Agenda item

The District Council as the statutory Local Parking Authority (and as agent to the local Highway Authority, Hertfordshire County Council) manages the provision of on- and off-street parking in the Three Rivers District through the Parking Management Programme.

Three Rivers District Council has a specific role in creating parking schemes which help manage parking demand. Hertfordshire County Council is responsible for maintaining and managing public roads as the local Highway Authority and is responsible for parking schemes to address road danger and traffic flow.

This report reviews the success of the programme and proposes additions to the programme for the financial years 2025/26.

Recommendation

That:

i)          Members note the report and approve the proposed additions, as detailed in 4.7 of this report, to the Parking Management Programme;

ii)        Officers continue to develop the Parking Management Programme as outlined in this report for 24 months before bringing the next report in 2027, unless an interim report is required as outlined in 4.5;

iii)       Once the programme has been set it shall be adhered to as the current Parking Management Programme, with any significant additions being limited to exceptions to the prioritisation procedure requested by the Lead Member, to be delegated to the Director of Finance;

iv)       The programme will be progressed in line with all relevant current practice, policy and standards; and that decisions on scheme details and programme, including the consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders developed through this programme of works and to any items remaining from earlier programmes of works, be delegated to the Director of Finance in consultation with the Lead Member and relevant Ward Councillors.

The Sustainable Transport Officer introduced the report and listed the 11 additions that officers were proposing to the parking management programme.

Members raised concerns regarding the governance and management of the new parking schemes being introduced. While in support of the 11 schemes, they highlighted a misidentification of issues at the Ferry car park, clarifying that commuter traffic is not the problem, as commuters are currently prohibited from using it. Instead, the pressure is on nearby residential roads. They emphasised the need for more frequent reviews of the schemes, suggesting that an interim report should be mandated within a year, instead of two years. This would ensure better oversight and responsiveness to community needs, particularly for schemes like the Rickmansworth West scheme, that have drawn significant public feedback. They advocated for quicker progression of certain schemes, urging amendments to the recommendations for timely evaluations. Officers acknowledged the concerns raised by Members and emphasised their awareness of the challenges and the community’s concerns. Following the discussion, Councillor Oliver Cooper proposed an amendment to paragraph ii. of the recommendation to state that an interim progress report will be put forward to the committee to note in 2026.

Members also raised concerns about digital exclusions among seniors and questions whether the Council is addressing these issues. Additionally, they enquired about any carbon impact assessment related to the parking schemes. Officers clarified that the app-based parking solution will be an additional option rather than a replacement for existing payment methods

The functionality of the parking meters at the Ferry car park were raised, particularly, in light of the nearby library’s impact on parking demand. Members highlighted that the parking meter was out of use recently and questioned how such issues are reported to the Council, emphasising the potential loss of revenue. Officers responded by explaining that there is a form available online for reporting broken meters, and acknowledged recent widespread issues with meters. They clarified that there are currently no parking restrictions in the Ferry car park, which is why the meter was covered and appeared out of use. Officers also indicated that a traffic regulation order (TRO) would be necessary for a meter to be installed if parking restrictions were implemented.

Members revisited the points made earlier of the importance of clarifying the wording in paragraph 4.5 of the report regarding the timeline for reports. They emphasised again the need for an interim report in 2026, prior to the scheduled report in 2027, suggesting that this would provide insight into progress over the 24 month programme.

Members also expressed concerns regarding the rapid developments and resident feedback, seeking clarity on how quickly adjustments can be made, specifically in relation to the Rickmansworth West scheme. Officers responded by highlighting the complexities involved, noting that the timeline for changes will depend on the scale of issues identified during the review. They emphasised that if significant changes are necessary, it could involve a lengthy statutory consultation process.

The committee briefly touched on the scheme listed under 3.1.7 in the report, seeking confirmation on its priority status. Officers indicated in response that they are working to progress various schemes quickly, including the scheme listed under 3.1.7, and mentioned upcoming consultations with Ward Councillors to ensure the progress is communicated effectively.

