Return to Agenda

Division(s): All

ITEM EX8

EXECUTIVE – 7 DECEMBER 2004

PARKING PLACES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE

Report by Head of Transport

Introduction

  1. The report aims to rationalise the policy for responding to requests for designation of reserved parking places for individual disabled residents. Up until 1 April 2002, the City Council was responsible for the provision of places in Oxford under its agency agreement and the County Council for the provision of places in the rest of the County. When the agency for Oxford City ended, provision in the City reverted to the County Council. It has become clear that there are differences between the two areas in the policy for provision of places as well as in the methods of implementation and charging. This report recommends a uniform approach.

  2. The proposals in the report also tie in with a motion by Councillor Jean Fooks adopted by Council on 2 November, in the following terms:

    3. "This Council asks the Executive to allocate sufficient resources within Environment & Economy to bring the provision of parking spaces for disabled residents up to date within the next financial year. This means reviewing existing allocated spaces and processing the huge backlog of applications for new ones across the County."

  3. The provision of disabled persons’ parking places more generally within town centres is a separate matter that needs to be considered in the context of parking strategies for these locations as they are developed.

    4. Background

  4. The increasing demand for parking in Oxfordshire can lead to particular difficulties for disabled people who need to park close to their homes or work. The County Council may provide a disabled persons parking place (DPPP) on a public road where there is a need. Residents may apply for one of these parking places to be provided close to their homes. However, it must be remembered that a DPPP can be used by any disabled badge holder, even though it is an individual need that may lead to the provision of a parking space. Any vehicle using a DPPP must display a current disabled person’s badge.

  5. As well as the demand for providing new DPPPs there is also considerable pressure to remove existing places when the original applicant is no longer able to use it and there is no other need for it.

  6. It is proposed that to qualify for a DPPP, the following conditions must exist:

    1. The applicant holds the recognised Blue Badge and is resident or works near the proposed DPPP.

    2. The applicant has a permanent and substantial disability such that walking is not possible or presents very considerable difficulty for distances more than 100m.

    3. There is a vehicle and driver at the address.

    4. There is no access to off street parking (unless the applicant is the vehicle driver and their disability prevents them using the off street facility).

    5. If the applicant is not the driver then they need to establish that it would be unsafe as a result of their medical condition or disability for them to be set down while the driver goes and parks the car elsewhere.

    6. There must be a suitable location for the parking place on a public road. (Oxfordshire County Council cannot provide places on private land or land owned by another authority.)

    7. A parking problem must be observed which prevents convenient access to the applicant’s home or work.

  7. However, on occasion, other mobility problems may justify a DPPP, depending on individual circumstances, subject to (a) and (f) above.

  8. The qualifying criteria for a Blue Badge are given in Annex 1. It is worth noting that there are 27,000 Blue Badges at any one time in the County, compared to 15,000 in 1996. This illustrates the potentially high demand for DPPPs.

  9. When the administration of the Oxford City scheme transferred to the County Council in April 2002 together with work on residents’ parking and various other Oxford City traffic matters, there was insufficient staffing resource to carry out all the work that transferred. Consequently no work has been done on the provision of DPPPs since that time. A consultant has been commissioned to consolidate the existing restrictions within the decriminalised parking area covering Oxford City and the Parish of North Hinksey and to create new Parking Place/Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) for the rest of the County. This will provide a consistent framework for administration of the scheme in future.

    10. Actions Needed to Create or Remove DPPPs

  10. DPPPs are provided and maintained at Oxfordshire County Council’s expense. Road markings and signing must conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and have the backing of a TRO. This will enable the DPPP to be enforced by the Council’s Parking Enforcement Contractor within the Oxford Special Parking Area and by Thames Valley Police / Traffic Wardens elsewhere.

  11. Similarly when a space is no longer required it has to be removed from the TRO using the same statutory process needed to provide it in the first place. In future, it is proposed that regular periodic reviews of DPPPs will be carried out, which will increase the need for such processes.

  12. The making of TROs is an expensive and time-consuming process, which may take months, and is subject to resources being available. As a result this is only done when we have enough applications for new spaces or removals to make it viable to process them in one Order. The intention is to create an Order for each District Council area each of which would be reviewed on a six monthly cycle depending on the number of DPPPs in that District.

