House of Commons - Transport - Minutes of Evidence

Select Committee on Transport Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Department for Transport

1. Parking is very much a local issue and the Department for Transport has made clear that parking policies should be an integral part of a local authority's transport strategy. Central Government sets the framework within which local policies are developed and implemented and The Future of Transport White Paper, published in July 2004, set out a long term strategy for a modern, efficient and sustainable transport system backed up by sustained high levels of investment over 15 years. Effective management of the road network is a key part of this. The Traffic Management Act 2004 gives local authorities an explicit duty to manage their network to reduce congestion and disruption and to appoint a traffic manager. The Act also provides additional powers to do with parking, including increased scope to take over the enforcement of driving and parking offences from the police.

2. The second edition of the Department's Full Guidance on Local Transport Plans, published in December 2004, says that local authorities should have policies aimed at tackling congestion and changing travel behaviour, which could include restricting and/or charging for car parking.

3. Detailed guidance on parking policy outside London was produced by the former Department of Transport in 1995.[4] The Government's guidance for London was superseded in 2000 by the Mayor's Transport Strategy. The 1995 guidance makes clear that parking policies are an essential part of a local authority's overall traffic management policy. It advises local authorities to develop parking policies which are consistent with and contribute to their overall transport policies having regard particularly to:

— The need to maintain and, where possible, improve the flow of traffic;

— The need to improve safety and environmental conditions;

— Improving the quality and accessibility of public transport, including discouraging car use where road conditions and public transport facilities justify it;

— The needs of local residents, shops and business, including drivers making deliveries or collecting goods;

— The particular needs of people with disabilities, bearing in mind that in some cases people with disabilities are unable to use public transport and are entirely dependent on the use of a car;

— The need for coach parking, especially in areas where there is a high concentration of tourist attractions and hotels, and for parking facilities for motorcyclists;

— The needs of pedal cyclists, especially where parking controls are being used to discourage cars use and where an increase in cycling may result or is being actively encouraged.

4. Discussions about parking tend to concentrate on enforcement but all local authorities need to develop a parking strategy for their area covering on- and off-street parking provision that is linked to local objectives and circumstances, and put it in place with Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). This strategy needs to take account of planning policies and transport powers and consider the appropriate number of total spaces, the balance between short and long term spaces and the level of charges.

5. Local authorities have long been responsible for managing, directly or indirectly, all on-street and some off-street parking. Each year ODPM collects information on English local authority expenditure and income. It is published in Local Government Financial Statistics and includes aggregated information received from local authorities down to district council level on parking income and expenditure. The most recent figures, for 2003-04, show that the total income in England from all parking activities was £1,094,464,000 and total expenditure was £655,339,000.[5] The surplus across England from parking activities was, therefore, £439,125,000. The surplus is not evenly distributed across the country. The most significant surpluses are in areas where there is a limited supply of parking space, demand for parking is high and the charges for resident's parking permits, parking meters and car parks are also high, in line with the policy to set parking charges at a level that will help to control demand for parking spaces and discourage undesirable car journeys. The parking income, expenditure and surplus of the 15 authorities with the largest surplus are set out in the chart at Annex 1. This shows that 9% of the surplus is generated in the City of Westminster.

6. The parking income of a local authority comes from legal parking and, if the local authority has taken on responsibility for the enforcement of parking restrictions, from illegal parking. Legal activities include residents' parking permits, pay and display schemes, parking meters and car parks. Illegal activities include parking without a permit in a place reserved for residents or for disabled drivers, parking longer than permitted in a place where parking is permitted, parking at a banned time where parking is permitted at other times, and parking in a place where parking is not permitted.

7. The Road Traffic Act 1991 brought about a significant change in the way that on-street parking regulations are enforced. Prior to 1991 this was done by police and traffic wardens and income from Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) accrued to the Exchequer. But the police were increasingly unable to put in the resources necessary and a number of forces indicated their support for another agency taking on responsibility for parking enforcement. The consequences of the lack of enforcement, in terms of road safety and congestion, were not acceptable so the 1991 Act made it mandatory for London boroughs and optional for other local authorities to take on the civil enforcement of non-endorseable parking contraventions. Annex 2 lists the 173 councils in England who have done this.

