House of Commons - Local authority parking enforcement

Local authority parking enforcement - Transport Committee Contents

3 Why enforce parking?

9. The Local Government Association (LGA) illustrated what life would be like without parking enforcement:

In 2011-12 Aberystwyth spent a year without parking enforcement during which it became, according to Car park operator NCP, 'the worst place in the country to find a parking space'. […] The Daily Telegraph quoted the joint chairman of Aberystwyth's Chamber of Commerce, as saying: "Most people will welcome the fact that order is restored. […] It has been chaotic, especially for people with disabilities, or delivery drivers. On balance, shoppers and the public generally will welcome the re-introduction of wardens." The paper went on to quote local motorist Kevin Evans: "The situation has gone from everyone celebrating the end of traffic wardens to incidents of road rage, huge traffic jams and residents not being able to move their vehicles from their driveways. It seems strange to say but a growing number of people will be happy to have the wardens back."[10]

Balancing competing demands

10. There are a number of factors that must be considered in the design of local parking policies. The Government explained that local authorities should pay particular regard to:

managing the traffic network to ensure expeditious movement of traffic, (including pedestrians and cyclists), as required under the TMA Network Management Duty;
improving road safety;
improving the local environment;
improving the quality and accessibility of public transport;
meeting the needs of disabled people, some of whom will be unable to use public transport systems and depend entirely on the use of a car; and
managing and reconciling the competing demands for kerb space of: residents; shops; businesses; visitors, especially where there are many tourist attractions and hotels; pedestrians; delivery vehicles; buses, taxis, private hire vehicles and coaches; cars; bicycles; and motorcycles.[11]

11. It is widely acknowledged that local authorities need to integrate parking policy with broader transport planning.[12] The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) explained that "the role of the local authority is to understand the transport needs to support a vibrant economy at a strategic level, and within the context of that overall transport strategy, to balance the various needs of road users at specific locations".[13] Striking a balance between these needs is difficult and it is rarely possible for all potential users' needs to be met in full. Solutions to balance these competing needs will vary from location to location. For example, London Councils told us that "as a generality: in town centres, short stay parking and deliveries will get priority; [and] in residential areas, residents' needs and their visitors will get priority, particularly close to major attractions or railway stations".[14]

Impact on town centres

12. An issue of particular concern in the last few years is the need to balance congestion with accessibility to town centres. This is a key driver for enforcing parking restrictions and was addressed by Mary Portas in her review into the future of high streets, which was commissioned by the Government. The Portas Review stated that "to increase the cost of parking in a locality (when there are alternatives offering free parking elsewhere) is to curtail the appeal of that location to the shopping consumer and therefore the longer term economic viability and wellbeing of the area".[15] It concluded that "local areas should implement free controlled parking schemes that work for their town centres" and that a new "parking league table" could help to "rank car parks by how much they charge" and encourage local authorities to show how they are reinvesting revenue from parking.[16]

13. However, the British Parking Association (BPA) raised concerns that the Portas Review failed to acknowledge that car park users are not solely influenced by price: quality, convenience, safety and accessibility are also factors in parking choices. The Association of Town and City Management (ATCM) told us if people feel that they are getting value for the parking charge, in terms of the services and opportunities available in the centre as well as the quality and price of parking, then they will be more inclined to park in town.[17] It was also argued that there is no such thing as free parking - someone has to pay for it, whether through upkeep and maintenance or through the opportunity cost of the space itself.[18]

14. We sought wider views from consumers via the Which? Conversation website, where we received a large number of comments on this subject. We were told that parking charges could be 'the straw that breaks the camel's back' when a person decides to go out of town rather than to the town centre. Many commentators considered that shopping at out-of-town centres with free parking or shopping on-line from home was more attractive than finding and paying for town centre parking. Some commentators suggested that town centres should build on their distinctiveness (in terms of culture, history, and independent shops and services). We also received a number of suggestions on how local authorities could be more imaginative in developing parking policies, for example by allowing free parking for limited time at certain times of day, providing discount vouchers for customers that pay for parking, and enabling local businesses to validate parking tickets so that the customers get some money off their parking.

15. In its response to the Portas Review, the Government acknowledged that "parking charges can have a real impact on the success of the high street" and encouraged local authorities to "look closely at their parking provisions and charges".[19] We were told that Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers have also said they will consider issuing formal guidance for local authorities so they can support the high street, businesses and local communities more effectively.[20]

16. Parking policy must be dealt with as part of the wider transport strategy in relation to town centres. We recognise that parking is not the only issue that impacts upon the health of town centres, adequate public transport is also essential. It is important that local authorities work with local businesses to develop innovative parking solutions that work for their area. The Government can help this process by exploring ways of achieving this, including for example by developing business rates relief for businesses that invest in affordable town centre parking solutions.

