Agenda item

The Environment Services Manager and the Head of Stronger Communities will be in attendance to provide information in relation to parking and associated damage to grass verges

Recommendation: for Panel to determine whether further information is required

The Environment Services Manager and the Head of Stronger Communities were in attendance at the meeting to provide information in relation to parking on grass verges. Parking on, and vehicular damage to, grass verges was a persistent problem throughout the town. Levels of car ownership had increased and many households owned two or more vehicles, which in turn led to greater demands and competition for available parking space. Many older housing estates had narrow access roads and a significant number of amenity areas. Houses in these areas often fronted onto large grassed areas rather than direct road frontages.

 

Narrow roads could result in drivers parking on verges in an effort to avoid obstructing the road for through traffic and, in particular, emergency services vehicles, refuse collection vehicles and removal/delivery vans. Traffic calming features could often displace vehicles from the carriageway onto adjacent verges and footways.

 

Parking on verges could cause structural and environmental damage and reduce verges to an unsightly state, presenting a potential hazard to the public through deep rutting. In addition it made them more difficult and expensive to maintain, and could cause damage to trees, roots and underground infrastructure. It could also cause a danger to pedestrians and other road users, particularly at junctions or pedestrian crossing places, by blocking visibility. Maintenance operations such as grass cutting and street cleanings could be impeded. There was also the potential for conflict between residents who wished to park on the verges and those who wanted them protected.

 

Whilst residents were generally aware that they should not be parking on the verge there were several reasons why they persisted including:

 

·         front door access - parked as close to their property as physically possible.

·         fear that the vehicle would be vandalised if parked too far away from their property.

·         concern about damage to wing mirrors and the vehicle.

·         lack the alternative facility of in curtilage parking.

·         choose to park on the grass verge because it is available and involves less effort than parking on driveway.

The Council received complaints from a variety of sources relating to: obstruction, damage, access difficulties, road safety issues, neighbour disputes and general annoyance. Complaints were often associated with requests for verge hardening, provision of new or additional parking facilities, bollards or knee rail in the verge, or new or additional parking restrictions.

 

In October 2012, the Council’s Executive formally approved a methodology and systematic approach for dealing with requests for parking interventions and to address problems concerning road safety, accessibility for emergency services, buses and areas of damage to either grass verges or footways as a result of the regular occurrence of parked vehicles.

 

The decision-making process implemented recommended one of three outcomes: prevention, accommodation or no action.

 

Options for prevention included:

·         Introduce new waiting restrictions.

·         Report to local neighbourhood policing team.

·         Introduce local pavement parking ban.

·         Provide Pavement crossing.

·         Edge Treatment - bollards, knee rail, barriers, planting.

·         Advisory road markings.

·         Mediation.

It was highlighted that consideration needed to be given to the impact of any displaced parking and the level of resources available to effectively enforce any new regulations.

 

Options for accommodation included:

 

·         Provision of parking bays.

·         Strengthen/pave/existing verge.

As the volume of requests from the public far exceeded allocated budget a system was established to prioritise and categorise all requests. This prioritisation procedure used a specific system and set of criteria which resulted in a score being allocated and determined whether a request fell into the low, medium or high priority category. If a funding contribution was received towards the cost of implementing a scheme at any given location, then the score was increased by the percentage of the external contribution.

 

To date 328 outstanding requests for action were recorded on the schedule, comprising 127 low priority, 160 medium priority and 41 high priority requests. Residents in the Park End and Beckfield ward had submitted the most requests for action and residents in Newport ward the least. The number of roads in the town subject to requests for action was 178. The most requested treatment solution was verge hardening at 77%, followed by verge protection at 13%, and parking facilities at 10%. The approximate cost to accommodate all outstanding requests by ward was £4,412,600.

 

This process enabled the formation of a prioritised list of locations and works for input into future forward programmes, the planning of phased works to facilitate a progressive improvement in local conditions for residents, and ensured that available resources were put to best use. Those locations assessed as being high priority for intervention were put forward for consideration for inclusion in a 3 Year Forward Programme of Verge Remedial Works. The number of locations able to be included was dependent on capital budget allocation, which was currently set at £150k per annum.

 

There were currently sixteen number high priority locations recorded on the schedule at an approximated cost of £709,000. A number of wards currently had no locations situated within the high priority range. Since the figure £709,000 exceeded the allocated budget, not all high priority locations could be accommodated in the programme. Therefore, those locations situated at the upper end of the high priority range would be targeted first. Those locations falling at the lower end of the high priority range would be carried forward for consideration for inclusion in the next 3 Year Forward Programme of works. Details of the current Work Programme were included in the submitted report.

 

At some locations it might be necessary to implement works on a phased basis. This generally applied to longer stretches of road where a high proportion of residents had requested that the verge outside their home be removed. These roads tended to be bus routes and/or traffic calmed. To accommodate all requests as part of an individual scheme would significantly impact on available budget.

 

A programme of phased works allowed scope for the implementation of schemes at several high priority locations during the course of a financial year, resulting in continuous improvement in local surroundings on a number of roads. This approach generally satisfied the majority of residents who could see that progress, albeit gradual, was being made.

 

The installation of parking facilities could also have a major impact on available resources, especially at locations where houses were set back off a green area. These areas often entailed major construction works by way of an access road that required more detailed design consideration such as street lighting, drainage and possible diversion of underground cables, which could ultimately prove cost prohibitive.