8. Under civil, also known as decriminalised, parking enforcement (Decriminalised Parking Enforcement—DPE. Civil Parking Enforcement—CPE), parking attendants (PAs) employed directly or indirectly by the local authority issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to motorists who appear to have broken parking regulations and the local authority retains the income from the PCNs to fund the enforcement activities. Local authorities outside London may set penalty charges at any one of three levels specified by the Secretary of State.[6] In London the Mayor specifies the three penalty charge levels the boroughs may use.[7] Circular 1/95 makes clear in paragraphs 4.9 and 4.16 that local authorities should avoid using parking charges as a means of raising additional revenues or as a means of local taxation and that PCN charges should be set so that they achieve a high degree of compliance with parking controls. In areas where limited parking space is available drivers will park illegally—and often dangerously—if the financial deterrent is inadequate. It is likely that this will have serious consequences for traffic flow and road safety in the area.

9. To encourage prompt payment of PCNs a 50% discount applies if they are paid within 14 days. The charge rises by 50% on issue of a charge certificate 56 days after the PCN was originally issued, if it has not been paid and no representations about it received. Information about the income from PCNs is not collected centrally but it is shown separately in their parking accounts by some local authorities.

10. Home Office statistics[8] show that in 2003—the latest year for which figures are available—the police and traffic wardens issued 1,043,000 Fixed Penalty Notices for obstruction, waiting and parking offences and local authority parking attendants issued 7,123,000 Penalty Charge Notices. 20% of the FPNs and 62% of the PCNs were in London. In line with policy, there has been a decline over the years in the number of FPNs and an increase in the number of PCNs as local authorities outside London have taken over responsibility for parking enforcement from the police. We understand that a disproportionately large proportion of PCNs and FPNs involve commercial vehicles, unregistered vehicles and, in some areas, foreign registered vehicles. Many of the PCNs issued to vehicles in the latter two categories go unpaid.

11. Much off-street parking is owned and managed by the private sector and the terms and conditions under which they operate are governed by the Trade Descriptions Act 1988 and Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, rather than road traffic legislation. Many of the examples of excessive wheel clamping practices have taken place in private sector car parks or on other private land.

12. Although research carried out soon after wheelclamping was introduced suggested that it was the most effective deterrent against illegal parking in central London,[9] the enforcement climate has evolved since then. The 1995 guidance said that wheelclamping had a part to play in dealing with motorists for whom the PCN was an insufficient deterrent but set out a number of places where its use would be inappropriate because of the obstruction caused by an immobilised vehicle. Home Office figures[10] for on-street activity by or on behalf of local authorities showed that wheelclamping and vehicle removal are used more frequently by local authorities in London than in other parts of England. Some local authorities, such as the London Borough of Islington, have made clear their policy to use wheelclamping only in limited circumstances.

13. The civil enforcement of parking is, generally speaking, a record of success. Research by TRL for the Department[11] showed that it provided local authorities with greater control over enforcement activity, which is a key aspect of any parking strategy. But we are conscious that there are ways in which the system can be improved and the Department will shortly be consulting on draft Statutory Guidance on parking to local authorities that will be produced, along with largely consolidating regulations on parking, made under the provisions in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. A number of other reports have been published recently that consider parking issues.[12] The general conclusion of all three is that the system works reasonably well but requires some modifications. This inquiry by the Transport Select Committee is, therefore, very timely.

14. We set out a number of questions when we started to draft the Statutory Guidance and Regulations. These are set out in the discussion paper at Annex 3. We concluded that the key issues facing the civil enforcement of parking include:

— how best to frame regulations and guidance to incentivise local authorities to develop a parking regime that is based on the principles of fairness and reasonableness to the motorist AND to the people who live and work in the area;

— that the process is legitimate and transparent;

— the need for the parking strategy to be an integral part of forward looking and sustainable transport strategy and not led by financial objectives; and

— that LAs' policies and their enforcement reflect professionalism and best practice.

Are local authorities carrying out parking control reasonably, fairly and accountably?

How is performance evaluated?

15. There is considerable variation in how, and how effectively, local authorities carry out their parking activities. Some authorities use in-house parking enforcement teams whilst others use contractors. Some authorities use the model contract drawn up by the British Parking Association, or a similar contract, whilst others draw up their own.

16. There are currently no performance indicators drawn up by central government that look exclusively at parking. A performance indicator would need to cover a package of factors including staff turnover, training, and performance; parking contraventions; and PCNs issued, represented against, appealed against and successfully appealed against. Following consultation the LTP guidance recommended optional indicators for reporting and target setting might include total parking provision, the proportion of short stay parking, the price differential between short and long stay parking and the percentage of planning permissions exceeding parking standards.