17. We also see a role for Government in promoting the exchange of information. The Government should bring forward as a priority its proposed guidance to local authorities on how they can effectively support the high street, businesses and local communities. This should include examples of good practice and case studies of partnerships between local authorities and local businesses.

18. The Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) is an example of innovative parking policy. It is a charge on employers who provide workplace parking. WPL schemes aim to reduce congestion in town and city centres and also lead to more car commuters using public transport to get to work. To date Nottingham City Council is the only authority to have successfully introduced a WPL scheme. Despite some early resistance from local businesses, Councillor Jane Urquhart, of Nottingham City Council, told us that first year of the scheme had been "relatively positive".[21] She explained that local employers had complied with the scheme and that the council had managed to secure the income stream that is "absolutely ring-fenced for transport projects, [including] tramlines and improvement to our station and our subsidised bus network".[22] A formal evaluation of the scheme is planned in the future. However, Nottingham City Council has already recommended that "That the guidance, regulations and legislation for WPL are revisited with a view to making it simpler and fairer to introduce".[23] The Minister told us that the DfT is "looking at the Nottingham experience very carefully".[24] He explained:

The official Department for Transport position at the moment is that it is up to towns and cities to bring forward such schemes if they want to do so—but we would expect business to be at least neutral on any such scheme. If a business community were wholly opposed to such a workplace scheme, [... it] would not go ahead.[25]

19. It is difficult for us to judge the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) scheme in Nottingham because a formal evaluation has not yet been carried out. The evaluation of the WPL scheme is of national interest and if the scheme proves to be successful, we recommend that the Government more actively promote WPL to other local authorities. We welcome the Minister's assurance that the DfT is looking closely at the Nottingham experience and the views of the business community. We expect the Department will follow up on Nottingham's recommendation that the guidance, regulations and legislation for WPL be revisited with a view to making it simpler and fairer to introduce.

Impact on businesses

20. While parking enforcement affects all road users, there are specific issues relating to businesses that are worth considering. We heard that there is "often a direct conflict between the need for [local authorities] to reduce congestion and improve road safety while at the same time meet the needs of commercial businesses delivering goods to adjacent premises".[26] James Hookham, from the Freight Transport Association (FTA), explained:

the dilemma for businesses is that they are there to perform an essential economic function. They have little choice about changing their behaviour in relation to fines, which are supposedly providing a deterrent. […] The destination to which the goods are being delivered is obviously fixed. Very often, those premises are only occupied and open for deliveries at certain times during the day, and, because of other restrictions on operation and travel, the delivery windows available to many businesses are very limited. […] Because parking enforcers tend to know which deliveries are being made when, there is a suspicion that these are seen as easy pickings and that a very large number of fines are incurred on a repeat basis at the same time of day every day of the week.[27]

Over a period of time, the cost of these repeat fines adds up. The FTA told us that some of its members receive PCNs costing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.[28] We heard that the FTA used to have a "Millionaires Club" of members that incurred fines of over a million pounds. In some cases, PCN charges are being treated as a business cost and "the sheer volumes [of PCNs] received by some companies mean that many now employ staff purely to pay and appeal parking fines".[29] Mr Hookham suggested that part of the problem was the way the TMA "puts an overriding emphasis on congestion management".[30]

21. The FTA also suggested that the increase of camera enforcement was a major problem, particularly where the camera angle results in video footage that doesn't capture the legitimate delivery that is taking place.[31] There is a difference between loading/unloading and parking.[32] While this is recognised in DfT guidance to local authorities, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) Adjudicators, who deal with parking appeals in England and Wales outside London, had concerns about lack of clarity. They explained that:

there are no clearly expressed rules as to where loading and unloading can take place, for example, it has traditionally been presumed that these activities can take place in permit bays, […] yet some authorities maintain that, even though there may be very long permit bays, unloading is not allowed. In our view the Department for Transport needs to issue unequivocal guidance about these matters.[33]

Other concerns were raised by the RAC Foundation about local authorities' poor understanding of the use of "white vans" for delivery.[34]

22. In addition to the need for greater clarity other suggestions for making it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries were provided to us. For example, Westminster City Council has offered compliance training to businesses, and established a Commercial Deliveries Group. It has also engaged with the freight industry to develop "a significant relaxation of the loading and unloading regime, allowing additional time and longer observation periods for HGVs".[35] The Commercial Deliveries Group "continues to meet regularly to address specific parking issues, and to develop training programmes for civil enforcement officers and drivers".[36] Others suggested that local consolidation centres might help to manage the volume of deliveries on the road.[37]

