Parking controls and the impact on local businesses and residents

REPORT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE

London Borough of Islington March 2010

CHAIR’S FOREWORD Islington is a borough with a large population, compressed into a small geographical area and held together by streets. Our streets give us the ability to travel from one part of the borough to another. Bicycles, cars, public transport and walking all help us move around. Unfortunately, one of these modes comes at an extra price – cars take up a substantial amount of room when not in use. In rural areas and leafy suburbs, parked cars can live in garages, on spare land and in small town shoppers’ car parks. In Islington cars are parked either on the street – or on the street – or on the street – or occasionally on a frowned-upon hard standing in a front garden. There are four main types of kerbside parking – parking at home, parking when shopping, parking when carrying out building works, etc. and loading/unloading at shops and other commercial properties. Our review covered all of the major aspects and issues of parking, and we have made our best endeavours to produce constructive, feasible and fair proposals to improve our service to residents, businesses and visitors. There is a list of eighteen proposals. All of them are important and require full consideration and action. Perhaps the major theme running through our report is the importance of good communication, from simple signage to complex instructions. From split-second decisions by traffic wardens to discovering match-day status, everyone has a responsibility to communicate well and to interpret diligently. Our signage should be clear, highly visible, and unambiguous. Our proposals are based on the evidence given by users, businesses, traffic and parking professionals from Islington, Camden and the Corporation of London as well as representatives of Living Streets and London Buses. We hope that the Executive take all our recommendations seriously and ensure that action is taken to implement all of them. Finally, I should like to thank all those who contributed to this review for all the time and effort which they put into it. Councillor Wally Burgess Chair, Sustainability Review Committee

1

MEMBERSHIP OF THE SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE COUNCILLORS 2009/2010 MEMBERSWALLY BURGESS (CHAIR) FIONA DUNLOP (VICE-CHAIR) GEORGE ALLAN KATIE DAWSON GARY DOOLAN BARRY EDWARDS MICHAEL O’ SULLIVAN KELLY PEASNELL LAURA WILLOUGHBY SUBSTITUTESBARBARA SIDNELL RICHARD GREENING PAUL SMITH LISA SPALL EMILY FIEREN-REED RHODRI JAMIESON-BALL STEFAN KASPRZYK MARISHA RAY Acknowledgements: The Committee would like to thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the review. Officer Support: Peter Moore – Democratic Services Environment and Regeneration – Peter Hazzard

2

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Overview Committee approved the priority topics for scrutiny at their meeting on 9 June

2009. 1.2 The review commenced in October 2009. 2. OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW 2.1 In line with the motion at Council in February 2009 to undertake a review of parking intervention

in light of concerns expressed by local businesses and residents. 3. METHODOLOGY AND TIMETABLING 3.1 Following the agreement of the Scrutiny Initiation Document a work programme was designed

for the committee to receive presentations and witness evidence at Sustainability Review Committee.

3

4. THE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 That whilst it was noted that parking wardens had been on courses to improve their attitude towards residents and that this had improved, as evidenced by the recent mystery shopping findings, the need for all Parking wardens to respond and deal with residents in a more co-operative and reasonable way be re-emphasised.

4.2 That the recent introduction of pay by phone be welcomed and there be further investigation into

extending this and also the possiblility of extending the chip and pin facility across the borough for short stay parking payments, which had already been introduced in some areas of the borough.

4.3 That the new leaflet that has been produced clarifying the signage for loading and unloading be

circulated to businesses and resident parking permit holders in the borough and placed on the Council’s website the leaflet to include a more detailed description of the definition of loading/unloading as this is not clear at present.

4.4 That the Executive investigate additional methods of ensuring that residents are able to be made aware of when the Arsenal matchday restrictions are, which could include subscribing to a text phone facility, ringing a hotline, which should be free even if a resident is using a mobile phone, or accessing information on the website. The Committee are of the view that the Executive should explore with Arsenal F.C. the possibility of providing adequate and obvious signage about whether it is, or is not, permissible to park, a freephone number that can be contacted or lights/illuminated signs which can be used when matchday restrictions are in force.

4.5 That the Head of Parking engage with the Business Design Centre to resolve the problems

referred to that have occurred in the past to ensure that there is a reduction in the queuing that has taken place in Liverpool Road by exhibitors waiting to load and unload and that the traffic congestion is minimised.

