Archived decisions

Agenda Item: 5

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report :

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area:

1.1. At present the County Council has no formal policy on parking on grass verges, footpaths and pavements (footways) and it has become apparent that a policy statement will assist in better managing complaints of this nature.

2) Issues Covered in Report:

2.1. There have been many complaints to the County Council about parking on grass verges, footpaths and pavements, the associated damage to the local environment and the shortfall of safe and secure parking space. There has also been feedback from the community that this problem is not being tackled.

2.2. Parking on grass verges, footpaths and pavements is a county-wide issue and the Hampshire Action Team (HAT) for Havant felt that the problem was of sufficient concern to residents to prompt it to establish a Task and Finish Group to review the issue and to develop some recommendations that can be applied to handling the issue throughout the county.

3) Recommendation:

3.1. That approval be given to the new Parking on Grass Verges, Footpaths and Pavements Policy Statement as set out in the appendix.

Agenda Item: 5

MAIN REPORT

1) Purpose of the Report:

1.1. This report seeks approval for inclusion of a new policy statement on Parking on Grass Verges, Footpaths and Pavements in the Highway Maintenance Management Plan. The policy statement will allow better management of complaints of this nature and a more consistent and fair response to complainants.

2) Background:

2.1. Parking on grass verges, footpaths and pavements (footways) has emerged as a persistent problem nationally. Over the past few years, local authorities have been inundated with numerous complaints, which range from the unsightly state of verges to safety issues and include some cases of severe damage and of obstruction to visibility, to access and to free passage. Often these complaints are associated with requests for the erection of posts, repair to the verge and/or provision of additional parking.

2.2. There is no doubt that verge, footpath or pavement parking can be an inconvenience to some residents and create a hazard to other motorists; especially if the vehicle is parked on a bend, narrow road or junction. Consequences may also include damage to underlying infrastructure; reducing access for street cleansing; impeding maintenance works; limiting access for larger vehicles; obstructing road users from entering and leaving properties; and increase costs to local authorities to investigate and carry out repairs or other measures deemed necessary.

2.3. Some of the main causes for parking on the verge, footpath, or pavement include:

(i) insufficient safe and convenient parking spaces available off-street and on the road;

(ii) lack of rigorous enforcement of applicable Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) and bye-laws;

(iii) narrow roads;

(iv) homes remote from the road; and

(v) inconsiderate drivers.

2.4. Parking on grass verges, footpaths and pavements is a county-wide issue and in May 2007 the HAT for Havant felt that the problem was of sufficient concern to residents to warrant its attention. The HAT established a Task and Finish Group (TFG) to review the issue and to develop some recommendations that can be applied throughout the county.

2.5. There have been many complaints to the County Council about this issue and the feedback from the community is that this problem is not being tackled.

3) Complexities:

3.1. Based on the information available nationally, it is noted that several local authorities have sought to develop measures and initiatives seeking to address the problem. However, although the problem is widespread, the causes have been varied and responses have been developed to target the specific problem. It is therefore extremely difficult to identify a single solution that can be applied universally.

3.2. In Hampshire, Fareham Borough Council has promoted a number of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) which prohibit parking and driving on mown verges but these have met with mixed success and have been found to be costly to implement and enforce, require both civil and police enforcement and do not apply to pavement parking problems. Areas where they have been most successful are those where there is adequate off-street parking available.

3.3. Solutions to verge parking problems are numerous and require a multifaceted approach and combined effort by a number of agencies if they are to be effective. Enforcement alone cannot address the problem, and without adequate alternatives would only frustrate vehicle users. The provision of additional parking is costly, is dependent on available space and will only yield results if it is placed in close proximity to the destination of users.

4) Legal Context:

4.1. Currently, there is no county-wide restriction to parking on grass verges. It is not an offence to park a motor vehicle, other than an HGV, on a grass verge unless it causes an obstruction or infringes a TRO or bye-law in force to prohibit it. Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits verge parking by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). For the most part, the management of TROs and bye-laws in Hampshire has been devolved to district councils.

4.2. There exists a 1966 Hampshire County Council bye-law prohibiting the driving or parking of vehicles on ornamental verges laid with grass, trees, shrubs or plants, which curiously only applies to Havant district. The bye-law only applies to verges where Havant Borough Council has displayed appropriate signs to that effect. However, this bye-law has been found to be unenforceable; it has no support from the Police and, in view of this, Havant Borough Council has ceased to provide the necessary signs and existing signs are not replaced as they fall into disrepair. In view of this, TROs are likely to remain the instrument of choice for regulatory parking control in Hampshire.

