Archived decisions

Contact: Nick Richardson, ext 5429

1. Summary

1.1 This report outlines the situation with regard to the proposed introduction of `Decriminalised Parking Enforcement' in the borough and provides details of the costs involved and a proposed method of consultation.

2. National Policy on Parking Enforcement

2.1 The 1991 Road Traffic Act provides for highway authorities to apply to the Secretary of State for their areas to become Special Parking Areas/Permitted Parking Areas, usually referred to as SPA/PPA. Once an SPA/PPA application is approved, the power to enforce on-street parking restrictions passes from the Police to the highway authority. Parking offences are then no longer classified as a criminal offence, hence the term Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE).

2.2 As a result of a major study by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), the Government has widely promoted the principle of DPE and local authorities are being encouraged to take a wider more pro-active role in the management of on-street parking.

2.3 In pursuing an SPA/PPA application, it is a requirement that all Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) relating to lineage and signage must be accurate and up to date. It will therefore be necessary to undertake a survey of all existing lines and signs to ensure that they are in accordance with the appropriate orders.

3. Current Basingstoke Parking Position

3.1 The Borough Council owns, maintains and enforces 15 pay and display off-street car parks within Basingstoke town. These are patrolled by Borough Council parking attendants. There are also several other Borough Council owned car parks in rural areas for which charges are not currently levied.

3.2 The Borough Council is responsible for the administration of 16 residents' permit parking schemes (RPPSs) within Basingstoke town. These are all on-street parking schemes for which the Police currently has enforcement responsibility through the use of traffic wardens. As a result of constraints on budgets, in 1998 the Hampshire Constabulary stated that its primary concern is crime and criminal investigations and that only sporadic attention could be afforded to the enforcement of RPPSs.

3.3 On 9 July 1998 the Borough Council's Planning and Transportation Committee agreed that the Borough Council would fund a single traffic warden for one year, with the express purpose of enforcing the RPPSs. The situation was to be reviewed at the end of the first year.

3.4 In December 1999 a seminar for Borough Councillors on 'Residents Only Parking in the Central Area' took place where short and medium term objectives were discussed. At the subsequent Planning and Transportation Committee meeting on 20 January 2000, the outcome of the seminar was presented with a number of recommendations:

(i) further surveys of the RPPSs;

(ii) a study to be carried out to scope the issues for DPE;

(iii) monitor the effectiveness of the extra traffic warden for a decision to be made as to continuation of funding;

(iv) review RPPS boundaries, bearing in mind updated survey results;

(v) review office management of the RPPSs; and

(vi) arrange a further seminar and workshop.

3.5 In July 2001 a second seminar for Borough Councillors on DPE and RPPSs took place where the results of the initial investigation into the feasibility of DPE were discussed. Presentations were also made on DPE implementation, the DPE experience of several other authorities, proposals for RPPSs and an implementation timetable.

4. Parking Enforcement

4.1 Following negotiation with the Hampshire Constabulary, a traffic warden was employed from May 2000 for the enforcement of RPPSs, but within three months had successfully applied and transferred to a full time post with the Constabulary.

4.2 Despite considerable effort the post has remained unfilled until recently and this has meant that there has been limited enforcement of the RPPSs. The effectiveness of the extra traffic warden is difficult to measure due to the short period of operation. No noticeable difference in the level of abuse within RPPSs was observed from the surveys that took place. If DPE is implemented this post would no longer be required.

5. Further Surveys of the RPPSs

5.1 Six RPPS surveys have taken place; on a weekday in October 1999, Saturday/Sunday in June 2000 and a weekday/Saturday/Sunday in November 2000. This provided a spread of days and seasons in order to establish any discernable parking patterns. The results of the surveys highlighted:

(i) overall there was more than adequate capacity, but availability of spaces varied greatly between the 16 areas;

(ii) a moderate level of abuse by unauthorised vehicles; and

(iii) approximately one-third of the permits did not correlate to the vehicle.

6. Introduction of SPA

6.1 Following the conclusion of the RPPS surveys, RTA Associates were appointed in December 2000 to produce a report on the `Implications of the Decriminalisation of Parking Enforcement'. A brief summary of the results of the study is given below.

Identified Benefits

(i) With the agreement of the County Council to the necessary agency arrangements, the Borough Council would be in a position to provide a coordinated parking enforcement service, covering on and off-street parking. All queries relating to parking conditions and offences would be dealt with at one point of contact.

(ii) Based on previous experience of other authorities, the parking service would become self-financing during the third year of operation.

(iii) Once DPE has become established, improved compliance would be observed within permitted parking spaces. The knowledge of fair and routine enforcement would encourage compliance.

(iv) The design of future parking schemes, such as resident permit schemes for which there is demand, could be undertaken in the knowledge that parking controls would be enforced in the manner which the Borough Council decided.

(v) Improved overall environmental conditions, including safer traffic conditions and less pollution, would result from less illegal parking and better circulation.

(vi) Parking enforcement would become more locally accountable and adaptable.

(vii) Police resources would be freed up and diverted to other purposes such as crime prevention.