17. Comprehensive Performance Assessment, which is carried out by the Audit Commission and looks at the range of services carried out by local authorities, does not explicitly cover parking. The new methodology, which will be implemented from December 2005, will look more closely at transport, including traffic management and reducing congestion. Many of the authorities making a significant surplus are categorised as "excellent" or "good". It was reported recently that an emphasis on parking enforcement was one of the factors that helped Brighton and Hove City Council become the transport local authority of the year at the National Transport Awards. In 2004 Brighton and Hove increased their parking charges significantly to ensure that these are consistently more expensive than the cost of a travel pass on the local bus network and in 2003 they had the eleventh largest surplus parking income in England. The surplus revenue is invested in public transport.

18. There are a number of organisations who are able to report or intervene if the performance of a local authority falls below a reasonable standard. The accounts of all local authorities in England must be audited by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. Appointed auditors give an opinion on the accounts and consider the corporate performance management and financial management of authorities in order to reach a conclusion on whether they have proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in their use of resources. The Commission itself also has powers to carry out inspections of local authorities and to conduct value for money studies across local government.

19. Cases of maladministration may and have been investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman—some 300 complaints were made about parking in 2003. The Ombudsman made recommendations in December 2004 about how local authorities might best carry out their practice and procedures for CPE, exercise discretion, and the form of the Notice to Owner.

What action would raise the standard of parking enforcement activity?

Is Statutory Guidance needed to promote consistency?

20. It can be difficult to identify what makes an authority good or bad. It can be the attitude of a single individual or of the whole team. It can be driven by officials, politicians, or both. There are a number of actions that an authority needs to get right if they are to raise the standard of their parking management. They include:

— getting the right restrictions for road safety and traffic management objectives and of signing them correctly so that drivers are clear about what they can and can't do;

— getting away from enforcement driven by ticket numbers or maximising revenue; for example, adopting the British Parking Association model contract which the Department for Transport helped them to develop;

— training parking attendants properly;

— considering representations from aggrieved motorists carefully;

— balancing the discretion allowed to parking attendants on the street and the consideration of mitigating circumstances by the local authority;

— better explaining the purpose and benefits of parking enforcement to local communities;

— improving the transparency of the enforcement regime.

21. The Department's statutory guidance will set out the matters relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of parking contraventions to which local authorities must have regard. It will not remove the need for parking restrictions and effective enforcement but it will enshrine a common code of practice for local authorities to follow, whilst respecting the need for local authorities to develop local solutions to local problems. This will help them measure their own performance against that of other comparable authorities and identify the areas where improvements could be made.

Is the appeals process fair and effective?

How could it be improved?

22. An appeal is the final stage in the process by which incorrectly issued PCNs can be questioned. A motorist may make an informal representation to the issuing authority after receiving a PCN. If this is not accepted and the motorist continues to believe that the PCN has been incorrectly issued, he may make formal representations to the issuing authority after receipt of the Notice to Owner (the NtO is issued if a PCN is unpaid after 28 days). Only after a formal representation has been rejected may a motorist make an appeal to the adjudicator. So it will only be the cases that are least clear cut that are dealt with by adjudication. In 2003 no further action was taken by local authorities on 1.4 million (19%) of the 7.1 million PCNs issued in England.[13] No further action is taken on PCNs which are written off because the motorist cannot be traced, the parking attendant had made an error, or a successful representation has been made. Annex 4 shows that in 2003 the majority of appeals against PCNs were in London.

23. Recent research for the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS)[14] by Birmingham University concludes that there is not much public awareness of, or understanding about NPAS; and that local authorities and appellants lack understanding of the status of NPAS as an independent tribunal.

24. We believe that the appeals system is basically sound but will consider whether improvements can be made during the development of regulations and statutory guidance to implement the parking provisions in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004). For example, in order to allow parking adjudicators to take account of extenuating circumstances, the Government has taken powers in section 80(3) of the TMA 2004 that will enable the Department to make regulations that provide another option for an adjudicator where it is considered that an authority has failed to properly exercise discretion. The role of the adjudicator in such circumstances, if he believes that a case has been made, would be to direct the enforcing authority to reconsider their decision. Other improvements might include timescales within which local authorities must respond to the adjudicator about cases that have gone to appeal and giving the adjudicator power to require a person to attend the hearing of an appeal or produce documents for the appeal.

Is it appropriate that local authorities should keep the revenue generated from parking fines?

Is there any evidence that the opportunity to raise revenue through decriminalised parking enforcement has inappropriately influenced authorities' parking policy and enforcement activity?

