Archive | legislation RSS feed for this section

Today in Ipswich

5 Jan

Today (Thursday  5 Jan 2017) in Ipswich, and it’s only 10:30am.

First off, I pass this vehicle on St John’s Hill in Ipswich. How can this possibly be not classed as obstruction?  It is happens regularly here, and I have reported it to the police , but it still continues.


A mins further on and I spot this van, car and wheelie bin making life for pedestrians very difficult on St Helen’s Street outside H & F Autos.img_8590

Then onto Grimwade Street and the pavement next to a bus stop is completely blocked  by this scaffolding lorry for the third day running. For sure, these guys need to unload safely and get a complex load of scaffolding installed, but do they need to bock the pavement like this? Are they allowed to? If so then should they have applied for permission? And have they done it safely and properly? In reality pedestrians walk past the sign rather than risking their lives crossing a busy fast one-way street at the suggested location.

I spoke to the company and the MD told me that he believes that no permission is needed to do this.


Checking some legislation, the ‘New Roads and Street Works Act 1991’ may be applicable. However, it says that one should not “create an obstruction in a street to a greater extent or for a longer period than is reasonably necessary, the street authority may by notice require him to take such reasonable steps as are specified in the notice to mitigate or discontinue the obstruction“. (section 66) which implies that they should have asked to permission. I will do some more digging.


Pop round the corner onto Fore Street, opposite the university, and we find UPS well up on the pavement. Notice the ‘no waiting’ ticks on the pavement.


Update (Friday 6 Jan 2017)

I was pleased to see that today the scaffolders have replaced the ‘pedestrians cross the road’ sign with a ‘warning men working overhead’ which is much more appropriate.

‘Strengthing’ maximum parking standards by weakening them??

20 Sep

I have just been alerted to the fact that the government is consulting on a change that would require local authorities to allow developers to provide as much parking within their developments as they wish ‘to meet market demand‘ with a suggestion that this would ‘tackle the on-street parking problem’. Consultation responses need to be in by the 26th September. Please ensure relevant organisations are aware of this one which needs a clear response.

The offending text is hidden away towards the end of this long consultation document. In this excellent article “Pickles and jam jars” in Local Transport Today (subscription) John Dales wrote:

“Nowhere in the introduction to the consultation (page five), or in the scope of the relevant section two (page 18) is there the slightest indication that there’s anything important about parking anywhere in the document. Nevertheless, under the section heading Reducing planning regulations to support housing, high streets and growth, under the sub-heading Supporting a mixed and vibrant high street, and last of all the matters listed under Proposal H: Expanded facilities for existing retailers are buried paragraphs 2.77 and 2.78 (under the sub-sub-sub-heading Maximum parking standards).

Paragraph 2.77 begins with the superfluous statement that “the Government supports the motorist” and ends by stating that “Parking standards are now a matter for local authorities”. Paragraph 2.78 reveals at once that this a lie, issuing the thinly-veiled threat that “the Government wants to understand whether local authorities are stopping builders from providing sufficient parking space to meet market demand”. In this way, smuggled in as being something that will somehow help retailers, we find a proposal that plainly has the potential to undermine both local democracy and sensible planning as they apply to all land uses, not just shops. We also see, in the phrase “meet market demand”, just how doctrinaire the secretary of state is when it comes to the use of private cars”

Here is the offending section in full (highlights are my own):

Maximum parking standards
2.77 The Government supports the motorist and wants to see adequate parking provision for them. For this reason, we removed the previous administration’s restrictions on the number of parking spaces for new developments. And in March
this year we published new planning guidance, which encourages local authorities to improve the quality of parking in town centres and, where it is necessary to ensure their vitality, the quantity too. Parking standards are now matters for local authorities.

2.78 We are aware that some local authorities appear to have adopted a more flexible approach, and this is to be welcomed, but the Government now wishes to understand whether more action is needed to tackle on-street parking problems. We want to understand whether local authorities are stopping builders from providing sufficient parking space to meet market demand. We also want to ensure that local authorities in their Local Plans have properly reviewed their parking policies and brought them up to date.

Question 2.16: Do you agree that parking policy should be strengthened to tackle on-street parking problems by restricting powers to set maximum parking standards?

Is it not a good idea to provide more on-property parking I hear some people ask? Well not really. When an area has a lot of cars then there will be a lot of commuting. When there is a lot of commuting the roads get full, public transport gets slower, cycling and walking get less attractive and even the motorists complain. When motorists finally get to the where they are going they find the car park is full and complain. In addition the density of housing reduces and commutes get longer making all forms of transport more expensive and commutes longer (LA is a good example of where this all ends). Planners have known for years that this is what happens, and the last conservative government accepted this in 1994 after the big road protests. Since then they have obviously forgotten. Let’s remind them! The alternative is denser building where places are closer together and within reach by public transport, bicycle or on foot.

Again – do please make sure that all the relevant organisation are aware of this consultation and the need to rebut it by the 26th September.

Incidentally I am also planning to look at the separate consultation as detailed in the ‘The right to challenge parking policies: a discussion paper‘ which has a closing date of 10 October 2014. More later.

Could we redesign vehicle scrappage to meet the needs of all road users?

16 Sep

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London has recently suggested that drivers of older diesel cars would be charged an additional £10 per day to drive in London and given a rebate of £1000 or £2000 if that scrap a dirty diesel and replace it with a new clean mode as part of a new scrappage scheme. Strangely, on becoming mayor in 2008 he cancelled Ken Livingston’s proposed £25 per day congestion charge for the most polluting vehicles  saying “I am delighted that we have been able to scrap the £25 charge, which would have hit families and small businesses hardest”, but anyway, Boris will always be Boris and will always be unpredictable and will always play to the camera! There are too many things wrong with this scheme for it to be worth detailing them, suffice to say the main winners would be car manufacturers and retailers.

This  carrot/stick proposal did however leave me wondering if the scrappage concept could be reworked to meet the needs of all road users, to reduce the number of cars on GB roads and in particular to reduce the number of cars parked on our streets.

First – the stick. An annual fee of £36 (10p a day) would be charged for people who wish to leave their car regularly on the street overnight, where safe and legal, to be paid to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (VDSA, formerly VOSA) annually as part Vehicle Excise Duty. The term ‘Regularly’ used above could be defined to mean that the vehicle was stored over-night on more than five occasions on more that three separate weeks, thereby excluding someone who leaves their car on the street over night once in a blue moon. Assuming that some 50% of 34 million vehicles owners pay the fee, it would raise £600 million per year.

Now for the carrot. This £600 million would be used to incentivise people to scrap a vehicle they own, paying out a modest £150 – £200 per vehicle to the first 3 to 4 million people who scrap a car each year. Dead cars are actually worth some £150-200 for scrap anyway, making £300-£500 in total – so would be a useful sum to many people. Needless to say the £36 per year over-night parking permit would irritate some people to get rid of their car or move it onto private property and would ensure that no one who parked on the street overnight would be able to pay £0 VED.

My guess is that this would work on many levels, resulting in:

  • people moving their vehicle onto private property to avoid the fee
  • people selling their vehicle to avoid the fee
  • people scrapping old cars both to get the refund and to avoid the fee
  • a less congested road network
  • a huge debate about whether this is good policy or an outrageous liberty
  • bringing many parties together who wish to see a reduction in parking pressure on our roads
  • a way out for provide politicians who have allowed this mess to build up over the years
  • the creation of an economic lever that prices this ‘externality’ which until now been un-costed
  • demand for additional some new vehicle sales as well?

How would it be enforced? Authorities would drive along urban streets at night a few times a month with a CCTV vehicle and record number plates. They would then filter out those who have paid and send the resulting details to VDSA who would correlate this with other sightings and issue fines to keepers of vehicles that have parked on-street for more than the allowed number of occasions. It is likely that the enforcement process would do more that cover its costs from fine income with the surplus being available to increase the incentive to scrap vehicles.

