Memorandum from London Councils Transport
and Environment Committee (FT 01)
INTRODUCTION
1. London Councils Transport and Environment
Committee (TEC) is a statutory joint committee representing all
32 London boroughs and the City of London. In addition, Transport
for London is a member of London Councils TEC. It is the main
voice of the London boroughs and of their electorates on a wide
range of issues relating to transport and the environment in London
and related matters of concern to Londoners. It also carries out
a number of statutory functions and works closely with the Local
Government Association and with many private, voluntary and public
sector bodies.
2. The main points that London Councils
would like to highlight in our evidence to this inquiry are as
follows:
— There is an urgent need to ensure
effective enforcement against foreign registered goods vehicles
for parking and traffic offences so as to ensure a level playing
field between UK and overseas registered vehicles. There is evidence
that a high proportion of penalty charge notices issued to foreign
registered vehicles go unpaid and foreign registered goods vehicles
are also more likely to be involved in an accident than UK registered
ones.
— London Councils has responsibility
for administering and enforcing the London Lorry Control Scheme
(LLCS) and believes that restrictions on night-time deliveries
are still appropriate but there may now be a case for reviewing
the current restrictions, to reduce the extent to which lorries
have to make longer diversionary or alternative routes, given
concerns about vehicle emissions. Any such changes would need
to be agreed with London Councils TEC.
— London Councils welcomes measures
to reduce the environmental impact of freight movements by encouraging
a modal shift from road and air freight. However, any transfer
of freight to rail services should only happen where there is
spare capacity available or additional capacity is to be provided
to avoid any negative impacts on the train path capacity for passenger
trains.
— London Councils recognises the value
of Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) but believes that establishment
of FQPs should not over-ride the role of London local authorities
in identifying appropriate solutions to deal with freight.
3. Further details on these and other issues
can be found in London Councils' response to individual questions
provided below:
Is the Department's investment in logistics programmes—including
the Sustainable Distribution Fund—good value for money and
meeting the objectives?
4. Yes, London Councils believes it is important
to fund initiatives such as this because they create new opportunities
in freight transport.
International distribution patterns involving
air freight increase carbon dioxide by up to 30 times that of
sea transport—what more can be done to promote modal shift
from road and air freight to inland waterway, shipping and rail?
How can the Government encourage and incentivise further efficiency
improvements?
5. The Government needs to focus funding
on infrastructure improvements such as increasing rail capacity,
building time-saving diversions, promoting port improvements and
modernising goods transfer hubs. London Councils welcomes measures
to reduce the environmental impact of freight movements by encouraging
a modal shift from road and air freight. However, there is a need
to strike a balance between passenger and freight trains in terms
of the allocation of train paths and any transfer of freight to
rail services should only happen where there is spare capacity
available or additional capacity is to be provided to avoid any
negative impacts on the train path capacity for passenger trains.
In particular London Councils would like to see the allocation
of paths for passenger trains maximised during weekday peak hours
and other busy times. This is particularly relevant given the
predicted increase in population and employment in Greater London.
Air freight in the South-East is forecast to grow
from 2.2 million tonnes a year in 2003 to 14 million tonnes by
2030. Has the Department adequately planned for the capacity and
access implications of this very significant growth? How will
transport networks need to adjust to serve the growing air freight
market?
6. Most goods are transferred from airports
by road so rail access to airports needs to be enhanced, otherwise,
this increase in air freight will lead to an increase in freight
vehicles on the roads around airports. Airport capacity in the
South East is heavily constrained in any case and expansion poses
serious environmental and financial problems. Nor would it be
reasonable, from an environmental point of view, to encourage
air freight to use spare capacity at night. Improvements to surface
access for freight will also be difficult, with improvements to
public transport access releasing some capacity by transferring
passengers from road transport offer the best realistic prospect
of improving this.
Should the Department have more responsibility
for planning and delivering integrated infrastructure which might
promote "free movement of goods"? How is this to be
balanced with the Department's other commitments? What should
be the priorities for the Transport Innovation Fund productivity
stream?
7. The importance of the freight industry
to the UK economy should not be overlooked. There is definitely
a role for the Department for Transport to play in national level
freight infrastructure and planning. However, the possibilities
will depend heavily on local circumstances and such developments
should be taken forward as partnerships with relevant local authorities.
8. More should be done to assist the freight
industry to develop mapping/routing tools, such as the one London
Councils is currently developing with the PIEGuide Company, and
the DfT should be taking a more active role in supporting such
initiatives. The DfT should also be seeking to develop measures
that reduce the reliance on satellite navigation designed and
targeted at car users. Many of these systems fall far short of
meeting the specific needs of the freight industry. If this issue
is not addressed, there may eventually need to be legislation
to discourage the use of unsuitable roads by large goods vehicles
as a result of inappropriate use of satellite navigation equipment.
