APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Set out below is the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea's response to the questions raised by the
Transport Committee.
1.2 This submission should be read in conjunction
with the response from the Association of London Government who
are best placed to give a London wide perspective. Their report
also includes comparative borough by borough data which is not
repeated in this paper. The ALG overview is essential in enabling
pan London consistency when dealing with the very differing parking
demands in densely populated inner London and rural/suburban outer
London.
1.3 The Royal Borough has had in place for
many years clear parking policies, which aim to:
(i) reduce congestion, improve road safety
and manage the limited available kerbside parking space;
(ii) give priority to local residents and
short-term visitors to park, over all day commuter parkers from
outside the Borough.
1.4 The strict off street private non residential
parking policies combined with fair but effective on street parking
controls operated by the inner London boroughs, including the
Royal Borough, have had a major impact in reducing car borne commuting
in London over the last 10 years. This is highlighted in the recently
published DfT Transport Statistics Bulletin which showed that
since 1994, when London boroughs became responsible for decriminalised
parking, these policies have contributed to a far greater reduction
in morning peak hour trips than the central London congestion
charging scheme.
2. A LOCAL
AUTHORITY CARRYING
OUT PARKING
CONTROLS REASONABLY?
HOW IS
PERFORMANCE MONITORED?
2.1 The Royal Borough considers that it
is carrying out its role reasonably. When the Council took over
responsibility from the Metropolitan Police in 1994 it was acknowledged
that parking had not been a police priority for several years,
with motorists able to park in the most dangerous and inconvenient
places without action being taken. Residents complained that although
they paid to park in a resident's parking bay, they could rarely
find a parking space as they were occupied by non-resident vehicles.
Whilst there is still immense pressure on resident's parking space,
residents acknowledge that the Council now ensure that all reasonable
steps are taken to deter non-residents from parking in resident's
parking bays.
2.2 In the late 1990s the Royal Borough
(and the City of London) were the first local authority to introduce
controlled parking in every road within the Borough. This was
only carried out after requests from residents and the position
of bays, the hours of control and the cost was only set following
extensive consultation.
2.3 In 2000 the Council consulted every
household in the Borough requesting their views on whether the
controls should be extended to evenings and weekends. Controls
were extended during the evenings but only in a coherent way to
minimise confusion. Also all parking bays have clear signs to
explain the hours of control. Whilst no controls were introduced
on Sundays, following representation from the public, the Council
is again consulting on Sunday parking controls.
2.4 The key point is that the Council rarely
initiates change but change comes from representations from and
then consultation with the local community. Change is often imposed
on the community by external factors, for example football matches
are now regularly played on Saturday afternoons/evenings, on Sundays
and most weekdays, rather than Saturday afternoon and the occasional
weekday evening. This puts extra pressure on local parking facilities,
to which residents and local businesses expect the Council to
respond positively to protect their amenity.
2.5 Recent surveys show that approximately
10% of offences receive a parking penalty charge notice which
the Council considers to be generally the appropriate level to
achieve the Council's aim set out in para 1.2, whilst not creating
perception of draconian enforcement.
2.6 The Council carried out surveys to obtain
residents' views of how the service operates and is administrated.
Since 1999 a resident permit holder survey has been carried out
every 2 years, most recently it was sent to 8,000 randomly selected
resident permit holders. In the 2004 survey there was a 47% return
rate. The survey questions residents on their views about each
Parking service, the opportunity for parking within the borough,
Parking Attendants and the service in general. It also looked
at the use of Internet and email. The results of the 2004 survey
show a continuing trend of improvement and satisfaction in most
areas of the Council's parking operation.
2.7 The Council also carries out a "Resident
Reviewers Exercise" (Mystery Shopping). This involves 19
residents telephoning all the services (both Council and contractor)
and asking a series of set questions. The questions were designed
to find out if staff could give reliable, consistent information
and the manner in which customers are treated—greeting,
information provided and helpfulness. The first exercise was carried
out in 2003 and another has been carried out in 2005. The results
of the exercises show a consistency of service satisfaction and
do not record any deterioration in perceived service. There were
some areas for improvement highlighted in the first exercise,
which were duly addressed and not raised again in 2005.
2.8 The Council uses focus groups and organisations
such as the Older Peoples Reading Group to obtain feedback on
the services. The Council also ensures information is clear, with
literature checked with the Plain English Campaign and crystal
marked.
3. WHAT
ACTION WOULD
RAISE THE
STANDARD OF
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITY? IS
STATUTORY GUIDANCE
NEEDED TO
PROMOTE CONSISTENCY?
