Cabinet Member Report
Date: 21 December 2009
Subject:
Motorcycle Charging Scheme – Objections to the
Making of Permanent Traffic Orders – Supplementary
Report
Summary
This report is supplementary to the ‘Motorcycle Charging Scheme – Objections to the
Making of Permanent Traffic Orders’ Cabinet Member report of 1 October 2009.
Subsequent to the formal release of that report, the Cabinet Member for City
Management met individually with four of the major motorcycle groups and a private
Transport Consultant in order to listen to their concerns. The purpose of this report is
therefore to address the further concerns raised at those meetings regarding the
motorcycle charging scheme that have not been covered by the 1 October report.
Recommendations
1. That the Cabinet Member notes the contents of this report and takes its contents
into consideration alongside the 1 October report when making a decision as
regards the making of permanent traffic orders for the motorcycle charging
scheme.
Page 1 of 11
Cabinet Member: Cabinet Member for City Management
Date: 21 December 2009
Classification: For General Release
Title of Report: Motorcycle Charging Scheme – Objections to the
Making
of
Permanent
Traffic
Orders
–
Supplementary Report
Report of:
Strategic Executive Director of City Management
Wards involved: All
Policy context: Provision of a parking service that is firm, fair and
excellent.
Financial summary: This report is supplementary to the 1 October
Report. There are no further financial implications
arising from this report.
Page 2 of 11
1.
Background
1.1
This report is supplementary to Parking Services’ 1 October 2009 ‘Motorcycle
Charging Scheme – Objections to the Making of Permanent Traffic Orders’ Cabinet
Member report (‘the 1 October Report’).
1.2
After the formal issue and publication of the 1 October Report, the Cabinet Member
for City Management met individually with four major motorcycle groups; the
Motorcycle Action Group (MAG); the Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA); No
To the Bike Parking Tax (NTBPT); and the British Motorcyclists Federation (BMF),
and a private Transport Consultant: Mr Leon Mannings. The purpose of the
meetings was for each to discuss their main concerns regarding the scheme with
the Cabinet Member before he makes a decision as regards the making of the
permanent traffic orders for the motorcycle charging scheme. The meetings were
not part of any formal consultation process.
1.3
This supplementary report is to address the concerns raised by the groups
regarding the motorcycle charging scheme that are not covered within the 1
October Report or any prior formal report and to give further clarification where this
is required.
1.4
The City Council’s notes from each meeting are attached as appendices. The
meeting notes/summaries are the Council’s record of the main points discussed
but do not purport to be minutes or a complete record of proceedings.
2.
Further points for consideration
2.1
The following statements in bold type paraphrase comments and observations
made, and concerns and requests raised at the meetings by one or other of the
motorcycle groups which may not have been addressed or fully addressed
previously. Comments by Council Officers are given in italics.
2.2
The difference in the number of parking spaces that existed before the
implementation of the current motorcycle charging scheme and after
implementation has not been clearly identified.
The motorcycle charging scheme was introduced on 4 August 2008. Prior to this
date a programme of work had been undertaken to address the demands for
motorcycle parking which had included extending existing bays and providing new
spaces both on- and off-street. From January 2007 to the introduction of charging,
the provision for dedicated motorcycle parking had increased by 44% from 4,500
spaces to 6,550, including 400 off-street parking spaces (figures are approximate).
Since the commencement of the charging scheme in August 2008 we have not
installed any further spaces on-street as to do so would have delayed the formal
traffic order making process and the decision regarding the permanence of the
charging scheme. However, in June 2009 off-street provision was increased to
1,053 spaces. Unfortunately 170 off-street spaces were subsequently lost when
Chiltern Street and Leicester Square car parks were removed from the City
Council’s portfolio on 1 September 2009.
Page 3 of 11
2.3
Confirmation that the pre-paid tariff is the same as that paid through the Pay
by Phone channel.
A motorcyclist who uses a prepaid card to make payment at a motorcycle bay pays
the same parking charge as those who pay through the Pay by Phone channel.
2.4
Will the making of the permanent traffic orders result in delivery of additional
provision of on- and off-street motorcycle parking spaces?
Paragraph 4.7.15 of the 1 October Report specifies that provision of further
dedicated spaces on-street would be dependent on the uptake of the free off-street
spaces. The uptake currently does not justify commissioning on-street studies to
identify any potential new on-street space. However, ad hoc requests for specific
new bay locations or extensions have been and will continue to be considered as
they are received.
2.5
The long-term future objectives of the scheme have not been identified.
Concern was expressed over the level of future charges.
The medium to long-term (i.e. 5 year) objective of the scheme is to manage and
facilitate the supply of kerbside space and balance this with demand. It is not the
City Council’s aim to ration or restrict supply. Demand is never static so should it
substantially increase the City Council will look to either increase or reapportion
parking place stock as appropriate.
The City Council has made a commitment that motorcycle scheme charges will not
increase for at least three years. This three year period would apply from the date
of the permanent orders.
2.6
The City of Westminster should be playing an active and positive role in
encouraging motorcycle use.
