Agenda item

[Report of the Director for Housing, Regeneration and Planning. This report describes the issues with the current out-sourced Estate Controlled Parking Scheme and seeks permission to replace the scheme with a new more effective in-sourced solution based on consultation with effected residents.]

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal introduced the report which sought approval to introduce a new estate parking management scheme which would meet both residents’ needs and the objectives of the estate parking review which Cabinet approved in July 2019. The current system for controlling estate parking was ineffective and it was not fair for residents to subsidise a poor service which they may not even be using. The new improved service would provide the best value for money offer. In the short term, the new scheme would deliver an improved service to over 280 estates across the borough. In the medium to long term it was hoped that the scheme would provide improved service to all Haringey estates.

Gethin Segel, Parking and Project Manager, responded to questions from Councillor Dennison:

-           The charge for carers would be set at £12 annually, which was the admin cost to process a permit and no income would be generated from these applications.

-           To comply with all relevant legislation there would be two schemes implemented. The Estate Parking Scheme would be managed by Homes for Haringey on behalf of Haringey Council and charges would be collected by the Housing Revenue Account. An enforcement scheme to administer parking rules would be managed by Haringey Council via Traffic Management Orders and income would be collected by the Parking Account.

RESOLVED

1)    To approve the estate parking management scheme based on a Traffic Management Order (TMO) based scheme using powers provided to Local Authorities under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

2)    To approve the proposal to in-source enforcement of estate parking to Haringey Council’s own In-House Parking Service with income derived from enforcement collected by the Parking Account of the General Fund; and

3)    To Delegate the service design and service level agreement for the in-sourced service to the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods, and the Managing Director of Homes for Haringey in consultation with the Cabinet Member(s) responsible for Housing & Estate Renewal and Parking.

Reasons for decision

The current ECPS is redundant because the Protection of Freedoms Act makes it

hard to enforce and lack of DVLA support means it cannot collect enough income to cover costs. A Traffic Management Order (TMO) based scheme is the preferred solution because it is the only option, meets the aims of the estate parking review to deliver a financially viable scheme with the powers to effectively control parking and meets residents’ needs as well as assisting in tackling the climate change emergency. In addition, a TMO scheme is the Department of Transport’s recommended solution operated successfully by neighbouring boroughs including Enfield and Islington.

In-sourcing the delivery of estate parking enforcement to Haringey Council’s own Parking Service meets the objectives of the estate parking review established by Cabinet. This will allow Haringey Council to share resources and expertise in a sustainable way to generate efficiencies and savings. In addition, estate parking management will benefit from the improvements delivered by the Parking Transformational programme including new IT systems, online offers and resource management. Enforcement income generated on Housing Land does not fall within the definition of Housing Revenue Account charges as set out in the Local Government & Housing Act 1989 Schedule 4 Parts 1 or 2. Therefore, this income and any costs associated with collecting the income must fall within the General Fund. The Financial assessment indicates that both the Housing Revenue Account and General Fund will cover any costs incurred and have the potential to achieve a small surplus.

Delegating authority for the service design to the relevant Haringey Council Directors and Homes for Haringey Managing Director will ensure an efficient process. Delegating authority to the Cabinet Members for Housing & Estate Renewal and Neighbourhoods will provide member oversight to ensure an outcome which meets the objectives of the estate parking management review. The service design and accompanying reverse service level agreement will be designed to meet the estate parking management scheme and in accordance with the relevant requirements of Haringey Council and Homes for Haringey standing orders, financial regulations, and constitutions.

Furthermore, the proposals will address financial fairness and ensure sufficient income to cover the operating costs, roll out capital and finance costs over a long time. The proposal to offer each household access to one free permit for vehicles at or below the average emissions level meets the needs of residents to address the potential negative financial impact of any new scheme. In addition, measures are included to protect vulnerable groups such as the disabled and OAPs with one free permit regardless of emission level offered. The proposal includes measures to tackle the climate emergency by financially incentivising households to consider both the number of vehicles they own and the emission level of each vehicle. Cabinet are required to approve any budget amendments. Approving a funding envelope will allow the Housing Revenue Account to ensure Homes for Haringey has sufficient budget to manage the new estate parking scheme on behalf of Haringey Council.

Alternative options considered

Alternative options, including retaining the current scheme, have been considered, as

follows:

·Discontinue all parking controls - The option has been considered and discounted because residents indicated an expectation that parking be managed for their benefit and failure to control parking represents a health and safety risk to emergency access routes.

·Continue with the current ECPS – The option has been considered and discounted. Although residents indicated support for this option, further engagement identified concerns that a new scheme would lead to high charges for parking permits. The concerns of residents have been mitigated with the proposals outlined in this report, which include the ability for each affected household to access one free permit dependant on emissions. Continuing the current arrangements would require tenants to subsidise an ineffective service via the Housing Revenue Account regardless of whether they use it or live on affected estates, which is inequitable.

·Adopt housing roads as part of the public highway – This option may have to be used on a small number of roads which cannot be classified as off-street parking places or private roads. However, it is not a viable option borough wide, because it requires Secretary of State approval as well as significant capital investment to adjust the land to public highway standards. In addition, this option would still require the implementation of controlled parking zones to deliver the parking controls that residents have indicated they expect.

·Utilising automated controls such as barrier gates and number plate recognition - The option to replace onsite enforcement by officers with remote or automated controls has been considered and is deemed of limited application. Automated controls such as barrier gates and CCTV recognition are only viable on a small number of sites with entrances that could allow access to be controlled in this manner. In addition, the level of investment required to deliver each installation is prohibitive. This option will be reconsidered for specific sites that are deemed suitable if the new estate parking management scheme generates a surplus for reinvestment.

The proposal outlined at Appendix B include proposals for limited permit charges. Alternative financial options were explored, in response to the consultation where 50.5% of respondents indicated they were opposed to the introduction of permit charges, with 40.6% indicating a preference for subsidies from rent and service charges. Options considered including the following: -

·Offering a free service to all end users - The option has been considered and discounted because the scheme would not generate enough income to self-finance. In addition, this option would not allow the implementation of rules designed to reduce emissions and the number of carbon emitting vehicles.

·Introducing a service charge to be paid by all residents - The option has been considered and discounted because a service charge could not be levied on all potentially affected residents, including business tenants, freeholders, and sublessees. In addition, some leasehold agreements did not contain the clauses necessary to introduce a service charge of the type required. Therefore, a service charge could not be levied on all service users and would not address the underlying issue of tenants unfairly subsidising services for other, potentially more financially able, groups.

·Introducing permit charges for some groups (i.e. Freeholders and Sub-Lessees) and subsidies for other groups (i.e. Tenants and Leaseholders) –This option has been considered and deemed impractical. As detailed above, it may not be possible to introduce a service charge for all leaseholders, requiring different leaseholders to be charged in different ways. In addition, the different offer for each group would require a manual verification process to prevent application fraud. The additional administrative costs could render any new scheme financially unviable.