Agenda item

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submits a report on the current national consultation on options to improve the management and enforcement of pavement parking across England. 

The Commission is recommended to consider and comment on the Council’s suggested position and approach to responding to the consultation, which is as follows:

1)     Confirm Option 3: a national pavement parking prohibition with the provision to permit pavement parking by administrative resolution as the preferred option.

2)     Express our view on the need for a lengthy transition period and the requirement for funding to meet the attendant costs involved in introducing controlled pavement parking where appropriate.

3)     Suggest Option 2 allowing the council to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement is also progressed to enable pavement parking to be enforced during the transition period. The power to enforce against Unnecessary Obstruction may also enable us to pilot a zonal approach to permitted pavement parking areas without the need for marked bays and excessive signage.

4)     Feedback support for streamlining the TRO process in any case (Option 1).

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a report on the current national consultation on options to improve the management and enforcement of pavement parking across England.  Members noted that, under the consultation, local authorities were asked to identify their preferred option from those offered and give general views on how pavement parking could be managed in the future.

Councillor Clarke, Deputy City Mayor Environment and Transportation, reminded the Commission that the findings of the review of pavement parking undertaken by this Commission in 2014 had been submitted to the government.  These were reflected in the proposals now made by the government, so also were reflected in the proposed response to the current consultation.

The City Highways Director drew Members’ attention to the options set out in the report, reminding them that the Council already had civil parking enforcement powers, (option 2 in the report).  Permitting pavement parking by administrative resolution, as proposed under option 3, would require an assessment of each street in the city to be undertaken, but also would need enforcement to ensure that pavements did not become blocked.  This would entail reviewing over 3,000 streets, of which it was estimated approximately one-third would need some form of controlled permissive parking.  Designs for each street then would have to be drawn up, based on individual situations, and then installed.  In total, this could cost approximately £3-4million, funding for which had not been identified at present.  If the government made funding available to the Council quickly, this work could be completed in approximately 2 – 3 years.

The Commission welcomed the report, noting that the review in 2014 had arisen from evidence of incidents such as disabled people having accidents and pushchairs and prams having to be wheeled on to roads due to pavements being obstructed by vehicles parked on them.  In addition, many streets were very narrow, so needed alternative ways of parking.

In response to a question, the City Highways Director advised the Committee that the Council currently did not have power to stop the obstruction of pavements, although fines could be issued if parking restrictions were in place, (for example, double yellow lines).  At present, Traffic Regulation Orders had to be made to stop pavement parking and this had been done in a few locations.

Members were interested in what the positive impacts across a range of protected characteristics were, as mentioned in the Equality Impact Assessment.  In reply, the City Highways Director advised that these were felt to particularly relate to age, disability, pregnancy and sex, as pavement parking could disproportionately affect elderly people and those who were less mobile, or were pushing prams and pushchairs, trying to get around the city on a daily basis.  This could be highlighted in the response to the consultation if required.

It was noted that in some parts of the city residents had to park on pavements, even if they did not want to.  Requests for dropped kerbs to give access on to properties were only approved if five metres of space was available at 90 degrees to the property, but a lot more could be approved if the space requirement could be measured at an angle to the property.  A more flexible approach could increase the number of requests approved and therefore allow more vehicles to be parked away from the road. 

Councillor Clarke advised Members that he was aware that consideration was being given to how greater flexibility over the approval of dropped kerbs could be achieved, but it was essential that what was allowed was safe and adhered to national regulations.  The City Highways Director confirmed this, noting that in some cases an application could be approved if four metres of space was available.  However, one problem with allowing people to park at a different angle and have a smaller amount of space available was that residents in properties changed over time, as did the size and shape of motor vehicles, so what worked for a car, for example, could be unsuitable for a van.  In addition to considering the local situation, comparisons were being made with other local authority areas, to identify possible alternative arrangements.

AGREED:

1)    That the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation be asked to note the following when responding to the consultation “Pavement parking: options for change” that this Commission:

a)     supports Option 3, a national pavement parking prohibition with the provision to permit pavement parking by administrative resolution, as the preferred option;

b)     supports the suggestion that a lengthy transition period will be needed and asks the Director to include information in the response on what these timescales are anticipated to be and the reasons for these;

c)     supports the suggestion that there is a requirement for funding to be provided by the government to meet the attendant costs involved in introducing controlled pavement parking where appropriate;

d)     supports the suggestion that Option 2, allowing the Council to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement, also is progressed to enable pavement parking to be enforced during the transition period;

e)     notes that the power to enforce against Unnecessary Obstruction may also enable the Council to pilot a zonal approach to permitted pavement parking areas without the need for marked bays and excessive signage;

f)      supports the suggestion that support be given to streamlining the Traffic Regulation Order process in any case (Option 1); and

g)     requests that the positive impacts for people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 of agreeing the recommendations be emphasised in the Council’s response to the consultation; and

2)     That officers be thanked for their work in preparing the response to the “Pavement parking: options for change” consultation and the approach suggested.