Agenda item

Tim Read (Head of Transportation) and Neil Edwards (Traffic Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.         Mr Payne justified KCC’s enforcement powers in 7 of Kent’s 12 districts. He confirmed that the Department for Transport had given KCC powers as part of central government’s traffic management plans for the EU-exit transition period. It was noted that the enforcement powers came into effect from 1 January 2021 and sought, in addition to traffic management, to protect residents and businesses from anti-social HGV fly parking.

2.         Mr Edwards provided an operational update and outlined enforcement statistics. He said the powers to clamp and issue fixed penalty notices in the 7 districts were enforced directly by KCC. It was noted that the M20 corridor comprised the main area of enforcement activity to date. It was confirmed that enforcement officers had operated 24 hours a day, more than two thirds of clamping had taken place overnight and 82% of offenders were foreign HGVs and 18% domestic HGVs. The committee was reminded that the enforcement scheme continued to 30 June 2021.

3.         Members discussed the impact of HGV fly parking on residents and highway infrastructure. Legislation and subsequent enforcement were cited as effective means of protecting local interests, comparisons were made with the domestic traffic management policies of other European states.

4.         Mr Jones said that KCC had written to the Department for Transport with a request to extend enforcement powers to the Tonbridge and Malling district. A response had not been received at the time of the meeting. Mr Jones agreed to follow up the matter with the Department.

5.         An explanation of the enforcement process, as well as an indication of how quickly enforcement officers were able to react to public information submitted via the Country Eye app, was sought by Mr Whybrow. Mr Edwards confirmed that following the submission of information, transportation officers made a judgement on whether enforcement was viable, before passing the information to enforcement officers for action. It was added that district councils submitted information directly to KCC on HGV enforcement matters.

6.         Mr Lewis asked for confirmation that the enforcement scheme operated at a financial loss. Mr Jones said that under the enforcement arrangement KCC operated as an agent of the Department for Transport and confirmed that the scheme was both self-funded and relied on a certain level of clamping to become cost neutral. Mr Jones added that the forecasts to June 2021 outlined in the report were based on figures from the first six weeks of the scheme. He noted that the enforcement powers provided secondary financial benefits when the reduction of highway network risk was considered.

7.         Mr Rayner proposed, and Mr Brazier seconded a motion that: “The Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee agree to note the update and recommend that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport writes to the Secretary of State for Transport to extend the period of enforcement powers and include those Boroughs in north and west Kent not currently included in the scheme.”

8.         Members agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee agree to note the update and recommend that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport writes to the Secretary of State for Transport to extend the period of enforcement powers and include those Boroughs in north and west Kent not currently included in the scheme.