Return to Agenda

Return to EX10A

ITEM EX10A - ANNEX 1

PARKING ON BUS ROUTES – SCRUTINY REVIEW

ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – REVIEW OF PARKING ON BUS ROUTES

Preliminary Paper on the Feasibility of Introducing Countywide Decriminalised Parking Enforcement

1. The County Council as the local traffic authority may apply to the Secretary of State for orders decriminalising non-endorsable on-street parking offences – the orders apply within defined geographical areas. Then, as the offences are no longer criminal in those areas;

1. Enforcement ceases to be the responsibility of the police and becomes the responsibility of the County Council.
2. Parking attendants place PCN’s (penalty charge notices) on vehicles breaking parking regulations and can, in appropriate circumstances, authorise the towing away or clamping of the vehicles.
3. The penalty charges are civil debts due to the County Council and enforceable through a streamlined version of the civil debt recovery process. (Without affecting that persons credit rating).
4. Motorists contesting liability for a penalty charge may make representations to the County Council and, if rejected, may have grounds to appeal to independent adjudicators for a final decision (no further appeal through the courts is possible).
5. The County Council retains the money from penalty charges which is used to finance the enforcement and adjudication systems. Any surpluses must be used for certain other traffic management or public transport purposes as governed by Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
   
   
2. Other points to note about decriminalised parking are:

1. ‘Endorsable’ parking offences (broadly those involving dangerous or obstructive parking) and some other parking offences will remain criminal and can only be enforced by the police – any fines going to the Exchequer.
2. Outside of the areas to which the orders apply, all parking offences remain subject to criminal law and police enforcement.
3. The police retain responsibility for moving traffic offences in all circumstances.
4. Only the police can direct moving traffic, close roads, or set up diversions.
   
   
3. Appendix 1 lists the parking offences that fall within the decriminalised parking regime.

The current position in Oxfordshire

4. Decriminalised parking enforcement already applies in Oxford City and the adjoining parish of North Hinksey. The work involved in enforcement is contracted out (currently to Control Plus) with a Parking Team in Environmental Services responsible for deciding on representations against PCN’s, appeals to the adjudicator, and oversight of the contract.
5. In the rest of the county enforcement is still the responsibility of the police. There are only 12 traffic wardens to cover the whole of the county outside Oxford. Except that in parts of Abingdon, Henley, Thame and Wallingford we enforce pay and display and residents parking schemes through agency arrangements with town and district councils (but not yellow line restrictions).

The Advantages of Decriminalised Parking

6. The main advantages of decriminalised parking enforcement by the County Council are:

1. We will be able to ensure that parking policies are implemented effectively and support the objectives of all our various transport strategies. For example, parking and effective management of parking are key components of the Integrated Transport Strategies being developed in the country towns and will rely on effective enforcement of parking, as will the successful operation of premium Bus Routes.
2. Benefits generally will be improved traffic flow, better management of overall traffic levels, fewer accidents, a fairer distribution of available parking places and a more pleasant environment.
3. Being responsible both for enforcement and parking policy will help us to monitor the effectiveness and value of parking control and be more responsive to the public needs.
4. The revenue from PCN’s will fund the increased level of enforcement. Any surpluses can be used for improving off-street parking in the area, or if this is unnecessary or undesirable, for highway improvements or for public transport support.
   
   
7. New Regulations are expected which will allow camera enforcement of parking offences in bus lanes in decriminalised parking areas. This would provide more continuous and effective enforcement to keep the bus lanes clear of obstructions.
8. Other advantages would be:

1. Removes the frustration of not being able to enforce infringements of yellow lines in the towns where we have agencies – at the moment this attracts comments from the public that two standards apply.
2. All enforcement is done by the same system, at the moment drivers contesting PCN’s go to the adjudicator for offences in Oxford and to the Magistrates Court for those elsewhere.
3. There is good evidence that uniformed patrols help deter crime.
4. Increased public satisfaction from effective enforcement of parking restrictions brought in to help overcome local problems.
5. A closer match can be kept on the state of lines and signs to make sure they are maintained in the condition required to support traffic orders.
   
   

What is needed to introduce Decriminalised Parking?