3.1 The Council is currently evaluating
tenders for the third generation of parking contracts. Much has
been learned from the last 11 years' operational experience. This,
combined with the assistance of the British Parking Association's
model based contract, will provide a basis for further improvements
in standards. The ALG TEC (formerly the Parking Committee for
London) produced a Code of Practice on Parking Enforcement, which
has provided the basis for the enforcement process since 1994.
A revised version is currently being consulted on. The Transport
Research Laboratory has recently completed a study on behalf of
the Department for Transport on the improvements to the clarity
of parking signing which will also be of assistance.
4. IS
THE APPEALS
PROCESS FAIR
AND EFFECTIVE?
HOW COULD
IT BE
IMPROVED?
4.1 See the ALG response.
5. IS
IT APPROPRIATE
THAT LOCAL
AUTHORITIES SHOULD
KEEP THE
REVENUE GENERATED
FROM PARKING
FINES? IS
THERE EVIDENCE
THAT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO
RAISE REVENUE
THROUGH DECRIMINALISED
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
HAS INAPPROPRIATELY
INFLUENCED AUTHORITIES'
PARKING AND
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY?
5.1 The Royal Borough is strongly of the
view that local authorities should keep revenue generated from
parking fines.
5.2 The Royal Borough has a proven record
of hypothecating net funding from parking fines to improve the
quality of life of those in the community who are elderly or disabled,
by subsidising the Freedom Pass and other forms of subsidised
transport. The remainder of funding is used to improve the highway
fabric of the Borough with improvements to footway, lighting and
the implementation of road safety schemes. The Council's commitment
to funding this type of project is justified by the significant
reduction in personal injury accident over the last decade and
currently the Royal Borough is ahead of the Government target
for casualty reduction for this decade.
6. WHAT
CRITERIA SHOULD
BE USED
TO DETERMINE
THE LEVEL
OF PARKING
PROVISION THAT
SHOULD BE
PROVIDED?
6.1 It is impossible to set national standards
and it is essential that the design and the allocation of parking
space is developed in close collaboration with the community.
This must include extensive research and consultation.
7. WHAT
ARE THE
WIDER IMPACTS
OF CURRENT
PARKING POLICY
AND ILLEGALLY
PARKED VEHICLES?
7.1 An illegally parked vehicle can cause
a considerable amount of disruption to other road users. The impact
of badly parked vehicles on the commercial viability of an area
should not be under valued and their impact on buses is enormous.
7.2 The Royal Borough has entered into a
Public Service Agreement with the ODPM to improve bus journey
times and reliability. This is to be achieved by analysing problems
buses encounter along each route. Sometimes this may involve physical
changes to junctions or pinch points. However, usually this involves
minor changes to the parking and loading restrictions and ensuring
additional parking enforcement takes place at key times. This
reduces illegal loading and parking, resulting in improvements
to the journey time and reliability of buses and all other traffic,
which would also have been delayed as they go about their daily
business.
8. WHAT
ROLE SHOULD
PARKING POLICY
PLAY IN
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
AND DEMAND
MANAGEMENT?
8.1 Parking Policy is inextricably linked
to traffic management and demand management. As set out in para
1.3, since 1994 parking controls have played a significant role
in changing the demand to drive into central London.
8.2 The Mayor of London requires all London
Boroughs to adopt a Parking Plan as part of their Local Implementation
Plans, therefore, ensuring parking policies are clearly set out
and coherent.
9. HOW
CAN PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDING AND
ACCEPTANCE OF
THE NEED
FOR PARKING
POLICY BE
ACHIEVED?
9.1 This is something this Government can
influence considerably by positive messages to and through the
media.
9.2 Parking enforcement is essential to
ensure London (and other congested parts of the country) do not
grind to a standstill. The announcement of a "parking free
week" would result in gridlock and it is important that the
message reaches the public that the work supervised by local authorities
and carried out by parking attendants is in many areas as essential
as having your dustbins emptied. By the nature of their job, parking
attendants are unlikely to receive praise, as the person they
have helped has usually been able to drive on unaware of the potential
blockage which the parking attendant has dealt with.
10. CONCLUSION
10.1 In conclusion, the process used within
London has developed over the last 11 years and is regularly under
review both at a local level and within the Association of London
Government (ALG) and addresses the aims to reduce congestion,
improve road safety and manage the limited kerbside parking space
available in inner London.
10.2 Change is usually initiated by those
living and working in the community and changes are only implemented
following extensive statutory and non statutory consultation.
| 