Would it be popular? It would certain generate howls of protest and reams of coverage in the papers, however a charge 10p per night for parking on public property is hardly a ripoff and street parking is widely recognised as being a serious issue with the majority of the population supports action on this. Up to 3 million people a year would befit directly from the scheme when they scrap vehicles, including many who would have scrapped them anyway.

As such I think there could well be more people for it than against it. As a reference point, I have calculate that some 1.5 million are scrapped per year on average, so with a target of 3 million per year would result in a doubling of vehicles being scrapped. If sufficient people were not incentivised to scrap vehicles by the offered refund, it could be increased until it was.

There would of course be unintended consequences which would need to be considered, including people who convert their front gardens into parking to avoid the fee and increased surveillance of the population by the state to name but two. I believe that these should be identified and managed rather than being used as a reason not to do anything.


Proposed CCTV ban to get rocky ride in Lords?

12 Jul

The government introduced a clause to ban CCTV parking enforcement into the Deregulation Bill at a very late stage, allowing only the most superficial debate in the Commons before passing it to the House of Lords, who appear to have little enthusiasm for the proposal with not a single statement being made in support of a ban. The Lords indicating that they will be scrutinising the bill in considerable detail over the coming months.

Why is this important? Because it is up legislators to take the lead on this issue. They need to create and support clear fair and enforceable laws to protect pedestrians. Without appropriate laws, or with laws that are in practice or by design unenforceable then they are useless.

The government has failed to do this for the past 30 years, but the mood is changing. The number of vehicles on our streets increases every year and selfish motorists getting ever bolder and more audacious in the choices of parking locations.

In response to this there is a powerful coalition of diverse interests forming that is pushing for effective regulation that includes the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association in addition to the RNIB, Age UK, Guide Dogs and Living Streets.

This latest move appears to be taking the government into a pretty uncomfortable place. I will watch with interest to see how this pans out!

Verbatim transcription

Rather than summarise the debate, I have included all relevant content from the 2nd reading in the Lords, markingwhat I consider to be the key remarks using bold.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): … Clauses 35 to 40 remove some of the outdated burdens relating to transport legislation, bringing legislation into line with practice; for example, removing the requirement on local authorities to seek permission from the Secretary of State to establish, alter or remove zebra crossings. This section also includes measures limiting the use of CCTV when issuing parking fines by post and removes the automatic reopening of formal investigations of marine accidents when new evidence, however trivial, comes to light.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab): I thank the Minister for introducing the Deregulation Bill today and look forward to the many speeches to come. With more than 30 noble Lords listed to speak, I am sure that every clause and schedule will get some attention as we start what I suspect will be a long job, stretching out, perhaps, until the end of the year. We intend to scrutinise very carefully this rather mixed bag that the Government have put before us. I am joined on the Front Bench for the majority of the Bill by my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Tunnicliffe, but others will have to come in with their expertise on areas of the Bill. …

The Bill contains a controversial blanket ban on the use of CCTV for parking offences, something that the LGA, the British Parking Association, cycling groups, head teachers and charities representing blind and disabled people have argued against, while businesses and motoring groups offered mixed responses, with some motoring groups calling the ban a retrograde step and some businesses stressing that CCTV could remain beneficial at particular times and on particular occasions. …

Lord Rooker: In my last two minutes, I turn to two clauses that concern me: Clause 38 on parking and Clause 43 and Schedule 11 on waste collection. Anyone who has been a councillor for any length of time knows that the two subjects you never, ever touch within a year of an election are parking and waste collection. Why on earth are the Government interfering in these matters within a year of a general election? Despite that foolishness, I have to ask again about those two core activities—the core business of local authorities. Minister after Minister in all parties will say that it is local people who know best and that one size does not fit all. Why are the Government now trying to interfere and to regulate — never mind within a year of a general election—in these matters that are essential to local government?

My 40 years as a local councillor were spent representing a controlled parking zone in a town centre area vital to the local economy. We all know that one size does not fit all. That was in the London Borough of Sutton. It has a different regime from the Royal Borough of Kingston next door, or the London Borough of Croydon next door or indeed the London Borough of Wandsworth, which I know the Minister knows particularly well. Why are the Government interfering? What is the justification for this? We will go into it in very much more detail in Committee. However, as I think has been mentioned, the consultation from the Department for Transport on parking received a lot of responses, almost all of them hostile. On the issue of the CCTV ban, which this clause covers, six of the eight organisations responding—from the British Parking Association to cycling and disability groups—were strongly opposed to the Government’s proposed ban. Only two had a mixed reaction, one of which was from the motoring organisations, so even they were not unanimously agreed on the ban. We still do not know exactly what the exemptions are. It is difficult in this area to distinguish between what are actually government proposals and what has come from the Friday afternoon press release from the Secretary of State, preparatory presumably to his Friday evening in the pub, where most of these utterings seem rather better fitted than to legislation.

Waste collection again is causing considerable concern to local authorities, not least the likely increased cost and complexity of introducing these additional regulations. As has been said, this is a big deregulation Bill. I thought that the clue might be in the name. In fact we are proposing to introduce more regulation, which will make carrying out the essential task of waste collection more complex and more expensive. I know that my noble friend the Minister is, if anything, an even stronger localist than I am. I look forward in his closing speech to his justification for why these measures meet the test of proportionality and necessity.

Baroness Eaton (Con): I understand that many councils have raised concerns about the Government’s proposals to ban the use of CCTV for parking enforcement. At this point, I must declare an interest as I am a member of an advisory board for the Marston Group Ltd. I know that councils are concerned about these proposals as they could prevent them from using CCTV for parking enforcement, particularly outside schools, at bus stops, and on clearways. In particular, we must ensure that children are protected from irresponsible parking outside schools. As I understand it, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to exempt certain places from a ban but if the Bill takes effect before the guidance is in force, it may be impossible to enforce parking restrictions which will be referred to within the guidance. It would be helpful if the Minister could agree to meet with the LGA on this very important issue. …

Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab): … The second area we are concerned about is the banning of CCTV for parking enforcement. I have great sympathy with the Government in seeking to tackle a problem whereby the citizen receives a fine through the post, not having been aware that a charge has been laid, to which they have to make immediate return. We do not seem to have tackled this issue thoroughly or properly. On 10 June, the Government said that they had not reached a decision; on 17 June an amendment was made to the Bill in other place and was immediately translated into the Bill by a government majority.

There are real risks to road safety. There are risks at schools. There are risks in bus lanes, where drivers will chance it if they think they will not be surveyed. There are risks at bus stops. There are risks at yellow boxes on junctions. They are a good idea and have eased congestion, but a good idea is destroyed if one driver chances it and sits in that box and blocks the traffic. If the Government are open to persuasion that there should be exemptions to ending closed circuit TV prosecutions in these areas, those exemptions should be in the Bill and we will seek to achieve that. …

Lord Whitty (Lab): … I follow my noble friend Lord Davies in relation to the transport provisions and, in particular, CCTV. This is populism gone mad. If we cannot enforce parking restrictions, we not only endanger the safety of road users and pedestrians but also provide no parking space for motorists. If people can continue to park in restricted areas with impunity, there will be no parking space for the vast majority. By adopting the Jeremy Clarkson interpretation of the motorists’ interests, the Government have gone down exactly the wrong road. Just as the taxi provisions are not in the interests of the users of taxis, these parking provisions are not in the interests of the vast majority of motorists; our towns will get clogged up and there will be more accidents.