How successfully has the Government influenced
European negotiations regarding freight operations? How could
the Government help to ensure a level playing field between UK
and overseas freight companies?
9. 75% of international road freight entering
or leaving Britain is in foreign registered vehicles. Different
levels of regulation and taxation are responsible for this. This
is not an argument for reducing regulation and taxation in Britain
to match that which exists elsewhere but for the Government to
look more closely at the structure of regulation and taxation
in the UK to enable it to impact more equally on foreign operators.
10. The Government must also take action
to address the problem of enforcement against foreign registered
vehicles if it wants to help ensure a level playing field between
UK and overseas freight companies. London Councils supports Project
SPARKS, an initiative that brings together local traffic enforcement
authorities in the UK and other EU member states. Evidence from
this project has shown that non-existent data sharing between
UK and European vehicle licensing authorities, coupled with an
absence of any legal framework for enforcing penalties in other
European countries, has resulted in 95% of penalty charge notices
(PCNs) issued to foreign registered vehicles not being paid and
many more not being issued because enforcement is known not to
be effective. Although the Government is allowing other European
countries to enforce penalties imposed elsewhere in the EU against
British drivers, current UK legislation does not enable local
authorities to trace owners of non-UK vehicles and enforce penalties
against them. Further details on Project SPARKS can be found on:
http://www.sparksproject.org/index.asp
11. London Councils recommends that:
— Powers be given to the Driver &
Vehicle Licensing Agency to act as a UK clearing point, receiving
foreign-registered vehicle data on behalf of local authorities.
— The DVLA be allowed to release UK
vehicle registration data to equivalent agencies in other EU member
states.
— The jurisdiction of Northampton Traffic
Enforcement Centre be extended to cover other EU member states
which would allow local authorities to register orders for recovery
and warrants of execution against the owners of overseas vehicles.
— The UK government initiates bi-lateral
or multi-lateral agreements that:
— ensure mutual recognition and enforcement
of UK Traffic Enforcement Centre judgments in other EU member
states; and
— extend the scope of EU courts to
include England and Wales for traffic law enforcement.
— Local authorities be allowed to collect
all outstanding traffic fines, not just the most recent, when
a vehicle is clamped or removed to the local car pound.
— Consideration be given to the introduction
of a "UK registration system", which requires foreign
hauliers who travel regularly in the UK to have a registered postal
address in this country at which documents can be served.
12. London Councils believes that enforcement
against foreign registered vehicles needs to be addressed as a
matter of urgency if there is to be a level playing field between
UK and overseas freight companies.
How effective are the Freight Quality Partnerships
in improving the local experience of freight and deliveries?
13. London Councils recognises the value
of Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) and believes they have
the potential to greatly improve local freight conditions, but
the way in which they are managed is very important. Successful
FQPs need to be formed via a bottom-up approach ie by the boroughs
involved and the establishment of FQPs should not over-ride the
role of London local authorities in identifying appropriate solutions
to deal with freight.
Are the restrictions on night-time deliveries
still appropriate? What impact would weakening the restrictions
have on quality of life and other factors?
14. It is important to distinguish between
planning restrictions on night time deliveries and controls on
night time movements (such as the London Lorry Control Scheme).
The former have been introduced as standard measures (initially
at Government recommendation) for many years. It is right that
their use should not be automatic, but many places in built up
areas would still suffer significantly if night time loading or
unloading were permitted without any other form of restraint.
This is primarily an issue that affects residents' sleep and local
authorities have a duty to investigate and eliminate excessive
noise nuisance at night. Any weakening of restrictions on night-time
deliveries should be accompanied by measures to ensure that delivery
destinations in residential areas meet certain standards (enclosed
delivery areas, soundproofing, etc) so that they are suitable
for night-time deliveries. Effective and enforceable noise restrictions
on operations (such as the Dutch PIEK project, which limits night
time activities to 65 dBA) may be a way of resolving this issue
where night time deliveries are desirable.
15. Night time routeing controls such as
the LLCS do not impact on night time deliveries but do regulate
the routes used by HGVs at night to minimise environmental and
noise nuisance. Research carried out by TfL shows that the level
of night time noise nuisance from even modern HGVs has not reduced
significantly because of noise from loads and form equipment such
as refrigeration. Further details of the LLCS are attached as
an annex to this evidence. London Councils believes, therefore,
that restrictions on night-time deliveries are still appropriate.