23. It is unacceptable that local authorities set enforcement regimes that effectively force some companies to incur Penalty Charge Notices costing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year for carrying out their business. Local authorities must ensure that the need to restrict parking and manage congestion does not stifle the ability of businesses to trade and help grow the economy. However, businesses cannot be completely exempt from parking restrictions. For their part, delivery companies must ensure that their drivers fully understand and seek to comply with the Orders in place. The Government should hold a roundtable discussion with road hauliers and local authorities to identify and then disseminate innovative ways of dealing with this problem.

24. We also recommend that the Government provide greater clarity on the rules for loading and unloading in an updated version of its Operational Guidance to Local Authorities on Parking Policy and Enforcement.

Raising revenue from enforcement

25. It is a widely held belief that one of the main drivers for parking enforcement is that it provides much needed revenue for cash-strapped local authorities. Local authorities in England have a collective parking surplus in the hundreds of millions of pounds. The exact amount is subject to debate, with the LGA reporting a surplus from on and off street parking of £411 million in 2011/12 and the RAC Foundation recently reporting a surplus of £565 million in the same year.[38] In July, the Department for Communities and Local Government reported "net income on parking services (off-street and on-street parking) is expected to rise from £601 million in 2012-13 to £635 million in 2013-14, an increase of 5.6%".[39]

26. However, the BPA explained that:

It is important to understand that many local authorities do not generate a surplus from parking enforcement and run parking accounts which are in deficit. It is worth noting that most local authorities in England and Wales, including most of London, have parking enforcement operations that are in deficit. It is only when income from parking charges is taken into account that some local authorities generate a surplus.[40]

Westminster City Council, which has the largest parking surplus in the country, stated that it "does not make money from parking enforcement" and that the "enforcement operation does no more than cover its own costs".[41] Its substantial parking surplus "is generated almost entirely from paid-for on-street parking".[42] London Councils provided more detail:

For enforcement alone, for 2011/12, out of 28 boroughs for which London Councils has data, 13 make a loss, 7 make a surplus of less than £1m and 6 more make a surplus of less than £5m. Only 2 make a surplus of more than £5m. For comparison, in the last full year of criminal enforcement by the Police, the net cost of parking enforcement in London was £37m. On parking accounts overall (and the main income comes from parking charges which are driven by the market) we have data for 32 of the London local authorities. Of these, 1 makes a loss, 18 make an overall surplus of less than £5m, 7 more make a surplus of less than £10m and 6 make a surplus of more than £10m.[43]

27. London Councils suggested that surpluses are generated from parking charges because of the pressure of parking demand: "Boroughs are advised to set parking charges so as to secure about 85% occupancy of spaces, and where demand is particularly high this results in charges of up to £6 per hour".[44] However, others suspect that surpluses are generated because local authorities incentivise the issuing of PCNs. This is an issue we discuss in more detail later in this report.

28. Where parking charges are set to manage high demand surplus income may be generated. Many local authorities have parking accounts in surplus. However, the nuances within parking finances such as the difference between income from enforcement of fines and income from legitimate on or off street parking charges are often glossed over in the media and by Government. Some local authorities make a surplus on enforcement alone. Our view is that enforcement activity should generally do no more than cover its own costs. Where enforcement activity does unintentionally generate a surplus, local authorities must explain why this is the case. There is a need for a better understanding of parking finance issues and we recommend that the Local Government Association works with local authorities and ensures that they pro-actively and clearly explain these issues in their annual reports on parking (we comment on annual reports in more detail in paragraph 35).

29. While the setting of parking charges is largely a matter for local authorities, there is greater oversight of the setting of penalty charges for parking contraventions. In London, penalty charges are "set by the London local authorities acting jointly and by Transport for London (in respect of GLA roads), with the approval of the Mayor (and provided that the Secretary of State for Transport does not object)"; the maximum penalty charge is currently set at £130.[45] Outside London penalty charges must accord with guidelines set by the Secretary of State for Transport and the maximum penalty charge is currently £70.[46]

30. We heard concerns that penalty charges are too high.[47] In London, the £130 fine is "double the fine for speeding and substantially more than the fine for shoplifting (£80) and other civil offences".[48] We also heard from some groups that there was little justification for having different levels of fines in London compared to other parts of the country.[49] The Minister told us that "the maximum charge [outside London] has not moved for a number of years and is becoming out of line with London, […] where it has risen regularly under both the present and the previous Mayor".[50] He added that if the cost of legitimate on-street or off-street parking rises to such a degree that the penalty no longer becomes a deterrent, that should also be looked at. He indicated that the DfT was looking "in the round" at charges but that no decision had yet been reached on potential changes.[51]

31. It is hard to justify parking fines that are substantially more than the fines for more serious offences like speeding. We recommend that the Government freeze the maximum penalty charge. The Government should also work with the Mayor of London and local authorities outside London to identify ways in which the burden on the motorist of penalty charges for minor parking violations can be reduced. For example, greater use could be made of differential penalty charges for less serious parking violations.