4.6 That the Committee note that the Executive had failed in its promise to initiate reviews of the

hours of residential parking zones, including zone J, 12 months after their introduction and that this has resulted in a number of businesses and residents complaining that the their hours of restrictions on parking had not been able to be changed. It was noted that a review of controlled parking requires full consultation with the area and also requires funding for the consultation process. The Committee has heard evidence that both the Nags Head and Archway shopping centres and some residents and traders in other areas would like to see variations in these hours of restrictions. The Executive should also be requested to initiate regular reviews of the hours of residential controlled parking zones particularly after major developments, this to be accompanied by the necessary funding.

4.7 That the Committee welcome the fact that Islington was the first borough to cease clamping in

London and that this had led to an improvement in the public’s perception of parking in Islington.

4.8 That the Executive be requested to investigate, given that the Committee had heard concerns on the cost of business parking permits for small and medium size businesses, the possibility of linking the cost of the business permit to CO2 emissions of the vehicle concerned to encourage the use of smaller more environmentally friendly vehicles.

4.9 The Committee noted that there were a number of issues that had been raised by the traders

and residents in the Highbury Barn area relating to loading/unloading, signage and different parking times in neighbouring streets. The Committee request that a new leaflet be provided to be distributed to residents and traders in the area and on the website to ensure that they are

4

aware of the restrictions in place and to ensure that the parking times in neighbouring streets are looked at and reviewed if necessary.

4.10 That whilst noting that there had been a relaxation on parking restrictions during December to

assist traders and shoppers, in recognition of the economic downturn, the Executive be recommended to agree a pilot scheme to take place in a particular shopping area and evaluate this pilot to see if reducing some bays to quick turnover bays assists traders and shoppers or whether there are altenative schemes that work more effectively.

4.11 That the Executive be requested to ensure that in future all new developments actively

discourage car use and are car free developments and that residents of these new developments are not able to obtain residents parking permits.

4.12 That residents parking bays should leave enough space at road junctions to allow pedestrians

and drivers clear lines of sight to ensure safe crossing of the road and existing bays should be looked at to ensure that this is the case.

4.13 That residents continue to be made aware of the need for parking restrictions, why they exist

and make information available so that they understand them and ensure that parking restrictions are properly but fairly enforced, particularly where traffic flows and buses are potentially impeded.

4.14 That the parking policy be supported by upgrading the public realm and ensuring that the

streetscape encourages alternative methods of transport apart from the car.

4.15 That the possibility of business holders being able to park in residents bays during certain periods of the day be investigated.

4.16 That the Executive be requested to investigate the provision of more cycle bays across

the borough to encourage non car use.

4.17 That there be rigid enforcement of the parking regulations around parking on pavements given the dangers and inconvenience that this causes to pedestrians.

4.18 That the Committee welcome the more reasonable approach of a 40 minute observation

period for loading and unloading for commercial vehicles which had been adopted both by the Council and TfL, which particularly took account of bulky loads.

5

5. BACKGROUND

5.1 The Council in February 2009 considered a motion from Councillor Martin Klute, which was

seconded by Councillor Joan Coupland that –

The Council notes the concern expressed by local businesses that the Council’s parking policy is a hindrance to them and in particular notes the complaints of –

• Businesses in Fonthill Road that they were not consulted enough about higher parking charges imposed by the Council in November 2008 and that the new higher charges are deterring customers

• Businesses in Highbury Barn that the hours of restricted parking deter customers • Businesses in Essex Road that their suppliers cannot find spaces to allow loading and

unloading and that this is harming their trade • Businesses and shoppers in the Archway area that the Council has ignored their request to

alter parking restrictions on Saturday morning which are unnecessary and discourage trade

The Council also noted that the Executive had failed to honour its promise to initiate reviews of the hours of residential parking zones, including zone J, 12 months after their introduction. Council therefore asks Sustainability Review Committee to inquire into the impact of parking policy on businesses and residents in the borough and to report back to the Council with proposals for changes which will assist local businesses.

5.2 The Committee did invite traders from Fonthill Road to give witness evidence but they were

unfortunately unable to attend.

6

6. THE COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS

6.1 The Committee at its meeting on 3 September 2009 considered evidence from a number of

representatives of local businesses, including Town Centre Managers as to the effect that parking controls had on their businesses.

