Agenda item

This report recommends the adoption of a Parking Management Policy to formalise working practises within the parking team and adjust previously set Parking Management Programme Scoring Criteria.

Recommendation:

That the Committee agrees that the Parking Management Policy at Appendix A is progressed to Policy and Resources committee for approval.

The Principal Sustainable Travel Planner and Transport Officer presented a report which recommended the adoption of a new Parking Management Policy to formalise working practices within the parking team and adjust previously set Parking Management Programme scoring criteria.  The policy presented guiding principles for conducting parking consultations and designing parking schemes, as well as the handling of parking requests and petitions, and the approach to installing advisory H bar markings, vehicle crossovers, verge hardening, and advisory disabled parking bays.

The Committee heard that the policy was not exhaustive but focused on the areas which were considered to be the most important to address.  In developing the policy officers were also seeking to potentially influence any future policy with a newly established authority under local government re-organisation (LGR), although it was noted that the position in respect of LGR had changed since the publication of the agenda.

The Committee heard that the policy would not affect the application of any existing or forthcoming regulations or statutory guidance: these would apply separately to the policy.

A local resident spoke against the policy, and raised objections principally in relation to the approach to parking petitions which it was considered would hinder residents’ abilities to have their voices heard on parking issues.

Councillor Andrea Fraser also spoke on the item, highlighting that whilst the principle of a clear policy was welcomed, there were concerns about the proposed governance arrangements, particularly the loss of meaningful local Ward Member involvement.  Concerns were also raised about the proposed scoring system, the removal of recognition of Ward Councillor support and the introduction of officers’ discretion to adjust the score between minus 5 and plus 5 points.   Three safeguards were proposed: firstly, that Ward Councillors must be consulted on significant schemes (not ‘generally consulted’ as set out a paragraph 11.3 of the draft policy); secondly, where Ward Members and the Lead Member materially disagreed or there was a significant local opposition, there should be a mechanism for the decision to come back for member consideration; and thirdly, where a scheme was progressed outside the normal scoring prioritisation process, there should be a clear published justification.

In responding to the points raised by the first speaker, the Principal Sustainable Travel Planner and Transport Officer clarified that the policy did not overrule the Council’s Constitution in relation to the hearing of petitions. Instead, it sought to regularise how those petitions would then be processed within the parking team.  The intention was not to prevent people from challenging a very recent traffic regulation which had been implemented and had had an undesired effect.  The reference legislation and associated guidance was clear that local authorities must have a policy where there was the right to challenge parking policies through a petition or through requests to make a change to traffic orders. Accordingly, a petition would not be rejected if it related to a recent change (an example of this was the Rickmansworth West scheme). However, there was a need to have a policy with regard to the processing of petitions more generally, particularly those which were being submitted regularly, in order to manage workload and assess which schemes were suitable for progression.

In respect to the points raised by the second speaker, it was clarified that whilst the policy may not reflect it, local Ward Members were involved in all major and significant schemes throughout the design process.  The only cases when Ward Members may not be consulted was in relation to purely administrative traffic regulation orders or very minor schemes.  In those cases, councillors were notified but not generally consulted because they covered a large area and normally involved quite a small and insignificant change.  It was suggested that paragraph 11.3 could be amended to clarify that ‘local Ward Councillors will be considered consultees within the progression of parking schemes and will be provided the opportunity to respond and influence designs throughout. The exception to this will be very minor schemes such as junction protection or purely administrative traffic regulation orders.’

A Committee Member expressed the view, in relation to petitions, that the policy failed to comply with national guidance as the latter specified that decisions on the local authorities' response to a petition should be made by those who were accountable to the local electorate (i.e. councillors) and not be delegated to officers or to a single Executive Member (or Lead Councillor). Additionally, decisions should be made in a publicly accessible forum where the petitioner had the opportunity to witness the discussion and defend their challenge, and so it was suggested that where a scheme was not progressed then petitions should be brought back to committee for debate and decision.  Other points raised included that there was no definition in the policy of ‘vexatious’; the scoring system set out that petitions would increase the score by the maximum 10 points but officers then had discretion to adjust the score up or down by up to five points; and only the Lead Member and officers had the ability to allocate points towards the prioritisation of a scheme (or veto a scheme).

Officers responded that further consideration would be given to the points raised.  However, there was an issue which needed to be addressed in that an increasing number of petitions for parking schemes was being received, meaning that those schemes jumped to the top of the priority list.  This was to the detriment of properties or roads which had very few residents, or where there was an acute issue affecting just a few residents, as these schemes were not able to generate sufficient signatories to a petition.  It was also to the detriment of individual requests.  The current way in which petitions were scored meant that schemes were being prioritised where local residents were more vocal, as well as those which were situated in areas where there were more residents.  The Parking Management Programme already operated on a two-year cycle and bringing all petitions back to committee for debate and decision would slow the process further, resulting in schemes not being implemented effectively or efficiently.  It was considered that the process was, and would continue to be, transparent: most petitions related to requests for the introduction of a scheme and were heard by the committee before being added to the programme.  Where there was significant public objection and/or petitions received during the scheme development, where necessary these would brought back to the committee (as had been the case with the Rickmansworth West scheme) rather than the decision being delegated to the Lead Member.  However, it needed to be remembered that parking was an emotive issue, and that some schemes would remain contentious.  It was also clarified that additions to the programme by the Lead Member were made on an exceptional basis, and only where there was strong justification for doing so.

Officers undertook to give further consideration to the comments made and to bring the draft policy back to the next meeting with any amendments.  However, it was highlighted that any changes would still need to take account of the limitations of the two-year programme and address the currently disparity with regard to the scoring allocated to petitions.

RESOLVED:

That officers should give consideration to the comments made, and that the Parking Management Policy should be brought back to the November meeting of the Committee.