25. Enforcement is needed to ensure that drivers and riders comply with parking regulations. Inadequate enforcement would return parking to the disorder that existed before the 1991 Act. The number of vehicles on the road has increased from 24.5 million in 1991 to 32.6 million in 2004, which suggests that the disorder would be more marked than it was in the 1980s. The question is how authorities are best incentivised to enforce their regulations—by the prospect that their roads will be safer and less congested, or by the prospect that their roads will be safer and less congested and, furthermore, that they will keep any revenue generated by penalty charges. Recent research for the EC[15] recommends that, following experience in the UK, Spain and the Netherlands, local authorities who carry the burden of parking enforcement also get the revenue.

26. The Department does not believe that returning to the enforcement of parking contraventions by the police service is feasible. If local authorities did not keep PCN revenue it would be necessary to devise a system to submit it to the Exchequer. Such a system could be cumbersome and bureaucratic, as well as a disincentive to effective enforcement. It is likely that the local authorities would consider the withdrawal of penalty charge income a "new burden" and ask central Government to increase the Revenue Support Grant by an equivalent amount. Without compensatory funding from central Government, it is likely that the reduction in income would mean that authorities would either have to raise council tax or cut the services funded by penalty charges—all of which, currently, are transport or environmental improvements.

27. There may be some local authorities that are applying the letter of the law rather than the spirit but the objective of fair and reasonable enforcement is unlikely to be delivered by forcing local authorities to give up the penalty charge revenue. The Department believes that the way forward is to emphasise to local authorities in the statutory guidance that their parking strategy and its enforcement must be driven by transport rather than financial considerations.

What criteria should be used to determine the level of parking provision that should be provided?

28. The Government's guidance on parking provision in new development (or the expansion and change of use of existing development) is set out in PPG13 Transport, which is supplemented by specific guidance in relation to parking provision in housing development in PPG3 Housing. The key thrust of this guidance is for local authorities to use parking policies alongside other planning and transport measures to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys. To support this objective, PPG13 states that local authorities should not normally require developers to provide more spaces than the developer would wish. LAs should also encourage the shared use of parking, particularly in town centres and, where appropriate, introduce on street parking controls in areas adjacent to major travel generating development to minimise the potential displacement of parking where on site parking is limited. PPG13 says that local authorities should set maximum levels of parking provision. Annex D of PPG13 sets out national maxima for development above certain sizes, but planning bodies may adopt more rigorous standards. PPG3 advises local authorities to set maximum car parking standards for residential development and to revise their existing parking standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision in areas of good public transport accessibility and where effective on-street parking controls exist or can be secured, such as town centres. It also advises that local car parking standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments.

29. A recently published good practice report by the Institution of Highways and Transportation, which was supported by the Department, gives guidance to local authorities about developing parking strategies, which includes advice on the levels of provision.[16]

What are the wider impacts of current parking policy and illegally parked vehicles?

30. Properly designed and enforced parking controls make an important contribution to the Department's objectives of reducing congestion, improving road safety and improving the environment. They are needed so people can move around conveniently and safely in their cars, on the bus or on foot. Parking controls have a contribution to make in improving the visual environment and environmental pollution. They are also important for managing the use of kerb-space, for which there is increasing competition in many towns and cities. Authorities need to manage kerb space so that essential commercial traffic can deliver and collect goods to and from shops and businesses, access is maintained for visitors and shoppers to support the local economy, bus stops are kept clear and there is parking for disabled badge holders.

31. Concern may be expressed about the impact on the local economy when parking controls, or paying for parking space, is introduced. A number of studies in the 1990s looked at the relationship between the availability of parking space and the local economy. WS Atkins[17] concluded that if relationships do exist between the provision of public off-street parking and a town centre retail economy, it cannot be proven by way of straight forward parameters. They thought that a weak economy was likely to be due to wider problems including those of a macro-economic nature.

32. Parking also needs to be managed in many residential areas in order to control commuter parking in inappropriate areas and ensure that residents and their visitors have somewhere to park their own cars. The management of on-street parking, with some controls and restrictions, is therefore unavoidable if our towns and cities are to function properly, especially as pressure on parking spaces has grown over the years. In 1993 TRL looked at the future of residential parking.[18] They said that the most striking conclusion to emerge was that peoples' determination to own cars seems to outweigh all other considerations, including the difficulty of parking. Parking space did not seem to be an important consideration in the choice of a house, and car ownership levels at the sites surveyed were unaffected by the amount of parking space. Even in the worst areas for parking the indications were that people still intended to buy more cars. TRL noted that residents' parking permit schemes may help to maintain a balance between the needs of residents and other car users but could be expensive to enforce and did not make more parking space available. They saw new developments as most problematic, where parking provision was inadequate. Recent work by the RAC[19] said that nearly five times as many people would move house rather than sell their car if they had no access to residential parking outside their home.