  13. An applicant for a DPPP must complete an application form. The information on the form is checked and a site inspection made to confirm if there are problems and that a parking space can be provided. Informal consultations are carried out prior to publication of a TRO and formal consultation.

  14. It is estimated the worse case scenario for dealing with an individual application for a DPPP is 48 weeks from receiving the application whilst the best case would be 26 weeks, depending on the timing and complexity of an application in the cycle of processing Orders. It will therefore be necessary to start work on the next batch of applications and TROs before the first has been cleared. Annex 2 (download as .doc file) contains a flow chart which summarises the necessary procedures and timescales.

    15. Charging for Disabled Persons’ Parking Places

  15. Up until now, DPPPs have been free in Oxford City whereas a charge of £50 has been made in the rest of the County. Research into procedure in other authorities shows a mixture of practice with some charging and some not.

  16. Installing a DPPP is expensive. There is administrative work researching whether the criteria are met; amendments to the relevant TRO; and marking out the place on the ground. It is estimated that the physical works for each DPPP costs at least £120 to install, whilst TROs cost around £2,500 each (irrespective of the number of DPPPs they contain). This is why we are advocating dealing with applications in batches. There is also a cost in upgrading the (old) inherited data management system and it will be necessary to invest ICT time and money in this to ensure the DPPP scheme can be administered satisfactorily.

  17. The question whether to continue to charge for the provision of new DPPPs (or to introduce a charge within Oxford) should be viewed in the context of the Council’s Corporate Charging Policy agreed in 2002, which is "to make charges whenever it is lawful for it to do so". However the policy document also states that "In cases where the service for which a charge is possible fulfils an important social function, the Council may decide not to impose a charge" provided the "reasons for the departure are given in the relevant service's plan and approved by elected members". There are also uncertainties about the implications for charging in the latest amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act.

  18. It is necessary to ensure that the DPPPs scheme is not misused and that only those who meet the criteria are allocated a place. Charges may discourage applications with less than compelling justification but so would carrying out stringent checks to make sure the criteria are met. Placing a charge could also make the applicant feel the DPPP is their personal space, which is not the case. This is a problem in some locations even without charging, where there may be competition between badge holders for a single space.

  19. Having balanced the pros and cons of charging for places, it has been decided to recommend not to do so in view of the social benefit of providing DPPPs for disabled people. It is felt that these costs could be met from the Capital Programme scheme monies from within the Community Safety Budget.

  20. It should be emphasized that the issue of charges applies only to the one-off costs of initial provision of a DPPP. Charging for the use of a DPPP by a disabled person is not permissible.

    21. Staffing Implications

  21. As a result of rationalisation of administrative staffing resources within Environment & Economy a 0.5 FTE has been identified to work in disabled parking. As a separate (but allied) issue, it has been decided to take back work on TROs from Buckinghamshire County Council (who have been assisting with the procedural work on a consultancy basis) to regain more direct control over the process. With the reclaimed fees, the Legal Unit are recruiting staff to deal with TROs and Environment & Economy propose to allocate a 0.5 FTE post to carry out the necessary consultation and administrative work associated with TROs generally. This, together with the 0.5 FTE post for disabled persons’ parking, will be amalgamated into one FTE post.

  22. In the Legal Unit, one additional Assistant Solicitor will be in post by mid-November to strengthen the TRO work. Although his responsibilities do not include routine TRO drafting, additional staff should be in post in time to handle the work taken back from Buckinghamshire.

    23. Financial Implications

  23. It is estimated that the annual cost of providing/removing DPPPs will be £40,000 and it is recommended that this be found from within the Capital Programme Community Safety Budget. This would be an appropriate use of Local Transport Plan funding in relation to its accessibility objectives.

    24. RECOMMENDATIONS

  24. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

          1. approve the procedure and criteria set out in the report for providing and removing Disabled Persons’ Parking Places for individual residents across the County; and

          2. agree not to charge for the provision of Disabled Persons’ Parking Places on the basis that provision will be made within the Community Safety allocation in the Transport Capital Programme.

DAVID MCKIBBIN
Head of Transport

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officers: Christine Howard/Richard Dix Tel: 01865 810459/5663

November 2004

Return to TOP