6.2 Matthew Crawford, owner of After Noah and member of the Angel BID Board informed the

Committee that whilst he felt that there had been some improvement since the introduction of the new parking policy that this was marginal and that there had only been a slight improvement on a previously bad situation.

6.3 Most residents and businesses recognised that a parking policy was necessary; however the

current parking regime was felt to be draconian and discouraged shoppers. Whilst it was recognised that parking control staff had been sent on courses to improve their attitude and were more polite, their reasonableness had not altered. Meter charges were also too high which contributed to the problem.

6.4 The view was expressed that improved driver behaviour and consequent falls in revenue would

mean that the more common sense that had been adopted to parking policy may not continue and that the Council should look at using new technology for meters, such as was used in Westminster Council, which allowed top ups and payment by credit card. In addition text messaging could be used to stop meter charges early or to extend them remotely as required.

6.5 Matthew Crawford also expressed concern that the signage concerning parking restrictions was

unclear and additional signs were needed to clarify the current restrictions. Deliveries were particularly problematic for businesses and the definition of loading was unclear. In addition parking attendants hand units should not be able to issue tickets to commercial vehicles during a certain time and cameras were penalising delivery drivers who stopped very briefly to check directions and discretion should be used in these cases.

6.6 The Committee were also informed that Arsenal match day restrictions were unclear and there

should be signage giving details of the match days or the ticket machines should tell drivers when this was the case.

6.7 The Committee also received evidence from Bradley Cordes, Head of Exhibition Services,

Business Design Centre. 6.8 Bradley Cordes referred to the fact that the BDC had a loading area on Liverpool Road, but that

this could not open until 8.00a.m., which resulted in a queue of vehicles forming. Both exhibitors and residents were unhappy with this arrangement.

6.9 All vehicles had to undergo security checks when entering the site and traffic wardens were

ticketing vehicles waiting to pass through the checkpoints. The £60 fine for a ticket was a significant sum for the smaller exhibitors using the site.

6.10 Bradley Cordes indicated that the BDC had undertaken a number of discussions with the

parking section but the situation had not improved. Limited time waiver tickets that could be given to exhibitors whilst queuing and a reassessment of the yellow lines around the exhibitors’ entrance had been discussed but no further action had appeared to be have been taken.

6.11 The BDC used marshalls to oversee the waiting vehicles but exhibitors sometimes became

frustrated with waiting and unloading further down the road and if exhibitors were asked to reload their vehicles and return to the line that could cause further delays. The BDC hosted about 70 shows a year with approximately 12-20 experiencing serious delays with loading.

7

6.12 Christine Lovett, Angel BID Director, indicated that in her view reasonableness should be

exercised when considering parking sanctions, particularly in the current economic situation. The BDC was a major economic generator for the borough and penalising them under the current regime meant that exhibitors may look for locations elsewhere. There should be a more measured approach to parking that would mean businesses did not feel the parking controls were just concerned with income generation for the Council.

6.13 Members were informed that both delivery to customers and unloading outside businesses was

a problem and that a distinction should be made for commercial vehicles. A 40 minute loading period seemed reasonable and it was noted that in view of the fact that businesses would like to see a common sense approach adopted it had been agreed that to accommodate this a 40 minute period had now been adopted by the Council and TfL that could take into account particularly bulky loads.

6.14 The BDC could perform initial checks on vehicles waiting to enter their site but the marshalls did

not start until 8.00a.m., and therefore full loading could not commence until then. The BDC did work with residents to maintain access and as stated previously despite attempts to resolve this issue with parking section there had still been no resolution of the problems.

6.15 There was a possibility of parking on the forecourt outside of the BDC but this would result in

clashes with the adjacent Hilton Hotel and pedestrians. The onus should be on the Council to negotiate with the service provider to carry out their service in the interests of the borough.

6.16 The Committee were informed that the Council contracted wardens would refuse to talk to

people directly, which was in contrast to the approach of TfL wardens, and did not reflect well on the Council.

6.17 The Committee also heard evidence from Anna Woodward, Archway Town Centre Manager.

that Archway Town Centre experienced fewer problems with traffic wardens than other centres appeared to, however there were problems with parking restrictions in Junction Road and surrounding streets. The removal of the Saturday restrictions had been identified as a key priority by the Archway Town Centre Management Group as traders felt that they were unfair.

