Author Topic: The Right to Challenge Parking Policies = A Discussion Paper  (Read 2210 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
The Right to Challenge Parking Policies = A Discussion Paper
« on: 02 September, 2014, 01:30:53 PM »
What do we think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Right to Challenge Parking Policies
A Discussion Paper

Introduction

The Government wants to make it easier for local residents and firms to challenge unfair, disproportionate or unreasonable parking policies. This could include the provision of parking, parking charges and the use of yellow lines. This discussion paper invites your views on the design of the mechanism that will make this possible.

Policy background

The Traffic Management Act 2004 provides the regulatory framework which gives local authorities the option of adopting civil parking enforcement powers. Most local authorities in England (over 90%) have now taken up these powers, taking responsibility for the design, implementation and enforcement of parking policies in their area. However, there is public concern that some local authorities appear not to be using their powers to meet the best interests of road users, communities and businesses in their area. There are concerns about over-zealous parking enforcement and high parking charges driving people out of town centres, pushing up the cost of living and making it harder for people to park responsibly and go about their everyday lives. Inappropriate parking rules and enforcement also harm local shops and impose costs on local firms.

These concerns were expressed most recently in evidence to the Transport Select Committee during its inquiry into local authority parking enforcement.1The Government consulted on local authority parking enforcement from 6 December 2013 to 14 February 2014. The response was published on 21 June 2014, and is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-authority-parking.

In its response, the Government committed to change the rules so that local residents and firms will be able to make their council review parking strategies and practices. This paper provides more detail on the options, and invites views on the details of the mechanism to gives local taxpayers the power to challenge any aspect of parking in their area, and which requires local councillors to review the relevant policy and justify their council’s policies.

Legal Background

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, local authorities have a responsibility to determine policies in relation to their road network, and to keep these policies under review. Operational Guidance on the implementation of this requirement states that the parking policies should be appraised when local authorities review othetr specific plans, depending on the nature of the authority. The guidance recommends that this include public consultation.

Public consultation is currently required for parking restrictions applied by Traffic Management Orders. These are used to put in place the majority of parking-related prohibitions and restrictions, and cover yellow lines and parking places. They are not required for some other restrictions, including bus stop clearways, and are not subject to review after their introduction, except when reviewed as part of appraising parking policies in general.

Proposals for a New Parking Review Mechanism

The current processes are not easily understood or accessed by local residents or businesses, and the timeframe for reviewing policies is not linked to, or required to respond to, changes in local circumstances. This combines to create a perception that people have no say in parking in their area, or power to challenge decisions.

Any new mechanism needs to give local residents, community groups and businesses the ability to engage effectively while recognising the responsibility of local authorities to put in place parking strategies that reflect the needs of all road users (including pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities), and the needs of residents, shops and businesses. Such a mechanism needs to be simple, fair and transparent.

To meet this overall aim, the Government is proposing to introduce a requirement that in response to a petition from local residents and/or businesses, local authorities must review their specific parking policy in a specified location, and produce a report for consideration and decision by councillors in an appropriate public council meeting. This approach thus combines direct democracy (the right to petition and call a review) with representative democracy (elected councillors taking a decision, and then being held to account at the ballot box).

We will initially introduce this policy through statutory guidance, and will consider the case for entrenching in legislation. In considering the detail of this proposal, we would welcome views on a number of areas, in particular:

Who should have the ability to petition for a review?

What should they be able to challenge, and how?

How should the local authority manage petitions?

Who should have the ability to petition for a review?


Who should have the ability to petition for a review?

It is of course the right of any individual or business to contact their local authority about any aspect of parking in their area. However, in designing a formal mechanism for petition it would be more practicable to include minimum requirements. These would serve to demonstrate that any challenge is supported by local residents and/or businesses. We propose that the minimum requirements might include:

? A minimum number of local residents, defined as either paying council tax2 or being a local government elector.

? A minimum number of local businesses, defined as those registered to pay business rates in the area (irrespective of any relevant Business Rate discounts that might apply).

? Or a combination of the above.

We are considering a minimum of 50 signatures or at least 10% of the residents or businesses in the affected local areas.3

We are seeking suggestions for a workable definition of ‘minimum’, and views on the extent to which local authorities could and should use the flexibility they already have to consider and weight representations from individuals and groups.

