Agenda item

To receive a presentation from officers from the North Essex Parking Partnership.  Matthew Young, Head of Operational Services and Richard Walker, Parking Partnership Group Manager will be attending.

The Committee received a presentation from officers of the North Essex Parking Partnership (NEPP), namely Mr R Walker, Parking Partnership Group Manager, Mr M Adamson, Area Manager Western District and Mr M Young, Head of Operational Service.

 

NEPP officers outlined the background to their organisation:

 

(a)          Essex County Council decriminalised parking functions between 2002-2004, which led to them being policy makers with 12 agencies in districts and boroughs running parking enforcement.

 

(b)          A growing deficit reaching £900,000 across the county led, in 2009, to the County Council ordering district and boroughs to cancel all agencies.

 

(c)          The agencies were replaced by North and South Essex Parking Partnership. The North was responsible for Epping Forest, Harlow, Uttlesford, Braintree, Colchester and Tendering, the South were responsible for Brentwood, Basildon, Chelmsford, Maldon, Rochford and Castle Point.

 

(d)    The strategic priorities for the NEPP were:

 

(i)     Improving safety;

 

(ii)    Improving business opportunities through better parking policies;

 

(iii)   Increasing enforcement to improve availability for Blue Badge holders; and

 

(iv)   Greater environmental efficiency.

 

(e)    The NEPP Business Plan was to improve on efficiency and be financially sustainable. The NEPP had inherited a deficit of £574,301, currently they had a small surplus of £80,000.

 

Questions from the Committee

 

Officers had requested questions from District Council members in advance of the meeting, as far as possible, so that NEPP representatives could prepare answers. Member questions were as follows:

 

(a)          Could NEPP wardens take action in cases where vehicles were parked on verges and green areas?

 

Supplementary Question – If wardens could take action, was this jurisdiction restricted to land administered by Essex County Council, the District Council or even Epping Forest itself?

 

NEPP representatives replied not yet. The Committee was advised of the Essex Act, peculiar to this county, which allowed for enforcement. In cases where land was owned by an authority, it was advised that legislation should be checked first. Highways owned land required an S50 application for entering the highway to carry out mowing. Each licence needed to be applied for separately, by the authority carrying out the mowing work, and each area needed proof that it was kept in the condition to which the law related. Enforcement could then be carried out by notice. A trial had been carried out in Braintree with successful results.

It was felt that in the medium to longer term, better enforcement could be achieved with this legal mechanism.

 

(b)          Were wardens aware of the different land ownerships involved?

 

NEPP representatives replied that wardens were aware of different land ownerships.

 

(c)          Could the wardens also take action regarding obstructive parking on pavements or was this solely a matter for the police?

 

It was advised that unnecessary obstruction of the footway, where there was no other parking restriction, was a matter for the police. Driving on the footway was an offence as was “pavement” parking.

 

(d)          Did the NEPP have comprehensive data on where all yellow lines were, and did the NEPP have a work programme to monitor those lines and re-paint them where necessary?

 

The NEPP officers confirmed that they did have a comprehensive database. It was advised that there was limited funding to cover maintenance of all lines across NEPP (£150,000 for the whole area) and so maintenance was done by priority. NEPP informed the Committee that lines were made of plastic which bonded with the road surface, it could only be laid during the summer months.

 

(e)          Was NEPP responsible for dealing with requests for yellow lines and with the legal requirements to get them installed?

 

Supplementary Question - Did it have a record of historical requests for yellow lines and a way of communicating whether or not it intended approving such requests so that Councillors could be kept informed?

 

NEPP officers replied that either NEPP or ECC could deal with Traffic Regulation Orders depending on what the status of the road was. Safety and congestion schemes would first fall to ECC as were new developments, the rest fell to NEPP.

 

The NEPP representatives had a list of schemes which had been passed to it, with schemes being progressed by Essex County Council as Area Reviews. It was advised that there was no funding for NEPP, new schemes were scored and given a priority.

 

(f)            Contacting NEPP in the past had not been a satisfactory experience for some residents, please could you comment?

 

NEPP officers had brought with them copies of a “Who’s Who” of their staff and contact details. Members asked for the staff guide to be circulated via the Council Bulletin.

 

(g)          What were the working hours for wardens as it had been noticed that vehicles left overnight on double yellow lines without any action being taken. Although this may have been the case because lines were sometimes so worn as to be barely visible.

 

NEPP advised that enforcement times varied. However, if there was an area which required more enforcement then Members could notify the Area Enforcement Manager. If there was a clear system of lines and signs in place then action could be taken, however if lines were very worn then enforcement action may not have a chance of success.

 

(h)          Members asked NEPP to outline the stages that a request for a resident’s parking scheme went through, once the scheme had been agreed.

 

How many officers were there to undertake the work at each stage and what was the timescale for each stage?

 

NEPP officers advised that a new Traffic Road Order (TRO) could take up to two years to implement. NEPP had two officers who could write and implement new TROs and a further five officers who carried out work on site and with contractors.

 

(i)            Recently notices had been displayed and put on cars in Allnutts Road, Epping stating that no cars were to park at the Bower Hill end as work was taking place on 23/24 April. However no work took place and the notices removed. What work was expected and why wasn’t it undertaken?