Lord Low of Dalston (CB): … Clause 38 amends the Road Traffic Act to prevent local authorities from issuing penalty charge notices through the post and using CCTV for parking enforcement in particular circumstances. I was glad to see that the Opposition have some reservations about this. The clause was inserted following a government consultation on local authority parking strategies. The Government acknowledged that a common theme in responses to the consultation was the need for a uniform approach to pavement parking, but this has not been followed up in the Bill. That is a major omission. Pavement parking is dangerous for pedestrians, especially parents with pushchairs, wheelchair users and other disabled people, including blind and partially sighted people, who may be forced out into the road where they cannot see oncoming traffic. Pavements are not designed to take the weight of vehicles and they cause pavements to crack and the tarmac surface to subside. This is also a hazard to pedestrians, who may trip on broken pavements, and particularly to blind and partially sighted people, who cannot observe the damage. It is also expensive. Local authorities paid more than £1 billion on repairing kerbs, pavements and walkways between 2006 and 2010; £106 million was also paid in compensation claims to people tripping and falling on broken pavements during the same five-year period.

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, with the support of at least a dozen other organisations, is calling for laws across the UK prohibiting pavement parking unless specifically permitted, such as have been in place in Greater London since 1974. Local authorities report that existing measures are insufficient. In a recent YouGov survey, 78% of councillors supported a national law with flexibility for local authorities to make exemptions. The Transport Select Committee described the current system as unduly complex and difficult for motorists to understand. A Private Member’s Bill with cross-party support has been presented in the other place by Martin Horwood MP. There is considerable support for a law of this type, and I very much hope that the Government will give it serious consideration.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab):As for banning CCTV for parking, this comes from the same Government who brought in the Localism Act but now decide to dictate to local authorities how they can enforce, or not enforce, parking as they think best, and despite six of the eight consultation responses opposing a CCTV ban. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, it is, after all, local government that knows its area best. In my own borough of Camden, more than 85% of CCTV enforcements cover major junctions, bus stops, pedestrian crossings and no-waiting areas. In a busy urban area these are key to keeping traffic moving and for safety, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and my noble friends Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Whitty said. …

Lord Wallace of Saltaire:Parking has also raised a lot of issues for many noble Lords, with the question of CCTV and parking fines. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that we have not considered the risks of removing the use of CCTV as we are not talking about doing that. There were a number of questions about how CCTV is used at a local level, on which all of us have slightly different and ambivalent views. Again, we will come back to that in detail in Committee.

Commons debate, MPs not being brave enough?

1 Jul

It has  been known for decades that parking is a intractable issue where it is impossible to meet demand for car parking in popular locations without ruining them by converting them into massive car parks, not that everyone remembers this annoying detail though.

Mr Pickles in particular has been pushing a more simplistic argument for a year now, that parking restrictions are often there simply at allow local councils to make money of honest hard-working motorists. He promised a ban on most CCTV enforcement of parking and it looks as though he will now get his ban.

The change to the law was debated in the Commons last week along with a number of unrelated issues. Given the confusion of unrelated topics being discussed, and the importance of this to our cause, I thought it would be useful to lay out the arguments on both side in one place.

The short version

The debate was facilitated by Tom Brake, the deputy speaker who presented the governments position and responded to some of the questions raised by MPs questions. When pressed on the effect that the change would have on pedestrians at the end of the debate he said “I apologise if I have not been brave enough to venture into the other areas that he would like to discuss in relation to parking, but first, I would be ruled out of order, and secondly, we all know that when it comes to parking issues, it is a lose-lose situation whatever decision is taken”.

If we simplify this debate down to one of children’s heroes and villans, then John Redwood (Con) would definitely playing the role of a villain, and given the subject matter possibly Cruella de Vil from 101 dalmations comes to mind. Redwood reinforced the government line that car parking is used by manipulative councils to prey on ‘vulnerable’ motorists as an easy source of cash in difficult times. He reassured the house that he supported good parking controls (phew), before explaining that this was only if they were required for traffic management purposes (ie only where they are used for the greater benefit of motorists) but summarised the current situation  as “irritating”, “over-bureaucratic” and “over-regulated” with “confusing, complex and poorly signed” parking in too many places. He considered this a small first step that did not go nearly far enough, and suggested that drivers often didn’t even bother even to try to park, because they were likely to fined for behaving “perfectly reasonably”.

Kelvin Hopkins (Lab), definitely the good guy in our story, reminded the house that the victims in all this were pedestrians (thank you Kelvin!) and many voters wanted parking laws enforced properly and that this change would make this harder to achieve. He noted that all MPs had ‘bulging post-bag’ from pedestrians on the subject.

Gordon Marsden (Lab) also opposed the changes. He described CCTV as being a vital tool to support traffic and safety enforcement and questioned why the proposal had been introduced so rapidly, and in advance of the responses from the consultation had been made available. He suggested that the issue need much more careful consideration and should not have been bundled into the Deregulation Bill as it had with so many other issues. He suggested that the issue was a “hot potato” being passed between the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government and one that that DfT Ministers were opposed the move.

James Duddridge (Con) sought clarification that CCTV could still be used to enforce zig-zag lines in front of schools. Tom Brake responded saying that the the government would allow the use of CCTV cameras where there is a strong safety argument for doing so including in restricted areas outside schools.

Jim Cunningham  (Lab) asked the government to comment on profit made from parking. Tom Brake responded by noting that it was very clear that local authorities could not raise funds for other purposes from parking enforcement, but could use the money from parking fines to invest in transport and some environmental measures.

Verbatim transcription

23 Jun 2014 : Column 25 …

Tom Brake: This group of amendments covers accident investigation, parking contravention, driving, and private hire vehicle licensing.

… 23 Jun 2014 : Column 26/27 …

Tom Brake: Government new clause 25 relates to changes in the use of CCTV for issuing parking tickets by post. The Government are concerned that the use of CCTV for on-street parking is no longer proportionate, and that local councils over-employ it to deal with contraventions when it would be more appropriate and fair for such contraventions to be handled by a civil enforcement officer. We have therefore committed ourselves to ban the use of CCTV for on-street parking enforcement. That was announced in September and re-stated in December 2013 as part of a package of measures designed to support high streets.

Under existing measures, when a CCTV camera is used by a civil enforcement officer to identify a parking offence, a penalty charge notice can be issued to the offender by post. In practice, that means that drivers may receive a parking ticket through the post several weeks after an incident, which makes it difficult to challenge the alleged contravention.

The Government are concerned that a proliferation of CCTV cameras for offences such as parking may undermine public acceptance of their wider beneficial use. To introduce the change, we need to amend legislation to prevent local authorities from relying so heavily on CCTV for parking enforcement.

James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the new clause relates to parking, but will he confirm that CCTV cameras can still be used for issuing fines via the post for other offences, such as parking on zig-zag lines in front of schools?

Tom Brake: I will come on to that point in a few moments.

New clause 25 will amend part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to prevent the automatic issuing by post of fines for parking offences, and instead require that notification of penalty charges is given by a notice attached to the vehicle.

The new clause includes a wider power to cater for an outright ban on CCTV if that is considered necessary in future. However, the Government intend to protect the use of CCTV cameras where there is a strong safety argument for doing so. Their use will therefore be banned in all but the following limited circumstances: when stopped in restricted areas outside a school; when stopped where prohibited on a red route or clearway; when parked where prohibited in a bus lane; or when stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand.

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about his statement at the weekend that local authorities are not able to make a profit from CCTV cameras, and what does he think about that?

Tom Brake: I have not had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government since his announcement at the weekend. It is very clear that local authorities cannot issue parking fines to raise funds for other purposes, but that they can use the money from parking fines to invest in transport and some environmental measures. The Government are concerned that the family of local authorities as a whole has a surplus of about £630 million in funds raised through parking tickets. We believe that we have taken a sensible and proportionate approach by ensuring the power has the ability to exempt key parts of the road network so that we reach the right balance of fair enforcement in the right places.

