The North Essex The North Essex The North Essex Parking Partnership Parking Partnership Parking Partnership - On Street Parking On Street Parking On Street Parking Rowan House, 33 Sheepen Rowan House, 33 Sheepen Rowan House, 33 Sheepen Road, Colchester Road, Colchester Road, Colchester 4 October 2012 at 1.30pm 4 October 2012 at 1.30pm 4 October 2012 at 1.30pm The Parking Partnership brings together all street- based parking services in Essex. The service is council- run and is a partnership between Essex County Council and two lead councils: The North Partnership is led by Colchester Borough Council, and comprises of members from Braintree, Epping Forest, Harlow, Tendring and Uttlesford. The On Street parking committee considers all management and operational issues to do with On Street parking. The Parking Partnership can be contacted at www.parkingpartnership.org . Alternatively, contact the North Partnership by letter at North Essex Parking Partnership, PO Box 5575, Town Hall, Colchester, CO1
Transcript
The North Essex The North Essex The North Essex Parking Partnership Parking Partnership Parking Partnership --- On Street Parking On Street Parking On Street Parking Rowan House, 33 Sheepen Rowan House, 33 Sheepen Rowan House, 33 Sheepen Road, ColchesterRoad, ColchesterRoad, Colchester 4 October 2012 at 1.30pm4 October 2012 at 1.30pm4 October 2012 at 1.30pm The Parking Partnership brings together all street-based parking services in Essex. The service is council-run and is a partnership between Essex County Council and two lead councils: The North Partnership is led by Colchester Borough Council, and comprises of members from Braintree, Epping Forest, Harlow, Tendring and Uttlesford. The On Street parking committee considers all management and operational issues to do with On Street parking.
The Parking Partnership can be contacted at www.parkingpartnership.org. Alternatively, contact the North Partnership by letter at North Essex Parking Partnership, PO Box 5575, Town Hall, Colchester, CO1
THE NORTH ESSEX PARKING PARTNERSHIP ON STREET PARKING
4 October 2012 at 1:30pm
Agenda Part A (open to the public including the media)
Members Councillors
(Chairman and Deputy Chairman to be appointed at first meeting)
Substitute Members :
Pages 1. The North Essex Parking Partnership On Street Parking
See the following agenda documents for the meeting to be held on 4 October 2012.
1 64
North Essex
Parking Partnership
Joint Working Committee
On-Street Parking
Rowan House, Colchester
4 October 2012 at 1.30 pm
The vision and aim of the Joint Committee is to provide a
merged parking service that provides a single, flexible
enterprise of full parking services for the Partner Authorities.
1
North Essex Parking Partnership
Joint Committee Meeting – On-Street Thursday 4 October 2012 at 1.30 pm
Rowan House, Colchester
Agenda
Attendees Executive Members:- Susan Barker (Uttlesford) Jon Clempner (Harlow) Martin Hunt (Colchester) Derrick Louis (ECC) Robert Mitchell (Braintree) Neil Stock (Tendring) Gary Waller (Epping Forest)
Officers:- Emma Day (Parking Partnership) Trevor Degville (Parking Partnership) Qasim Durrani (Epping Forest) Robert Judd (Colchester) Joe McGill (Harlow) Paul Partridge (Braintree) Emma Powell (Parking Partnership) Liz Saville (Essex County) Andrew Taylor (Uttlesford) Ian Taylor (Tendring) Shane Taylor (Parking Partnership) Richard Walker (Parking Partnership) Matthew Young (Colchester)
Introduced by Page
1. Welcome & Introductions 2.
Apologies Councillor Robert Mitchell(Braintree)
3.
Declarations of Interest The Chairman to invite Councillors to declare individually any interests they may have in the items on the agenda.
4.
Have Your Say The Chairman to invite members of the public or attending councillors if they wish to speak either on an item on the agenda or a general matter.
5.
Draft minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2012 To approve the draft minutes.
1-
6.
Counsels Advice in regards to Membership of Joint Committees and delegation to Deputies. To note the advice provided to Essex County Council.
-
7.
Harwich Quay Parking Concession To consider the report from the Parking Partnership Group Manager.
Richard Walker
8.
CCTV car – Cost and Benefit analysis and procurement update. To consider the report from the Parking Partnership Group Manager.
Richard Walker
9.
Pricing Elements To consider the report from the Parking Partnership Group Manager.
Richard Walker
2
10. Operational Report To consider and note the Operational Report for On-Street Parking.
Emma Day / Emma Powell
11.
Progress on the South Essex Parking Partnership A verbal update from Liz Saville.
Liz Saville
12.
Shared resources between the NEPP and SEPP A verbal update from the Parking Partnership Group Manager.
Richard Walker
13.
Epping Forest District Council Merger A verbal update from the Parking Partnership Group Manager.
Richard Walker
14.
Forward Plan To comment on and note the Forward Plan.
Robert Judd
15.
Urgent items To announce any items not on the agenda which the Chairman has agreed to consider.
3
Information for Members of the Public
Access to information and meetings
You have the right to attend all meetings of the
North Essex Parking Partnership. You also have
the right to see the agenda, which is usually
published 5 working days before the meeting.
Dates of the meetings, agendas and minutes are
available at the Parking Partnership website by
clicking on http://www.parkingpartnership.org/ or
the Colchester Borough Council website
http://tmf.colchester.gov.uk/menu_map_level_2.a
sp?sec_id=3808 .
Have Your Say!
The Parking Partnership values contributions from
members of the public and under the
Partnership’s Have Your Say! policy you can ask
questions or express a view to the Joint
Committee.
Private Sessions
Occasionally meetings will need to discuss issues
in private. This can only happen on a limited
range of issues, which are set by law. When the
Committee does so, you will be asked to leave the
meeting.
Mobile phones, pagers, cameras, audio recorders
Please ensure that all mobile phones and pagers
are turned off before the meeting begins and note
that photography or audio recording is not
permitted.