4.3. The County Council does not have a responsibility to provide additional, or indeed any, parking spaces. It does however have a statutory duty to ensure that highways are clear and free from obstructions and to ensure safe and free movement of all forms of traffic.

5) Actions of the Task and Finish Group (TFG):

5.1. The TFG has looked at the verge, footpath and pavement parking complaints that have been received and investigated by officers. It was noted that often there was a lack of reported detail about the nature of the problem, leaving officers to make assumptions based on their own observations; although it was clear that the nature of the complaints varied widely. The basic information about the nature of complaints showed that they included:

(i) a small number of cases where the officer found no problem;

(ii) a vast majority of cases where the residents were complaining only that the verge was damaged and unattractive; and

(iii) a very few cases where major/severe damage and safety or obstruction/reduced visibility or access was reported.

5.2. The TFG reviewed documentation describing the costs and benefits of traditional measures; as well as initiatives currently being implemented in the county and examples of best practice which emerged under Havant Borough Council's Liveability projects.

5.3. The TFG noted that the County Council currently has no policy on verge, footpath and pavement parking problems. This is acting as a barrier to any action being taken on these issues as, in this policy vacuum, it is difficult, if not impossible, to:

(i) identify what kind of action is needed in particular circumstances;

(ii) prioritise those areas where the need for action is greatest; and

(iii) evaluate the comparative need for such action against other competing service demands.

5.4. The TFG has drafted a proposal for a Policy Statement on Parking on Grass Verges, Footpaths and Pavements, together with suggested criteria for prioritising relevant complaints and treatment options. These documents were endorsed by the HAT for Havant at its meeting on 24 July 2008. The documents were circulated to the remaining HATs for comment during August 2008.

6) Feedback from other HATs

6.1 Several general comments were received from HAT Members commending the proposals contained in the TFG report.

6.2 In addition, the following specific comments were received from HAT members:

(i) Fareham - seeks additional traffic management funding to enable the Borough Council to promote further Traffic Regulation Orders prohibiting verge parking in the borough. Would also like to see additional Police enforcement of Highway Act 1835 Section 72 prohibition of driving on footways.

(ii) Winchester - advocates the provision of more lay-bys in wider verges. Would also like to see closer working between Housing and Highway Authorities to regularise parking and a clear steer to service providers (utility companies and local authorities) to set a good example.

(iii) Eastleigh - would like to see measures to make it easier for the Borough Council to introduce more Traffic Regulation Orders to prohibit verge parking.

(iv) Test Valley - advocates greater use of grass-cell block treatment to harden grass verges to support disabled and residents' parking in congested areas.

(v) Basingstoke - advocates better use of the local planning process to improve parking provision during the planning of new developments.

6.3 All of the above are valid responses to verge, footpath and pavement parking problems in certain circumstances (Section 7 and Annex 2 to the Appendix) and are included as available options in the proposed Policy Statement.

7) Conclusions:

7.1. As verge, footway and pavement parking problems become known, there is a need to investigate the causes and to adopt measures to meet the specific needs of the area. Solutions need to fit the individual situations and, in most cases, more information is required about the nature of the problem before a solution can be identified. The collection of complaints is mostly undertaken on behalf of the Environment Department by Hantsdirect. The Environment Department is liaising with Hantsdirect to ensure that appropriate scripts are available to its agents to enable them to obtain the relevant information and to record it in a meaningful way.

7.2. Investigative procedures are resource intensive. To assist the Environment Department better to manage resources and to tackle the problem, the TFG recommends that a policy and strategy which would assist in managing the complaints should be adopted. The suggested policy statement is set out in the Appendix including some suggested criteria for prioritising the need for action in relation to reported problems, with safety and obstruction issues taking precedence (Annex 1 to the Appendix), and some suggested treatment options, encompassing measures to provide for and to control parking as appropriate (Annex 2 to the Appendix). The policy statement seeks to match public expectation of the County Council's response to the Council's ability realistically to deliver solutions.

7.3. Once complaints have been prioritised, the highest priority complaints should then be subject to inspection to validate and supplement the information provided by the complainant. This information should then be shared across departments and with partner organisations to determine whether solutions can be incorporated with other work currently proposed or scheduled for the specific area to achieve joined-up working, better economies of scale and minimum disruption to residents and highway users.