16. It is tempting to think that encouraging
more freight movement at night would reduce congestion during
the day-time. However, the viability of extending night-time deliveries
should be properly assessed before any significant changes are
made. This would need to consider the social, economic and environmental
impacts. A full assessment of the impacts would also require business
surveys to establish the level of demand for reduced restrictions
and costs other than transport would need to be factored in, for
example, security, staffing and the opening of premises for longer
periods. Many businesses could not afford to receive night time
deliveries and of those that can, such as large supermarkets,
the majority of deliveries will continue to be made during the
day because limited storage space means that the supermarket must
receive deliveries spaced throughout the day. The assumption that
any shift to night time deliveries would reduce congestion is
also arguable. It is now accepted that, where the road network
is saturated, any increase in capacity would be absorbed by generated
traffic quickly. This is also true when deliveries switch to night
time. It is only where the road network is not saturated and heavily
congested that a switch to night time deliveries would be guaranteed
to reduce congestion.
How can the road safety record of haulage vehicles
be improved?
17. Measures to address the problem of enforcement
against foreign registered vehicles as discussed above would also
improve the road safety record of haulage vehicles. Figures from
Project SPARKS suggest that foreign registered goods vehicles
are around 30% more likely to be involved in an accident than
a UK registered vehicle. Project SPARKS also reports data from
VOSA (Vehicle and Operator Services Agency) that 47% of foreign
registered goods vehicles fail roadside tests, making them about
20% more likely to fail than UK registered vehicles and data from
the City of London Police which suggests that foreign registered
vehicles are more likely to be caught speeding than UK registered
vehicles.
Annex
INFORMATION ON THE LONDON LORRY CONTROL SCHEME
(LLCS)
BACKGROUND
The Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles)
Traffic Order 1985 stops unnecessary lorry movements disturbing
the peace of Londoners at night and week-ends (9pm to 7am every
night, Monday evening to Saturday morning. Then from 1pm Saturday,
through the whole of Sunday, to 7am again on Monday). This is
known as the London Lorry Control Scheme (LLCS) and is maintained
by London Councils, who issue around 56,000 permits each year
to those lorry operators with essential business in London. London
Councils employs a team of five officers to enforce the ban and
currently issues about 3,750 PCNs under the ban each year.
The LLCS' purpose is to eliminate through goods
traffic from London at night and at weekends, and to minimise
the environmental impacts of necessary freight movement. The scheme
is designed to ensure that goods vehicles above 18 tonnes cannot
use certain restricted roads, during the prescribed hours, without
a permit. However, a network of, usually, main roads and access
roads to industrial estates (commonly referred to as the Excluded
Route Network (ERN)) are excluded from these restrictions. During
the prescribed hours, to be compliant, goods vehicles with a permit
must minimise their use of roads off the ERN. Those hauliers without
a permit can not use non-ERN roads at all.
Hauliers whose vehicles are over 18 tonnes and
want to travel off the ERN must have a permit. They can apply
to London Councils for a permit but will only receive one if it
is actually needed; vehicles that can make the complete London
element of the journey on the ERN, or are less than 18 tonnes,
are advised that a permit is not required.
The LLCS is often, mistakenly, referred to as
a lorry ban which it is not, and it is important to distinguish
between the LLCS, which seeks to manage the environmental impact
of freight journeys and any, often location specific, loading
and unloading restrictions applying at the journey destination
as a condition of planning permission. London Councils has no
influence over the latter which are imposed by the local planning
authority.
ENFORCEMENT
From April 2004, decriminalised enforcement
has applied to the LLCS. The penalty charge for a haulier is £500
with a discount of £250 for prompt payment. The penalty for
a driver is £100 with a discount of £50 for prompt payment.
As with a parking penalty charge the recipient can make a representation
and thereby challenge it. Should the initial representation be
rejected they can then appeal their case to the adjudicators at
the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS).
ROUTING
Another major element of the LLCS is dealing
with the requests for routing advice from hauliers who want to
ensure they do not contravene the Traffic Order. London Councils
receives written and sketched out routing proposals and offers
advice on these. This is an extremely valuable part of the work
as it supports compliance and demonstrates that London Councils'
intention is not simply to penalise the hauliers but to work with
them to avoid penalties.
There is also an option available for hauliers
to request a special routing agreement. This allows for a new
route to be agreed by London Councils that makes greater use of
non-ERN roads than would usually be accepted. This requires the
haulier to demonstrate a case that the proposed route is better
in environmental terms than the standard compliant route. The
initial measure of benefit is based upon the number of dwellings
the vehicle will pass on its journey. When London Councils receives
a special routing application the boroughs affected are asked
to comment on the proposed route before a decision is taken. It
should be noted that these agreements (there are currently about
50 of them), are subject to regular review.
INFORMATION
London Councils has produced a wall map and
a book, called the London Lorry Guide which includes other data
useful to the haulage companies and their drivers.
London Councils also has a complaints hotline
which any member of the public can ring to report any night-time
or week-end lorry disturbance.
London Councils held a major Lorry Control event
at its headquarters in November 2006. The purpose was to explain
the scheme to the haulage trade and borough officers and it was
an opportunity to exchange views and deal with many misconceptions
about the scheme. The responses to the event were extremely positive.
September 2007
| 