For further information contact;
Robert Judd, Secretary to the Joint Committee at Colchester Borough Council,
Town Hall, Colchester Present: - Councillor Susan Barker (Uttlesford District Council) Councillor Penny Channer (Essex County Council) Councillor Jon Clempner (Harlow District Council) Councillor Martin Hunt (Colchester Borough Council) Councillor Derrick Louis (Essex County Council) Councillor Robert Mitchell (Braintree District Council) Councillor Gary Waller (Epping Forest District Council) Apologies: - Councillor Pam Sambridge (Tendring District Council) Councillor Wendy Schmitt (Braintree District Council) Also Present: - Ms. Lou Belgrove (Parking Partnership) Mr. Vicky Duff (Essex County Council) Mr. Qasim Durrani (Epping Forest District Council) Mr. Robert Judd (Colchester Borough Council) Mr. Joe McGill (Harlow District Council) Mr. Paul Partridge (Braintree District Council) Ms. Emma Powell (Parking Partnership)
Mr. Andrew Taylor (Uttlesford District Council) Mr. Ian Taylor (Tendring District Council) Mr. Shane Taylor (Parking Partnership) Mr. Richard Walker (Parking Partnership) Mr. Matthew Young (Colchester Borough Council) Mr. Steve Brown (Equita) Mr. Paul Sharp (Capita) Mr. Chris Willis (SEA) Apologies: - Mr. Trevor Degville (Parking Partnership) Ms. Liz Saville (Essex County Council)
1. Chairman Councillor Susan Barker was appointed Chairman for the ensuing Municipal Year.
2. Deputy Chairman The appointment of Deputy Chairman was deferred until the next meeting pending advice from Essex County Council in regards to appointing Members who did not have full executive powers.
3. Urgent item Councillor Barker raised the issue of appointing Members with non-executive powers. It was
5
understood that non-executive members attending meetings could contribute to the discussions, but did not have any voting rights. Councillor Mitchell said that Braintree’s Leader, Councillor Graham Butland had given written consent to delegate full executive powers to Councillor Mitchell for the joint committee on parking. Councillor Mitchell said that due to the large portfolio of Councillor Wendy Schmitt, it would not be possible for her to attend all the Joint Committee meetings, an issue that had been raised a year ago, but not addressed. To enable Braintree to fully participate in the decision making process it was important to have this issue resolved. Members agreed that the issue would need to be resolved as soon as possible, to avoid any breach of the Local Government Act regulations 2000. Councillor Louis said it was his understanding that it was not possible to delegate executive powers to non-executive members, but proposed that the North Essex Parking Partnership was amended to allow nominated members to be full members of the Joint Committee. RESOLVED that officers would seek clarification from legal services at Essex County Council and notify Members of the outcome prior to the next meeting on 12 July 2012.
Declarations of Interest Councillor Barker in respect of being a Member of Essex County Council declared a personal interest in the following items.
4. Minutes RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2012 was confirmed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment; Essex County Council to be added to the list of partner authorities listed in paragraph 2 of minute 27. With reference to outstanding Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) as minuted in the final paragraph of minute 27, officers agreed to Councillor Barker’s request to provide an update on outstanding TROs to the July meeting.
5. Draft Accounts 2011/12 Mr. Steve Heath (Colchester) presented the Draft (pre-audited) Accounts for 2011/12, to be approved by the Committee so that the Annual Return could be submitted for audit by the statutory deadline of 30 June 2012. Mr. Heath confirmed to Mr. Durrani (Epping Forest) that the 2011/12 accounts did include a small surplus from Epping Forest, as held in the General Ledger. Responding to Councillor Barker, Mr. Heath confirmed that in line with auditors requirements the publication of the accounts was on the Colchester Borough Council Website, and a copy of the accounts was sent to each partner authority. In response to Councillor Clempner, Mr. Heath confirmed that a more detailed set of accounts
6
sat within the General Ledger. Mr. Walker said the accounts are a single fund and a breakdown of the fund could be provided to Councillor Clempner. RESOLVED that the Committee; i) Considered and approved the pre-audit accounts for 2011/12. ii) Requested that the Draft Accounts 2011/12 are published on the Parking Partnership
website.
6. The Annual Governance Statement Ms. Hayley McGrath (Colchester) presented the Annual Governance Statement 2012, to be approved by the Committee. Ms. McGrath said the report informed the Committee on corporate governance issues and gave reassurance to the Committee that the Parking Partnership complies with the principles of the Governance Framework. Ms. McGrath informed the Committee of the three areas of work where actions are required to ensure appropriate and cost effective services are delivered, and the actions taken. Ms. McGrath said the Audit Report 2011/12 and the Risk Register would be reported to the Committee at the next meeting. RESOLVED that the Committee; i) Approved the 2011/12 Annual Governance Statement for the North Essex Parking
Partnership. ii) Agreed to the positive completion of Section 2 of the Annual Return for 2011/12. iii) Agreed to the actions highlighted in the statement.
7. CCTV Car – Options report Ms. Emma Powell (Parking Partnership) introduced the report on CCTV Car options, setting out the reasons for considering this as a solution to the difficulty of foot patrolling ‘hotspot’ areas e.g. outside schools, a timely and costly approach. Mr. Steve Brown (Equita), assisted by Mr. Paul Sharp (Equita) and Mr. Chris Willis (SEA) – The vehicle supplier and operator - gave a presentation on CCTV Cars as a means of enforcing Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) using the latest mobile enforcement technology, and in line with the process set-out in the report. CCTV Cars are used to enforce TROs at Basildon, Plymouth and Bristol. A benchmarking exercise determined that the largest proportion of Parking Control Notices (PCN) issues is paid at the discounted rate, and on this basis, Equita was offering to provide the facility, receiving in income, £17.50 (half the discounted rate of £35 per PCN) for each PCN issued. A demonstration vehicle was available for Members and officers to view at the close of the meeting.
7
Mr. Walker circulated to Members a copy of a recent positive newspaper article on this subject, published in response to the item published on the agenda and to be discussed at the meeting. In response to Councillor Mitchell, Mr. Brown said CCTV Cars were more effective in areas where there was ‘no parking’ e.g. outside schools, designated as such due to the health and safety reasons. Trying to enforce on double yellow lines was more difficult, because of the law enabling drivers to stop to load/unload, to stop to allow passengers to disembark and for disabled drivers to park. Mr. Shane Taylor (Parking Partnership) said this would be beneficial in areas where there is a safety issue in a dangerous location. Mr. I. Taylor (Tendring) expressed caution with CCTV Cars for parking enforcement, saying in can bring negative publicity, and in some districts may wish to pre-publicize patrols outside schools to get a balance and not be seen as too heavy handed. Councillor Barker said the policy needed to be drafted setting-out where and when, e.g. parking outside schools outside of school time. Mr. McGill (Harlow) said the policy would need to clarify the position for unmarked Police Cars, Doctors and Health Visitors, and in response to Councillor Waller, Councillor Barker said the policy would need to stipulate the control routes and frequency of visits. Councillor Barker said a communication package including a positive press release on the introduction of this scheme would be essential. Ms. Vicky Duff (Essex County Council) informed Members that there would be a reluctance to increase road signage to inform drivers that CCTV parking enforcement is in operation. Mr. Sharp (Equita) explained to Members that the business case for the implementation of a CCTV Car was based on the vehicle covering the whole of the North Essex area, and if reduced, may not be financially viable. Mr. Walker (Parking Partnership) believed this scheme would need to cover the whole of North Essex, it needed to be all or nothing. Councillor Hunt said he was in favour of moving forward with the scheme. Councillor Clempner was broadly in favour of the scheme, but wanted more financial information to be able to make an informed judgement. Councillor Waller said he would like to see more information about the procurement process. RESOLVED that the Committee; i) Whilst happy in principle with the use of CCTV cars to enforce TROs, felt further
information was needed to make a more informed decision. ii) Requested a cost benefit analysis of the presented solution against a self-funded
solution, and more detail on the procurement process and other companies providing this service.