7.4. There are then a number of possible treatments that could be progressed depending upon the nature of the situation. For example, waiting restrictions or physical parking controls where sufficient off-street parking already exists; hardened verges where there is a lack of off-street parking and highway space is restricted. There is no single treatment that will fit all situations and, in some cases, a number of complementary treatments may be required, either concurrently or in a phased approach. For example, a residents' parking scheme could be introduced with the construction of additional parking bays, to control the use of those bays and maximise their benefit.

7.5. Selection of a suitable treatment will be dependent on securing support from the local community and partner agencies. This is particularly important where parking controls involving TROs are concerned. In such cases the support of the Police (or civil parking enforcement authority, where applicable) is an essential prerequisite.

7.6. Implementation of any selected treatment will depend on the availability of funding. There are a number of funding streams which may contribute to the successful implementation of treatments:

(i) minor works may be progressed with little delay through the routine highway maintenance and traffic management budgets;

(ii) larger works may successfully be incorporated into existing major maintenance or improvement schemes promoted for other purposes;

(iii) external funding may be available from developers' contributions or from third parties which will benefit from the works; including district councils, housing associations and other landlords; and

(iv) a bid can be made against one of the Local Transport Plan budgets in the Council's future capital works programme.

7.7. The TFG also considered the need to inform the public of the procedures, processes and policy of the Council. Whilst residents' concerns are all legitimate and demand a response, resources, particularly financial resources, are extremely limited and any response or action taken by a local authority has to be mindful of this. The TFG recommends that, alongside a policy to assist in managing these priorities, there needs to be some public communication that:

(i) draws attention to the problems caused by indiscriminate verge, footpath and pavement parking;

(ii) recommends some self-help best practice to minimise the impact of parking;

(iii) explains the procedure for making and addressing complaints; highlighting the issues and constraints such as treatment costs and the length of time it may take to respond; and

(iv) where appropriate, engages with the local community on specific issues to try to secure an agreed approach.

8) Recommendation

Please see the Executive Summary for the recommendation.

1764Rpt/236/PM

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Integral Appendix B

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS:

Equalities Impact Assessment

Assessment of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has been considered in the development of this proposal. No adverse impact has been identified in terms of race, creed or gender.

Impact on Crime and Disorder

The provisions of the Act have no impact on this proposal.

APPENDIX

PARKING ON GRASS VERGES, FOOTPATHS AND PAVEMENTS

POLICY STATEMENT

1. Verges, footpaths and pavements are, like roads, all part of the highway. It is the statutory duty of the County Council and its duly authorised agents to keep all highways clear and free from obstructions and to ensure safe and expeditious movement of traffic, including pedestrians. The public has a legal right of way to pass along such highways in travelling from place to place but has no legal right to park vehicles on the highway. The County Council does not have any responsibility to provide parking spaces and is committed to reducing dependency on motor vehicles and improving travel choices for the residents of, and visitors to, Hampshire. The primary responsibility for finding acceptable parking spaces rests with vehicle owners/keepers.

2. The County Council is aware that demand for parking space often exceeds availability of off-street facilities and believes that it is appropriate to accept a degree of parking on the highway where this is safe, does not cause an obstruction and does not damage the highway or any services buried within the highway. Nevertheless the County Council will always prefer motorists to provide or to find off-street parking space wherever this is possible.

3. The parking of vehicles on grass verges, footpaths and pavements is increasingly widespread and creates significant problems in many areas for residents, highway users and for the Council itself. The circumstances of each case vary widely and thus it is extremely difficult to identify a single solution that can be applied universally. The County Council therefore has adopted a flexible approach to the problem, with a view to addressing each complaint as it arises.

4. The County Council invites members of the public to report problems directly to its contact centre, Hantsdirect, giving as much information as possible to describe the nature and extent of the problem, its location and its consequences. This information, along with any other information collected, will then help the County Council to analyse the cause of the problem and will inform the categorisation and prioritisation (Annex 1) process required before problems can be addressed. The highest priority problems are those most likely to receive treatment.

5. The County Council has determined that the treatment of verge parking needs to take into consideration road safety, the expeditious movement of traffic, the effect on the street scene, and the available resources. Depending on the prevailing conditions and community views, the Environment Department will work with partners where necessary to determine the course of action, if any, to be taken from a raft of possible measures (Annex 2).