Issues to take into account include residents in a specific but small area (such as a single road with only a small number of residents) who are not likely to be able to constitute a group just to organise a petition, and may even not meet any requirement for a minimum number of petitioners. There may also be issues in areas of high or low population density.

Do you have any views on the proposed use of petitions?
Do you have any views on what should be the definition of minimum for the purposes of putting together a valid petition?


What should they be able to challenge, and how?

The Operational Guidance to local authorities on the Traffic Management Act 2004, states that, in appraising its local parking policy, an authority should take account of the:

? existing and projected levels of parking demand;

? availability and pricing of on- and off-street parking;

? justification for and accuracy of existing Traffic Regulation Orders;

? accuracy and quality of traffic signs and road markings that restrict or permit
parking.

It would seem appropriate that the same range of issues be open to petition. However, the petitioner should be expected to provide sufficient information for the local authority to be able to understand exactly what aspect of their policy is being challenged and why.

We therefore propose that any petition must include the following:

? A clear description of the geographical area covered by the petition (which could be a road, a series of roads, a polling district, a ward or indeed, the whole council area);

? A clear description of which aspects of parking policy are being challenged, with justification;

? Names, dates and addresses for all people and/or businesses signing the petition;

? Contact details for the organiser of the petition, who shall be the first point of contact for follow up questions, and for notification of progress.

Do you have any views or comments on this proposal?

How should the local authority manage petitions?

Although the arrangements for responding to petitions should be determined locally, we would propose that as a minimum, local authorities should ensure that their arrangements include the following:

? a public statement on how they will manage any challenges to their parking policies. This statement could cover how reviews will be carried out, low long they will take, consultation requirements (including local residents, ratepayers, and any neighbouring authorities who may be affected), and how the final decision will be taken and communicated following the review. The statement should also cover any circumstances where a petition will not be considered (e.g. vexatious petitioners, within a stated minimum period after a previous review in the same area);

? publication of the details of all petitions received, with clear information on what aspects of parking policy are being challenged, the timeline for reviewing the challenged policy and how local residents and businesses can engage in that review;

? the report of the review, and any recommendations, are considered and voted on by councillors;

? the organiser of the petition should be kept updated on progress, and notified when the report is due to be considered and the outcome of the challenge;

? publish the outcome of all reviews. We will also consider whether legislation will be required to entrench these measures.

Do you have any views or comments on this proposal?

Your Views

This paper was published on 30 August 2014. We would welcome your views by 10 October 2014.

Comments on this paper are invited from any interested person, but we would particularly welcome those from:

? Local authorities

? Business and community representatives

? Individual businesses and residents

Please send your views to:

Town Centres and High Streets Team
email: highstreets@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Alternatively, paper communications should be sent to:
Catherine Canning
Town Centres and High Streets Team
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348848/140830_-_Right_to_challenge_parking_paper_FINAL.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: The Right to Challenge Parking Policies = A Discussion Paper
« Reply #1 on: 17 October, 2014, 11:07:55 AM »
The NoToMob's submissions

----------------------------------------------------------

Who we are

The NoToMob (www.notomob.co.uk) was formed in July 2010 in response to the Prime Minister’s speech of May 2010 in which he invited the public to become armchair auditors to make local and central government accountable and to take part in his “Big Society” vision. The Secretary of State for Local Government Eric Pickles repeated the invitation in October 2010 and extended the remit, stating he wanted the public to use the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Audit Commission Act 1998 to make local government accountable. The NoToMob has accepted these invitations and continues to do so. Since mid-2010 its members have had extensive contact with the members of the public, Enforcement Authorities and enforcement company personnel. The following reflect the views of the NoToMob, based upon contact with these groups.



The Right to Challenge Parking Policies – a discussion paper

The government has stated “there is public concern that some local authorities appear not to be using their powers to meet the best interests of road users, communities and businesses in their area” and on 30 August 2014 it published a discussion paper in which it sought the views of any interested party. Given the NoToMob's history on the subject of parking, traffic management and lobbying central and local governments for changes in these areas, we are  keen to provide our views on the subject.

Below we repeat the main body of the consultation paper and our views are expressed in blue text.


Who should have the ability to petition for a review?

Do you have any views on the proposed use of petitions?

It is of course the right of any individual or business to contact their local authority about any aspect of parking in their area. However, in designing a formal mechanism for petition it would be more practicable to include minimum requirements. These would serve to demonstrate that any challenge is supported by local residents and/or businesses.