8. Harwich Quay - Concession to Parking Tariff Mr. Walker (Parking Partnership) introduced the report asking the Committee to consider the financial and parking aspects of the parking facility at Harwich Quay, and whether to offer a concession at the two Pay and Display machines in the lay-by. The concession brings the tariff in line with pay and display machines owned by Tendring District Council on a nearby adjacent site.
8
Mr. I. Taylor (Tendring) said the request was from Harwich Town Council. The situation was unique and very confusing to drivers parking their vehicle. The concession aligns the tariffs in both parking areas and removes any uncertainty. Mr. Walker (Parking Partnership) said the concession could cost the Parking Partnership up to £10,000 per annum. Councillor Mitchell said if Harwich Town Council want a tariff concession, they should pay for it, otherwise withdraw the concession. Councillors Clempner and Waller concurred with Councillor Mitchell. Whilst Councillor Hunt also concurred with Councillor Mitchell he did not wish this to be perceived as a negative reaction towards Tendring District. RESOLVED that the Joint Committee; i) Considered the parking and financial aspects of the parking facility at The Quay, Harwich, and decided not to offer a concession to the two Pay and Display machines at Harwich Quay (TWO voted FOR, and TWO voted AGAINST) The Chairman having the casting vote voted AGAINST.
9. Operations Report for On-Street Parking Ms. Lou Belgrove and Ms. Emma Powell (Parking Partnership) presented the Operations Report, an update on the Parking Partnership on-street operational issues since the last meeting, including updates on recruitment, accommodation, performance, backroom operations and the future. The recruitment process has proved difficult given that Enforcement Officers require a wide range of skills, but progress was now being made, with 47 of the 63 posts now filled. The posts would be sited at Harlow (18), Braintree (18) and Colchester (27). In order that the Parking Partnership are fully aware of the public’s comments on various schemes e.g. MiPermit, Mr. M. Young asked all officers to ensure all feedback, negative and positive, is relayed back to the Partnership. Ms. Belgrove confirmed that Ms. Emma Day would be covering her maternity leave from the end of July 2012. RESOLVED that the Committee noted the update and progress on the Parking Partnership operations for On-Street Parking, since the last Committee meeting.
10. Parking Partnership – Annual Report Mr. Richard Walker (Parking Partnership) presented the draft Annual Report that provided a review of the Parking Partnership operational service for 2011/12, to be published within three months of the close of the 2011/12 accounts. The report covers the whole operation and sets the scene in a local context, but using best practice guidelines. Councillor Barker thanked Mr. Walker for the hard work that had gone into producing the Annual Report, but felt the name of the Group Manager and other officers should be included within the text.
9
Mr. Walker confirmed to Councillor Barker that a glossary of acronyms could be found on the final page of the report. Councillor Barker asked for a ‘key’ to be added to the graph on page 19 of the report, ‘PCNs issued by type’, and the graph showing the number of payments made by type on page 20 of the report needed to tally with the total number of issued PCNs shown on table one of page 21 of the report. Mr. Walker confirmed to Councillor Barker that a copy of the Annual Report would be forwarded to all partner authorities. RESOLVED that the Committee considered and approved the draft Annual Report for publication pending the agreed changes.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Page 1 of 3
1 Introduction
1.1 Risk Management is the control of business risks in a manner consistent with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is an essential corporate governance process that ensures that both the long and short term objectives of the organisation are achieved and that opportunities are fully maximised. 1.2 Risk Management is not about eliminating risk, as this would limit the ability of the service to develop and deliver its ambitions. Its purpose is to recognise the issues that could effect the achievement of objectives and develop actions to control or reduce those risks. 1.3 It is essential that the service operates an effective risk management process which provides an assurance to all partners that it is being properly managed. As required by each partners own code of corporate governance.
Committee Date / Reference
North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Parking Committee 4 October 2012
Report Title The Parking Partnership Risk Management Strategy and Risk Register
Report Subject Review of the current risk management strategy and risk register.
Reason and Decision being sought
Risk management is an essential corporate governance process that provides an assurance to all partners that the service is being properly managed.
The committee is requested to:
Endorse the Risk Management Strategy for 2012/13.
Review and comment on the risk register for the North Essex Parking Partnership.
Type of Report Governance
Report Author/ Job Title
Report by Hayley McGrath Risk & Resilience Manager
2.1 An effective risk management process is a continuous cycle of
identification, controlling, monitoring and reviewing of potential risk issues.
2.2 For the NEPP this is governed by a strategy for managing risk that sets out the roles and responsibilities of the joint committee and officers. It also defines the types of risk, the processes to be followed and the review arrangements.
2.3 The main document is the risk register which captures details relating to both strategic and operational risks and the actions to be undertaken to control those risks. This will be reported at least twice a year to the joint committee.
3.0 Review of the Risk Management Strategy 3.1 The strategy should be reviewed annually to ensure that it is still relevant
to the service and that it meets the governance objectives. Therefore a review has been carried out and the draft strategy for 2012/13 has been attached at appendix 1 for approval. The review did not highlight the need for any significant amendments.
4.0 Review of the Risk Register
4.1 The register, attached at appendix 2, was originally agreed by this
committee in March 2011. This sets out the strategic and operational risks, which are scored for impact and probability, enabling the risks to be ranked, so that resources can be directed to the key areas.
4.2 Currently the highest ranking strategic risks are: Impact of potential future financial challenges Financial constraints of partners & Changes in the political will of partners.
4.3 The highest operational risk is related to the professionalism and conduct of officers and members 4.4 It is requested that this committee reviews the risks to ensure that they still reflect the issues faced by the service and that they are appropriately scored.
21
Page 3 of 3
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 5.1 Members are asked to note and endorse the Risk Management Strategy
for the North Essex Parking Partnership and to agree the strategic risk register, subject to any requested amendments.
6.0 Standard References 6.1 Having considered consultation, equality, diversity and human rights,
community safety, health and safety and risk management implications, there are none that are significant to the matters in this report.