…. 23 Jun 2014 : Column 34/35 …

Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab): … First, I shall comment about what the Minister said about the CCTV measure. The short notice of the introduction of the amendment—it appeared only at the end of last week—suggests that it was a political hot potato, passed between the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government. There have long been rumours that the DCLG intended to scrap the use of CCTV even in sensitive areas, in contrast to the wishes of DFT Ministers. Over the weekend, press coverage of the issue was almost entirely dominated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on whether DFT Ministers decided to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has called a “pickled policy”, or whether this is simply an example of what the Government’s frequent use of the Alice in Wonderland principle of sentence first and trial afterwards.

It concerns us greatly that the measure was introduced so late in the day. It is at odds with the consultative approach adopted by the Department for Transport. A range of organisations, including Living Streets, the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association, the Freight Transport Association, Disabled Motorists UK, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and Guide Dogs for the Blind, have made their concerns known, yet the Government published the new measure before seeing those responses.

There are of course legitimate concerns that councils have been using cameras as a routine means of parking enforcement; that is wrong. There have also been problems where stickers, such as resident permits and blue badges, have not been visible and drivers have wrongly been issued with tickets; that is an occurrence that we should make as infrequent as possible. It is understandable that drivers become frustrated when the first they hear of an infringement is a letter through the post, without the opportunity to discuss the circumstances with an enforcement officer. So we agree with the Select Committee on Transport that there should be greater oversight of the way in which local authorities use cameras to institute penalty charges, but that could be done through statutory and operational guidance, which is exactly what the groups I just mentioned would have liked.

CCTV remains vital for parking and for traffic and safety enforcement in certain areas where the use of parking officers is not practical: schools, bus stops, bus lanes, junctions and pedestrian crossings all come into that category. We hear from the Government response to their consultation that those areas are to be exempted and that CCTV could still be used in these circumstances, but that is not on the face of the Bill and we would welcome confirmation that this is the case and that plans will be put into practice.

Mr Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that there are times when a camera-based system can get the wrong end of the stick? A constituent of mine was prosecuted for moving into a bus lane; they did so to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, but the council still went ahead with the prosecution.

Mr Marsden: The right hon. Gentleman raises an instance of which he has the full details but I do not. I will not comment on the particular point but will comment on the general point, which is as I have just said: these matters are best dealt with by discussions with the enforcement officer before the ticket is issued. To that extent, I think we are at one.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): The reality is that if we relax legislation of this kind, especially when the exemptions are not on the face of the Bill, certain people will take advantage of the situation—drive in bus lanes because they think they might not get caught, for example. There were cases some years ago in which CCTV of cars in bus lanes picked up many vehicles that were driven by criminals on the run for other causes. Once a criminal, always a criminal, and such people will take advantage.

Mr Marsden: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that underlines why the Government should have given much more careful consideration to the thoughtful proposals and sometimes quite detailed comments submitted by the various groups before bringing forward these measures as part of this rag-bag Bill.

We do not object to the Government’s amendments reining in the use of CCTV in place of everyday traffic enforcement but, as is obvious from the comments we have already heard today, the whole House would welcome answers from the Minister, so we can ensure that vital spots such as bus routes and school runs continue to be protected by CCTV and we know the details of how that will be assured in legislation.

… 23 Jun 2014 : Column 44/45 …

Mr Redwood: … I want to concentrate on the issue of car parking. I am grateful that the Government have brought forward, again, an extremely modest proposal to deal with the fact that many motorists feel they are picked on by councils that have turned parking controls into a way of making easy money out of them. The proposal goes only a little way in the direction I would like the Government to take. I understand the Minister’s difficulties, because we need quite a lot of local decision making, but the idea behind his proposal is that simple camera enforcement is not always the right way to go. I gave an example in an intervention to show how camera enforcement of a bus lane proposal could be very misleading and unfair to the individual concerned, who was trying to keep out of the way of an emergency vehicle. That is not always captured by the fixed position of the camera, which concentrates on the bus lane. There could be similar problems with parking enforcement.

The problem, which is a large one for many electors, comes from too many parking restraints and restrictions that have not been well thought through. Once again, Members have rightly defended good parking controls. I am very much in favour of good parking controls. I agree that we need to stop people parking on blind bends, near pedestrian crossings or in places where their vehicle could obstruct the line of sight and endanger safety. I also agree that we need parking restrictions on roads where the parking would get in the way of the flow of traffic, because that not only impedes the traffic and stops people getting to work or taking their children to school, but can create danger by causing frustration among motorists.

It makes sense to have sensible parking restrictions that ensure that the flow on roads is reasonable, junctions have good sight lines and are safe, bends have the best sight lines possible, and so forth. That should be common ground in the House, and I do not think the Minister is trying to stop councils doing that or enforcing those sensible restrictions strongly and fairly, as we want. But the type of parking restriction that we may well be talking about here, where some relaxation is needed, is where a piece of road which the council designates as safe and fair for people to park on at certain times of day or certain days of the week and not others is subject to such complicated regulation that sometimes a law-abiding motorist cannot work out from the local signs and practices whether the parking regulation applies or not. For example, do the parking restrictions apply on bank holidays? Often, the sign is silent on that point. Is the sign clear about whether different rules apply on Sundays? Is the sign close enough to the parking area in question? Are there different restrictions on different sides of the same street, as sometimes happens in London? Do we know where one set of restrictions ends and another begins?

There can also be variable bus lane times, and it can be difficult to keep up with the changing regulations. This shows that there are circumstances in which a council thinks it perfectly reasonable to allow parking in a particular area or use of a bus lane at certain times but not at others. The motorist could be in genuine doubt about the restrictions, or perhaps feel that they were unfair or frivolous because they did not fall into the category of restrictions that are essential to ensuring that traffic can flow and that safety sightlines are maintained.

We can use this little debate to probe the underlying problem that we are trying to address. We can also use it to allow the House of Commons to tell councils that some of them are overdoing parking restrictions or are chopping and changing the regulations too often during the day or on different days of the week. Perhaps those regulations have not been properly thought through. Perhaps the enforcement is unfair, or too sharp. If someone has been delayed by three minutes while paying for something in a shop, they could find that they have committed an offence because they could not get back to their car within the given time on their ticket. People often have to be quite prescient in those circumstances. They need to know exactly how long it will take them to get to the shop, find their goods, queue to pay for them at the till and get out again. They do not want to overpay for what can be quite expensive parking, but if they get it slightly wrong, they can end up with a big fine. That is why people think that this is a nasty lottery in which the councils are the only winners, and camera enforced parking restrictions can be even worse for the individuals concerned.

So, one cheer for the Government for realising that this is a big issue and coming up with their modest proposal on camera enforcement, but may we please have some more, because this does not solve the overall problem? Solving the overall problem will help parades of shops and town centres in places where trade is not good. This irritating, over-bureaucratic, over-regulated parking is one reason that people do not bother even to try to park in those areas, because they think they are going to end up with a fine for behaving perfectly reasonably.

… 23 Jun 2014 : Column 56/57 …

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not believe anyone has spoken up today for those most affected by parking. Those who watched the news reports last night no doubt saw some drivers, typically male drivers, saying, “We don’t want too much parking regulation. We’d like a bit less regulation and a bit more freedom.” It was all a bit “Jack the Lad”. On the other hand, we heard a middle-aged woman saying, “I want to see the parking laws enforced properly, because we do not want to be affected by it, and if people break the law they should face the penalties of the law.” I strongly agree with her.

I am sure we have all had postbags bulging with complaints about parking problems, and it is nearly always from people who have been abused by people who have parked irregularly. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) kept confusing the rules on parking and where people can park with the enforcement of those rules. We are talking about enforcement. If rules are not enforced, it means that people are getting away with breaking the law.

Mr Redwood: I did not confuse them at all. I drew the distinction. I said that the reason people are fed up with the enforcement is that, in many cases, they do not think the rules are fair.