 

Under current legislation and guidance there was no national prohibition on verge parking. It was not an offence to park a motor vehicle, other than a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) on a grass verge unless it caused an obstruction, there was a local byelaw prohibiting it or there were waiting restrictions on the road.  The powers available to the Council included:

 

·         Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) (Traffic Management Act 2004) - the Council’s Civic Enforcement Officers (CEOs) could issue a £50 or £70 Penalty Charge Notice.

·         Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

·         New Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) (Road Traffic Act 1984) - could be made to address road safety or traffic management issues for example outside schools or close the main road junctions or bus stops.

·         Highways Act 1980 (Section 131) - damage to the highway - the Council could take action to recover the cost of repairs through the Magistrates Court. Costs tended to range from between £80.00 to £180.00.

·         Highways Act 1980 (Section 137) - wilfully obstructing free passage along a highway.  This offence could only be enforced by a uniformed Police Officer who could issue a £50 Fixed Penalty Notice to the offending vehicle.

·         Highways Act 1980 (Section 184) -  the Council can construct a vehicle crossing on behalf of any resident who habitually crossed a grass verge to access their property and recharge reasonable costs.

·         Road Traffic Act 1984 (Sections 64 and 65) - local pavement parking ban - can be enforced by PCNs to anyone parking on the footway or verge within the designated area.

·         Refuse Disposal Amenity Act 1978 (Section 3) - abandoned or disused vehicles. There is no legal definition of what constitutes an abandoned vehicle. The Council’s Community Protection Enforcement Team have powers to remove vehicles.

·         Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Section 3) - vehicles for sale on the Highway (Section 3). The Council has powers under abandonment legislation to remove them.

Other measures that could be considered included:

 

Community Protection Notices (CPN) - Contrary to Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Stockton Council had recently introduced a process that allowed them to issue a CPN to tackle verge parking problems. The process initially involved issuing two warnings: a removal notice posted on the vehicle, followed up by a CPN warning. On the third occasion for repeat offenders a CPN is issued, should the offender have caused significant damage to the verge they are then recharged the cost of repair works. To date Stockton Council have issued 261 removal notices, 20 CPN warnings and only 1 full CPN which suggested the process had been successful in stopping repeat offenders. Middlesbrough Council was now in the process of implementing the use of CPNs for verge parking and other activities.

 

Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) - Contrary to Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Orders could be introduced in a specific public area by the Council to target a range of different anti-social behaviour issues. PSPOs were intended to deal with a particular nuisance or problem in an area that negatively affected the local community's quality of life by imposing restrictions on certain types of behaviour. A PSPO was currently in place in all council owned cemeteries, Acklam crematorium and more recently in the TS1 area of the town, although this did not include verge parking restrictions. PSPOs could be enforced by Police Officers, Police Community Support Officers or any Officer designated by the Council for example; Street Wardens. Breach of a PSO could lead to a £25 on the spot fine or up to a £1000 fine if the charge went to court.

 

The Government had launched a consultation into pavement parking in a bid to solve a problem that posed inherent dangers for all pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities.

 

It outlined three options:

·         improving the TRO process under which Councils can already prohibit pavement parking.

·         a legislative change to allow Councils with civil parking enforcement powers to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement.

·         a legislative change to introduce a London-style pavement parking prohibition throughout England (pavement parking has been prohibited in London since 1974 unless there was signage in place that specifically permitted it.)

The proposals were designed to improve the lives of people with mobility or sight impairments, as well as parents with prams who may be forced into the road to get around parked cars. The consultation period began on 31 August 2020 and ran until 22 November 2020.

 

The following queries raised by Panel Members were clarified:

 

·         Vehicles that had a SORN could only be removed from the highway and not from private land, although the Council could work with landowners to have a vehicle removed.

·         The Council received a block grant allocation from the Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) to cover highways infrastructure to cover footways, verges, carriageway resurfacing, bridges and structures, flooding. The Environment Services Manager allocated this fund accordingly. However, there was also the potential to put a capital bid in for additional funding for verge maintenance. It was also noted that the additional enforcement measures such as CPNs might reduce the pressure on the capital works budget.

·         A ward issue was raised in relation to a bus route which was often obstructed by double-parked cars and the Officers agreed to look into this.

·         It was highlighted that some older estates owned by Housing Associations were originally designed to have minimum parking as they were intended as housing for older people. Whilst the Council could not force Housing Associations to provide additional parking, it was an issue that could be raised with them.

·         In response to a request to look at priority for verge works around well used amenities, the Environment Services Manager commented that this could be reviewed in light of comments received at the meeting.

·         It was confirmed that at the current time Section 106 funding could not be used generally for environmental improvements. The funding was provided for specific purposes in connection with the development it was awarded for.

·         In relation to the Government’s consultation on pavement parking, a Member commented that the focus should be on providing additional parking rather than enforcement.

·         There was no law against residents parking their commercial vehicles at home, with the exception of any HGV vehicles over 7.5 Tonnes.

·         The Council’s Highways Service carried out a cyclic inspection of all grass verges to pick up any issues. Members could get in touch directly with the service to report any issues they were aware of.

The Chair thanked the Officers for the report and presentation.

 

AGREED that the information provided was received and noted.