6.18 90% of the traders at Archway were independent outlets and therefore did not make a

tremendous amount of profit. Although they would like there to be no restrictions they understood that some were needed. The traders considered that if the restrictions were there to stop commuters parking in the area then this should not really apply at weekends. It was stated that the traders were noticeably busier on Saturday afternoons, after the parking restrictions were removed. Whilst Archway traders had focused primarily on Saturday restrictions, ideally they would like the Council to look at Monday to Friday hours as well and having a block period in the morning or afternoons to stop commuters parking.

6.19 Anna Woodward informed the Committee that the traders would prefer parking restrictions of

10.00a.m.to 12.00 noon Monday to Friday and had proposed a six month trial period in Archway to test the benefits of revising the restrictions.

6.20 The Committee also heard evidence from Joyce Pollaya, Nags Head Town Centre Manager that

Nags Head had a few large traders but the majority of the 240 traders in the area were small to medium sized enterprises. There were limitations on how far the Council could improve the situation at Nags Head as Holloway Road and Seven Sisters Road were managed by TfL. The surrounding roads were red routes, or if they did have parking, were subject to matchday restrictions.

8

6.21 There was virtually no off street parking for local businesses and the loading times allowed were very tight. Events had been run encouraging people to visit the shopping centre by bus, but it was important that areas were provided for parking for more than 4 hours. There were two car parks on site that provided pay and display parking, however if these were lost it would be detrimental to traders.

6.22 In addition where existing bays were in place it was felt that the restrictions should be looked at

and revised where possible. Currently only Sunday allowed for extended hours and there was a high level of concern from traders that additional controls should not be introduced on parking in the area.

6.23 The cost of parking permits for businesses was also an area for concern and the cost was £600

rising to £1000 for an all borough permit, which was very high, especially for small to medium size traders and it was felt that these charges should be reviewed.

6.24 The Committee also heard evidence from Craig Stansfield, the Policy and Development Team

Leader of the Planning and Transportation Department at the City of London. 6.25 The Committee were informed that in the City of London there were restrictions on a Saturday

between 7.00a.m.and 11.00a.m., however there were no restrictions on a Sunday. 6.26 The nature of land use in the City was different and although there were some local shopping

centres they did not want them to be car based. There were wider retail opportunities in the area and some businesses operated a five day trading week.

6.27 The City operated a pay and display parking system and there was no provision for business or

residents parking and therefore no need for permits. Most sites had off street parking or kerbside loading and unloading. There was however a lack of definition of loading from the government and therefore the City of London had produced its own definition to assist with this.

6.28 The City had a parking contract to provide parking enforcement. Where there was a clear

contravention they did not allow discretion by wardens and a ticket would be issued but they would expect all staff to consider carefully whether a contravention had actually occurred. The London Stock Exchange also had similar problems to the BDC, however the City of London had encouraged them to process vehicles more quickly.

6.29 The Committee at its meeting on 23 October 2009 considered evidence from Gary Griffiths, the

Head of Parking and CCTV services at L.B.Islington. 6.30 Gary Griffiths stated that parking regulations were enforced to prevent traffic build up, to provide

access for emergency vehicles and to allow residents, visitors and businesses to park legally near their homes, offices and shops.

6.31 Islington’s roads were extremely busy due to the high levels of activity taking place. Between

35,000 and 60,000 parking activities occur each day, but despite this Islington Parking services had achieved a Charter Mark accreditation and the new Customer Excellence standard. Islington is home to 12,000 businesses and there were 28,000 resident permit holders and 112,000 people commuted into Islington every day.

6.32 Prior to 2000 Islington had 4 controlled parking zones. From May 2005 there were 24 controlled

parking zones and possibly the largest match day control zone in Europe. In addition in 2000 as Islington was experiencing vandalism on its stock of parking meters it introduced pay and display machines to replace them.

9

6.33 Islington was the last central London authority to introduce clamping and the first inner London authority to cease clamping. An essential guide to parking was published in 2005 which was delivered to over 94,000 residences and businesses across the borough.

6.34 In an effort to be as open and transparent as possible an enforcement protocol had been

published, which detailed every parking contravention enforced and a parking policy statement had been developed, which was a 10 year plan for parking, management and enforcement in Islington. An annual report is also provided which provides key data on PCN’s, clamping, removals and appeals. These are available on the Council’s website.

6.35 Following a successful pilot in EC1, Pay by Phones was introduced on a phased basis across

the borough and 80 credit card chip and pin facilities for short stay parking payments had been installed, which would rise to 150.

