Memorandum submitted by Winchester City
Council
BACKGROUND
1. Winchester City Council is a District
Council covering a large part of central Hampshire. The area is
mainly rural with the ancient city of Winchester at its geographical
and economic core. The City Council has direct responsibility
for public off-street parking within our area and acts as agent
for Hampshire County Council (which is the statutory highway authority)
in having responsibility for on-street parking. In practice we
manage a single, integrated operation for on and off street parking
including setting local parking policies, deciding parking charges,
and enforcing restrictions. The County Council, in consultation
with the District Councils, sets strategic parking policies as
part of its Local Transport Plan process.
2. In May 1996, Winchester City Council
was the first local authority outside London to take on decriminalised
parking enforcement (DPE) powers. The decision was made in recognition
of the need to expand the extent of on-street parking restrictions
in Winchester and the inability of the Police and their traffic
warden service to enforce an expanded area. The City Council has
subsequently been approached for advice by many other local councils
considering DPE and wishing to benefit from the experience gained
at Winchester.
3. Prior to DPE, the City Council was already
operating a network of off-street car parks which did and still
does generate income (currently £3.75 million gross for 2005-06)
that is used to subsidise other transport-related expenditure
such as Concessionary Travel, Shopmobility and Dial-A-Ride for
the mobility impaired. Decriminalised parking enforcement was
not introduced to generate income and although there is a small
operating surplus each year on our On-Street Parking Account (currently
£37k for 2005-06), this has not been sufficient over the
10 years of DPE to repay the capital costs of setting up DPE and
other on-street capital expenditure.
RESPONSES TO
TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS
Are local authorities carrying out parking control
reasonably, fairly and accountably, and how is performance evaluated?
4. Winchester City Council has a clear approach
to parking control that we will act reasonably and fairly. In
setting up the DPE system, we took the decision not to clamp and/or
remove vehicles and after 10 years experience of DPE we are satisfied
that was the correct decision for our area. We also decided to
carry out enforcement using Council employed parking attendants
which ensures that we can exercise effective control over their
activities. Our parking attendants do not have targets for the
number of penalty charge notices (PCNs) that they issue. We consider
all letters of representation made to us as a result of a PCN
being issued on their merits, and between 45 and 50% of those
representations are accepted. Each recipient of a PCN is able
to challenge their notice at the National Parking Adjudication
Service. Out of 13,938 PCNs issued by Winchester City Council
in 2004, only 16 PCNs were taken to appeal. Of those 16 appeals,
5 were allowed by the adjudicator and 11 were refused. With only
5 appeals allowed compared to 13,938 PCNs issued in 2004, we consider
that this is a clear demonstration that our parking enforcement
operation is fair and reasonable. Comparable data for all authorities
outside London is published in the Annual Report of the National
Parking Adjudication Service.
What action would raise the standard of parking
enforcement activity and is Statutory Guidance needed to promote
consistency?
5. Winchester City Council has had the advantage
of 10 years experience of DPE, and we have a parking enforcement
operation that was well planned initially, was adequately resourced
both with parking attendants and back office staff, and has had
the support of politicians and senior managers to deliver an effective
and fair service. The formal and informal guidance available to
local authorities taking on DPE is extensive, and Department for
Transport officials, the National Parking Adjudication Service,
and local authority networks all provide support. One area where
there is an obvious deficiency is in Circular 1/95 "Guidance
on DPE outside London" which was published in 1995. This
document provides the formal guidance from the Department for
Transport and is long overdue for replacement, although it is
understood that a replacement is due next year. From the information
we receive about other local authorities, there does appear to
be scope for improving the standard of parking enforcement in
some authorities but this will be part of the approach of all
local authorities to ensure that all services are delivered to
the highest possible standard. Additional Statutory Guidance is
not needed to promote consistency and the local democratic process
does ensure that standards are continuously kept under review
within each authority.
Is the appeals process fair and effective, and
how could it be improved?
6. Our experience is related to the Winchester
operation and formal appeals through the National Parking Adjudication
Service. We consider that the process is fair, and that if any
local authorities do not adopt a fair and reasonable approach,
the adjudication services will identify any deficiencies in a
local authority's system. The Annual Reports of the National Parking
Adjudication System have analysed where there are weaknesses in
the appeals process and local authorities have amended their systems
accordingly. The adjudication services do receive criticism from
both appellants and local authorities who may be dissatisfied
with the results of appeals, but this is inevitable when both
parties in an appeal may consider that they should win that appeal.
Most local authorities will have cases where they consider that
an appeal decision has been unfair, but that is a demonstration
that the adjudication services are impartial. A particular area
where we consider that there could be improvements in the adjudication
services is that decisions should be consistent even though each
appeal is determined by an independent adjudicator. We are aware
that the National Parking Adjudication Service is improving the
training of adjudicators to achieve greater consistency.