The Special Parking Area in the District of Winchester by C E Vance, M W Pickett and S M Gray TRL Report 333—1998.

The Special Parking Area in Oxford by C E Vance, M W Pickett and S M Gray TRL Report 405—1999.

Local Authority Parking Enforcement—Defining Quality—Raising Standards by John W Raine, Eileen Dunstan and Theresa Parry, University of Birmingham—July 2005.

Motoring towards 2050: Parking in Transport Policy by the RAC Foundation—December 2004.

What role should parking policy play in traffic management and demand management?

33. On average every car will be parked somewhere 23 hours out of 24.[20] This means that there is a substantial demand for parking space and suggests that what is done with parked vehicles has a significant impact on traffic management. The 1995 guidance said that parking policies are an essential part of a local authority's overall traffic management policy. The increase in the number of vehicles on the road, the increase in vehicle usage and the relative reduction in the amount of parking space available means that it is still true.

34. The Department's guidance to local authorities about their network management duty[21] made clear that this is one element of an authority's transport activities and should complement other policies and actions. As such, local traffic authorities should incorporate desired outcomes and policies under the network management duty within their Local Transport Plan in order to achieve a coherent approach. The guidance goes on to advise authorities to ensure that roadside controls preventing loading and parking, banning particular traffic movements, and so on, continue to exist where there is a need for them.

35. Most of the work to examine the impacts of parking policy and illegal parking was done before the civil enforcement of parking became widespread and parking controls were one of the few demand management levers available. Work in 1994 at TRL[22] considered the impact of doubling parking charges and halving the number of parking spaces in five cities. Both had a significant effect on car use in the central area but halving the number of parking spaces had the most significant impact. However, the impact in the central area was offset by increased car use in the outer urban area. Work by MVA[23] in Bristol concluded that a do-maximum parking control strategy would reduce car trips to the central area by 77% and to the central area outside the city centre by 23%.

How can public understanding and acceptance of the need for parking policy be achieved?

36. The first thing that an authority needs to do to achieve public understanding and acceptance of its parking policies is to carry out full and open consultation on draft policies before bringing them into force. They need to explain in this consultation why parking controls are necessary and what any surplus parking revenue is or will be used for. They will then have to take account of the responses. Local authorities need to know what is required by residents, businesses and visitors; introduce policies and regulations that balance those needs; and then enforce them fairly and reasonably. The IHT report[24] contains useful guidance about consultation and communications.

37. They need to make clear to the public what their parking and parking enforcement policies are by publishing them, and make parking restrictions clear on-street. There are too many examples of signs that are so incomprehensible or confusing that drivers find it difficult to comply with them because they simply do not understand the restrictions. As with many areas of activity, it is important that local authorities use staff that are adequately trained to install signs and lines that comply with statutory requirements, but the shortage of people with traffic management skills can make this difficult.

38. The public need clear guidance about the steps they can take if they consider that the PCN or FPN they have received is not merited. Local authorities and adjudicators need to respond quickly and fairly to representations and appeals.

39. The attitude that drivers and riders have a right to park wherever and whenever they like, without regard to the inconvenience and danger it causes to others, developed when finding a parking space was not a problem and parking restrictions were not properly enforced. It is likely that it will be some years before the vast majority of drivers and riders understand and accept the need for parking restrictions. The view of the Department for Transport is that fair and reasonable enforcement of carefully thought through parking restrictions is key to delivering this.

21 September 2005

4 Local Authority Circular 1/95-Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London. Back

5 Includes income and expenditure from on- and off-street parking, staffing costs, parking charges and residents parking permits. Back

6 £40.00, £50.00 or £60.00-May 2001 amendment to Circular 1/95. Back

7 £60.00, £80.00 or £100.00. Back

8 Motoring Offences and Breath Test Statistics for England and Wales 2003 by Ransford Fiti, Dave Perry and Liza Murray Table C. Back

9 The effects of wheelclamping on Central London by R M Kimber TRL-1984. Back

10 Motoring Offences and Breath Tests ibid Table 22. Back

11 Special Parking Areas in London by S Gray, C Vance and M Pickett TRL Report 279-1997. Back

12 A Review of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement for the British Parking Association by Richard Childs QPM BSc FSyl-June 2005. Back

13 Motoring Offences and Breath Test Statistics ibid Table 22. Back

14 User Perspectives on the National Parking Adjudication Service by John W Raine and Eileen Dunstan, Birmingham University-April 2005. Back