Attached Papers: Appendix 1 – Draft Risk Management Strategy for 2012/13 Appendix 2 – Draft risk register June 2012
This document outlines the Service’s commitment to managing risk in an effective and appropriate manner. It is intended to be used as the framework for delivery of the Risk Management function and provides guidance for officers on developing risk management as a routine management process.
INTRODUCTION The Service undertakes that this strategy will promote and ensure that: 1. The management of risk is linked to performance improvement and the
achievement of the Service‟s strategic objectives. 2. Members of the committee and Senior Management of the Service own, lead and
support on risk management. 3. Ownership and accountability are clearly assigned for the management of risks
throughout the Service. 4. There is a commitment to embedding risk management into the Service‟s culture
and organisational processes at all levels including strategic, project and operational
5. All members and officers acknowledge the importance of risk management as a
process, by which key risks and opportunities are identified, evaluated, managed and contribute towards good corporate governance.
6. Effective monitoring and reporting mechanisms are in place to continuously review
the Service‟s exposure to, and management of, risks and opportunities. 7. Best practice systems for managing risk are used throughout the Service, including
mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing effectiveness against agreed standards and targets.
8. Accountability to stakeholders is fully demonstrated through periodic reviews of the
Service‟s risks, which are reported to the committee. 9. The Risk Management Strategy is reviewed and updated annually in line with the
“The North Essex Parking Partnerhsip is committed to ensuring that risks to the effective delivery of its services and achievement of its overall objectives are properly and adequately controlled. It is recognised that effective management of risk will enable the Service to maximise its opportunities and enhance the value of services it provides to the community. The North Essex Parking Partnership expects all officers and members to have due regard for risk when carrying out their duties.”
signature required
WHAT IS RISK MANAGEMENT
Risk Management is the control of business risks in a manner consistent with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is an essential performance management process to ensure that both the long and short term objectives of the Service are achieved and that opportunities are fully maximised. Risk Management is not about eliminating risk, as this would limit the ability of the service to develop and deliver its ambitions. Its purpose is to recognise the issues that could effect the achievement of the objectives and develop actions to control or reduce those risks. Acknowledgement of potential problems and preparing for them is an essential element to successfully delivering any service or project. Good management of risk will enable the Service to rapidly respond to change and develop innovative responses to challenges and opportunities. „The Good Governance Standard for Public Services‟ issued by The Independent Commission on Good Governance in Public Services states that there are six core principles of good governance including „Taking informed, transparent decisions and managing risk‟. The document goes on to state „Risk management is important to the successful delivery of public services. An effective risk management system identifies and assesses risks, decides on appropriate responses and then provides assurance that the chosen responses are effective‟.
The responsibility to manage risk rests with every member and officer of the service however it is essential that there is a clearly defined structure for the co-ordination and review of risk information and ownership of the process.
The following defines the responsibility for the risk management process within the joint parking service: Joint Committee – Overall ownership of the risk management process and endorsement of the strategic direction of risk management. Responsible for periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the risk management process. Head Of Resource Management, Colchester Borough Council – Responsible for co-ordination of the risk management process, co-ordinating and preparing reports and providing advice and support. North Essex Parking Partnership Manager – Ownership, control and reporting of the service‟s operational risks. Embed a risk management culture in the service. All Employees – To understand and to take ownership of the need to identify, assess, and help manage risk in their individual areas of responsibility. Bringing to the management‟s attention at the earliest opportunity details of any emerging risks that may adversely impact on service delivery. Internal Audit, External Audit and other Review Bodies – Annual review and report on the Service‟s arrangements for managing risk, having regard to statutory requirements and best practice. Assurance on the effectiveness of risk management and the controls environment.
The aim of the service is to adopt best practices in the identification, evaluation, cost-effective control and monitoring of risks across all processes to ensure that risks are properly considered and reduced as far as practicable. The risk management objectives of the North Essex Parking Partnership are to: Integrate risk management into the culture of the service Ensure that there are strong and identifiable links between managing risk and
all other management and performance processes. Manage risk in accordance with best practice Anticipate and respond to changing social, environmental and legislative
requirements Prevent injury, damage and losses and reduce the cost of risk Raise awareness of the need for risk management by all those connected with
the delivery of services. Ensure that opportunities are properly maximised through the control of risk. Reduce duplication between services in managing overlapping risks and
promote „best practise‟.
Strategic Risk Management
Strategic risks are essentially those that threaten the long term goals of the service and therefore are mainly based around meeting the objectives of the Service Agreement. They may also represent developing issues that have the potential to fundamentally effect service provision, such as proposals to dramatically change County Council arrangements.
Operational Risk Management
Operational risks are those that threaten the routine service delivery and those that are associated with providing the service. These could include damage to equipment and Health and Safety issues.
Links
It is essential that risk management does not operate in isolation to other management processes. To fully embed a risk management culture it has to be demonstrated that risk is considered and influences all decisions that the service makes. It is essential that there is a defined link between the results of managing risk and the following: Service Delivery Plan Revenue and Capital Budgets Annual Internal Audit Plan
Action Required The following actions will be implemented to achieve the objectives set out above: Development of a risk register that identifies the strategic and operational risks
and outline the actions to be taken in respect of those risks. Considering risk management as part of the service‟s strategic planning and
corporate governance arrangements Ensuring that the responsibility for risk management is clearly and appropriately
allocated Maintaining documented procedures for managing risk Maintaining a corporate approach to identify and prioritise key services and key
risks across the service and assess risks on key projects. Maintain a corporate mechanism to evaluate these key risks and determine if
they are being adequately managed and financed. Establish a procedure for ensuring that there is a cohesive approach to linking
the risks to other management processes Including risk management considerations in all committee reports Ensure appropriate risk management awareness training for both members and
officers. Establishing a reporting system which will provide assurance on how well the
service is managing its key risks and ensures that the appropriate Members and officers are fully briefed on risk issues.
Preparing contingency plans in areas where there is a potential for an occurrence to have a significant effect on the service and its business capability.
Regularly reviewing the risk process to ensure that it complies with current national Governance Standards and Best Practice.
REPORTING & REVIEW
To ensure that the risk management process is effective it will need to be measured and reported to the Joint Committee at least every six months, with an annual review demonstrating the effectiveness of the risk management programme. The results of the Joint Committee reviews should be fed into the risk reporting process for each partner to ensure that each Authority has the necessary evidence to provide assurance for their own governance requirements.
Risk Management is a continual process of identifying risks, evaluating their potential consequences and determining the most effective methods of controlling them and / or responding to them. The risks faced by the Service are constantly changing and the continual process of monitoring risks should ensure that we can respond to the new challenges. This process is referred to as the risk management cycle.