 

NEPP officers explained that some re-lining works were planned but did not take place. These works would be re-scheduled later in the lining season. Three new orders have been planned for this year including the St. John’s/Ashlyn Road scheme which also included Chapel Road.

 

(j)            In some areas, signage indicating parking restrictions was not as clear and obvious as it was in the district. What steps did NEPP take to ensure that a minimum standard of clarity was achieved to ensure road users did not inadvertently park in restricted areas?

 

NEPP advised that the minimum standard for signage and lines was covered in the national rules. All enforcement had to be of a sufficient standard to withstand an appeal. The rules for signage were presently being reviewed for implementation this year, the intention being to reduce signage wherever possible. Councils were being encouraged to use “zone” systems to reduce the amount of signage in place.

 

(k)           On occasions Enforcement Officers intervened effectively to support road users by managing local congestion or difficulties caused by vehicle breakdown, at other times they refused to do so. Was there an agreed policy that should be adhered to by NEPP staff?

 

NEPP officers were, first and foremost, Parking Enforcement Officers and not Traffic Police. Although some staff had Police Accreditation and were able to assist with some traffic matters.

 

(l)            Corresponding on general matters not connected with contesting enforcement notices could take a long time in receiving a response and reminders were sometimes necessary before a query was answered. Were there any existing or planned targets for the timely response to enquiries?

 

NEPP replied that the timescale for responses varied depending on the complexity of the question/response and level of work. In some cases, such as where comments related to new schemes being consulted upon, all responses would be left until the end of the statutory consultation period and included in the final report.

 

(m)         The Committee asked about the monitoring of parking around schools and the availability of officers, at short notice, to attend to illegal parking outside schools.

 

NEPP representatives replied that CCTV cars toured school areas and officers were posted to schools on a rota, they could build on this, if requested. They added that their officers were verbally abused by parents on occasion.

 

(n)          A Councillor complained of the parking situation at Abridge, whereby he claimed that some teachers were breaking parking regulations at schools.

 

NEPP replied that they could undertake a site visit to the place concerned, if the Member could send NEPP an email on this.

 

(o)          Another Committee Member asked about parking in their area around a corner shop which needed enforcement.

 

NEPP responded that they could undertake separate action, could the Councillor email them regarding this.

 

(p)          The Committee asked about the strategic direction of NEPP in terms of Government thinking on localism, when they were based in Colchester, beyond Chelmsford, the local authority base for the county. Was there an element of cross subsidisation going on whereby in Buckhurst Hill, 1,000 parking tickets were issued and in Chigwell, 100 were issued.

 

The NEPP officers replied that their service was delivered on behalf of Essex County Council. Deficit problems were for the county to solve. The NEPP had an office in Harlow, not far from Epping, they had staffing shortages with 6 vacancies in one area. There was a lack of people applying for NEPP positions. The NEPP felt that cross subsidisation made operation more efficient.

 

NEPP officers said they would like to organise a sit visit to Chigwell to discuss parking enforcement there.

 

(q)          A Committee Member suggested that the 10 minute parking rule near schools was being sidelined. Did this apply to schools?

 

The NEPP said that this rule did not apply to yellow lines or the areas outside schools. The Member had made numerous complaints to the NEPP about parking near a school in his ward. NEPP officers advised that it was illegal to pull up near a school. The Member said that this was not enforced which over time may have made this behaviour acceptable. There was a problem with the number of enforcement officers involved as they travelled to various locations by bus. The NEPP officers said that they did not have the resources to cover the entire district, their officers also travelled by underground to district locations.

 

(r)           The Committee asked about taxis parking in Waltham Abbey causing congestion.

 

The NEPP advised that their enforcement officers tried to move taxis on rather than issue tickets.

 

Following questions from Committee Members, the Chairman asked for questions from the non-Committee Members present.

 

(i)            Members asked about the length of time taken before Road Traffic Orders were made.

NEPP advised that it took two years for a road traffic regulation order to be formulated.

 

(ii)           The Vice-Chairman mentioned difficulties experienced by nurses caring for elderly residents who could not park locally to their patients. There was apparently a long waiting list.

 

NEPP advised that Blue Badges were issued by the County Council, there were perhaps 250 schemes on-going to assist with parking.

 

(iii)          A Member from Chigwell asked about cars parking outside flats in Manor Road, Chigwell, representations had been made requesting double yellow lines, however nothing had occurred.

 

The NEPP representatives advised that a list was published by them on the Internet, indicating the order in which schemes were approved.

 

(iv)          A Member from Loughton asked about enforcement in the Loughton area after 6.30p.m. and on Sundays.

 

The NEPP officers replied that the later shift end at 7.00p.m. but shifts could be changed to deal with certain problems, he confirmed that they work weekends. The NEPP suggested putting their work rotas on their website. However it was felt better for them not to advertise where their operatives would work.

 

(v)           The Committee asked how many parking spaces have been created by the NEPP?

 

The NEPP representatives advised that it was the District Council which administered car parks.

 

(vi)          The Leader of the Council asked about NEPP’s ability to undertake their tasks.

 

NEPP replied that they hoped for public confidence, but everything done was with their partners.

 

The Deputy Leader said that the NEPP were doing the best they could with the resources at their disposal. Smaller, localised working was best. However, she felt the current model did not work.

 

The NEPP officers offered Councillors an opportunity to accompany their enforcement team on patrols.

 

The Chairman thanked the NEPP officers for attending the meeting.