6.36 Online services including permit renewals, first time applications, visitor vouchers,

concessionary vouchers, change of address and permission to park were now available on the Council’s website. An ability to view images or digital footage of contraventions was also available on line.

6.37 Members of the Public could report illegal, dangerous or inconvenient parking and use the 24

hour emergency hot line to get a Contract Enforcement Officer to be immediately despatched to the contravention. Comments from the disabled community were considered and a 24/7 enforcement of dedicated disabled bays was being provided.

6.38 A small citizens panel had held three consultation exercises and this had consisted of residents

and businesses and helped to establish the parking specification for the parking contract. 6.39 The Head of Parking also informed the Committee that parking facilities for disabled people had

been improved. 419 disabled bays had been installed and any Blue Badge applications incorporated a health assessment check. L.B.Islington had also appointed the first UK parking advocate whose role was to mediate with residents and businesses on parking issues. A more compassionate approach to parking ticket appeals, a revision of cancellation policy and an intensive training programme for correspondence and the appeals team had taken place.

6.40 A Contract Enforcement Officer customer excellence awards scheme had helped to incentivise

and reward staff and the previous hand held computers had been replaced with GRPS driven ones. The contract also had a provision for sharing savings and there was a development fund where 1% of the contract value was ring-fenced for expenditure on training/innovation. A £25 compensation payment was made to customers where a Contract Enforcement Officer issued a PCN in error.

6.41 Measures had also been taken to assist businesses in the borough. Over 500 business

bays/shared bays had been provided and there were 36 loading bays. There were also 2,846 pay and display spaces for the business user, shoppers and visitors to the borough. A local business badge to assist in loading / unloading activities was provided, but this had been superseded with a 40 minute observation period as part of a London wide review.

6.42 The Committee were informed that free visitor vouchers had been distributed through Islington

Now magazine for Christmas and partnership working took place with the Police, DVLA, neighbouring boroughs etc. to combat illegal activities on the street. For drivers who ignored all their notices and accrued unmanageable debt, payment plan options had been introduced. Islington was also the first borough to introduce the Blue Disabled Badge protectors and the level of available visitor vouchers was increased by around 20% in 2006, as was the allocation of all day vouchers. In 2008/9 a carers permit for people in need of carer support was introduced.

10

6.43 Islington was the fourth lowest in the list of London Boroughs of cases being escalated to the

Parking and Traffic appeals service. The recovery rate of PCN’s had increased from 40% to almost 70% in 5 years and the level of compliance for parking activiies was 99%. Correspondence turnaround average for 2008/9 was 5 days compared to the Traffic Management guidelines of 10 days. The enforcement contract was top in all key indicators and negative press coverage was now rare.

6.44 The Committee were also informed that there was a mystery shopping exercise undertaken to

assess how the contract enforcement officers interacted with the public and this had shown that the officers had acted generally in a courteous and helpful manner.

6.45 The Committee also heard evidence from Sam Monk, Head of Highways that the L.B.Camden

had different hour zones, which included 6 short hour zones from Monday to Friday. There were 3 sets of operational hours for short hour zones. This had led to a 43% decrease in parking levels during the day. Short hour zones had proved effective but the level of effectiveness depended on the location.

6.46 Camden had ceased clamping vehicles in 2006 following a study which found clamping was not

an effective method of enforcement of parking controls. 6.47 Controlled parking zones were concentrated in retail centres and were designed largely for and

with residents but they needed simplifying as at present they were confusing. The new parking programme considered individual high streets separately and leaflets had been distributed for traders to give to their customers and suppliers to increase awareness of parking regulations and this information was published in the local paper.

6.48 Camden parking services was trying to seek ways of simplifying practices as at present there

were currently 128 types of loading restrictions in place and that this needed to be reduced. 6.49 Camden had a restriction of 40 minutes for vehicles over 3.5 tonnes to load and unload. There

were no restrictions on Saturdays so as to not impact on the retail trade. Some restrictions on parking hours were as a result of requests from traders who wanted a higher turnover of customers. Since 1998 all business permit holders could park in any space, including resident parking bays.

6.50 Martin Jones, Chair of the Highbury Fields Association also presented evidence to the

Committee, together with Chris Godfrey, a trader at Highbury Barn. 6.51 The Committee were informed that the biggest problem at Highbury Barn raised by traders was

loading and unloading of goods. Some of the traders were not happy with the parking restrictions in place generally, for example they thought that it would be better to have shorter hours, limited or no restrictions at weekends or longer or shorter restrictions on pay and display periods. This was dependent on the nature of the business with some such as restaurants preferring longer stay periods and other businesses shorter stay periods.

