Agenda item

Scrutiny Panel Review on Blue Badges and Supporting Better Access to Parking for Disabled People

[Report of the Director for Environment and Neighbourhoods. To be introduced  by the Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Transformation and Public Realm]

 

To consider the  Cabinet response to  the Scrutiny Review]

Minutes:

Cllr Ahmet, Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, introduced the item, outlining that there had been Environment and Community Safety scrutiny review of the administration of the Disabled Blue Badge Scheme. It was noted that, through this review, scrutiny had been involved in policy development which was very positive and Cllr Ahmet thanked the Cabinet Member for engaging throughout the process. It was noted that the panel felt that it could have spent more time scrutinising this topic, particularly the introduction of designated disabled bays. Although it was acknowledged that the Cabinet Member had been eager to implement improvements in this case, the panel’s views on ensuring suitable timelines were reflected in recommendation 1.

 

It was explained that there had been lots of contributions from residents during this review and that 21 recommendations had been made over five categories: dedicated disabled bays, applying for and renewing a blue badge, enforcement and blue badge related crime, correspondence and communication, and assessments for discretionary blue badge applications.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transformation and Public Realm Investment acknowledged the work undertaken by the panel, staff, agencies, and residents and noted that the report proposed to accept all but two of the recommendations. It was explained that recommendations 11 and 12 were not agreed. In relation to recommendation 11, there were insufficient funds to invest in anti-theft devices for blue badges. It was also noted that a companion badge had been introduced which allowed blue badges to be kept at home; this was only valid in Haringey but discouraged theft as it was ineffective for others. In relation to recommendation 12, it was not agreed that blue badge theft should be included in the Community Safety Partnership work plan as this would not connect with its terms of reference or its role as a strategic partnership. It was added that the Council already worked with the police on the misuse of blue badges and that the quarterly strategic partnership would be a more appropriate forum.

 

It was also noted that recommendations 16 and 21 had been partially agreed. For recommendation 16, it was considered that the ability for next of kin to inform the Council when a disabled bay user was deceased duplicated the ‘Tell Us Once’ service which allowed relatives to notify various services through one point of contact and which included blue badges. For recommendation 21, it was clarified that the Council could not retender the service as it was a partnership with the NHS rather than a contract. However, it was agreed that alternatives could be explored to provide additional assessment centres.

 

The Cabinet Member expressed that the end of the review was not the end of the process. It was highlighted that these recommendations would be made into a Disabled Parking Action Plan and that this was specifically included in the Cabinet Member responsibilities. It was explained that the Council was investing in IT systems to improve case management for disabled parking and was coproducing solutions with residents to ensure that residents had a good, disabled parking offer.

 

In relation to recommendation 16, Cllr Ahmet noted that the panel had been informed that parking bays remained vacant for some time after a bereavement and that a quicker response was needed after someone used ‘Tell Us Once’ service. The Cabinet Member explained that she thought the Tell Us Once issues related to the blue badge rather than the parking bay and noted that she would revisit this and respond to the panel. It was explained that the Council had written to all bay users and was identifying an inventory for disabled parking bays; this would be a two- or three-year process but would result in a more efficient service. In addition, with the introduction of dedicated bays, the Council would have named contacts.

 

Cllr Bull welcomed the report. He noted that the companion badge was a good scheme but that it was important to publicise as some people did not realise that it existed. He added that there were issues for residents who used companion badges on TfL roads as the TfL enforcement officers did not recognise the badges.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that the new parking IT system and rollout of virtual permits would provide an opportunity to let people know about the companion badge. In relation to TfL roads, it was explained that the Council was aware of this issue; it was noted that TfL had been informed but that this issue tended to resurface whenever there was TfL staff turnover. It was noted that the Head of Operations would liaise with Cllr Bull in relation to this issue.

 

In response to questions from Cllr Cawley-Harrison, it was noted that:

·         People were informed that the companion badge was only valid in Haringey and this would be highlighted with the rollout of virtual permits. It was added that most blue badge theft occurred outside people’s homes, often overnight, and so the companion badge was very useful in this situation.

·         The signage for dedicated bays was governed by the Department for Transport (DfT). The Cabinet Member agreed that some of the initial signage was confusing and that, following discussions with residents, the DfT had agreed for the Council to use some decommissioned signage with clearer wording.

 

Cllr Cawley-Harrison welcomed the Action Plan. He noted that things were changing rapidly with Covid. Following brief connection issues, the Cabinet Member provided the following written response:

  • It would be made clearer that blue badge holders could park anywhere (legally) for free in the borough. This included CPZ area which was not the case in some boroughs. So, they did not have to await a bay. It was appreciated that in some places it was hard to find space on open bays too.

 

  • The Physical Disabilities Reference Group would help identify where the disabled parking was needing an increase. The feedback received from the Cabinet Member from the last meeting of the group was that Wood Green High Rd was particularly problematic.

 

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    To note the outcome of the Scrutiny panel review of Blue Badges andSupporting Better Access to Parking for Disabled People, as detailed in appendix 1 of the report.

 

2.    To proceed with the recommendations regarding the Council’s blue badge scheme as set out in appendix 2 of the report. And agree all recommendations except recommendation 11 and 12 which are not agreed.

 

3.    To note that recommendations 16 and 21 are also to be agreed in part and the proposed responses to those recommendations in appendix 2 of the report. 

 

Reasons for decision

 

The recommended actions set out in this report support the work being undertaken to improve the service offer to motorists with disabilities. Those actions will help streamline processes, increase self-serve options as well as protecting the dedicated spaces made available on the public highway for those users.  

 

Alternative options considered

 

In addressing the recommendations set out by the Environment & Community Safety Scrutiny Panel, several actions were considered. The report provided what are considered to be the most effective actions. Therefore, alternative options have not been considered at this point. These actions will be however be refined if required during implementation to ensure that the right outcomes are achieved.

Supporting documents: