Agenda item

            The Board received a report of the Strategic Director, Environment which reviewed Council policy in relation to residents only parking schemes.

            The Board was advised that the increasing number of vehicles on our roads was creating more and more pressure on parking space on the highway. The problems were at their worst adjacent to schools, shops, transport hubs and other key destinations but there was also a growing problem with residential areas, partly due to multiple car ownership in some households. There was pressure on parking spaces to the areas around Runcorn and Widnes North (Farnworth) rail stations. In Victoria Road (Widnes North rail station) where most residents had off-road parking facilities, the problem had been largely solved by the use of parking restrictions.

            It was noted that parking on Halton’s roads was free and open to all highway users on an equal basis, provided their vehicles were street legal. It was an uncomfortable truth that nobody had an absolute right to expect to park on the highway directly outside or even near their own home. Owning and running a car was a lifestyle choice that residents made and, therefore it was their responsibility to ensure that they could legally park their vehicle when not in use. The highway was for the passing or repassing of traffic and not for parking.

            It was further noted in Halton, there was no charge levied for the use of the limited number of Council owned car parks and thus there was no income from these facilities and they were a financial liability to the Council, due to their ongoing maintenance costs. Most parking provision associated with the town centre and supermarket shopping was in private ownership and again carried no charge, currently. However, there was charging by the owners of car parks at some locations such as the hospital and Runcorn mainline railway station. The Council had commissioned parking studies in Runcorn and Widnes Town centres and in Halton Lea. These studies provided the base data and analysis to enable consideration by the Council, in conjunction with private car park operations, of future car parking policy. Enforcement of on-highway parking restrictions was the responsibility of Cheshire Police.

            The Board was advised that Cheshire Police had been consulted to ascertain if they would be prepared to enforce a Residents Only Parking (ROPS) scheme in Halton, if one was introduced. This request had been declined as Police had indicated that the Force’s position on residents only parking was that it was solely a local authority issue. Extensive internet research and contact with other local authorities confirmed that this was the Force’s view and was consistent with those of other Forces in the Country. The Police were also not prepared to enforce ROPS, even if the funding was provided by the Council to enable officers to work overtime.

            It was noted that using powers introduced by the Road Traffic Act 2004, it would be possible for Halton to take on responsibility for enforcing on street parking restrictions instead of the Police, including any ROPS. These Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) powers would mean that the majority of parking offences, including parking on yellow lines and mis-using disabled persons’ parking bays, would no longer be criminal offences. A total of 247 local authorities had taken on CPE powers to March 2009, freeing some Police resources to tackle more serious crime.

            The case for introducing CPE in Halton was in the process of being considered and would include an assessment of the financial implications as well as any enforcement benefits. However, should Halton subsequently decide to adopt CPE powers it would be able to keep the income from any parking tickets issued under the initiative. This income would then have to be used to cover all operational costs including funding parking attendants (called Civil Enforcement Officers) who would replace Police staff for enforcement, and also the management and administration systems associated with collecting fines and pursuing defaulters. The operational costs would be dependent on the areas covered and the times of operation. If the income from any parking charges issued did not cover operational costs, any shortfall would have to be met from other Council resources. It followed that there was a direct relationship between the number of parking tickets issued and the level of parking enforcement that could be resourced.

            The Board was advised that, as indicated above, there was no charging regime in place either on street or in the limited number of off street car parks, which were operated by the Council. Therefore the Council had no parking income against which it could offset the cost of a ROPS within a CPE regime. Without wishing to prejudice the outcome of the Council’s feasibility study into CPE, its ability to fund a ROPS would be limited.

            It was noted that there had been intermittent requests over the years for ROPS to be introduced in individual streets in the Borough, usually triggered by residents being unable to park immediately outside their homes. However, even taking into consideration the town centres and other areas subject to high levels of often transitory demand for parking space, it was clear that the area around Runcorn mainline rail station was one of the most under pressure, with Holloway being the main focus of attention. This was due to the on-street parking by rail users, who wished to avoid paying daily charges at the station’s car parks and the practical difficulties facing householders in constructing off road parking, due to the height of their front gardens relative to the carriageway of Holloway.

            The Board was advised that the situation had been much worse over the past few months as construction of a new multi-storey car park at the station required the temporary closure of the main car park. A large proportion of the usual parking demand was displaced onto the surrounding streets and following the opening of the multi-storey car park, drivers were now reluctant to pay for parking. Instead they were continuing to park on surrounding roads, wherever possible, with some leaving cars outside resident’s homes for days on end.

            Many of Holloway’s residents see the introduction of ROPS as a simple  solution provided that the restrictions were enforced robustly. However, based on the reported experiences of other local authorities, such schemes had a number of associated problems and impacts, which were set out in the report and it was felt inappropriate to introduce a scheme at the present time.

            RESOLVED: That residents only parking schemes should not be introduced at the present time.