Kelvin Hopkins: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to challenge those rules, that is fine, but we are talking about the enforcement of the rules that exist. To most people, I think, the rules are probably reasonable, but the enforcement sometimes falls down, and I think that using CCTV to enforce those rules is absolutely right. I do not want the rules to be weakened, and I do not want the enforcement to be weakened. I want to help people who are affected badly by parking. For example, people park across my neighbour’s driveway when football matches are on. It is completely unacceptable that he should be blocked into or out of the driveway by other people parking across the it; that is simply not on.

These problems may not be as important as the investigation of accidents at sea, or the potential dangers involved in the licensing of private hire vehicles, but they do affect people and people are concerned about them. I want strong enforcement of the parking rules to continue. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, we may sometimes challenge the way in which the rules operate, but they should be enforced none the less.

… 23 Jun 2014 : Column 61 …

Tom Brake: First, I wish to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who is not in his place. He started by discussing CCTV exemptions, which he wanted included in the Bill. I made it clear in my opening remarks precisely what the exemptions were, but to avoid doubt I will simply repeat them. CCTV cameras can still be used in relation to restricted areas outside a school; red routes or clearways; bus lanes, where parking is prohibited; and cases where a vehicle is stopped at a restricted bus stop or stand. That is very clear.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): The Minister has indicated where he intends exemptions to be made, but he has not answered the questions my hon. Friend put to him. Where will those exemptions be listed? Where will they be codified? Under what regulations will they be introduced? When will those regulations be laid?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sure we will shortly provide the clarity he seeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) raised the issue of CCTV and parking, and asked when we would introduce regulations and commence the provision. Clearly we will do that as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent. He also suggested that we could restrict CCTV use through statutory guidance. There is a need to legislate; the difficulty at the moment is that local authorities are not supposed to use CCTV other than in exceptional circumstances, but its use is proliferating. We need to respond to that because CCTV is now being used routinely.

… 23 Jun 2014 : Column 64/65…

Tom Brake: … My right hon. Friend went on to highlight other problems with parking, with which we, as Members of Parliament, are all too familiar. I apologise if I have not been brave enough to venture into the other areas that he would like to discuss in relation to parking, but first, I would be ruled out of order, and secondly, we all know that when it comes to parking issues, it is a lose-lose situation whatever decision is taken.

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Does the Minister agree that one concern of citizens is the use of fines to raise funds? I checked Magna Carta 1297, which for these deregulatory purposes can be found in the volume of statutes from 1235 to 1770, and it is clause 14 that is, in part, being reinstated by this Bill.

Tom Brake: I did not know that Magna Carta touched on the matter of parking, but I am better informed as a result of my hon. Friend’s intervention.

Still on parking, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham touched on complicated parking signs and rules. Local authorities should ensure that signs are appropriate for parking restrictions. If they are not, drivers may complain to their council. If they receive a ticket, they have a free appeal to the local council and then a free appeal to the adjudicator if the council decides against them. I am sure that he is aware of that and will have referred many a constituent to the adjudicator in relation to disputes over parking tickets. The Government announced over the weekend that local residents and local firms will be able to demand a review of parking in their areas, including charges and the use of yellow lines.

… 23 Jun 2014 : Column 67 …

Tom Brake: … The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) wants parking laws enforced properly; well, so do I, and so do the Government. Local authorities will be able to enforce them properly by using traffic wardens, and nothing that we are doing will stop them doing so. I hope he will agree that, as I stated in my opening remarks, the issue is that local authorities have generated a surplus of £635 million by issuing parking tickets.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the Minister accept that, by reducing CCTV surveillance of parking, he will reduce the number of convictions and make it easier to get away with parking illegally?

Tom Brake: That depends on how local authorities respond. If they use traffic wardens, there is no reason why what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will happen.

Parking enforcement ban – weak argument?

26 Jun

When the proposed ban on use of CCTV enforcement cameras was debated in parliament on 23 June 2014 Gordon Marsden MP quoted an earlier speaker who suggested that those with the weakest argument shout loudest ‘Argument weak here, shout like mad’. He  then noted that little time had been allowed for consultation or discussion and that the proposed changes had unusually been sqeeezed into  the Deregulation Bill at the third reading stage. He possibly also objected to the fact that three totally separate new clauses (marine accident investigation, private hire vehicle licensing and vehicle parking enforcement) were to be discussed at the same time making it hard to discuss any in a coherent way.

As I mentioned a few days ago the emotive language used by the Communities Secretary when announcing the changes bothered me. To quote: ‘CCTV spy cars can be seen lurking on every street raking in cash for greedy councils and breaking the rules that clearly state that fines should not be used to generate profit for town halls‘.

It also concerns me that the official press release that was released on Saturday 21 June, and which was widely reported in the papers pretty much verbatim, was not only riddled with emotive language, but also read as if the ban was already a done deal, with no question that it would not get through parliament without challenge. To quote: “In a victory for drivers and shoppers, the government will make it illegal to use closed circuit television (CCTV) ‘spy cars’ alone to enforce on-street parking ending the plague of parking tickets by post“. Why did they not say that ‘parliament will debate the issue on Monday and if they agree then it will be made illegal’.

And then there is the issue that the government’s response to the consultation was not make available at the time of the press release on the 21st and was indeed not published until the day of parliamentary debate itself. Don’t be confused that the document itself, ‘Response to consultation on local authority parking‘ claims on the website to have been published on the 21 June – the page history  at the bottom of the page clearly shows that it was only update on the 23rd, the day of the debate. It was certainly not there on the afternoon of the 21st because I looked and it said it was not yet available. Were people really working over the weekend to finish it, or was publication delayed tactically because the contents were not considered to be helpful? I hope not.

Regrettably then, journalists, MPs and the public were not able to refer to this fascinating document, which shows the devastating weakness of the government’s position, when reporting on the issue on Saturday or when debating it in parliament on Monday. By way of example it states that:

In response to the question “Do you consider local authority parking enforcement is being applied fairly and reasonably in your area?“:

  • 81% of the 324 organisations that responded said that enforcement was currently applied fairly
  • Just over half of the 421 individuals who responded through that enforcement was currently applied fairly and reasonably (211 thought it was, 210 thought it was unfair).

Hardly supportive of the government’s stance.

And then in response to the question “The Government intends to abolish the use of CCTV cameras for parking enforcement. Do you have any views or comments on this proposal?” They reported that;

  • bus operators opposed the proposed ban on the grounds that authorities should be able to enforce bus lane contraventions in the most efficient and cost effective way,
  • disabled groups opposed the ban and saw CCTV as a vital tool to help improve road safety, especially outside schools and at bus stops,
  • local authorities indicated that they opposed the ban and many considered that it was a necessary and efficient means of ensuring that road safety issues (e.g. around schools) and traffic congestion (e.g. bus lanes, access to hospitals) were adequately managed as part of the statutory network management duty,
  • schools opposed the ban, and some suggested it would leave schools powerless to rein in reckless parents. Head teachers warned of more disputes and greater safety hazards,
  • transport groups opposed the ban, noting that without which school ziz-zag markings would be difficult to enforce and that some areas can become “no go” areas for Civil Enforcement Officers because of the risk of verbal or physical abuse,
  • cycling organisations opposed the ban saying that was an important tool to reduce rogue parking,
  • businesses had mixed views, some wanting the ban, others feeling that it should be used as an effective and efficient tool in appropriate locations and time,
  • motoring organisations had ‘mixed views’. Some thought a blanket abolition would be a retrograde step.

I find it remarkably the views pedestrians and of ‘vulverable road users’, including the very young, very old and he infirm were not mentioned at all here.

