1 INTRODUCTION
1. The terms of reference for this inquiry posed
the following questions:
- Are local authorities carrying
out parking control reasonably, fairly and accountably? How is
performance evaluated?
- What action would raise the standard of parking
enforcement activity? Is Statutory Guidance needed to promote
consistency?
- Is the appeals process fair and effective? How
could it be improved?
- Is it appropriate that local authorities should
keep the revenue generated from parking charges? Is there any
evidence that the opportunity to raise revenue through decriminalized
parking enforcement has inappropriately influenced authorities'
parking policy and enforcement activity?
- What criteria should be used to determine the
level of parking provision that should be provided?
- What are the wider impacts of current parking
policy and illegally parked vehicles?
- What role should parking policy play in traffic
management and demand management?
- How can public understanding and acceptance of
the need for parking policy be achieved?[1]
2. Why conduct this inquiry into parking policy and
enforcement now? The Road Traffic Act 1991 fundamentally changed
the enforcement of on-street parking controls in the UK. From
being exclusively a police matter, this Act made it mandatory
for London boroughs and optional for other local authorities,
to take responsibility for enforcement of parking under the civil
law. Since the commencement of the 1991 Act, over 150 authorities
have adopted these civil enforcement powers, also known as decriminalised
parking enforcement (DPE).
3. As car ownership has risen, there has been an
accompanying increase in the pressure on parking space. The Association
of London Government has estimated that some 50 million illegal
parking acts take place each year in London which cost annually
in the order of £270 million in additional delays and accidents.[2]
The Department for Transport told us it did not hold such statistics
on a national scale. Extrapolating the London figure for the country
however gives an indication of the scale of the problem caused
by illegal parking.
4. Apart from the scale of the problem, these
contraventions are in themselves anti-social because their
result is to interfere with the daily lives of millions of people
by: causing congestion, disrupting bus schedules, obstructing
pedestrians and road users, and endangering public safety.
5. Sound parking regulations are vital to prevent
these unwelcome results. But such regulations are worthless if
they are not enforced. Equally, the quality of the regulations
and the enforcement regime must be high if the arrangements are
to have public credibility and support. Despite this straightforward
reasoning, the enforcement of parking controls has not been a
priority for the police for several years. This was a main reason
for the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement in
the 1990s.
6. Those local authorities that have adopted decriminalised
parking enforcement have been able to manage parking controls
as part of wider traffic management strategies which can contribute
to broader social, economic and environmental objectives. In addition,
since local authorities keep the revenue raised through parking
charges and penalty charges, there is the opportunity for them
to invest in additional parking arrangements and other transport
improvements. These are clear benefits for local government.
7. As a result of this transfer of powers, and the
increasing enforcement activity, many more people have first hand
experience of receiving Penalty Charge Notices for parking contraventions.
Local authorities with enforcement powers issued 7,123,000 Notices
in 2003.[3] It is therefore
most important that the parking regime is one that is efficient
and effective. As more local authorities adopt decriminalized
parking enforcement, and as media portrayals of over-zealous and
disproportionate enforcement persist, there is a risk that the
public perception of parking operations will deteriorate to the
point where the appropriateness of any parking controls is brought
into question.
8. The most recent figures, for 2003/04, show that
the surplus income in England from all parking activities was
£439,125,000.[4] This
is a large sum, and despite the significant growth in such revenue
generation since the introduction of civil parking enforcement
in 1991 the Department for Transport has not formally evaluated
the successes and weaknesses of the scheme.
9. For all those reasons, therefore, we thought it
timely to hold an inquiry into parking policy and enforcement.
Any enforcement system will provoke some dissatisfaction, especially
from those alleged to have infringed the regulations. Moreover,
there is wide scope for error in enforcement. We firmly believe
however that with enhanced training, guidance and clear performance
criteria it should be possible to achieve a higher quality enforcement
operation than at present throughout the country; one which enjoys
public confidence; and serves the urgent need of managing well
the valuable space on our streets.
10. We understand that the Department for Transport
intends to issue draft guidance and regulations on parking.[5]
We expect our recommendations to be considered carefully by the
Department in that exercise, and we hope that our report and the
accompanying evidence will prove useful to it.
11. We held two sessions of evidence. We wish to
thank those who provided oral and written evidence. Members of
the Committee visited the London Parking and Traffic Appeals Service
in December 2005 where they heard presentations from Mr Nick Lester
of the Association of London Government, and Mr Martin Wood, Chief
Adjudicator for London. We are grateful to them for facilitating
a useful visit. Finally, we also wish to thank Professor John
Raine of the School of Public Policy in the University of Birmingham,
our Specialist Advisor throughout this inquiry.
1 House of Commons Transport Committee Press Notice
04/2005-06, 9 August 2005 Back
2
Ev 19 Back
3
Ev 108 Back
4
Ev 108, Includes income and expenditure from on- and off-street
parking, staffing costs, parking charges and residents parking
permits. Back
5
Ev 108; Traffic Management Act 2004 Back
| 