We propose that the minimum requirements might include:

 A minimum number of local residents, defined as either paying council tax or being a local government elector.

 A minimum number of local businesses, defined as those registered to pay business rates in the area (irrespective of any relevant Business Rate discounts that might apply).
 
 Or a combination of the above.

We are considering a minimum of 50 signatures or at least 10% of the residents or businesses in the affected local areas.

We are seeking suggestions for a workable definition of ‘minimum’, and views on the extent to which local authorities could and should use the flexibility they already have to consider and weight representations from individuals and groups.

Issues to take into account include residents in a specific but small area (such as a single road with only a small number of residents) who are not likely to be able to constitute a group just to organise a petition, and may even not meet any requirement for a minimum number of petitioners.

There may also be issues in areas of high or low population density

Do you have any views on what should be the definition of minimum for the
purposes of putting together a valid petition?

The inflexibility of local authorities (LAs) has put us in the position we now find ourselves whereby if we want to raise objections to something that is already in place we are faced with the attitude from LAs that “you had your chance to object when the original consultation took place so now you're stuck with it.” Consequently, trusting LAs to have any input whatsoever into the thresholds by which they are forced to consider a petition should not be allowed, because they will simply maintain the status quo, thereby emasculating the government's policy to empower local people to deal with local issues. It appears that the LAs interpretation of “localism” only extends to themselves and not to the general public.

As is correctly identified in this discussion paper, when setting parameters for the number of petitioners that must automatically trigger the acceptance of a petition by LAs, one of the problems comes down to scale.

However, there is another problem that gives us serious cause for concern. Our concern arises from the lack of a definition of “...residents or businesses in the affected local areas.” Given our concern raised above about allowing LAs input over thresholds, we have no doubt that a lack of definition in this area will afford LAs the opportunity to raise thresholds sufficiently high to avoid what may be a valid challenge.

One way to avoid this would be for the proposed statutory guidance/legislation to define an “affected local area” as being the one to which any identifiable section of a Traffic Management Order (TMO) directly applies. For example, if there is provision in a TMO for double yellow lines along the length of the local High Street, only those residences/businesses actually on the High Street need to petition their LA for change. It follows that if residences/businesses wish to challenge  enforcement of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), only residences/businesses inside the CPZ need to petition their LA for change.

There then comes the problem of scale. We consider it would be impractical for LAs to have to deal with petitions where comparatively few are affected and propose that there be a minimum level set. We suggest the minimum level should be 10 residences/businesses.

We suggest that the fewer residences/businesses affected should require a higher percentage of petitioners to present a valid petition. The more residences/businesses affected should require a lesser percentage. We propose a sliding scale starting at 50% where 10 to 20 residences/businesses are affected, 40% for between 21 and 50, 30% for between 51 and 100, 25% for between 101 and 200, 20% for between 201 and 300, 15% for between 301 and 1,000, 10% for between 1,001 and 5,000, and 7.5% for any number above 5,000.

We suggest the number of potential petitioners be calculated based on the number of properties registered for council tax or business rates in the area where a person wants to organise a petition. This figure could be obtained from the LA by the petition organiser. Only one person from each property should be allowed to sign the petition.


What should they be able to challenge, and how?

The Operational Guidance to local authorities on the Traffic Management Act 2004, states
that, in appraising its local parking policy, an authority should take account of the:

    existing and projected levels of parking demand;
    availability and pricing of on - and off - street parking;
    justification for and accuracy of existing Traffic Regulation Orders;
    accuracy and quality of traffic signs and road markings that restrict or permit parking.

It would seem appropriate that the same range of issues be open to petition.

Agree

However, the petitioner should be expected to provide sufficient information for the local authority to be able to understand exactly what aspect of their policy is being challenged and why.

Agree

We therefore propose that any petition must include the following:

A clear description of the geographical area covered by the petition (which could be a road, a series of roads, a polling district, a ward or indeed, the whole council area);

Agree

A clear description of which aspects of parking policy are being challenged, with justification;

We would not like to see this limited to parking policy. We would prefer if the words “parking policy” were replaced with the words “traffic management policy”.

Names, dates and addresses for all people and/or businesses signing the petition;

Agree

Contact details for the organiser of the petition, who shall be the first point of contact for follow up questions, and for notification of progress.

Agree

Do you have any views or comments on this proposal?

