Agenda item

1)    Report back from Phillip Lane walkabout – update on costs, funding sources and implementation.

(To follow)

(Parking Service)

2)    Report back from panel visit to Tottenham Hotspur Match-day 9^th February 2013

-       Unregulated off street parking (pop up parking)

-       Blue Badge Scheme

-       Council operated car parks

(To follow)

(Scrutiny)

3)    Verbal report on other Local Authority perspectives of parking and traffic management on match days.

(Scrutiny)

        Report back from Phillip Lane Walkabout

The panel noted the report which provided itemised cost to undertake works identified in the walkabout on Phillip Lane.

The panel noted that £46,650 would be needed to complete all indentified work, though this could be reduced if this was programmed to be completed as one scheme as this would reduce consultation and legal costs ascribed to individual improvements.

The panel noted that the cost of these works needed to be weighted and prioritised against the budget available and other essential works.  The panel noted that there is currently a budget of £60k for parking infrastructure maintenance and £550k for reactive maintenance. 

The panel suggested that other funding avenues should also be pursued to further help reduce the total costs for this work.  It was noted that some of the works identified from the walkabout relate to traffic pinch-points on Phillip Lane, and it may be of some interest to Transport for London (TfL) that these are rectified to help reduce bus delays in the area. In this context, TfL should be approached to ascertain if they would be willing to contribute to any of the scheme proposals.

Agreed:      That Traffic Management Service should approach Transport for London as a possible contributor to the Phillip Lane scheme.

The panel noted that the walkabout approach which has been used to identify remedial parking and traffic management works in a defined area could be used as a model in which (subject to resources and other priorities) it could be replicated elsewhere across the borough. 

As a result of a recent reorganisation, the panel noted that parking services had been merged with sustainable travel into a singular Traffic Management service.  It was suggested that this merger would encourage more area based working and facilitate more joined up solutions to local traffic issues (as exemplified in the Philip Lane Walkabout scheme). 

Traffic Management Orders are used to instigate local road traffic restrictions (e.g. yellow lines, parking bays and one-way systems).  The panel noted that there had been some recent amendments to the way that these are authorised.

Agreed: The panel requested a brief update on recent changes to the process used to grant Traffic Management Orders.

        Report back from Tottenham Hotspur Match day Visit

The panel noted the report of its visit to Tottenham Hotspur to assess match day parking issues. 

The panel noted that pop-up (unregulated off street) parking was widespread in the area and beyond on match days.  Even in this assessment, over 25 different sites were identified to offer local parking for match day traffic at cost of between £5-18.   The nature of sites offering parking also varied including local schools, community centres and business forecourts.

The panel observed that match day parking restrictions were in operation in non-residential areas during the visit, such as in commercial and residential areas and that many of these streets where controls were in place were empty of cars.  Given that pop-up parking is also available in the area, the panel indicated that this represented a potential loss of income for the council.  In this context, the panel suggested that the special match day parking should be considered in such non-residential areas where controls currently exist.

From the visit, the panel also noted the number of Blue Badges which were used at a number of locations around the stadium.  The panel noted that whilst most of these may be used genuinely, the scale of the usage around the site would suggest that this issue would require further examination.  The panel noted that the scale of Blue Badge use on match days may deter local holders of Blue Badge parking permits to use the area.

Agreed:    The panel agreed to defer consideration of the use of Blue Badges on match days to a future meeting. 

The Panel also noted the report on the visit to six council operated car parks.  A key assessment made by the panel from the visit was that signposting to car park sites could be improved at key entry points in to the borough.  Improved signage would help to direct match day traffic to local car parks with a view to improving take up and turnover on match days.  The panel also noted that there should be efforts to improve cleanliness (litter and waste removal) and lighting at car parks.

          Perspectives from other Local Authorities

A verbal update was provided to the panel which outlined further perspectives of match day parking issues from other local authorities which host similar type stadia in their area. 

In relation to the operation of Match day CPZs:

§  Many areas were already covered by a CPZ, though with additional (extended) controls in operation on match days;

§  Given changes in TV coverage, matches are occurring at different times of the day and some authorities indicated that the timing of match day CPZ would need to be revisited.

In relation to pop-up parking, a number of observations were reported from other authorities:

§  The density of local development was a determinant of the availability of pop-up parking.  Not all those authorities questioned experienced similar levels of pop-up parking to that recorded in Haringey, as the area surrounding stadia was more developed;

§  In one authority, the council operated a match day parking scheme at many potential pop-up parking sites in the vicinity of the stadium (including schools, colleges, and private businesses).  Payment is made through a mobile phone or vouchers purchased from the Council. Although this generated additional income, no further details were available on the terms of such arrangements;

§  It was generally accepted that pop-up parking occurs around many event venues, but given its opportunistic nature, is difficult to manage.

In relation to enforcement of Blue Badge schemes, the panel noted that in those authorities consulted:

§  A number indicated that they had some concerns about Blue Badge use and possible abuse on match days;

§  A number of authorities had dedicated Blue Badge Fraud Officers to help detect fraudulent use, though it was acknowledged that these posts were not cost neutral, as any income derived from their work (e.g. fines) was not returned to the service.

In relation to supporting communications for match day /events parking the panel noted that:

§  Most authorities listed future match day events on their website;

§  One authority operated an email alert system to notify local residents (upon sign up) of up-coming events and related road traffic issues.

The panel noted that the Department of Transport had notified local authorities of the availability of controls within the Road Traffic regulation Act 1984, which would enable the operation of a discretionary licensing scheme in which all unregulated off street parking in a defined area would require a license.  The panel noted however, that, to the knowledge of DT officials, this licensing scheme had not been used to control parking by a local authority to date.

Based on the evidence it had received, the panel outlined some recommendations that it was considering in this area of work:

          1) Explore options for the establishment of a special event day parking on commercial streets (flat rate fee, phone payment and signage);

          2) Create a two part focus for existing match day controls to reverse emphasis with no residential parking to allow match day parking with residential sections continuing as resident only parking;

          3) Ring fence income from the above to support:

§  Environmental and remedial works in council operated car parks;

§  Erect pay and display signage for pay and display car parks at entry points to Tottenham;

§  Creation of a traffic scheme review fund to finance traffic works (CPZ reviews, main road remedial works and other scheme reviews (e.g. one way systems);

4) Seed fund the above developments for the introductory phase from existing parking income with a view to it being self financing as a soon as the SED is up and running;

5) Investigation of reasonable regulation of ‘pop-up parking’ schemes based on the policy and practice of other boroughs with large stadia and the development of criteria for regulation and enforcement.

Agreed:     That a short report detailing the work of the panel, its conclusions and recommendations to be produced in a discrete report for panel approval.

The Chair and the panel thanked all parking and road traffic officers for their support in this work.  It was noted that officers had been of great assistance in responding to member questions and assisting in site visits.