Stage 1 – Risk Identification Identifying and understanding the hazards and risks facing the service is crucial if informed decisions are to be made about policies or service delivery methods. There is detailed guidance available on how to identify risks which includes team sessions and individual knowledge. Once identified a risk should be reported to the Parking Partnership Manager who will consider its inclusion on the relevant risk register. If the risk is identified in between register reviews then it is reported to the Risk & Resilience Manager for information and the Parking Partnership Manager is responsible for managing the risk.
Stage 2 – Risk Analysis Once risks have been identified they need to be systematically and accurately assessed. If a risk is seen to be unacceptable, then steps need to be taken to control or respond to it.
Stage 3 – Risk Control Risk control is the process of taking action to minimise the likelihood of the risk event occurring and / or reducing the severity of the consequences should it occur.
Stage 4 – Risk Monitoring The risk management process does not finish with the risk control procedures in place. Their effectiveness in controlling risk must be monitored and reviewed. It is also important to assess whether the nature of the risk has changed over time.
28
No
rth
Es
se
x P
ark
ing
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
Ris
k R
eg
iste
r
O
cto
ber
20
12
Ve
rsio
n 2
RW
/HJM
AG
RE
ED
BY
CO
MM
ITT
EE
: 0
4 O
ct 2
01
2
NE
XT
RE
VIE
W:
Mar
ch 2
01
3
P
age
1 o
f 7
ST
RA
TE
GIC
RIS
KS
RIS
K
No
. R
ISK
C
ON
SE
QU
EN
CE
C
ON
TR
OL
S
BY
WH
OM
R
EV
IEW
S
CO
RE
W
OR
KIN
GS
1.1
A p
art
ne
r is
no
t re
pre
se
nte
d a
t a
m
eetin
g a
s n
o
mem
be
r fr
om
tha
t a
uth
ority
ha
s
att
en
ded
, o
r th
e
att
en
dee
do
es n
ot
ha
ve
exe
cu
tive
p
ow
ers
.
The
re is a
n im
ba
lan
ce
in t
he
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g p
ow
er
of
the
co
mm
itte
e.
A d
ecis
ion
is t
ake
n o
n a
lo
ca
l m
atte
r w
ith
ou
t lo
ca
l re
pre
se
nta
tion
. D
ecis
ion
makin
g d
ela
ye
d.
Ea
ch
au
tho
rity
will
no
min
ate
a
su
bstitu
te m
em
be
r w
ho
ha
s
exe
cu
tive
po
we
rs.
P
ub
lish
da
tes in
go
od
tim
e
co
mb
ine
mee
tin
gs w
ith
oth
er
co
mm
itm
en
ts w
he
re
po
ssib
le.
Ea
ch
m
em
be
r a
uth
ority
Ma
r 2
013
9
3x3
1.2
Due
to f
inan
cia
l co
nstr
ain
ts,
on
e o
f th
e
pa
rtne
rs c
ha
llen
ge
s
the
ir f
un
din
g
arr
an
ge
men
ts f
or
the
p
art
ne
rsh
ip
Decre
ase
in s
erv
ice p
rovis
ion
/ fa
ilure
of
the
pa
rtne
rsh
ip.
Str
an
de
d c
osts
to
be
co
ve
red
b
y t
he
rem
ain
de
r of
the
p
art
ne
rs.
En
su
re th
at
mem
be
r a
uth
ority
rep
rese
nta
tive
s f
ully
u
nde
rsta
nd
the
pa
rtne
rsh
ip
agre
em
en
t an
d a
re in
vo
lve
d
in t
he b
ud
ge
t se
ttin
g o
f e
ach
au
tho
rity
Chie
f F
ina
nce
O
ffic
er
Ma
r 2
013
12
3x4
1.3
The
re’s
a c
ha
nge
in
p
olit
ica
l w
ill o
f a
p
art
ne
r th
at
lead
s t
o
the
pa
rtne
r w
ith
dra
win
g f
rom
th
e
arr
an
ge
men
t
Decre
ase
in s
erv
ice
pro
vis
ion
. T
he
pa
rtne
rship
fa
ils a
nd
e
xte
rna
l fu
nd
ing is lo
st o
r n
eed
s t
o b
e r
ep
aid
.
En
su
re th
at
pe
rform
ance
of
the
pa
rtne
rship
is
ap
pro
pria
tely
rep
ort
ed
ba
ck
to e
ach
au
tho
rity
an
d th
e
eff
ects
of
with
dra
win
g a
re
un
de
rsto
od
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
12
3x4
1.4
Pre
fere
nce
s o
f m
em
be
rs d
icta
tes th
e
dire
ctio
n o
f th
e
me
etin
g.
The
ite
ms fo
r de
cis
ion
on
th
e
age
nd
a d
o n
ot re
ce
ive
e
qu
ita
ble
de
ba
te a
nd
mo
re
imp
ort
an
t ite
ms m
ay n
ot
rece
ive
pro
pe
r con
sid
era
tio
n.
Str
on
g c
ha
irm
an
sh
ip o
f th
e
me
etin
gs.
Me
mbe
rs s
hou
ld e
nsu
re t
ha
t th
ey a
re a
wa
re o
f th
e
co
mm
itte
e p
roto
co
ls.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
6
3x2
29
No
rth
Es
se
x P
ark
ing
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
Ris
k R
eg
iste
r
O
cto
ber
20
12
Ve
rsio
n 2
RW
/HJM
AG
RE
ED
BY
CO
MM
ITT
EE
: 0
4 O
ct 2
01
2
NE
XT
RE
VIE
W:
Mar
ch 2
01
3
P
age
2 o
f 7
RIS
K
No
. R
ISK
C
ON
SE
QU
EN
CE
C
ON
TR
OL
S
BY
WH
OM
R
EV
IEW
S
CO
RE
W
OR
KIN
GS
1.5
Rela
tio
nsh
ip b
etw
ee
n
se
nio
r m
ana
ge
men
t of
the
pa
rtne
rship
an
d
the
co
mm
itte
e
de
terio
rate
s.
Lo
w m
ora
le,
p
oo
r de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g
red
uced
cap
acity
La
ck o
f in
no
va
tio
n.
Str
on
g le
ade
rship
of
the
p
art
ne
rsh
ip
Op
en a
nd
ho
ne
st
co
mm
un
ication b
etw
ee
n
ma
na
ge
me
nt a
nd
com
mitte
e
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
4
2x2
1.6
L
ack o
f pa
rtne
rship
su
ppo
rt f
or
sh
are
d
targ
ets
.