Did this result in a change of hear by the government? Of course not. The considered government response was that: “The government intends to press on and take action to see a ban on the use of CCTV cameras to enforce parking contraventions in the vast majority of case” only allowing them to be used for vehicles:

  • When stopped in restricted areas outside a school *1
  • When stopped (where prohibited) on a red route;
  • Where parked (where prohibited) in a bus lane;
  • Where stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand; *2

*1 Do be aware that many zig-zags outside schools are not actually ‘restricted areas’. Paint on the road is not actually enough, as there also needs to be a pole and sign and also an expensive legal process to create what I believe they mean by a ‘restricted area’. This legal stage is often skipped because of the cost, and as such I don’t believe that it will be possible to use CCTV to enforce parking outside most of the schools in Ipswich where I live, and probably in many other places. I will do a post shortly on this subject.

*2 Do also notice the use of the word ‘restricted’ and ‘stopped’ in relation to bus stops. I believe that bus stops are only ‘restricted’ if they have a yellow box painted on the road and a pole and sign with details. Most bus are not restricted like this because of the cost of introducing it.

Places where CCTV can not be used would therefore include:

  • yellow lines, including those protecting bus routes (as distinct from bus lanes where they can be used)
  • dropped kerbs (where provided for pedestrians to cross the road)no loading areas
  • zig-zags outside many schools
  • by most bus stops
  • the approaches to signalised pedestrian crossings
  • any more? (do please note these in the comments section below and I will add them). The consultation notes that there were as many as 40 possible offences where CCTV enforcement would be banned.

Personally, I think this is all very encouraging for us campaigners in the longer term because clearly there is considerable support for effective control of rogue parking and the government is in a very weak position.

In the mean time we do of course need to continue to make our case robustly in public and keep up the pressure on MPs, many of whom are already well aware of the strength of opinion but clearly don’t yet have the courage to act on-mass. In the short term these changes will make parking worse, and we need to use this to build further support for change.

I can’t actually believe that the government really going to be foolish enough to go against the advice of so many organisations and individuals who oppose the changes when even the motoring organisations are not convinced of the change. Or will this get quietly ‘parked’ like their earlier proposal to increase the motorway speed limit to 80 mph?




Government determined to ban CCTV parking enforcement

21 Jun

So… the government intends to ban the use of CCTV enforcement of parking regulations (except in a small number of situations which will be determined by the Secretary for State for Transport). It also intends to introduce a number of other changes that will make it harder for councils to discourage pavement parking by including statutory ‘grace’ periods for people who park for too long in metered locations and who park illegally on yellow lines and also by introducing mandatory discounts for motorists who lose appeals for parking fines (yes ‘who lose’!).

It appears that both the Communities Secretary and the Transport Secretary have strong feelings on the subject and are comfortable speaking very emotively on the subject. To quote (my emphasis):

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary: “CCTV spy cars can be seen lurking on every street raking in cash for greedy councils and breaking the rules that clearly state that fines should not be used to generate profit for town halls. Over-zealous parking enforcement and unreasonable stealth fines by post undermine the high street, push up the cost of living and cost local authorities more in the long term”  21 June 2014

Patrick McLoughlin, Transport Secretary: “Unfair parking fines blight the use of our high streets and force shoppers out of towns. We want to rein back aggressive rules by banning the use octavo for parking enforcement, reviewing the use of yellow lines, and giving shoppers a ‘grace period’ to get back to their car after their ticket has run out before they get fined”  December 2013

OK, so we have spy, lurking, raking-in, cash, greedy, over-zealous, unreasonable, stealth and undermine in one press release and unfair, blight, force, aggressive in another balanced rather delightfully by the word grace for motorists who park illegally!

We also have a bunch of unproven assertions: Where is the evidence that this will ‘push up the cost of living’ or ‘cost local authorities more in the long term’. How on earth can the use of CCTV enforcement both be ‘raking in cash for greedy councils’ and also ‘cost local authorities more’?

And then there is weird statement: “Public confidence is strengthened in CCTV if it is used to tackle crime, not to raise money for council coffers” Eric Pickles October 2013.

Ignoring for now the emotive use of the word ‘coffers’, is he suggesting that people who are fined for illegal parking have not committed a ‘crime’. Really? The Oxford English Dictionary states that a crime is “an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law“. Is this another example of motoring law being put into a separate category of ‘not really very important laws which need not be adhered to if you can get away with it’.

A large number of organisations responded to the  consultation including:

  • Local Government Association
  • London Councils
  • British Parking Association
  • Disabled Motoring UK
  • Living Streets
  • Brake
  • Royal National Institute for the Blind  
  • Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACT)
  • Passenger Transport Executive Group  
  • Confederation of Passenger Transport UK

In their detailed response the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety noted that:

  • the consultation paper reads as though the Government has already made up its mind that local authorities are too severe when it comes to both the cost of permitted parking and the enforcement of penalties.
  • the extent to which this consultation represents real engagement likely to result in fruitful dialogue, is brought into doubt specifically by the fact that the paper makes it plain that certain, important decisions have already been taken, and that Government policy is, in key respects, not still under consideration. Paragraph 1.1, for example reports the pre-emptive freezing of parking penalty charge levels; while paragraph 4.1 states the Government’s intent to abolish the use of CCTV for parking enforcement
  • the consultation paper does not refer to, let alone make available, a robust evidence base for the changes in policy in question. Rather, these changes seem to be most strongly influenced by a record of anecdotal “concerns about over – zealous parking enforcement and high parking charges” that were expressed to the Transport Select Committee in 2013.
  • PACTS considers that the basis of the Government’s case for abolishing CCTV enforcement – that “it would more appropriate, fairer and straightforward for a parking warden to deal with contraventions” (paragraph 4.2) – is not justified by any evidence presented
  • CCTV is widely used in other areas of public realm, particularly in town centres, by the public and private sectors, to assist with a range of safety and security functions. To arbitrarily ban the use of CCTV for parking enforcement would not be justified or logical.
  • it is quite reasonable to review local parking arrangements periodically. However, we are not convinced that new powers or duties are required.
  • any grace periods should be a matter for local determination and dependent upon the specific circumstances, not for national prescription. Mandatory grace periods would no longer be grace periods.
  • PACTS urges the Government to make it simpler for local authorities to enforce against these matters, particularly parking on the footway which causes obstruction and road danger to pedestrians and mobility impaired people as well as costing local authorities substantial sums for footway repairs. The law is currently inadequate and l ocal authorities need effective legislation to tackle this problem.

The British Parking Association said:

  • there is no regulatory impact assessment on these proposals. There can be no doubt that there are very significant impacts on road users (particularly disabled people and children), on local authorities and on businesses, and the Association is very disappointed that no attempt has been made to quantify these impacts. In particular, there is no equality impact assessment.
  • the Consultation is derived from the Department for Communities and Local Government’s objective of revitalising the high street. This is a laudable objective and one which our local authority members have always taken very seriously, but traffic and parking management is also about tackling congestion, improving road safety and encouraging more sustainable forms of transport.
  • the Consultation appears to be based on concerns by a minority of road users who receive penalty charge notices. The Government should understand that a small minority of motorists receive penalty charge notices – most research indicates around 20%. The vast majority (the silent majority) benefit from the activities undertaken by local authorities to address the small minority who park in contravention of parking controls. That is not to say that that minority should not be treated fairly but we do believe that the Government should be proportionate in its response to this minority.
  • an underlying theme of the Consultation is that new technology somehow is a threat to motorists. On the contrary, new technology has significantly improved the offer to motorists, best illustrated by the use of mobile phone parking which enables motorists to be alerted to time expiry and remote topping up of time. In many other areas of Government activity new technology is being embraced positively (like the Cabinet Office’s “Digital by Default” programme) – why is this not the case with parking management?
  • the BPA believes that parking enforcement is in the main being applied fairly and reasonably throughout the UK. Constant criticism from government and the media is neither constructive nor helpful in promoting a rational debate which is why we have arranged a Parking Summit on 27 February 2014.
  • no, we do not agree [with a grace period after appeal]; it completely misunderstands and undermines the purpose of the penalty charge in the first place. • Is the government really advocating a 25% discount on the statutory parking penalty charge for parking illegally and losing an appeal?
  • there are no parking controls in place that have not been sanctioned and approved by locally elected politicians. Locally elected politicians already have the powers to decide when and where parking controls are deployed and how they are enforced.
  • the prospect of introducing grace periods for prohibited parking is unworkable; if there is room for people to park without causing a danger or obstruction to others then prohibited parking should be converted to permitted parking.
  • mandatory grace periods become the expected norm and give rise to further claims of unfairness if the grace period is exceeded by short periods.