Anticipated Risks

(i) The initial set-up costs involved in the application process are projected as £90,000.

(ii) There would be an increase in staff numbers for both enforcement and administration. The consultants recommended that in addition to the transfer of two existing Hampshire Constabulary traffic wardens, four extra parking attendants and one supervisor are required for the enforcement side. Also one extra administrative post for the processing of penalty notices would be required.

(iii) Adverse public reactions could result if the use of contractors for certain functions of parking enforcement were considered.

7. Next Steps

7.1 The Borough Council requires the formal approval of the County Council and an agency agreement to manage such a scheme. Discussions with the County Council have already commenced and no problems are envisaged.

7.2 Both the Borough Council and the County Council will need to gain consent from the Secretary of State, as indicated in paragraph 2.1. It is envisaged that this process would take 8 to 12 months, concluding in October 2002. It is anticipated that the DPE implementation process will take about 12 months to inception. This is intended to coincide with the expected completion and opening of Festival Place.

7.3 In parallel to the above the Borough and County Councils would need to resolve various in-house activities such as checking that all Traffic Regulation Orders are up to date and the orders match what is signed on-street throughout the Borough Council area. In addition to this there would be recruitment and training of new staff, etc.

7.4 There is currently a relatively low proportion of town centre public parking allocated for disabled parking in Borough Council car parks, a total of 47 spaces (less than 3 %). As part of the DPE process consideration should be given to increasing this level. This also accords with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and social inclusion objectives.

7.5 The Borough Council does not currently operate a scheme to provide designated parking for disabled drivers within residential areas (blue badge, formerly orange badge, holders), for which there is a recognised demand. This should be coordinated with Social Services to ensure that needs are being met appropriately.

8. Future Considerations

8.1 Following the Parking Seminar in July 2001, a working group of officers was convened. The internal working group discussed the issue of contracting out the service, with input from consultants, and made visits to other authorities (Winchester and Reading).

8.2 DPE was introduced in Winchester five years ago, retaining all operations in-house and running a dedicated Parking Service. The City Council aims to provide a customer-led service with the parking attendants acting more as `parking ambassadors'. It is felt that enforcement is only part of their duties, with public relations being equally important.

8.3 Reading Borough Council introduced DPE last year and makes use of a contractor for enforcement provision and as the main point of contact for Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) recipients. Payment of a PCN may be made to the contractor or in the Payments Hall at Reading Civic Offices. Only the Parking Contract and Administration Managers are based within Reading Borough Council offices.

8.4 The Borough Council's consultants advise that externalisation is significantly more expensive than in-house operation (20% to 30%) and preparations for contracting-out could take in excess of 12 months, followed by a three-month lead-in period. A number of companies are willing to compete for parking enforcement, and may tender at a loss with the expectation of obtaining additional income through additional enforcement and/or unforeseen claims. To contract-out part or all of the parking service at this stage would delay the implementation of DPE at Basingstoke past the November 2002 deadline for the completion and opening of Festival Place.

8.5 The working group felt that Basingstoke has more in common with Winchester than Reading regarding customer focus and parking strategy. The present Parking Attendant's role (off-street) is similar to that of Winchester.

9. Communications Strategy

9.1 It is fundamental to the success of DPE that extensive consultation is undertaken on any proposals and that members of the public, local businesses, Council Members and officers are fully informed about the process. A comprehensive plan for implementing an effective communication strategy has been developed by the Head of Corporate Communications within the Borough Council.

10. Financial Implications

10.1 A financial model for the implementation of DPE has been developed. This sets out the initial costs that would be incurred in the implementation of DPE and the implications for ongoing expenditure and income. These are summarised below and are provided in more detail in the attached appendix.

Financial period	Net additional expenditure/(income)
2001/02	£7,000
2002/03	£64,000
2003/04	(£91,600)
2004/05 and thereafter	(£151,600)

10.2 In order to achieve the above figures it will be necessary for the County and Borough Councils to agree an increase in all penalties (both on and off-street) from £40 to £60 and to change the current discounts for early payment to accord with those set out in `Department of Transport - Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London' (1995).

10.3 The net additional expenditure from the parking account of £7,000 in 2001/02 and £64,200 in 2002/03 reflects the cost of setting up DPE for implementation with effect from October 2002. From 2004/05 it is expected that DPE will produce a stable level of income from fines, which will result in net additional income of £151,600 per annum.

10.4 The County Council has allocated BEST funding towards the capital cost of implementing DPE and the figures above therefore include this capital allocation from the County Council of £30,000 in 2001/02. It is anticipated that a further £45,000 might be available in the 2002/03 financial year.

11. Summary

11.1 It is considered that DPE is appropriate to Basingstoke and that it represents a good opportunity to improve the current arrangements for car parking. Having undertaken a review of the financial implications of introducing DPE, it is apparent that a steady level of income will be achieved that will off-set the initial start up costs associated with the scheme. It is anticipated that the implementation of DPE would take about 12 months to inception and is intended to coincide with the completion and opening of Festival Place.

Recommendation

That the Panel notes the current position regarding progress on the implementation of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement within the area administered by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

6976/NR

APPENDIX