6.52 All relevant businesses were provided with information providing business permits, however

some businesses were not willing to consider these and thought parking should be free. 6.53 Traders at Highbury Barn also expressed concern at the situation on Arsenal matchdays. Some

traders within the matchday controlled zone thought it was not obvious either to them or their customers when a match was taking place. However the Committee were informed that Information had been circulated and methods were discussed which traders could use to let the customer know.

11

6.54 Customers and traders were also confused over signage, particularly that which denoted the difference between a business parking bay and a residents parking bay. Bus routes outside shops were also an issue and mostly applied to red routes, although there were some concerns raised by traders relating to local roads with the bus lanes. Generally the bus lane provided better public transport access to the shops in question; however it still caused some problems, particularly with loading and unloading. None of the local bus lanes ran for 24 hours so there were opportunities for loading and unloading to take place outside of the bus lanes operational hours.

6.55 Many of the traders felt that their customers should be able to park for free, even if this was for a

limited time. Generally, any type of free parking scheme was open to abuse and extremely difficult to enforce and therefore generally did not address the needs it was put in place to meet.

6.56 There were two conflicting problems at Highbury Barn relating to customers needs to park for

retail purposes and traders need for suppliers to park for deliveries. There had so far been no sign of flexibility shown by the parking enforcement officers in terms of the enforcement of restrictions applying to individual shops.

6.57 Some customers had to use bags when shopping and needed a car, for example if they had

heavy shopping or were picking children up from school. Some shoppers, attracted by the wide range of shops, lived outside the area and there was a problem with lack of space for customer parking. Six wardens had been witnessed parading the 150-200 yard high street at lunchtime which had only 30 plus shops. Many traders had similar stories regarding treatment from wardens who showed no discretion and would not discuss things. This included witnessing wardens writing a ticket for a heavily pregnant woman getting out of a car.

6.58 Traders were of the view that this action was decreasing the number of customers and they had

even requested that customers wait in their cars whilst they brought their orders to them. However some customers were given a ticket within one minute of arriving.

6.59 Parking in the side streets around Highbury Barn was also a problem as the signage for

regulations was not clear. Copies of an overall parking plan would be useful for residents to have a better understanding of restrictions in the area. There was a lot of confusing signage for example on Leigh Road, Hamilton Park West, Lucerne Road and Aubert Park, which all displayed different hours of pay and display, which was not useful for shoppers.

6.60 The Committee were informed that this was due to an extension of the G zone, which was called

mini zone G, which extended the controlled operational hours on the pay and display parking bays. Mini G has now been revoked and the signage has been changed to reflect the same operational times as zone G.

6.61 Traders were also concerned that there was a problem of deliveries and that a clearer definition

of loading and unloading was needed. On the west side of Highbury Barn parking was restricted up to 13.30, however on the east side of Highbury Barn parking was restricted from 13.30. This appeared to have changed and was an example of how signage was hard to interpret.

6.62 Traders felt there was a need for wardens to exercise tolerance and discretion to allow people to

briefly step out of vehicles. It would also be helpful if the regulations were relaxed on Saturdays so that one side of the street could be used for parked vehicles.

6.63 The Committee also received evidence from Caroline Russell, Islington Living Streets who

referred to the fact Islington parking policy was aimed to encourage sustainable travel choice aimed at discouraging unrealistic levels of car use.

12

6.64 Islington had the third highest concentration of cars per hectare in England and Wales. 112,000 people commuted into Islington every day to work, which created a huge additional demand for parking. 42% of households in Islington had a car. This was the second lowest level of car ownership in England and Wales and was well below average for Inner London. Most residents of the borough depended on public transport, walking and cycling to get around.

6.65 The proportion of people from Islington, using public transport to travel to work was one of the

highest in England and Wales, while the proportion driving to work in a car or van was one of the lowest. The Council had to make complex choices about the allocation and management of the limited on street parking space, balancing the needs of residents, by taking actions that some motorists did not support with the aim of making things better for the majority of people and minimising inconvenience to others.