Living Streets responded with this:

  • the Government‟s concern for struggling local shops, town centres, high streets and parades is creditable, but its proposed changes to local authority parking management and enforcement will achieve little and cost more. It has latched on to the perception held by businesses (and some members of the public) that more parking spaces, lower parking charges or even better „free‟ parking will halt this decline. However, as Living Streets‟ recent report “The pedestrian pound” the business case for better streets and places‟ shows, there are many factors contributing to this decline.
  • the allegation has been made that some local authorities use parking charges to raise revenues. Where there is evidence of this illegal activity it should be dealt with appropriately. Good parking management is essential for all road users, especially the most vulnerable: pedestrians. The use of CCTV to enforce parking is particularly important to discourage inconsiderate and dangerous parking outside schools.
  • local parking strategies and parking enforcement are local matters subject to approval by locally elected councillors. That same democratic process allows local residents and businesses raise issues of local concern. There is nothing to be gained by introducing duplicate powers requiring local authorities to review their parking provision.
  • space in towns and cities is at a premium and the needs of drivers to park their vehicles must be weighed against the equally necessary freedom of movement of pedestrians – especially younger, older or disabled pedestrians to walk safely, for pedestrians to access public transport, and for businesses to operate effectively.
  • from our experience of working with schools and parents we know that this danger is, ironically, one of the key reasons why people drive their children to school! “No stopping” restrictions on the yellow zig-zags outside schools have little effect unless enforced – and without cameras they are almost impossible to enforce outside every school, at the same, peak times.
  • Living Streets is calling on the Government to review the current regulatory framework regarding parking on the footway and to bring forward proposals for a nationwide pavement parking ban along the lines of the Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill in Scotland. Poorly parked vehicles can force pedestrians into the road. They can inhibit the independence of many vulnerable people and be particularly dangerous for older people, for families with pushchairs and for those with visual or mobility impairments.
  • there is support for a national pavement parking ban from a number of organisations. A proposed Private Member‟s Pavement Parking Bill was supported by a range of organisations including: Age UK, British Parking Association, Civic Voice, The GlassHouse Community Led Design, Guide Dogs, Keep Britain Tidy, Design Council Cabe, RNIB and Leonard Cheshire Disability.

The District Council’s network, representing 200 district councils responded:

  • the District Councils’ Network recognises the government’s concern for the regeneration of town centres and thriving local areas. District councils are the statutory planning and housing authorities in two-tier areas, and research by the DCN of our members indicates that districts are already working hard to regenerate town centres and high streets, and support business location and expansion and the jobs this brings. Every local area is different and unique, and district councils, not central government, know best what an area needs and what the population expect from their democratically elected representatives.
  • the District Councils’ Network opposes this intention [of banning use of CCTV enforcement]. The DFT’s statutory guidance already states that CCTV cameras should only be used where parking enforcement is difficult, sensitive or not practical for a parking warden to do. The consultation document itself refers to these as “strict requirements”. We feel this statutory guidance is already sufficiently clear and does not need revising. Further, CCTV cameras are more cost-effective than employing traffic wardens. They also provide a clear record of any parking contravention that has occurred, ensuring that councils can fairly and reasonably apply the rules.
  • if the government does decide to abolish the use of CCTV cameras for parking enforcement, any changes to the statutory guidance that have resource implications should be fully met by central government.
  • district councils already review their parking arrangements actively and regularly as part of good town centre management. Citizens with concerns about parking can already make representations to their directly elected councillors, and many do. The reality is that some unwelcome parking or traffic management restrictions are in place for safety reasons; and if community reviews are introduced, councils must have the ability to explain to residents why these restrictions are in place. Further, councils are experiencing extreme financial pressures, and may not be able to undertake any changes even where councils and residents agree changes would be preferable.

The London Councils responded:

  • government spokesmen have labeled local authority parking enforcement as ‘arbitrary’, ‘unfair’ and designed simply as a way of raising revenue. London Councils refutes all of these descriptions. Enforcing properly made regulations is hardly unfair or arbitrary. It is also clear that local councils are not using parking enforcement with the objective of raising revenue. Not only would this be unlawful (and there is significant public interest from groups on this issue who hold councils to account for this) it would also be a very insecure mechanism for raising revenue as the costs of enforcement take up most if not all the revenue from enforcement.
  • London Councils is also surprised that the consultation document includes no regulatory impact assessment. Such an assessment is considered normal and given the substantial inefficiencies and costs associated with some of the proposals, it is surprising that the Government does not appear to have considered this
  • authorities are advised generally to provide parking provision and set tariffs for short stay parking based on the 85 per cent occupancy rule. Charges are set to manage demand and encourage bay turnover, as this in turn maximises access. If the tariff is set too high, vehicles will not park and bays will remain empty. Such an outcome would quickly lead to pressure on the authority to cut charges and even on a strict financial model, high charges with low occupancy are not financially optimum. If the tariff is set too low for the demand, then you do not get the turnover of spaces, and congestion increases as vehicles circle searching for space. In high streets this makes the location less attractive and does not lead to any more people able to visit local shops. Research has shown that where tariffs are too low, ‘searching’ traffic makes up as much as 30% of traffic flow, which does not simply lead to additional and unnecessary congestion but also to extra pollution. Neither of these make the location attractive to shoppers or visitors. It is in the interest of every borough to get this balance right.
  • estimated calculations would suggest that only 0.15 per cent of parking acts result in the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) in London. This represents a tiny fraction, and would seem to indicate that the overwhelming majority of motorists do not receive PCNs. This suggests some over emphasis of the scale of any ‘parking problem’ and this is reinforced by research from the RAC which shows that the average motorist pays only £47 a year on parking, compared to more than £1,500 a year on fuel.
  • more parking does not necessarily mean greater commercial success. A well managed parking scheme, where spaces ‘turn over’ frequently can help increase the number of visitors coming to a town centre, and thereby help business.
  • shopkeepers consistently overestimate the share of their customers coming by car. This can be by as much as 400%. In London the share of those accessing urban centres on foot or by public transport is much greater. Walking is the most important mode for accessing local town centres; public transport is the most important mode to travel to International centers (e.g. Oxford Street)
  • London Councils does not agree that CCTV use should be banned, and strongly disagrees with this proposal. CCTV cameras are a vital enforcement tool and any ban would significantly reduce the effectiveness of parking enforcement and have a negative impact on the road traffic network. The use of CCTV outside schools is undertaken to ensure the health and safety of vulnerable road users. It has proved vital in changing parking habits and had a positive effect on road safety.
  • there are many situations where the physical presence of a CEO does not act as a deterrent, as drivers see the officer, move the vehicle, and then move it back when the CEO has left. The threat of CCTV eliminates this problem, and therefore increases compliance.
  • removing the ability to enforce by CCTV would result in significantly increased costs to achieve equitable levels of compliance. Any proposed alternatives would be a backward step for efficiency gains that authorities are striving to deliver in a challenging economic climate.
  • London Councils does not agree that a discount should be offered at appeal stage. It would be hugely costly to implement, encouraging more appeals, with potentially little chance of success and raise unrealistic expectations amongst motorists. No other part of the judicial process in England and Wales encourages someone to pursue a case, and be rewarded for losing. It is, therefore, disproportionate, likely to lead to an abuse of the Parking and Traffic Appeals system and an unnecessary waste of public resources.
  • London Councils does not believe that there should be a ‘statutory’ grace period. The suggestion is unsatisfactory in any circumstance, as motorists would see this as a free parking period, and therefore a right. Motorists would then adjust their habits accordingly, which would have severe consequences on traffic flow and congestion.
  • the introduction of new technological parking solutions (such as payments by mobile phone) now make it easier for a customer to receive warnings and reminders about their remaining time, and top up if necessary. Therefore customers using such options (and these are increasing) should not be in a situation where they are late back to the vehicle.
  • the notion of introducing grace periods where parking is prohibited is unworkable. It is likely that this would see:
    • an increase in congestion and vehicles causing an obstruction.
    • an increase in accidents and road safety incidents.
    • a reduction in the ability to control traffic flow.
    • a reduction in the space for those that actually need it, which would include delivery drivers and blue badge holders.
    • actual damage to the (limited) effect that parking has on high street revival.
    • an increase in motorist confusion about where and when they can and cannot park.
    • encouragement for motorists to disregard parking controls in general.

