Issue - meetings

1.1              That Members resolve to AGREE to:

i)               Progress the extension of the Parking Enforcement Partnership with Hertsmere BC, as outlined in the table at paragraph 3.5, for a further 3 year period involving the delegation of the parking enforcement function to HBC pursuant to S101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (and all other powers so providing).  The final details to be delegated to the Director of Finance, in consultation with the relevant Lead Members, to ensure implementation in advance of 1 April 2026.

ii)              Amendments to the Traffic Regulation Order affecting the Three Rivers House car parks enabling the use of spaces for tenant permits.  The implementation, including statutory processes, is delegated to the Director of Finance in conjunction with the Lead Member.

Members were updated on the Parling Services situation, it was noted that the update seeks an extension to parking services for another 3 years in light of Local Government Reorganisation.

A member requested confirmation that the objective of the review is not to generate a surplus or profit from motorists. Officers clarified that the council is significantly below a surplus and reminded the group of the legal requirement to reinvest any surplus from parking into transportation related services.

Some members felt that generating a surplus cannot be the aim of any parking policy or fee structure, it was stated that setting fees to intentionally make a surplus would be unlawful and suggested all references implying this objective be removed. Officers responded that the parking account is currently in a significant deficit. Any surplus would be incidental, not intentional. Officers agreed to rephrase the wording to reflect that the primary objective of the review is to manage the parking account appropriately.

Members queried the high costs associated with Civil Enforcement Officers and supervisors. Concerns were raised that as the issuing of PCNs declines due to motorists becoming more aware and compliant there would be less need for Civil Enforcement Officers. Another concern raised included whether contracts allowed for cost adjustments if fewer officers were required. Clarification was also sought on third-party payments, particularly if they include consultant fees or infrastructure improvement.

Officers clarified that the current service includes 4 Civil Enforcement Officers and 1 Supervisor, with an overall service supervisor included in the new reported cost of £40,000. Third party payments reflect both the cost of the service delivery and the contractual agreement with the provider. A new piece of work is underway to assess the capacity of current schemes, eligibility for additional spaces, and potential improvements, particularly in Rickmansworth. The paring review will include recommendations on tariffs and will be presented to the committee in due course. Officers emphasised that PCN issuance should be focused on education and compliance.

The proposal was moved by Councillor Nelmes, seconded by Councillor Drury and put to the vote. With 8 votes For and 4 Against, the substantive item was carried.