6.66 Islington Living Streets stated that residents parking zones had made a huge difference to the

borough, however there was a tension between the needs of residents and disabled drivers and those of local traders. Islington Living Streets referred to the fact that they would be willing to support measures such as conversion of some pay and display bays to quick turnover bays, maximum 30 minutes parking, but felt strongly that a relaxation of parking controls, such as free parking at local shops, would encourage extra vehicle movements and would have a negative impact on a number of residents.

6.67 Islington had excellent public transport alternatives to car commuting. Islington Living Streets

were of the view that there should be a commitment to ensuring the public realm was designed to encourage walking and cycling. Given the congested streets and lack of potential parking places, car commuting was best reduced by controlling the limited supply of parking spaces.

6.68 The Committee heard evidence that although car free developments were a great way of

managing parking demand, in order to make it work effectively, the public realm had to be upgraded to make people feel good about walking and cycling. There was also a need to ensure any new store developments had the Council’s parking policy effectively applied to them.

6.69 Islington Living Streets also referred to the fact that more parking spaces had been added since

the intitial implementation of CPZ’s. This was detrimental to pedestrians wanting to cross the road, as they often had to cross between parked cars and it was felt that these spaces should not be placed too close to road junctions.

6.70 There were also problems with pavement parking, which led to unsightly damaged pavements

and there needed to be stricter enforcement of on pavement parking as the blocking of a footway had a significant impact on pedestrians.

6.71 Parking regulations also needed to be firmly and fairly enforced and then if people parked

illegally they should expect to get a ticket. The loading regulations seemed to cause the most confusion and there was a need for clear loading information to go out to residents on a regular basis. In addition, the Council’s website featuring Parking near local shops, whilst useful, did not provide the information on the controlled hours as some streets were controlled from 10.00a.m.- 2.00 p.m. while others were controlled from 8.30a.m.- 6.30p.m.

6.72 The Committee also heard evidence of the problems that had been experienced with the car

free development at Arundel Square and that there was a need to ensure in future that the terms of any section 106 agreement and agreements with developers included a clause that banned new buyers from applying for resident’s parking permits.

6.73 The Committee also considered written evidence from Karen Naylor, Residents Advocate who

had liaised with businesses with regard to parking issues. Many of the points raised were common issues shared by traders and where complaints had been received from customers.

13

6.74 The issue of loading and unloading was one of the main issues and many were confused as to

what was considered as goods and admitted to abusing the regulations in order to park for free. Traders had been provided with a leaflet to enable them to understand the regulations, however where businesses were on red routes they had been advised to contact TfL.

6.75 A pilot badge scheme had also been run to assist in some of the problems caused by genuine

loading/unloading by businesses. Part of the pilot was superseded by changes in legislation, however the introduction of the 40 minute loading period had largely meant that the pilot badge scheme was now not necessary.

6.76 Some of the traders were unhappy with the parking restrictions generally in place and they felt

that they would be better served with shorter hours, limited or no restrictions at weekends or longer/shorter length of pay and display stay periods dependent on the business, however these changes would require a full consultation process and currently there are no funds available.

6.77 Whilst most relevant businesses have been provided with information regarding business

permits most businesses were unwilling to consider the costs and felt that parking could be provided for free.

6.78 Businesses were also concerned that there should be an end to the abusive parking of mini

cabs across Islington and several multi agency operations involving Parking Services, NSL, Metropolitan Police, Bailiff Companies and TfL licensing have successfully taken place and these operations were set to continue.

6.79 Karen Naylor indicated that for those traders within the matchday controlled zone some felt that

not obvious to them or their customers when a match was taking place. Whilst leaflets had been provided, which details the many methods of checking when a match is taking place, discussion had also taken place to discuss various methods that they could use to let the customer know when these were. A review has also been undertaken on matchday parking, visiting three other local London authorities with matchday parking controls and review would be considered.

6.80 Customers and traders have also stated that at times they have misunderstood the signage,

particularly that which denotes the difference between a parking bay and a residents parking bay. The Committee noted that the design and wording on signage is prescribed by the Department of Transport and as such cannot be changed or altered by the Council.

6.81 There were also concerns about bus routes outside shops and this issue mostly applies to red

routes, although there were some concerns raised by traders relating to local roads with bus lanes. Generally the bus lanes provide better public transport access to the shops in question, however it obviously causes some problems, particularly with loading/unloading. None of the bus lanes ran for 24 hours and so there were opportunities for loading/unloading to take place outside of the bus lanes operational hours.