6. Solutions will be considered on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis focusing on areas of greatest need and will be dependent on a consensus of support from the local community and from partner agencies. The introduction of legally enforceable parking controls to deal with verge, footpath and pavement parking problems will need to have the support of the Police (or civil parking enforcement authority, where applicable).

7. Members of the public will have the opportunity to update themselves on the progress of each complaint through the Council's website. The length of time to resolution will be dependent on prevailing conditions, the action to be taken and the availability of funds.

ANNEX 1

PARKING ON GRASS VERGES, FOOTPATHS AND PAVEMENTS

CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISING COMPLAINTS

1. Safety - established casualty problem

2. Safety - potential casualty risk to vulnerable highway users (eg children, elderly, those with mobility impairment)

3. Safety - potential casualty risk to other highway users

4. Obstruction - to vehicular traffic used for passenger transport

5. Obstruction - to commercial traffic (including loading/unloading)

6. Obstruction - to other vehicular traffic

7. Obstruction - to highway users with mobility impairment

8. Damage* - to buried services

9. Obstruction - to pedestrians

10. Obstruction - to private accesses

11. Obstruction - to highway maintenance works (including street cleansing and verge maintenance)

12. Obstruction - to visibility (not included in safety above)

13. Damage* - to fabric of highway (footway or carriageway surface, drains, kerbs etc)

14. Damage* - to highway trees and tree roots

15. Damage* - to other highway planting

16. Damage* - to highway grass verges in conservation areas

17. Damage* - to other highway grass verges

* Either immediate or cumulative damage

ANNEX 2

PARKING ON GRASS VERGES, FOOTPATHS AND PAVEMENTS

TREATMENT OPTIONS

This annex outlines some of the options/treatments that are available to address the problem of parking on verges, footpaths and pavements. It also highlights the advantages, disadvantages and potential risks for each.

Provide additional parking spaces

Benefits

_ Satisfies public demand for secure, convenient parking.

_ Controls the location and manner of parking.

_ Reduces environmental damage.

Disbenefits

_ Reduces the `green' environment.

_ Reduces `non-vehicular' public space.

_ Increases run-off of surface water.

_ Works are very expensive (costly to undertake if done properly; costly to maintain if not done properly).

_ Does not promote County Council policy of reducing dependency on motor vehicles.

Risks

_ May increase demand for parking space, which then is never satisfied.

_ May lead to increase in vehicle maintenance activities.

_ May require extensive diversion of buried utility services.

_ May discourage residents from providing off-street parking.

_ May overload existing drainage system.

_ May be difficult to justify selection of limited number of high priority sites for treatment.

Prohibit verge parking

Benefits

_ Controls the location and manner of parking.

_ Reduces environmental damage.

_ Encourages residents to provide off-street parking where possible.

Disbenefits

_ Requires bye-law or traffic regulation order (TRO) to be made and enforced.

_ Requires traffic signs and yellow lines.

_ Does not satisfy demand for parking.

Risks

_ May not be enforceable.

_ May displace parking problem to other locations.

_ May lead to obstruction of the carriageway or footways

_ May restrict access to local services (eg letter/telephone box, cash machine or convenience store).

Exclude verge parking

Benefits

_ Controls the location and manner of parking.

_ Reduces environmental damage.

_ Encourages residents to provide off-street parking where possible.

Disbenefits

_ Requires extensive use of dragon's teeth, posts, railings or planting.

_ Causes difficulties for verge maintenance operations.

_ Does not satisfy demand for parking.

Risks

_ May displace parking problem to other locations.

_ May lead to obstruction of the carriageway or footways.

_ May restrict access to local services (eg letter/telephone box, cash machine or convenience store).

Allow verge parking and strengthen verges

Benefits

_ Reduces environmental damage.

Disbenefits

_ Works are moderately expensive.

_ Does not control the location and manner of parking.

_ Does not promote County Council policy of reducing dependency on motor vehicles.

Risks

_ May require diversion of buried utility services.

_ May discourage residents from providing off-street parking.

Allow verge parking and undertake periodic repairs

Benefits

_ Inexpensive.

_ Easy to manage.

Disbenefits

_ Does not reduce environmental damage.

_ Does not control the location and manner of parking.

_ Does not promote County Council policy of reducing dependency on motor vehicles.

Risks

_ May discourage residents from providing off-street parking.

_ May lead to further abuse of highway land.

_ May appear to suggest a lack of care.