The City Council would argue that it has previously supported motorcycle use in
the City, for example in predating the Mayor’s pilot by agreeing to allow motorcycle
use of bus lanes despite strong opposition. The charging scheme was never
designed to be a deterrent to motorcyclists or motorcycle use and there is no
evidence to suggest that it has been so to any meaningful or significant degree.
However, the point is acknowledged that the City Council is in a position whereby it
can play an active and positive role and some of the ‘future opportunities’ identified
in section 3 of this report would see the City Council doing so.
2.7
The charge’s deterrent effect has resulted in a decline in motorcycle use in
the borough.
As outlined in 2.6 above, there is no evidence to suggest that the motorcycle
charging scheme has deterred motorcyclists from using the City’s roads to any
significant degree.
2.8
Westminster’s economy would be better served if no charge applied. The
charge is amplifying the effect of the recession.
Page 4 of 11
Again, there is no evidence to suggest that the charging scheme has had any
significant detrimental effect on Westminster’s economy. The argument that free
parking would encourage more vehicles into the City is not exclusive to
motorcycles.
2.9
The City Council have not adequately defined how any revenue above the
projected budget will be used.
It has been acknowledged that the experimental scheme raised significantly more
revenue from permits than had originally been forecast. For this reason the Cabinet
Member agreed in his decision of 20 May 2009 to amendments to the scheme from
1 June 2009 such as reducing the on-street charges by one third, making off-street
provision free of charge and giving concessions to residents’ permit holders.
Furthermore the Council has committed to recommence the installation of security
devices upon the making of permanent traffic orders and the 1 October Report
proposes the creation of a road users’ forum. Section 3 of this report identifies
potential further opportunities that could use revenue generated to enhance the
scheme. However, some budgetary aspects are impossible to predict, for example
the repair and replacement of vandalised motorcycle bay signage.
Paragraph 4.7.1 of the 1 October Report explains that if the scheme still generates
a surplus after taking account of the June 2009 price reductions and all the
associated costs of maintaining the scheme and associated infrastructure, the
Council will reinvest this back into the Parking Place Reserve Account to fund
wider parking and transport infrastructure related schemes and projects in
accordance with Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
2.10 The experiment could continue to the end of the 18 month period to enable a
study to be undertaken.
The motorcycle charging scheme has been operating under experimental orders
since its implementation in August 2008. The process of making the scheme
permanent has involved the making of new permanent traffic orders rather than
confirming the experimental orders. This has therefore involved two formal
consultation periods: one on the merits of the experimental scheme; and one on
the merits of the permanent orders. It is questionable therefore how useful a further
study of the experimental scheme would be. In any case the 18 month maximum
period for the experimental orders will expire on 4 February 2010.
2.11 A working group was proposed which would investigate the issues and
deliver an informed body of evidence. The commissioning of a measured
body of evidence looking at the impact of the charge would place the City
Council as a leading authority and deliver reputational benefits. This should
be an independent piece of work.
The idea of a working group is outlined in section 3 below. The body of evidence
suggestion has merit. The City Council has already scheduled an internal review of
the scheme in May 2010.
2.12 Various challenges regarding the legality of the scheme and the process the
City Council has followed.
Page 5 of 11
The City Council is confident that the motorcycle charging scheme is on solid legal
grounds and that the correct legal procedure has been followed in its
implementation.
The Council is also confident that, even though they are of little relevance to the
making of the permanent traffic orders, the procurement arrangements in relation
to the City Council’s Pay by Phone parking contracts were legally sound. Moreover
the reference to the 'powers of well being in the Local Government Act 1972'
contained in the note of the meeting between Councillor Chalkley and Leon
Mannings in Appendix 1 to this report is misplaced, since the Council is not relying
upon those powers in relation to the motorcycle charging scheme.
2.13 All forms of transport should not pay to park at the kerbside as no service is
provided.
The ‘service’ provided by the City Council is the provision of access to kerbside
space and the enforcement of it. Vehicles are charged to park in many urban areas
in the country and the City of Westminster is therefore not alone in charging
vehicles for access to the kerbside as a way of managing and reconciling the
competing demands for kerbside space. The City Council believes it is unrealistic
to expect that all parking be free.
2.14 Low numbers of motorcyclists has the effect of reducing motorcyclist safety.
As outlined in 2.6 and 2.7 above, there is no evidence to suggest that the charging
scheme has deterred the use of motorcycles in the City to any significant degree.
That said, motorcyclists’ road safety is of course a concern to the City Council and
future opportunities identified in section 3 of this report include the possible
provision of non-slip manhole covers for example.
2.15 Would the City Council consider on-kerb parking where appropriate?
All motor vehicles are prohibited from parking on the public footway in the City of
Westminster at all times. Pavements are not constructed to take the weight of
vehicles and vehicles crossing the footway may be a danger to pedestrians.
However, section 3 of this report suggests that it may be possible on unused or
‘dead’ areas of private footway with the landlord’s permission.
2.16 There is a need to map out the location of City of Westminster car park
offering free motorcycle parking
The City Council acknowledges that it would be beneficial for such information to
be present within each motorcycle bay. One of the suggestions for doing this
outlined in paragraph 4.7.15 of the 1 October report is that the signage at each bay
provide details of the nearest car park offering free motorcycle space.
