APPENDIX 2
Memorandum submitted by London Borough
of Camden
Camden's parking policies have been developed,
and are applied, in the overall context of the Council's transport
objectives, which are designed to:
(a) achieve an overall modal shift away from
car-based transport to more sustainable means of travel, such
as public transport, cycling and walking;
(b) reduce the undesirable effects of traffic
congestion by discouraging inessential journeys—especially
car-oriented commuting;
(c) prioritise the use of limited road-space
towards those requirements which have the most pressing need and/or
make most effective use of the available capacity (eg residents,
buses, essential deliveries and servicing of premises, people
with disabilities, cyclists and pedestrians.)
(d) improve road safety; and
(e) improve the quality of the urban realm.
The Council's parking policies are aimed at
achieving these objectives, and over the years can be demonstrated
as having a significant degree of success. Parking controls have,
until the introduction of Congestion Charging in 2003, been the
only really effective tool available to local authorities to manage
both traffic volumes and the use of highly restricted kerbside
space. It is worth noting that the number of private cars entering
Camden—and especially that part of the borough in Central
London (south of Euston Road)—has been falling for a number
of years prior to the introduction of the Congestion Charging
scheme, (15.3% reduction in all motor traffic between 1996 and
2002, based on Camden "screen-line" traffic counts),
and much of this achievement in encouraging modal shift is directly
as a result of the rigorous use of parking controls. Camden has
adopted a similar set of objectives with respect to parking to
its neighbouring authorities (eg Westminster and Kensington &
Chelsea),
Not only have these parking policies and practices
led to the arrest of previously ever-growing problems of congestion
in Central London, but has meant that management of on-street
parking space can be more equitably allocated to the high-priority
needs of residents, disabled drivers and servicing of business
premises.
Parking controls are governed by various pieces
of primary legislation and secondary regulations, principally
the Highways Act 1980, the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984,
the Road Traffic Act 1991 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002. Central London, including the southern
part of Camden, has been subject to parking regulation in some
form or another for over 50 years, and controls were consolidated
into new Traffic Management Orders in 1976. As indicated above,
Camden strongly believes that parking controls are essential both
to support the broad objective of reducing inessential road traffic,
and managing the use of limited road space, and has, therefore,
pursued a policy of extending parking controls throughout the
borough through a systematic programme of introducing Controlled
Parking Zones.
The Parking Guidance for London published by
Government Office for London in 1998 states "The Secretary
of State expects that all boroughs should, where necessary introduce
or extend CPZs, giving priority to any gaps in inner London, and
in areas which are important local destinations." Camden
has complied with this guidance.
However, although this is a long-established
Council policy, it has only proceeded on the basis of extensive
and detailed consultation, which has sought to establish community
support for controls: in no case has a CPZ been introduced in
opposition to a majority view against controls by local residents.
It is, perhaps, pertinent to note that although many people may
well initially be opposed to or sceptical about parking controls,
when the subject is considered in detail during consultations,
and the pros and cons are carefully weighed, there has always
eventually been a clear majority in favour of controls. It is
also worth noting that in every case where a new CPZ has been
reviewed after at least six months of operation, support for controls
has generally increased.
Camden is strongly of the view that parking
controls should reflect the particular needs of the local community,
and for this reason has always attempted to tailor the detailed
arrangements relating to each CPZ to local conditions: this includes
such issues as days and hours of control, the distribution of
various types of parking bays, the parking tariff for short-stay
parking bays. The borough has also developed various different
parking "products" over the years to address particular
parking needs. For example, three distinct and different types
of Business Permits, including one designed specifically to deal
with the need for vehicle repair businesses to park their customers'
vehicles; special residents' permits for motor cycles; Visitor
Parking Permits; substitute Blue Badges for disabled drivers (to
tackle the problem of Blue Badge theft); Permission to Park notices
and various parking dispensations, which are continuing to be
evolved. We believe that we have shown a willingness to be responsive
in addressing particular legitimate parking and servicing needs,
aiming to deal with these issues fairly and openly. Camden's objective
in tackling parking issues is to evolve effective solutions based
on our established transport and parking policies, and guided
by a clear hierarchy of need.
Council has adopted the following hierarchy
of need:
— People with disabilities;
— Delivery/picking up of goods and
provision of services;
— Essential business users;
— Visitors to residents and businesses;
— Others with essential parking needs.
