Issue - meetings

The Sub-Committee received a briefing from the Traffic and Parking Control Group Manager on Anti-Social Parking Behaviour and Public Space Protection Orders to deal with anti-social parking around schools.

Officers explained the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) had covered the parking contravention of dropped kerb parking, however this had been amended and the TMA stated that it was legal, provided the owner of the property allows it.  Therefore it was the responsibility of the resident to instruct enforcement if this was an issue.

The Sub-Committee was informed of the cost involved with the removal of a vehicle.  Officers explained that bailiffs were involved when there were three or more outstanding warrants.  Officers were looking at pilots where a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is issued and then the vehicle is removed to a “legal” space as this would reduce the cost of storage.  The evader would still have to pay the fine, and would be able to challenge if necessary.  The owner of the vehicle would have to contact the Police who use the TRACE system which can identify where a vehicle is located.

Officers explained that PCN were a civil matter whereas Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) were a criminal matter.  The PSPOs could be used were there were reasonable grounds that activity had occurred in a public place which was having a detrimental effect on those in the vicinity, and this was a persistent or continuous activity.

It was noted that many illegal parking acts are traits of anti-social behaviour and it was suggested that the current traditional civil parking enforcement legislation could be augmented with powers from the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 via PSPOs.  It was hoped that this would minimise the anti-social behaviours and reduce obstructive parking often encountered by local residents, which also impacts upon the safety of pedestrians the majority of whom were school children, during the school run outside of many of the boroughs schools.

Officers were now working with schools to gather evidence and to observe the behaviour of motorists.  It was noted that not only the would an order to prohibit an action be necessary, but in some areas there may be physical changes that would need to be implemented (e.g. new lines, no entry and one-way streets).

The Sub-Committee raised concerns for the residents who lived in the pilot areas and how the proposals would affect them.  Officers explained that residents would be able to register vehicles of friends and family so these were exempt from the scheme, this would also be true for Health and Homecare users and GP’s as well as any other service vehicles.  Whilst this may cause displacement to other areas, these would be a larger area and would ensure that the environment around schools was made better.

It was hoped that the public consultation with residents would start in early April 2016.  The Sub-Committee requested that an update on the outcomes from the public consultation be given at a future meeting.

Report to follow.

Consideration of this item had been deferred until the next meeting.