6.82 Many traders felt that their customers should be able to park for free, even if this was for a

limited time. Generally any type of free parking scheme is open to abuse and extremely difficult to enforce and therefore generally does not meet the needs it was put into place to meet.

6.83 The Committee also received evidence from Mr.Michaelson, another trader at Highbury Barn. 6.84 A number of concerns were raised and it was stated that with regard to signage, the signs were

already designed to conform to national regulations, which set standards of design such as content and letter height and were bright and easy to read. Leaflets had also been distributed to businesses for them to give to customers explaining the parking regulations and this would be published on the council’s website shortly.

14

6.85 The Committee noted that there were a number of places where specific parking regulations

applied on a match day. The sign with a telephone number detailing regulations should be at each of the bays, however unfortunately the telephone was not a free phone number. There would be an automated text service which could be made clearer to people, such as the one on Highbury Crescent, as a number of people had been issued with a ticket on a match day and it would be useful if Arsenal provided a free phone line.

6.86 The Committee were also informed that the proposal to install ‘shop and stop’ bays had been

rejected, as the Council were not convinced that people going to the shops at Highbury Barn were travelling by car. TfL had rejected ‘stop and shop’ bays some time ago on the red route and there was a pilot scheme in Archway where parking restrictions were not enforced on Saturdays, but this had so far not always been proven as being beneficial to the local businesses.

15

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 The review has highlighted the problems that the Council faces in balancing the needs of car

users and traders and its policy of not encouraging the use of cars in the borough, to keep traffic flowing and looking after the needs of residents.

7.2 The Parking service in Islington has made good progress in achieving improvements in its

reputation with residents and traders and have instituted a number of measures to try and resolve the numerous conflicting issues that arise.

7.3 The fact is that Islington has limited space and cannot satisfy all the competing demands for

parking that exist, however the Committee have listened to the views put forward by witnesses and have recommended a number of actions that it hopes will lead to further improvements.

7.4 The Committee hope that the recommendations it makes will be considered and adopted by

the Executive.

16

LIST OF APPENDICES SCRUTINY INITIATION DOCUMENT - APPENDIX A LIST OF WITNESSES/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - APPENDIX B

17

APPENDIX A Scrutiny Review Initiation Document

DRAFT Scrutiny Review Initiation Document

SCRUTINY REVIEW INITIATION DOCUMENT (SID)

Parking Controls and Impacts on Businesses and Residents

Scrutiny Review Committee: Sustainability Director leading the Review: Kevin O’Leary, Director of Environment and Regeneration Lead Officer: Zahur Khan, Head of Traffic & Engineering Overall Aim

In line with the motion from the Council in February 2009, to:

- Undertake a review of parking intervention in light of concerns expressed by local

businesses and residents.

Objectives of the review:

• To review the concerns of residents • To review the concerns of businesses • To review the current scope of parking intervention • To identify possible ways forward

Scope of the Review

Types of evidence to be assessed by the review:

1. Documentary submissions

2. Witness Evidence

Karen Sullivan – Interim Head of Spatial Planning and Transport

Gary Griffiths – Head of Parking Services

Jonathan Ward, Islington Resident

Other London Boroughs (Camden and City of London)

Francis Davidson and Doreen Scott, Joint Chairs, Islington Mobility Forum

18

Tony Mitchell, London Buses

Caroline Russell, Living Streets

Hak Huseyin

Town Centre Managers and/or Town Centre Board Members

3. Visits

Programme Key output: 1. Scrutiny Initiation Document Sept 09 2. Timetable 3. Interim Report Feb 10 4. Final Report Mar 10 This SID has been approved by the Overview/Review Committee. Signed: Date: Chair

19

APPENDIX B LIST OF WITNESSES

Gary Grifffiths – Head of Parking Peter Hazard – Environment and Regeneration Sam Monk – London Borough of Camden Caroline Russell – Islington Living Streets Bradley Cordes – Business Design Centre Matthew Crawford – Islington trader Chris Godfrey – Highbury Barn trader Chris Stansfield – City of London Martin Jones – Highbury Fields Association Joyce Pollaya – Nags Head Town Centre Manager Anna Woodward – Archway Town Centre Manager Christina Lovett – Angel BID Director Mr. Michaelson – Highbury Barn trader

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Evidence from residents and traders Karen Naylor – Residents Advocate

20