Agenda item

Report by Assistant Director of Highways, Transport and Planning.

Following a review, the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport plans to publish an updated Integrated Parking Strategy in summer 2022. The Committee is asked to scrutinise the draft Strategy and make recommendations to the Cabinet Member.

8.1        The Parking Manager, Mr Davy, talked the Committee through a presentation on the Integrated Parking Strategy (IPS) review (appended to the signed minutes).  As the Highway Authority for West Sussex, the County Council has an IPS that sets out its approach to managing parking.  This mainly includes the management and enforcement of on-street parking controls and regulations but also sets out the County Council’s view and role in off-street parking provision, primarily provided by district and borough councils, as well as how its approach to parking management relates to other policies and strategies.  The IPS was last updated in 2014 and this latest review, covering the period from 2022 to 2027, seeks to ensure that the County Council’s approach to managing parking remains appropriate and effective.

8.2        The Committee thanked officers for the report and were asked to scrutinise the report and draft IPS, to ensure it contained the right aims and objectives, and was appropriate and achievable. A summary the questions raised by the Committee and answers follows.

8.3        The Performance and Finance Scrutiny Committee had fed back that parking restrictions in town centres were impacting businesses.  Problems with loading and unloading and easy access were affecting trading, particularly in Worthing, during what was already a challenging time for businesses.  It was asked that consideration be given to a permit parking scheme for independent traders in town centres and shopping parades.  Mr Davy agreed to discuss the issue directly with County Councillors in Worthing as well as share information with the Committee on a new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) policy, which sets out how requests can be made to change existing schemes.

8.4        A number of issues were raised in relation to footway and verge parking, particularly that rural areas needed to be considered differently to urban areas.  In response, Mr Davy outlined the current approach of the County Council and the alternative policy options that were being discussed at a national level.  Mr Davy agreed to share a position paper with the Committee and update Members as soon as there was any further information from the Department for Transport (DfT).  It was requested that should there be an update from the DfT on the alternative options, Members have an opportunity to consider this.  It was noted that the IPS referred to the use of physical barriers to deter footway and verge parking at particular locations, and this could be an option open to the County Council in the future, particularly where there is a risk to life.

8.5        It was also hoped that the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process for proposing new waiting restrictions would be a quicker process in the future, as this was still the most appropriate way of dealing with footway parking issues.  It was noted that responsibility for determining whether an obstruction exists currently lies with the Police. 

8.6        Members reported that feedback from Arun District Council was that they did not have a sufficient number of officers to enforce all-day parking restrictions in Bognor Regis.  Mr Davy reported that the enforcement services delivered by district and borough partners were monitored by the County Council, including the number of hours that Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) were deployed and how many Penalty Charge Notices were being issued.   Mr Davy said he would investigate the matter with Arun District Council and asked that Members let him know of any specific areas where enforcement was not perceived to be meeting the expected standard.  Other enforcement options such as CCTV, camera vehicles, automatic number plate recognition, etc, could be an option in the future.  Members were keen to know what resources might be available for cameras and maintenance and would seek for them to be prioritised around schools.  Mr Davy agreed to update Members if/when plans progressed.

8.7        The Committee members were supportive of park and ride facilities but requested more information on what support might be available in financial and partnership terms.

8.8        Members felt it essential that all planning permissions for new residential and business developments should consider very carefully road width and parking, particularly the impact on surrounding areas.  There were examples of residential areas in Crawley where, in the evenings, many business vehicles were being parked on grass verges, causing damage and obstruction.  Mr Davy acknowledged that overnight parking was a problem in many residential areas and highlighted that some options were available to the County Council such as TROs that applied later into the evening and verge hardening measures.  Mr Davy agreed to share information on potential parking studies in Crawley.  Members were keen to see the wider parking impacts of new developments to be considered as part of the planning permission process and reflected in County Council planning policies.

8.9        With regards to the reporting of defective on-street parking signs and lines, Mr Davy confirmed that Members and members of the public can do this via the parking pages on the relevant district/borough council website.  Mr Davy added that rather than use the County Council’s highways inspectors to identify defects, the current process relied upon CEOs as they are the eyes on the ground for the service and are trained to identify particular problems while deployed.  Mr Davy agreed to detail the process behind defect reporting.  Members questioned the level of defect reporting in areas that used private companies to enforce on-street parking and Mr Davy agreed to share monitoring data with the Committee.

8.10     Mr Davy confirmed that the powers to enforce obstructions to dropped kerbs are available to the County Council but had not been enacted.  He outlined that a blanket approach towards dropped kerb enforcement would not necessarily work as, in many cases, it might be legitimate and safe to park across a dropped kerb eg a resident parking across their own private driveway.  Mr Davy added that if the powers were ever to be enacted, the enforcement response would likely be a responsive one. However, he would be keen to ensure that dropped kerbs regularly used by mobility vehicles or wheelchairs were given a high priority.

8.11     Currently a large number of disabled parking bays across the county were advisory, and therefore not enforceable.  Mr Davy reported that the service would like to formalise as many disabled parking bays as possible in the future. This would mean ensuring bays were the correct width and length and had the correct signage.  The bays would need to be reviewed annually so that any unneeded bays could be returned to normal parking arrangements.  Mr Davy agreed to keep Members informed of any progress in relation to this matter.

8.12     Mr Davy confirmed that where possible, consideration would be given to parking arrangements that optimised traffic flow so that buses could keep services to their timetable.

8.13     Mr Davy agreed to include more information on the balance between parking policies and the environment, economic and social policies in the IPS document. 

8.14     Mr Davy also agreed to append the response to the Department for Transport consultation as background to the County Council position on footway and verge parking.

8.15     Mr Davy agreed, on page 54, first priority, to add in a reference to the need to facilitate bus and cycle travel as a priority.

8.16     Mr Davy agreed to add in reference to the Highway Code rule to not park within 10 metres of a junction.

8.17     Resolved – that the Committee thanked Mr Davy for the report and accepted the scale of the work involved.