Agenda item

To consider an update on the operation of the Council’s Civil Parking Enforcement service.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 35 to 50, which gave an update on civil parking enforcement (CPE) within the Borough.

The report set out that the operation of CPE, as administered by the Council’s contractor NSL, had met the objectives set out for the scheme adopted by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) specifically by improving the flow of traffic by challenging drivers’ previous parking behaviours. The introduction of the service had been cost neutral as intended, with income from parking fees and penalty charge notices continuing to cover service costs. The service had grown from 4 CPE officers in 2017 to 8 CPE officers in 2020 and now 12 CPE officers in 2022. Additional CPE officers had enabled the service to respond more regularly to parking concerns raised by residents and members.

Paul Fishwick (Executive Member for Active Travel, Transport and Highways), Martin Heath (Traffic Management, Parking and Road Safety Team Manager), and Andy Glencross (Assistant Director for Highways and Transport) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

·         Were there any specific TROs in place across the Borough in terms of pavement or verge parking? Executive Member response – If there were double yellow lines on the adjacent carriageway, then enforcement could be taken on the verge or footway. If there was obstruction of the footway itself, then this was a police matter.

·         How often was the strategy for the location of patrols reviewed by WBC? Executive Member and Assistant Director response – This was reviewed constantly to target the areas where enforcement was needed the most. Every school was targeted every month with many receiving visits every week, and if a particular issue was raised by residents or members then this was passed to the contractor to tackle until the compliance rate was increased substantially.

·         Why were there no figures or targets in relation to the KPIs for the contractor? Assistant Director response – These were operational KPIs in relation to the contractor.

·         Had a policy decision been made with regards to moving traffic enforcement? Executive Member response – This was being actively looked at whilst a business case was being evaluated, with the deadline for submission to the DFT (if desired) in January 2023.

·         Why were enforcement penalty notices more expensive in Reading compared to Reading? Executive Member and Assistant Director response – This figure was set by the regulator on a national scale, and WBC’s were already at the higher level.

·         Was the CCTV trial at schools going to be rolled out to other schools, and would Beechwood be included in this? Executive Member response – There were 3 cameras available for use, and the trial would go live in September 2022 at two particular schools. The trial would be undertaken to ensure that this was working, and the cameras could be moved to other schools to address specific issues. A growth bid could be placed in future if the scheme was successful and deemed necessary for expansion. Beechwood was within the top 6 schools in terms of priority of dealing with existing issues and concerns.

·         With regards to the contract renewal of 2 plus 2 years, would it be sensible to take such renewals to Overview and Scrutiny in future prior to renewal? Executive Member and officer response – Whilst the renewal was in line with the constitutional requirements, this would be a good idea in future to ensure that contracts were working well and were still the best solution for our residents.

·         Were there plans to renew and replace old off-street car parking signs, especially considering the new 24 hour charging period (noting that this did not mean that it costed users money to park at all times)? Assistant Director response – There were some very old signs within the Borough, and these were being reviewed to ensure that they were in line with the most up to date TROs.

·         It was requested that Crockhamwell Road car park be assessed for a change away from no return in 24 hours, to be more user friendly.

·         What was the basis behind Wokingham Town having 6 to 10 times more penalty notices per month than the other towns? Assistant Director response – This was likely due to having more car parks in Wokingham compared to Woodley and Earley, and potentially a higher propensity for violations within Wokingham town centre.

·         Was there data in relation to the usage of electric vehicle charging points and requests from residents for charging points outside of their homes? Assistant Director response – This would be provided as a written answer.

·         How were responses to residents in terms of requests for TROs measured? Assistant Director response – TROs were undertaken via a Borough wide amendment which was more efficient in terms of administration however it took around 6 months. A customer relations management system was being developed which would allow acknowledgements to be sent to residents and members.

·         Was enforcement at schools heavily weighted towards town centre schools? For example, Floreat Montague school has seen various issues over time with little evidence of enforcement officers? Assistant Director response – Floreat could not be enforced prior to adoption of the road. It was not the job of the enforcement officers to talk to parents, as it was their job to issue tickets if the rules were being broken. Parking on zigzags were an immediate offence, whilst parents were allowed to unload on double yellow lines which meant it was difficult for enforcement officers to catch parents on double yellow lines long enough to issue a ticket, especially at drop off time. Every school was targeted and patrolled, and if there were specific concerns then members could contact officers to who would pass this on to the contractors to allow them to focus on a specific school for a period of time.

RESOLVED That:

1)      Paul Fishwick, Martin Heath and Andy Glencross be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)      A written answer be provided in relation to the usage of electric vehicle charging points and requests from residents for charging points outside of their homes;

3)      An annual update be provided to the Committee during the next municipal year.