Failu
re t
o d
eliv
er
key t
arg
ets
, m
issed
opp
ort
un
itie
s,
Tarn
ished
repu
tatio
n.
En
su
re th
at
pa
rtne
rs a
re f
ully
b
rie
fed
on
and
com
mitte
d to
sh
are
d ta
rge
ts.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
3
1x3
1.7
Esse
x C
ou
nty
Co
un
cil
revie
w d
ecrim
ina
lise
d
pa
rkin
g s
erv
ices
acro
ss t
he
cou
nty
and
m
ake f
un
dam
en
tal
ch
an
ge
s to
th
e
se
rvic
e.
Direct
eff
ect o
n t
he
p
art
ne
rsh
ip a
s a
ny C
ou
nty
ch
an
ge
s w
ill e
ffe
ct
the
se
rvic
es t
ha
t th
e p
art
ne
rship
a
re r
equ
ire
d to
de
live
r p
ossib
ly r
esu
ltin
g in
re
so
urc
ing a
nd d
eliv
ery
is
sue
s.
Me
mbe
rs o
f th
e c
om
mitte
e
sh
ou
ld m
ain
tain
clo
se
lia
iso
n
with
Co
un
ty a
nd
en
su
re t
ha
t a
ll o
ppo
rtun
itie
s t
o p
art
icip
ate
in
dis
cussio
ns a
re ta
ken
.
Cha
ir o
f th
e
join
t co
mm
itte
e
Ma
r 2
013
6
2x3
1.8
Decis
ion
s a
re ta
ken
o
n a
po
litic
al b
asis
as
op
po
se
d to
be
ing
co
nsid
ere
d o
n th
eir
ow
n m
erits
.
Decis
ion
s a
re n
ot in
the
be
st
inte
rests
of
the
pa
rtne
rship
. Im
ba
lan
ce
in s
erv
ices
pro
vid
ed
to
ea
ch
pa
rtne
r.
Rep
ort
s s
ho
uld
be c
lear
rega
rdin
g o
utc
om
es a
nd
b
enefits
to
the
wid
er
pa
rtne
rsh
ip.
Me
mbe
rs s
hou
ld e
nsu
re t
ha
t th
ey a
re a
wa
re o
f th
eir r
ole
a
nd
acco
un
tab
ility
wh
en
re
pre
se
ntin
g t
he
pa
rtne
rship
Cha
ir o
f th
e
join
t co
mm
itte
e
Ma
r 2
013
4
2x2
1.9
Po
ten
tia
l fu
ture
fina
ncia
l ch
alle
nge
s, of
red
uced
in
com
e a
nd
in
cre
ase
d c
osts
, a
re
gre
ate
r th
an
exp
ecte
d.
Ina
bili
ty t
o in
ve
st
in th
e f
utu
re
of
the
se
rvic
e.
Mis
sed
opp
ort
un
itie
s
Failu
re o
f th
e s
erv
ice.
Fin
an
cia
l pe
rfo
rma
nce
is
str
inge
ntly m
on
ito
red
an
d
de
via
ncie
s r
epo
rted
to
th
e
pa
rtne
rsh
ip f
or
action
.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
16
4x4
30
No
rth
Es
se
x P
ark
ing
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
Ris
k R
eg
iste
r
O
cto
ber
20
12
Ve
rsio
n 2
RW
/HJM
AG
RE
ED
BY
CO
MM
ITT
EE
: 0
4 O
ct 2
01
2
NE
XT
RE
VIE
W:
Mar
ch 2
01
3
P
age
3 o
f 7
OP
ER
AT
ION
AL
RIS
KS
RIS
K
No
. R
ISK
C
ON
SE
QU
EN
CE
C
ON
TR
OL
S
BY
WH
OM
R
EV
IEW
S
CO
RE
W
OR
KIN
GS
2.1
Hig
h s
taff
tu
rno
ve
r S
taff
una
ble
to
pro
vid
e
se
rvic
es d
ue
to e
xce
ssiv
e o
r co
nflic
tin
g w
ork
loa
ds
Una
ble
to
pro
vid
e m
ore
tha
n
a m
inim
al se
rvic
e lea
din
g t
o
a r
ep
uta
tion
lo
ss a
nd
lo
ss o
f in
co
me
Eff
ective
recru
itm
ent
an
d
train
ing p
roce
sse
s
Fle
xib
le a
pp
roa
ch
to
recru
itin
g c
asu
al an
d a
ge
ncy
sta
ff
Pa
y/C
on
ditio
ns c
om
para
ble
to
sim
ilar
job
s.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
2
1x2
2.2
Ina
bili
ty t
o a
cce
ss
bu
ildin
gs/s
yste
ms
requ
ire
d f
iles a
nd
co
mpu
ters
to
pro
vid
e
se
rvic
e.
Inte
rru
ptio
n to
th
e s
upp
ly o
f th
e s
erv
ice,
Lo
ss o
f in
com
e a
nd
re
pu
tatio
n. In
ab
ility
to
de
live
r u
rge
nt
wo
rk. F
ailu
re t
o m
eet
lega
l o
r re
gu
lato
ry d
ead
line
s.
Deve
lop
men
t of
a B
usin
ess
Con
tin
uity P
lan.
Ea
ch
pa
rtne
r shou
ld c
on
sid
er
insu
ring f
or
loss o
f in
com
e fo
r off
str
ee
t p
ark
ing.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
8
2x4
2.3
Fra
ud
is c
om
mitte
d
with
in o
r to
the
se
rvic
e.
La
ck o
f re
sou
rces t
o f
un
d
esse
ntia
l item
s o
f e
xp
en
ditu
re.
Fin
an
cia
l a
nd
rep
uta
tio
na
l lo
ss to
the
se
rvic
e.
Red
uction
in
se
rvic
e
to c
ove
r lo
sse
s.
Recru
it m
an
age
rs w
ith
fina
ncia
l m
an
agem
ent skill
s
an
d e
xp
erie
nce
. R
egu
lar
mo
nito
rin
g a
nd
co
ntr
ol of
exp
end
itu
re a
nd
in
co
me
.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
3
1x3
2.4
Po
or
con
trol of
bu
dge
ts a
nd f
inan
cia
l p
lan
nin
g
Ove
rspe
nd
ing o
r un
de
r-re
co
ve
ry o
f fu
nd
s lea
din
g t
o
pre
ssu
re to
cut
oth
er
activitie
s.
Regu
lar
mo
nito
rin
g w
ith
the
le
ad
au
tho
rity
’s a
cco
unta
nt.