9. Extension of decriminalised parking to some or all of the county would be a large undertaking and, as discussed in para. 6, would need to take account of much more than solely bus route enforcement. To accomplish this would require:

1. The support of Thames Valley Police – which is likely to be forthcoming.
2. Co-operation of District Councils – the Secretary of State will want on- and off-street parking done by one authority, (not two as in Oxford). This means that either District Councils agree to manage on-street enforcement by an agency arrangement or we take over their off street enforcement.
3. Orders to apply to at least the whole of a District Council area if they do not apply to the whole of the county.
4. The development of parking and enforcement policies which are consistent with and contribute to our Local Transport Plan policies; or a review of parking policies where these already exist. Where ITS policies are being developed these will review parking policies within town areas, but consistent policies will be needed for smaller towns and villages. (e.g. commuter parking in residential areas).
5. A check of all existing traffic orders (estimated to be somewhere around 3000) to make sure they are valid and reflect current needs, plus a physical check on site of all road markings and signs to make sure they accurately tie up with the traffic orders (e.g. that the markings extend over the precise length of road described in the traffic order and that all signs required by Regulations are present and in the right place).
6. Amendment of all existing traffic orders as a consequence of the change to decriminalised enforcement, and certain other technical amendments necessitated by the changeover.
7. A sound business case to ensure that implementation and running costs of decriminalised enforcement can be recovered by income for PCN’s, on-street pay-and-display parking, and residents parking permits. This will involve decisions on what level of charge to apply when PCN’s are issued; charges currently allowed are £80, £60, or £40 (all with 50% discount for early payment). One issue will be whether a uniform charge will apply across the county – which may imply a change to the £40 charge currently applied in Oxford – or whether different charges might apply in different Districts. Other authorities who have recently introduced decriminalised parking have had to set charges at a higher level than the £40 we charge in Oxford to make a financial case.
8. A considerable consultation exercise.
9. Time to draft the required Order(s) and obtain parliamentary approval.
10. Good PR to explain the reasons for decriminalised parking, and political commitment to see through what may be an initial adverse public reaction.
    
    
10. The resources required and the timescale for a county wide project are estimated to be of the following order:

1. A client project team dedicated to this task plus a contractor’s team to carry out the work of checking, amending and drafting traffic orders.
2. An implementation cost of £1m – required in advance of any income from charges and fees.
3. An implementation time of 2 years for the whole county in one go; a longer timescale on a District by District basis would be possible but more expensive.
4. An annual running cost for enforcement of £5m which will need to be recovered from PCN’s and other income.
   
   

  Risk Management

11. The main risks to successfully implementing decriminalised parking throughout the county are:

1. Financial – we need to be certain that income would cover expenditure and not impose extra revenue costs on the County Council. Pay and display parking income would not be as great a part of the revenue as it is in Oxford City and income would rely to a greater extent on the less certain penalty charge notices. The County’s current policy where residents parking is introduced is to charge for permits so that it is self-financing, but this will need to be reconfirmed as ITS strategies develop further.
2. Public relations – local residents are likely to welcome effective enforcement of parking restrictions which they want but experience elsewhere shows that there is a risk of an adverse reaction when parking infringements that are rarely penalised now suddenly become effectively enforced. Accusations will be made that it’s being done solely to raise money. Effective advance publicity of the reasons and benefits, a period of issuing warning notices in advance of real PCN’s, and a commitment to seeing enforcement brought in will all be essential.
3. The involvement of District Councils – if the Secretary of State keeps to the position of wanting only one organisation involved in parking enforcement in a District area then either the County Council would take over enforcement of off-street car parks (may be politically problematic) or District Councils would need to expand their operations to include on-street enforcement as agents of the County Council (may give problems of what happens to existing workforces, and questions about the use of on-street parking income which is currently part of District Councils income and expenditure). Either way this issue needs to be cleared early on so that the required Orders can be written and applied for.
4. An adverse reaction to consultation – preventing this again depends on getting the case across for the benefits of decriminalised parking.
   
   

Conclusion

12. Decriminalised parking throughout Oxfordshire is achievable but requires considerable time, money and political commitment to put it in place. It cannot be done as a ‘quick fix’. If it is decided to pursue decriminalised parking much more detailed work needs to be done to define, plan and finance this project.

1. Contraventions of orders designating permitted on-start parking places such as pay-and-display bays, residents and disabled persons bays, and free parking bays.
2. Contraventions of permanent, experimental or temporary traffic regulation orders prohibiting waiting or related to loading or unloading or delivery or collections.
3. Contravention of prohibition of parking of heavy commercial vehicles on verges, central reservations and footways.
4. Contravention of prohibition of parking and cycletracks.
5. Contraventions of orders in relation to off-street parking.
6. Contraventions of off-street loading area orders prohibiting the parking of unauthorised vehicles.

Return to TOP