Should local authorities keep the revenue generated
from parking charges, and has the opportunity to raise revenue
through DPE influenced authorities' parking policy and enforcement
activity?
7. There is confusion in the question of
the revenue from on and off-street parking charges and the revenue
from DPE. In the shire county areas such as Winchester, the revenue
from parking charges is primarily from off-street car parks and
this revenue was a significant income generator prior to DPE.
The off-street parking revenue is used to subsidise other essential
transport services (but may be used for any purpose) and if this
income was not available to local authorities there would need
to be additional funding raised from Council Tax income. The income
from parking enforcement under DPE is used by Winchester to cover
the costs of on-street parking enforcement, and as detailed in
paragraph 4 above we have not yet recovered the capital costs
of setting up DPE even after 10 years of operation. We do know
from other local authorities that visit our DPE operation that
many local authorities may initially have a view that DPE will
be an income generator, but they will be corrected on this view
after a detailed assessment of income and expenditure has been
carried out. The need for revenue to be raised through DPE to
cover the costs of DPE operation will certainly influence authorities'
parking policy and enforcement activity, but for authorities such
as Winchester the level of penalty charges which is controlled
by the Secretary of State for Transport ensures that DPE will
not generate any significant net income to fund other services.
What criteria should be used to determine the
level of parking provision that should be provided?
8. There are a wide range of criteria that
local authorities may use to decide the appropriate level of parking
provision for a city or town. Each location has to be considered
individually and there is no formula that can be applied to decide
the appropriate level. Factors may include the level of traffic
congestion in an area, the availability of land in a town centre
for parking, the level of public transport options available,
the competitive demands of other towns or out-of-town shopping
centres, or the options for Park and Ride as an alternative to
town centre parking. They will also include wider considerations
such as the environmental impact of traffic, the needs of local
business or the mobility needs of all sectors of the community.
In Winchester we have traffic congestion and
air quality problems due to the level of traffic flows, we have
an historic town centre that is restricted by its traditional
road layout and the lack of options for providing extra traffic
capacity, and we have a policy that parking should be provided
in Park and Ride sites to replace parking capacity within the
town centre. There is no "one size fits all" solution
to determining the appropriate level of parking provision for
a city or town.
What are the wider impacts of current parking
policy and illegally parked vehicles, and what role should parking
policy play in traffic management and demand management?
9. Parking policies must be part of an integrated
approach to resolving both transport and wider economic or environmental
issues. Parking policies and in particular effective on-street
parking enforcement can have a direct impact on traffic management
issues such as:
— maintaining and, where possible,
improving the flow of traffic;
— improving the local environment;
There is also a direct link between parking
policies and demand management. In a centre such as Winchester
where local congestion charging is unlikely to be acceptable,
demand management by restricting parking choice, particularly
for all-day parking, is an integral part of our parking policies.
More broadly, our parking policies (including
DPE) are an integral part of our approach to supporting the local
retail, commercial and leisure economy. Parking policies can help
local employers in providing travel options for staff, and help
attract customers to local businesses. We take care to balance
all needs as best we can in seeking to manage traffic without
constraining economic development or hindering mobility for all
our citizens.
How can public understanding and acceptance of
the need for parking policy be achieved?
10. Many people recognise the need for parking
policies and parking enforcement but are upset when they receive
a penalty charge themselves. The media does inevitably generate
negative publicity about parking enforcement due to the large
increase in parking contraventions detected since local authorities
took on the DPE function. There is a need for local authorities
to ensure that they promote their parking policies as being an
integral part of solving both transport and environmental issues,
but there will be opposition from those members of the public
who consider that they have a right to unrestricted car use.
CONCLUSIONS
11. The City Council considers that it has
sound parking policies, and that it is entirely appropriate that
parking policies are primarily set at a local level to reflect
the local situation. It is also appropriate that local authorities
can set parking charges that reflect the local situation and that
income from those parking charges can be used to subsidise the
costs of providing other local services. There does need to be
wider awareness that parking policies should be complementary
to transport, environmental, economic and social policies, and
these policies need to be accepted by the public.
12. The adoption of DPE by many local authorities
ensures that effective parking enforcement is carried out in those
areas, and the current system of independent adjudication services
ensures that DPE is carried out reasonably and fairly. The primary
benefit of DPE is that the income from penalty charges is used
to provide an effective level of enforcement compared to the situation
when the police were responsible for enforcement and the income
from enforcement went direct to central government. It would be
a retrograde step if local authorities were not allowed to use
the income from DPE to fund the costs of enforcement. The regulation
by the Secretary of State for Transport of the maximum level of
penalty charges does ensure that most local authorities outside
London are unlikely to generate any significant revenue from DPE.
Winchester City Council
23 November 2005
| 