3.
Future opportunities
3.1
Section 8 of the 12 May 2009 ‘Motorcycle Charging Scheme – Six Month Review
and Recommendations for Change’ Cabinet Member report identified four future
opportunities that the City Council may wish to consider to enhance the scheme for
Page 6 of 11
its users, namely:
The funding of recognised, formal motorists’ advanced driver courses with
accredited drivers then potentially being eligible for discounted permits;
A system of allowing retrospective payments before enforcement takes
place;
Differential charging based upon emissions levels;
The continuation of Parking Services’ Parking Summits.
3.2
Barring the Parking Summits which have been taking place for some time, the
opportunities listed above are long-term potential developments. However, the City
Council remains committed, resources permitting, to investigating their feasibility
within the next year.
3.3
Through the formal objections received, suggestions submitted and the Cabinet
Member’s meetings with the motorcycle groups and Mr Leon Mannings, further
longer-term opportunities have also been identified.
3.3.1 The provision of a dedicated Motorcycle Liaison Officer, whose role could include
initiating a specific working group with representatives of recognised motorcycle
groups and other interested parties to explore benefits for all concerned. However
the practicality of the City Council providing such a post in the current economic
climate has not yet been explored. Alternatively this could be commissioned as an
independent piece of work.
3.3.2 Some revenue from the scheme may be available to help enhance motorcycle
safety. For example, the provision of non-slip manhole covers. The City Council
may be able to trial the use of such safety facilities at accident hotspots and at
locations determined by scheme users. The City Council could also lobby utility
companies to use these as standard.
3.3.3 The identification of unused or ‘dead’ areas of private footway which with the
landlord’s permission may support motorcycle parking. However, this could not be
an area over which the public has a right of way. It is unknown however whether
any such locations exist within the Borough.
4.
Financial implications
4.1
The financial implications of enacting the permanent traffic orders are outlined in
the 1 October Report.
4.2
There are no further financial implications as a result of this supplementary report.
The future opportunities identified in section 3 of this report are opportunities only
and not firm proposals.
5.
Legal implications
5.1
The legal implications of enacting the permanent traffic orders are outlined in the 1
October Report.
5.2
Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 limits the ways in which local
Page 7 of 11
authorities are able to use surplus parking income. The Council may therefore be
prevented from using surplus income from the motorcycle charging scheme to fund
some of the potential future opportunities outlined in section 3 of this report. This
will be examined in more detail if and when it is decided to take forward each of
these opportunities.
6.
Staffing implications
6.1
There are no direct staffing implications as a result of this report.
7.
Outstanding issues
7.1
There no outstanding issues to which this report does not refer.
8.
Performance Plan implications
8.1
This report has no direct implications upon the Performance Plan.
9.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
9.1
There are no issues relating to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 arising from this
report.
10. Health and Safety issues
10.1 There are no health and safety issues arising from this report.
11. Equalities and Diversities
11.1 There are no equalities and diversities issues arising from this report.
12.
Corrigenda to 1 October Report
12.1 Paragraphs 1.9, 2.1 (second bullet point) and 6.2 in the 1 October Report refer to
residents’ permit holders being able to park ‘free of charge’ or ‘for free’ in
motorcycle bays. This is perhaps misleading and would be better phrased as being
able to park ‘without further charge’ as concessions are only afforded after the
resident has purchased a resident’s permit. Similarly the ‘free motorcycle bay
parking for residents’ permit holders’ statement in the Financial Summary would be
better phrased as ‘concessionary motorcycle bay parking’.
Page 8 of 11
13. Conclusions and reasons for proposed decisions
13.1 This report outlines the issues raised (further to those in the 1 October Report) by
the four motorcycle groups and Mr Leon Mannings when meeting with the Cabinet
Member for City Management in October 2009.
13.2 The Cabinet Member is asked to consider the contents of this report in tandem with
those of the 1 October Report.
13.3 Nothing in this report has led Officers to alter the recommendations of the 1
October Report.
14. Appendices and background papers
Appendices (attached)
1. The City Council’s notes from the meetings with the four motorcycle groups
and Mr Leon Mannings.
Background papers (available on request)
‘Motorcycle Charging Scheme – Objections to the Making of Permanent Traffic
Orders’ Cabinet Member report dated 1 October 2009
Page 9 of 11
For completion by Cabinet Member for City Management
Declaration of Interest
• I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for City Management
• I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for City Management
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to
make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
Motorcycle Charging Scheme – Objections to the Making of Permanent Traffic
Orders – Supplementary Report.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for City Management
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection with
your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out your
comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the Secretariat for
processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Page 10 of 11
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Head of Legal
Services, the Director of Finance and, if there are staffing implications, the Director of
Human Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you can be made aware of any
further relevant considerations that you should take into account before making the
decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be properly identified and recorded, as
required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to the
Members of the relevant Policy & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision falls within
the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working days have
elapsed for any call-in request to be received.
Page 11 of 11