Members also emphasised the need to prioritise the Ferry parking scheme, arguing that it does not incur significant downsides except for officer time. They highlighted that local residents currently face high parking costs for commuting, suggesting that implementing the scheme could save money for residents and generate revenue for the Council. Officers acknowledged again the competing priorities, noting that while several schemes are in progress, the Ferry parking scheme will be included in the next programme.

The importance of transparency regarding the priority order of the schemes was highlighted by Members. Officers further stressed that the various schemes are progressing at different stages. They acknowledged past issues, where projects have taken excessively long to complete due to overpromising and lack of staff resources. The new programme aims to prioritise TRO’s and ensure ongoing work is effectively managed, including the involvement of consultants where necessary to enhance expertise and capacity.

Members requested the Kindersley Way scheme to be added to the parking management programme, for investigation. They also referred to the slow progression of previous changes and stated that they would prefer the language used in the recommendation of the previous parking management programme from 2023, which allowed broader input from Ward Councillors. Officers explained the rationale behind the current governance structure, emphasising the importance of reviewing schemes against scoring criteria before inclusion. They clarified that while new additions will be discussed with the Lead Member and relevant Councillors, the process aims to maintain prioritisation based on established criteria.

Members argued that the recommendation approved two years ago allowed for more autonomy for the officer team in consultation with the Lead Member and Ward Councillors, aiming to reflect community needs. However, the new proposal limits this authority, giving the Lead Member veto power over scheme additions, would mean a more centralised power that would undermine professional judgement. Officers responded by clarifying historical practices regarding Lead Member involvement, indicating that exceptions have traditionally required Lead Member approval. Officers expressed agreement, after further discussion, with the notion that exceptions should be considered, but emphasised the importance of maintaining a structured approach where decisions are made by officers in consultation with the Lead Member and Ward Councillors.

Councillor Oliver Cooper proposed the following amendments to paragraphs ii. and iii. of the recommendation in the report:

i)       Members note the report and approve the proposed additions, as detailed in 4.7 of this report, to the Parking Management Programme;

ii)      Officers continue to develop the Parking Management Programme as outlined in this report for 24 months, bringing an interim report in 2026 and a further programme setting report in 2027;

iii)     That once the programme has been set it shall be adhered to as the current Parking Management Programme, with any additions to this work programme to be considered by Officers in consultation with the Lead Member and relevant Ward Councillors, whose Wards are directly affected by proposals, and any final decision delegated to the Director of Finance.

iv)     The programme will be progressed in line with all relevant current practice, policy and standards; and that decisions on scheme details and programme, including the consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders developed through this programme of works and to any items remaining from earlier programmes of works, be delegated to the Director of Finance in consultation with the Lead Member and relevant Ward Councillors.

Councillor Vicky Edwards addressed the committee regarding the ongoing parking challenges in the Victorian streets of Breakspear Road and Garden Road, and a petition in connection, which was submitted 5 years ago. Officers advised that there are plans to commission an independent review by a consultant to ensure objectivity in the assessment of the yellow lines and related parking schemes, and expressed a commitment to expedite future projects, aiming to minimise the turnaround time between requests and project completion.

Councillor Chris Whately-Smith addressed the committee regarding a potential petition coming forward to the committee. Officers confirmed that they had received the petition, and advised that the procedure for prioritising parking projects can be reviewed in relation to how petitions are received.

Councillor Louise Price moved the recommendation, with the proposed amendments to paragraphs ii. and iii. of the recommendation.

On being put to the committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being by general assent.

RESOLVED:

That:

i)       Members note the report and approve the proposed additions, as detailed in 4.7 of this report, to the Parking Management Programme;

ii)      Officers continue to develop the Parking Management Programme as outlined in this report for 24 months, bringing an interim report in 2026 and a further programme setting report in 2027;

iii)     That once the programme has been set it shall be adhered to as the current Parking Management Programme, with any additions to this work programme to be considered by Officers in consultation with the Lead Member and relevant Ward Councillors, whose Wards are directly affected by proposals, and any final decision delegated to the Director of Finance.

iv)     The programme will be progressed in line with all relevant current practice, policy and standards; and that decisions on scheme details and programme, including the consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders developed through this programme of works and to any items remaining from earlier programmes of works, be delegated to the Director of Finance in consultation with the Lead Member and relevant Ward Councillors.