32. The DfT explained that where a surplus is generated:

section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ["the RTRA"] requires that local authorities must ensure that any on-street revenue not used for enforcement is used for legitimate purposes only and that its main use is to improve, by whatever means, transport provision in the area so that road users benefit. This may include investment in public transport.[52]

However, as a recent judicial review against Barnet Council found, this does not mean that local authorities can generate a surplus for the sole purpose of generating additional revenue - even if it is spent within the scope of section 55 of the RTRA.[53] This is because the RTRA imposes a duty on local authorities exercising any functions under the Act, including the setting of parking charges, to act so as to "secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway".[54] The DfT's statutory guidance already states that parking charges should never be designed just to raise revenue or as a local tax.[55] Local authorities should be mindful of the recent judicial review judgement against Barnet Council. The setting of parking charges in order to raise revenue is not only unacceptable in public policy terms, it is illegal.

33. Surplus funds are ring-fenced for spending within the constraints of section 55 of the RTRA. The LGA considers that "any greater freedom on use of parking revenue would be welcome and allow local authorities to take flexible financial approaches to individual local challenges".[56] However, Westminster City Council pointed out that "public scepticism regarding local authorities' motives in setting parking charges […] would only be increased if authorities were empowered to spend parking surpluses on activities that bore no relation to roads and transport".[57]

34. Another suggestion we heard was that revenue from parking enforcement should be returned to HM Treasury.[58] However, rather than removing the power of local authorities to use the surplus, public scepticism of the motives in setting parking and penalty charges might be eased if local authorities operated with greater transparency. The Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London (PATROL) Adjudication Joint Committee, whose members include 294 local authorities outside London, stated that where a surplus is generated:

how it is spent should meet local transport requirements and be reported in council parking annual reports. There is little evidence that the public are aware of local transport projects funded through parking enforcement. Improvements in communication strategies by councils will increase understanding of the objectives of civil parking enforcement and local traffic management priorities. In determining the discretion given to councils, consideration should be given to public perception and the overall integrity of the civil enforcement scheme.[59]

The PATROL Adjudication Joint Committee promotes best practice in council information about parking enforcement through its "PATROL Annual Report Award". However, not all local authorities produce annual reports on parking. We were informed that the PATROL Joint Committee's Annual Report Award 2011/12 only considered 52 reports covering 80 councils (taking into account two tiered authorities and shared services).[60] The RAC Foundation argued that annual reports on parking should be a statutory requirement.[61]

35. We do not believe that a strong case has been made for greater local discretion in how the parking surplus is used. There is already a good deal of flexibility and removing the ring fence would only exacerbate the perception that authorities see parking as a cash cow. However, there is a very strong case for more transparency about how funds are spent. We recommend that annual reports be made mandatory so that information on parking is in the public domain for all local authorities. Such reports do not need to be lengthy glossy documents but should provide a clear overview of enforcement activity and parking finances.

10 Ev 83, para 20 [Local Government Association] Back

11 Ev 32, para 5 [Department for Transport] Back

12 For example: Ev w66, para 6.1 [Transport for London], Ev w62, para 17 [Camden Council], Ev 95, para 25 [RAC Foundation], Ev w128, para 17 [Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation] Back

13 Ev w128, para 17 [Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation] Back

14 Ev 70, para 37 [London Councils] Back

15 The Portas Review, An independent review into the future of our high streets, December 2011 Back

16 The Portas Review, An independent review into the future of our high streets, December 2011 Back

17 Q 16 [Shanaaz Carroll] Back

18 Ev 75 [British Parking Association], Ev 118, para 1.6 [Association of Town and City Management], Ev 111, para 9.4 [Westminster City Council] Back

19 Department of Communities and Local Government, High Streets at the Heart of our Communities: the Government's Response to the Mary Portas Review, March 2012 Back

20 Ev 35, para 34 [Department for Transport] Back

21 Q 174 and Q 182 [Norman Baker MP], and Q 130 [Councillor Urquhart] Back