The consultation responses were evenly divided for and against. According to Roads Minister Robert Goodwill when he appeared before the Transport Select Committee in March 2014: In response to the proposal for a period of ‘grace’, the response was exactly 50:50; 45% of organisations were in favour and 55% were against and  51% of individuals were in favour with 49% against. In response to the proposal that motorists should be entitled to a discount if they pay a fine promptly after having lost on appeal 56% of respondents overall were against the change, including 77% of organisations and 46% of individuals.

It does very much look as reasoned argument is not going to make any difference at present, that the government has already made up its mind and that parking issues are going to get worse before they get better.

I enjoyed reading the warning included in the British Parking Authority that the government should “be careful what they wish for”. They urged the Government to “undertake a full impact assessment of any proposal to ensure that what they seek to achieve does not have unintended consequences”.


When the law is optional….

5 Apr

I promised to post a photo showing how carefully these socially-minded fitters from Express Glass had created a safe route for pedestrians around their vehicle when while they fitted a heavy plate-glass window to this shop in central Ipswich. They seemed surprised when I said that I found this level of consideration and awareness of the law and the Highway Code unusual.


Many other businesses who should know better seem to see what they can get away with… 24 hours earlier I had spotted fitters from another glass company, who were installing a window in our local MP’s office, and who didn’t seem to have gone to any great effort to accommodate the needs of pedestrians. Possibly the staff in Ben Gummer’s office could have said something?


And this was not a one-off, here are another set of workmen with a large vehicle up on the pavement outside his office.


Needless to say, it is MPs who create the laws, and people who break the laws may end up being taken to court in one of these vans. It does seem a bit ironic then that Serco park up on the pavement outside the back of Ipswich Magistrates’ Court on double-yellows in a no-loading zone. They do this regularly, and the receptionist explained that traffic warden has given them permission to do it. Doesn’t exactly send a good message to wrong-doers does it!


And of course yellow Lines don’t just appear by magic, they need to be painted onto the road by people who drive heavy lorries like this ones. Seems ironic then that they have chosen to park it up on the pavement across a cycle lane on a section of double yellows in a no-loading zone. Possibly they shouldn’t bother painting them at all?


Speaking of double yellow lines, privatized of the Royal Mail by our MPs has regrettably not stopped their staff from blocking pavements on a regular basis. In this picture we have not one, but two Royal Mail vans blocking the same pavement which takes some skill! When I ask them to not do this, they typically point to the royal crest and say that they are on queen’s business. Needless to say, they no longer serve the queen, and unfortunately I can’t see anything much that is ‘royal’ about them any more.


Privatisation of mail delivery was of course designed to create competition which is good and drives down prices and gives choice. One unfortunate expression of this competitions seems to be for these companies to attempt to deliver fastest with fewer drivers in larger vehicles (where did postman Pat and his bike go?) and explore which laws can be ignored in pursuit of profit. Here is a very large TN lorry up on the pavement on yellow lines in a busy city-centre street.


And it’s not just TNT – here are UPS delivering to an address in the same street, one which happens be a major pedestrian route between the town centre and the waterfront. Notice the muddle of people trying to pass each other on the bit of remaining pavement. This particular driver appears however to take pleasure in ignoring all requests to be more considerate, and has reassured me that ‘he has never got a ticket’.


Needless to say, police forces are not always that keen on enforcing the law, as in this famous case where the police in Bristol apparently deemed that this car, parked fully across the pavement on a bend was not causing an obstruction!

Police in Bristol said that this car was not causing an obstruction

What really worries me however, is when I saw this milkman parking up on pavements on double yellows just as kids are on their way to school. He evidently choose to avoid the hassle of driving all the way into the free car park visible in the left of the picture because it was more convenient for him to simply dump his vehicle on the pavement.


All of the above seems to confirm that authority has no great interest in pedestrians and their needs. The people who make the laws don’t seem to be too worried about them, nor are the people paid to implement the related regulations, nor are those employed to deal with people who break the other law interested in obeying them. Creating a competitive market for deliveries in these conditions only increases the chaos, where competing companies are incentivised, indeed almost compelled, to see which laws are optional in pursuit of greater profits!


To be continued….


Pavement hogs

16 Aug

The government has just introduced £100 fines for people who “needlessly hog the middle or outside lane” of a motorway or dual-carriageway.

I find this curious, because the rule 264 of the Highway code reads: “You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking. You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency or if directed to do so by the police, HA traffic officers in uniform or by signs.

The word ‘should‘ in the Highway Code is code for ‘this is antisocial but not illegal’. ‘MUST NOT‘ means that it is illegal. Conclusion — lane hogging is not illegal, but is antisocial.

Curiously Rule 244 of the highway code says: “You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.” Forget London (unless you live there). For most of the rest of use this would read: “You should not park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs permit it.” Conclusion — pavement parking parking is antisocial, but not illegal (unless you live in London).

However, in addition Rule 145 of the Highway Code says “You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.” Conclusion —- in order to park on a pavement a driver has to break this law twice, once to drives onto the pavement, and again to get off.

In summary:

  • Pavement hogging involving breaking the law at least twice (but is largely ignored by the police and politicians).
  • Lane hogging appear not to be illegal, but the politicians have determined that the police should fine people £100 for doing so.

To add insult to injury, Rule 145 (which is ignored for motorists), is vigorously enforced when people cycle on the pavement!

So.. the big question is what are we going to have to do to get the politicians to wake up to this issue.

The problem is that every year there are more cars, every year more people discover that they can park on pavement without getting into trouble, and park more audaciously. Every year more people get more confident of their ‘right’ to park on pavements. Every year it gets tougher for pedestrians.

To illustrate the point, here are a few incidents I have noticed locally over the past few weeks. Driver appear to be totally confident that the police won’t do anything even if they block the entire pavement.





The good news is that the politicians have demonstrated that they can act even if they want to. Now we just have to make them want to!


Carlton Reid has just commented that the paving outside the shop in the first two photos is very cracked. He also noted that pedestrians do not crack paving slabs when they walk across them, but that vehicles often do! Here is a photo of the same area taken when it was free of cars. Needless to say, in this case motorists are breaking loads of additional laws, including parking on the pavement next to a double yellow line, parking in a ‘no loading’ place and parking within 10 meters of a junction. Any more? Anyone care to estimate how much this paving would cost to fix?


Update 2

I have just found another really classy bit of parking outside the side the same shop. Notice all the road-signs and bins on the pavement the other side of the vehicle.


‘Harm to local amenity’

15 Jan

The government is evidently going to publish plans on Monday to prevent councils in England fining householders who break ‘minor bin collection rules’. They claim say that councils should only be able to act where they can prove that a householder is causing ‘harm to local amenity’ and that ‘only those causing real problems for their community will get punished’. The aim of this legislation seems to be to reduce the powers of authorities over rubbish collections, however in Ipswich bins are already causing ‘harm to local amenity’ as can be seen in all but one of the cases features below :