Once parking controls and regulations are established
following these principles, it is vital that they are enforced
rigorously, effectively and fairly. Ineffective or inconsistent
enforcement serves to undermine both the chances of success of
controls achieving their objectives, and public acceptance. When
Controlled Parking Zones are reviewed, consultations always seek
the views of residents and businesses about whether the level
of enforcement is appropriate. Overwhelmingly the response to
this question is that it is "about right". Reviews of
all the CPZs introduced in the last 10 years have shown the following
responses to the question:
|
| Too little: | 1,178 (18.5%)
|
| About right: | 3,836 (60.3%)
|
| Too much: | 1,345 (21.2%)
|
|
It is worth noting that the proportion of responses considering
the level of enforcement to be "about right" has been
increasing with more recent reviews. However, this is not reflected
in the coverage given to parking issues by the media, which gives
far greater representation to the view of the 20% who consider
enforcement to be too much rather than the 80% who consider it
to be about right, or indeed should be more rigorous. Press reports
will often concentrate on lurid (and sometimes inaccurate) details
of isolated incidents, while totally ignoring the very real benefits
which result for all road users from effective parking controls,
properly enforced.
Inevitably there are complaints about how parking controls
are enforced: most people who come into contact with parking enforcement
agencies will do so because of an actual or alleged contravention,
and this will be unwelcome in any event. In the context of the
total number of PCNs which are issued, the proportion which are
actually disputed is comparatively small, and the number requiring
intervention by the Parking Adjudicators is lower still. It is
worth noting that Camden has amongst the smallest proportion of
disputed PCNs being upheld by the Adjudicators of any London Borough.
(35.4%)
Nevertheless, it is important incorrect PCNs are not issued,
and Camden has and is taking action to improve the quality of
tickets through:
(a) a programme of training for all parking enforcement
staff;
(b) a change of emphasis in the terms and conditions of
the new parking enforcement contracts, which are based on quality
rather than quantity: the payment is based on a fixed fee, regardless
of the number of PCNs issues, with bonuses awarded for reaching
or exceeding qualitative rather than quantitive targets;
(c) examination of all new and existing regulations, including
lining and signing to ensure (i) accuracy, and (ii) clarity.
It is, perhaps, inevitable that parking regulations which
are designed to be flexible and respond to diverse local conditions
and requirements will often be complex: complexity is always going
to lead to the possibility of confusion, misunderstanding, and
misinterpretation. There have been a number of instances where
signage relating to complex parking arrangements have been compliant
with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations, but have
been very difficult for the average motorist to understand. On
other occasions attempts to bring greater clarity and logic to
signing in order to reduce the chance of misinterpretation has
meant that it has not been strictly in accordance with the restrictive
requirements of regulations, and enforcement action has not been
upheld at adjudication. It is important that there is consistency
and logic in the way that the Adjudicator's decisions are made.
The Council is sometimes criticised for the suspension of
parking bays (especially residents' bays) when works to or under
the carriageway are being carried out, and occasionally for other
purposes. This is a particular problem in densely populated areas
where there are narrow streets and few opportunities to find alternative
parking places. Generally, suspensions are unavoidable, but there
are often occasions when it is not immediately obvious why the
action has been taken, and it is not unusual for public utility
companies to request bay suspensions far in excess of both the
area and the time period needed for works to be undertaken: sometimes
no work is carried out at all. Camden believes that changes to
relevant regulations governing the activities of utilities on
the public highway would be beneficial in reducing the length
and extent of disruption to residents' parking space, and also
assist highway authorities meet their highway network management
duties placed on them by the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Whilst Camden's approach to parking controls and their enforcement
is wholly policy led, it is a fact that the borough's parking
operations do generate a surplus of revenues over costs. This
is not surprising in an inner city area, and the creation of surpluses
is not the motivation either for the introduction of controls
or for the charges set for fees and tariffs or for PCNs. Statutory
limitations set out strict requirements as to how any surplus
revenues may be used by local authorities. First and foremost
parking income should cover all costs of introducing parking controls,
administration, maintenance and enforcement. Remaining revenues
may be used, where appropriate, for the provision of off-street
parking, the provision or support of public transport facilities,
and for highway improvements—including road safety. In Camden,
the bulk of surplus revenues from parking are used to support
concessionary fares and the Council's taxi-card service for people
with mobility difficulties. In recent years, where the growth
of CPZs in the borough has led to increased revenue and therefore
surpluses, additional funds have been allocated to road safety
related improvements, and have been an important factor in the
very significant success that Camden has achieved in reducing
road casualties—reaching both government and the Mayor of
London's casualty reduction targets six years ahead of schedule.