Fin
an
cia
l pe
rfo
rma
nce
is
str
inge
ntly m
on
ito
red
an
d
de
via
ncie
s r
epo
rted
to
th
e
pa
rtne
rsh
ip.
Suff
icie
nt
info
rma
tio
n is g
ive
n a
bo
ut
va
ria
nce
s t
o e
nab
le fu
ture
fo
reca
stin
g.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
5
1x5
31
No
rth
Es
se
x P
ark
ing
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
Ris
k R
eg
iste
r
O
cto
ber
20
12
Ve
rsio
n 2
RW
/HJM
AG
RE
ED
BY
CO
MM
ITT
EE
: 0
4 O
ct 2
01
2
NE
XT
RE
VIE
W:
Mar
ch 2
01
3
P
age
4 o
f 7
RIS
K
No
. R
ISK
C
ON
SE
QU
EN
CE
C
ON
TR
OL
S
BY
WH
OM
R
EV
IEW
S
CO
RE
W
OR
KIN
GS
2.5
Se
rvic
e d
eliv
ery
is
mis
alig
ne
d to
th
e
co
un
ty’s
ove
rarc
hin
g
pa
rkin
g p
olic
ies.
Failu
re t
o d
eliv
er
key c
ou
nty
ta
rge
ts,
mis
sed
fu
nd
ing o
pp
ort
un
itie
s
tarn
ish
ed
sta
nd
ing a
nd
rep
uta
tio
n
Eff
ective
jo
int-
wo
rkin
g a
nd
co
mm
un
ication
. E
nsu
re th
at
str
ate
gic
po
licy
of
the
pa
rtne
rsh
ip s
up
po
rts
co
un
ty’s
ob
jective
s.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
3
1x3
2.6
Ina
de
qu
acy o
f R
epa
irs
an
d R
en
ew
als
p
rovis
ion
.
Red
uction
or
clo
su
re o
f se
rvic
es d
ue
to f
ailu
re o
f p
lan
t, e
qu
ipm
ent
or
infr
astr
uctu
re.
Fun
din
g p
rogra
mm
es
pre
se
nte
d d
urin
g b
ud
ge
t se
ttin
g p
roce
ss.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
3
1x3
2.7
Su
nd
ry f
ee
s a
nd
ch
arg
es a
sso
cia
ted
with
th
e e
nfo
rcem
ent
pro
ce
ss d
o n
ot
refle
ct
the
tru
e c
ost
of
enfo
rcem
en
t.
Se
rvic
e d
oe
s n
ot
run
a
cco
rdin
g t
o b
usin
ess p
lan
a
nd
ca
nno
t b
rea
k e
ve
n in
the
giv
en
tim
esca
le.
Mo
nito
rin
g f
utu
re c
ha
nge
s in
le
gis
latio
n.
En
su
rin
g t
hat m
ana
gem
ent
are
active
ly in
vo
lve
d in
in
flu
en
cin
g n
ation
al deb
ate
re
ga
rdin
g p
ark
ing p
olic
y a
nd
str
ate
gy.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
6
3x2
2.8
Ineff
ective
co
mm
un
ication
of
so
lution
s a
cro
ss
pa
rtne
rsh
ip
Failu
re t
o s
ha
re info
rma
tio
n
lea
din
g t
o ‘silo
’ eff
ect
an
d
po
or
use
of
resou
rces a
nd
/
or
lea
rnin
g.
Regu
lar
me
etin
gs w
ith
co
un
ty a
nd
pa
rtne
rship
co
mm
itte
e.
Gro
up
an
d te
am
m
eetin
gs,
1-1
’s, p
erf
orm
an
ce
m
ana
ge
me
nt p
roce
sses,
task
gro
up
s, T
eam
Le
ad
ers
M
ee
tin
gs &
Cu
sto
me
r E
xce
llen
ce
. E
ffe
ctive
tra
inin
g.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
4
2x2
32
No
rth
Es
se
x P
ark
ing
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
Ris
k R
eg
iste
r
O
cto
ber
20
12
Ve
rsio
n 2
RW
/HJM
AG
RE
ED
BY
CO
MM
ITT
EE
: 0
4 O
ct 2
01
2
NE
XT
RE
VIE
W:
Mar
ch 2
01
3
P
age
5 o
f 7
RIS
K
No
. R
ISK
C
ON
SE
QU
EN
CE
C
ON
TR
OL
S
BY
WH
OM
R
EV
IEW
S
CO
RE
W
OR
KIN
GS
2.9
Se
rio
us a
ccid
ents
to
sta
ff / c
usto
me
rs /
pu
blic
Inju
ry /
de
ath
to
sta
ff /
cu
sto
me
rs, fin
an
cia
l a
nd
re
pu
tatio
n lo
ss t
o t
he
se
rvic
e.
Inju
ry t
o s
taff
.
Ris
k a
sse
ssm
en
ts.
Mo
nito
rin
g a
nd R
evie
w o
f a
ccid
ents
. T
rain
ing /
man
agem
ent
inp
ut
to e
nsu
re H
ea
lth
and
Safe
ty
Resp
on
sib
ilitie
s o
wn
ed b
y
Ma
na
ge
rs a
nd
sta
ff.
Safe
wo
rkin
g p
ractices.
do
cum
en
ted
an
d fo
llow
ed
. B
uild
ing S
afe
ty A
ud
its
Ab
use lo
gs
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
10
2x5
2.1
0
Failu
re t
o a
dd
ress
Hea
lth
& S
afe
ty
issue
s.
Fin
an
cia
l an
d r
ep
uta
tion
al
loss t
o th
e s
erv
ice.
Ris
ks to
sta
ff a
nd p
ub
lic,
low
mora
le.
En
su
re th
at
the
re is
ad
equ
ate
tra
inin
g f
or
sta
ff, a
t a
ll le
ve
ls, to
und
ers
tand
the
ir
resp
on
sib
ilitie
s. E
nsu
re t
he
re
is b
ette
r cle
are
r gu
idance
fo
r sta
ff.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
3
1x3
2 .
11
Vu
lne
rab
ility
of
sta
ff
wh
ilst
on
du
ty –
a
ssa
ult o
r accid
en
t.
Fin
an
cia
l an
d r
ep
uta
tion
al
loss t
o th
e s
erv
ice.
Ris
ks to
sta
ff a
nd p
ub
lic,
low
mora
le.
Lo
ne
Wo
rke
r P
olic
y
Cau
tio
na
ry C
on
tact
Sch
em
e
Orb
is m
on
ito
rin
g in
clu
din
g
GP
S S
yste
m M
on
ito
rin
g &
F
ollo
w u
p o
f in
cid
en
ts &
re
vie
w o
f p
roce
du
res.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
8
2x4
2.1
2
Theft
/ v
an
da
lism
of
pro
pe
rty.
