line placed for safety reasons and a lower rate for parking in a council car park without displaying a valid ticket. Two Bands were proposed: Band 1 which had a higher level of £60 and a lower level of £40, and Band 2 which had a higher level of £70 and a lower level of £50.  As currently, the charges were discounted by 50% if paid within 14 days.  The draft guidance allowed local authorities to select which Band to chose.

·      It would be possible to issue a PCN via the post where a vehicle had been driven away and through camera enforcement of moving offences including one way streets, banned right turns and blocking yellow box junction (in addition to enforcement of bus lanes which was already permitted) and where patrols on foot were not viable.

·      There was a clear expectation that Local Authorities would have undertaken a reasonable level of publicity to explain the new regulations as well as publishing parking policies in an annual report.

(19)          There were several important areas of concern over the implications of changing to Civil Parking Enforcement.  Cost was a significant issue.  IT, paperwork and uniform markings would all need to be amended.  Both old and new IT/paperwork systems would have to operate in parallel after 31 March until PCNs issued prior to this date had been resolved.  Some additional signing might be required which had cost and sign clutter implications.  Given the set up costs and new lower level of penalty charges, all Kent Districts were likely to need to adopt the higher Band 2 level of charges in order to cover costs. The Kent authorities had a good record of training parking officers.  Additional training based on the TMA was already in place, but it was not yet known whether the Kent NVQ training was sufficient. The legality of enforcing double parking and dropped kerbs in the absence of an approved sign as well as there being sufficient evidence to issue a PCN to a driver who had left the scene was being questioned. Timing was a big issue.  There was little time left to prepare for the introduction of CPE and it was not anticipated that the DfT guidance would be finalised until 2008. The concerns would be included in a joint Kent Parking Group response to Government, as well as through the British Parking Association.

(20)          Once CPE was in place on 31 March 2008 and was seen to be functioning effectively and existing schemes had been fully publicised and legal issues resolved, consideration would be given to taking up camera enforcement of additional moving and parking offences as appropriate at congestion hotspots in conjunction with wider duties under the Traffic Management Act. 

(21)          Effective parking management must be part of a balanced strategy which included land use, transport and environmental policies.  The development of Local Parking Plans had been disappointing, but good progress had been made in the Kent Parking Group with promoting best practice, a common training framework, ensuring fairness and consistency in the issuing of PCNs as well as ensuring that parking enforcement was open and transparent through the publication of data and policies. The introduction of Civil Parking Enforcement under the Traffic Management Act was a significant element of new work and the Kent authorities were working closely together to ensure its successful introduction and to meet wider policy objectives within the County.  Progress with these would be the subject of future reports to members.

(22)          The Board noted the report.