Camden believes that it is very important that the income
from parking should be ring-fenced in this way, and retained by
local authorities to target any surpluses towards areas of policy
which are relevant and appropriate to the local community, as
well as being guided by overall transport policies. Part of the
policy objective is to obtain the highest level of compliance
as possible, while another is to reduce the demand for parking
places coming into congested areas with limited kerbside space
available. Parking controls and the associated parking charges
are, together with congestion charging, the most effective way
of doing this, but it is axiomatic that success with these two
objectives will reduce revenue from short-stay parking provision
(eg pay-and-display) and from PCNs. It is important, therefore,
to ensure that the cost of maintaining an efficient parking service
should not be reliant on PCNs or, to a lesser extent, on short-stay
parking charges.
The level of PCN charges should be sufficient to act as an
effective deterrent to non-compliance, subject to satisfactory
enforcement, and these charges are set London-wide by the Mayor,
based on recommendations from ALG, and subject to confirmation
by the Secretary of State. Supplementary enforcement action, such
as clamping and tow-aways are also subject to charges set centrally,
though the manner in which these sanctions are used, as indeed
are all enforcement issues, are a matter for individual boroughs.
Short-stay parking charges are set be the borough, and are
very broadly based on achieving an occupancy level of about 85%.
However, this determinant has significant shortcomings, especially
when:
(a) there is an over-riding policy aimed at discouraging
inessential car use and encouraging modal shift; and
(b) external factors are influencing demand, such as congestion
charging.
The Central London Congestion Charging Scheme has been very
successful in moving towards the objective of reducing the volume
of traffic entering central London, and has had a significant
effect in reducing demand for short-stay parking space. This has
meant that in many areas occupancy levels at pay-and-display bays
are now well below the 85% figure and at the same time has caused
a major drop in income from this source for boroughs within the
zone. However, it is Camden's view that it would be highly inappropriate
to reduce the parking tariff in order to obtain a return to the
85% occupancy level, in that this would negatively influence the
success of congestion charging in reducing car-based traffic congestion.
We have instead taken the opportunity to re-allocate kerbside
space to other uses based on the hierarchy of need, such as residents'
parking (in very short supply in much of the central area), disabled
parking, motor cycle and pedal cycle parking, as well as improvements
to pedestrian and cycling facilities, bus priority measures, increased
space for loading and unloading, and enhancement of the public
realm.
Illegally parked vehicles create obstructions to moving traffic
(much of this impeding the movement of buses, emergency vehicles
and delivery vehicles), can often present a major road safety
hazard, and prevent access to parking or loading space by legitimate
or priority road users: this includes residents, disabled drivers,
vehicles servicing business premises etc. The Council makes no
apology for pursuing rigorous enforcement practices against non-compliant
parking actions, and believes that the use of additional sanctions
such as clamping and removal are fully justified in order to achieve
its policy objectives. Clearly errors do occur, and the Council
makes every effort to eliminate mistakes, whether they be from
inaccurate or misleading signing and lining or from inadequate
understanding of the regulations by its parking operatives or
of its enforcement contractors' staff. Parking controls are very
complex and suitable training is essential. However we believe
that serious mistakes are rare, but parking is such an emotive
issue that cases are often exploited by the media in order to
create or exaggerate a populist story.
Part of enforcement is to encourage drivers to comply with
controls, but often drivers deliberately choose to contravene
regulations, either because they believe they will escape penalty,
or because they are prepared to take the risk of a PCN, and to
pay the charge if caught. The use of more severe sanctions, such
as clamping or tow-away, are a justified deterrent to make the
risk not only financial, but one of inconvenience, which the driver
may be less willing to venture.
To summarise Camden's position, the key points to note with
regard to parking controls and their enforcement can be characterised
as follows:
— there is a strong policy background supporting
the use of parking controls as a means of managing traffic and
as a restraint tool to discourage inessential vehicle-based journeys;
— decriminalised parking enforcement has led to
significant benefits in improving efficiency and accountability,
and this is reflected in the responses to CPZ reviews;
— local authorities have demonstrated that they
are well placed to ensure that parking controls and the use of
parking revenue are used to meet the needs of the local community,
and that income should be retained;
— parking controls and their proper enforcement
are essential to (a) the movement of traffic; (b) access to premises;
(c) ensuring that priority road users have access to limited parking
space; (d) road safety; (e) bus priority. However, the public
perception of parking controls is often very negative, largely
due to a wholly unjustifiable concentration by much of the media
on sensationalising isolated incidents or anomalies.
|