Regarding “justification for and accuracy of existing Traffic Regulation Orders” we would ask  Government to consider penalising LAs which have imposed penalties on motorists where signs and/or lines and/or TMOs are deemed to be inadequate/defective by adjudicators at any of the  statutory appeals services. On too many occasions we have seen instances where appellants have been successful at PATAS or the TPT on the grounds that signs/lines/TMOs are not fit for purpose, yet despite this LAs are known to ignore these judgments and to continue issuing PCNs using the same inadequate/defective signs/lines/TMOs. Proof of this can be found in our submission to the Government consultation launched 6 December 2013. You are specifically referred to examples 1 and 2 on pages 4 to 7 of our submission
(see: http://nutsville.com/DFT/NoToMob%20response%20to%20DFT%20consultation.pdf). Other examples can be provided upon request.

Government should consider putting into its statutory guidelines/legislation the right to petition LAs to return monies to wronged motorists where there has been a definitive ruling by any statutory body as to the illegitimacy and/or unenforceability of signs/lines/TMOs. The threshold for acceptance of such a petition should be 0.5% of the total number of taxpaying residents in the LA.


How should the local authority manage petitions?

Although the arrangements for responding to petitions should be determined locally, we
would propose that as a minimum, local authorities should ensure that their arrangements
include the following:

a public statement on how they will manage any challenges to their parking policies. This statement could cover how reviews will be carried out, low long they will take, consultation requirements (including local residents, ratepayers, and any neighbouring authorities who may be affected), and how the final decision will be taken and communicated following the review.

Agreed, but in our view some minimum requirements should be prescribed in the guidance/legislation. This should include mandatory consultation with residents/business owners and the review process should not permit solely an internal review behind closed doors. There needs to be openness and transparency built in to the process.

If an Authority chooses to extend the consultation wider than to those directly affected, they should meet the minimum numbers given above in relation to the number of objections to the petition, and must not be permitted to take silence as consent. For example, if the original petition was signed by the requisite number of people from an area of 100 affected residences/premises (a minimum of 30), and the LA want to open up the consultation to  10,000 residences/businesses, the LA would have to produce 750 positive responses from residences/businesses in support of striking the petition down.

The statement should also cover any circumstances where a petition will not be considered (e.g. vexatious petitioners, within a stated minimum period after a previous review in the same area);

Agree

publication of the details of all petitions received, with clear information on what aspects of parking policy are being challenged, the timeline for reviewing the challenged policy and how local residents and businesses can engage in that review;

Agree, but again replace parking policy with traffic management policy

the report of the review, and any recommendations, are considered and voted on by councillors;

Agree

the organiser of the petition should be kept updated on progress, and notified when the report is due to be considered and the outcome of the challenge;

Agree

publish the outcome of all reviews. We will also consider whether legislation will be required
to entrench these measures.

Agree

Do you have any views or comments on this proposal?

Government should consider bringing in any measures it deems necessary through primary legislation, or at the very least some extremely robust and unequivocal statutory guidance. It should not give LAs the opportunity to ignore statutory guidance, as it did with the use of CCTV cameras for parking enforcement. LAs showed utter contempt for the Secretary of State and Government in that instance, which has resulted in government bringing in legislation to ban the use of CCTV for parking, save in certain areas specified by the Secretary of State.

The government has quite correctly identified that there is “public concern that some local authorities appear not to be using their powers to meet the best interests of road users, communities and businesses in their area” and that there are ”concerns about over - zealous parking enforcement and high parking charges driving people out of town centres, pushing up the cost of living and making it harder for people to park responsibly and go about their everyday lives.”

Government also acknowledges that “Inappropriate parking rules and enforcement also harm local shops and impose costs on local firms.”

Currently LAs are allowed to make a surplus through parking and enforcement. What disturbs us most however, is that what should be a revenue neutral public service if run efficiently, is now seen by the vast majority of LAs as a service that generates large surpluses that can be used to bolster their revenue.

This is evidenced by the fact that LAs now budget for parking revenue surpluses based on surpluses made in previous years, rather than aiming for a service that is revenue neutral. Consequently, the LA mindset is to defend at all costs what it believes is its right to a certain level of surplus, which means looking for every loophole or rule that can be bent that helps it achieve that aim.

What we don't want is to find that in 5 years time we again find ourselves in a position whereby LAs are still being allowed to ignore public concerns because the Government has not put sufficiently robust measures in place to stop LAs taking advantage of the public.

Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice, shame on you.

NoToMob

10 October 2014

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player