Ad
ditio
na
l co
st,
ne
ga
tive
im
pa
ct o
n s
erv
ice a
nd
re
pu
tatio
n.
Regu
lar
Safe
ty A
ud
its a
nd
In
sp
ectio
ns
Me
asu
res to
rectify
pro
ble
ms
qu
ickly
in
clu
din
g o
ut of
ho
urs
S
ecu
rity
me
asu
res.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
4
1x4
33
No
rth
Es
se
x P
ark
ing
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
Ris
k R
eg
iste
r
O
cto
ber
20
12
Ve
rsio
n 2
RW
/HJM
AG
RE
ED
BY
CO
MM
ITT
EE
: 0
4 O
ct 2
01
2
NE
XT
RE
VIE
W:
Mar
ch 2
01
3
P
age
6 o
f 7
RIS
K
No
. R
ISK
C
ON
SE
QU
EN
CE
C
ON
TR
OL
S
BY
WH
OM
R
EV
IEW
S
CO
RE
W
OR
KIN
GS
2.1
3
Po
or
wo
rkin
g
rela
tion
sh
ip b
etw
ee
n
ma
na
ge
rs a
nd
the
ir
team
s.
Lo
w m
ora
le, p
oo
r de
cis
ion
m
akin
g r
edu
ce
d c
apa
city
lack o
f in
no
va
tio
n.
Tea
m b
uild
ing,
tra
inin
g &
in
ve
stm
en
t -
Custo
me
r E
xce
llen
ce
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
2
1x2
2.1
4
The
pro
fessio
na
lism
a
nd
co
ndu
ct of
an
off
icer
or
mem
be
r fa
ils
to m
ee
t th
e e
xp
ecte
d
sta
nda
rds.
The
wo
rk o
f th
e p
art
ners
hip
is
bo
ugh
t in
to d
isre
pute
. P
ub
lic o
pin
ion o
f th
e c
ivil
enfo
rcem
en
t off
icers
is p
oo
r.
Po
ten
tia
l in
cre
ase
in d
isp
ute
s
imp
acts
on t
he
repu
tatio
n
an
d s
tand
ing o
f th
e
pa
rtne
rsh
ip.
Gre
ate
r risk o
f co
nfr
on
tatio
n
with
th
e p
ub
lic.
En
su
re th
at
all
civ
il e
nfo
rcem
en
t off
icers
rece
ive
p
rofe
ssio
na
l tr
ain
ing.
Deve
lop
th
e h
an
dbo
ok f
or
enfo
rcem
en
t to
refle
ct
ch
an
ge
s o
f ne
w p
art
ners
hip
E
nsu
re th
at
all
off
ice
rs
un
de
rsta
nd
pro
toco
ls o
f o
pe
ratio
n a
nd e
xp
ecte
d
sta
nda
rds o
f con
du
ct.
R
egu
lar
mo
nito
rin
g o
f co
mp
lain
ts to
ide
ntify
tre
nd
s.
En
su
re th
at
all
mem
bers
are
a
wa
re t
ha
t th
ey s
till
nee
d to
co
mp
ly w
ith
th
eir o
wn
o
rga
nis
ation
’s c
od
e o
f co
ndu
ct.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
12
3x4
2.1
5
The
cha
nge
s to
the
ca
sh
co
llectio
n
pro
ce
sse
s o
f th
e le
ad
au
tho
rity
im
pa
ct o
n th
e
se
rvic
e -
fin
an
cia
lly o
r p
roce
du
rally
.
Incre
ased
co
sts
in te
rms o
f co
llectio
n a
nd c
oun
tin
g o
f ca
sh
. C
ash
co
llection
fre
qu
en
cy
ma
y r
ed
uce.
En
su
re th
at
the
requ
irem
ents
of
the
se
rvic
e a
re fu
lly
define
d a
nd
in
clu
de
d in
fu
ture
ca
sh
co
llection
d
ecis
ion
s.
Pa
rkin
g
Pa
rtne
rship
M
an
age
r
Ma
r 2
013
9
3x3
34
No
rth
Es
se
x P
ark
ing
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
Ris
k R
eg
iste
r
O
cto
ber
20
12
Ve
rsio
n 2
RW
/HJM
AG
RE
ED
BY
CO
MM
ITT
EE
: 0
4 O
ct 2
01
2
NE
XT
RE
VIE
W:
Mar
ch 2
01
3
P
age
7 o
f 7
IMP
AC
T T
AB
LE
V
ery
Low
1
Low
2
Me
diu
m
3
Hig
h
4
Ve
ry
Hig
h
5
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
Y
<1
0%
10 –
25%
25 –
50%
50 –
75%
<
75
%
Imp
act
M
inim
al -
no
inte
rru
ptio
n t
o s
erv
ice
d
eliv
ery
<
£10k
Min
or
- t
em
pora
ry
dis
ruptio
n to
serv
ice
d
eliv
ery
£
11
k -
£25k
Sig
nific
ant
-
inte
rru
ptio
n t
o p
art
of
the s
erv
ice
£
26
k -
£75k
Se
ve
re –
fu
ll in
terr
uptio
n t
o s
erv
ice
d
eliv
ery
£
76
k -
£10
0k
Ca
tastr
oph
ic –
co
mp
lete
se
rvic
e
failu
re
£10
0k<
Min
imum
Sco
re =
1
Ma
xim
um
Sco
re =
25
Lo
w r
isk =
1 –
4 M
ed
ium
Ris
k =
5 –
12
H
igh
Ris
k =
13
– 2
5
35
1
North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Commitee
Item
7b
4 October 2012
Report of Treasurer to the Joint Parking
Committee Author Steve Heath
282389
Title Annual Statement of Accounts 2011/12
This report presents the audited Annual Return for 2011/12
1. Action required 1.1 To note the publication of the audited Annual Return for 2011/12. 2. Supporting information 2.1 The pre-audit draft accounts for the financial year 2011/12 were presented to this
Committee on 21 June. The accompanying reports gave information on the major items affecting the 2011/12 accounts.
2.2 The Annual Return for 2011/12 was signed by the auditor on 5 September 2012, and is
attached as a background paper to this report. This confirms an unqualified opinion. 2.3 The Auditor comments in section 3 of the return that the minute reference of the meeting
approving the accounts should be included in the completed return. These were not available in time for the submission deadline, but the auditor was provided with this information subsequently.
3. Financial implications 3.1 The publication of the audited return and Notice of Conclusion of Audit meet a statutory
requirement for financial reporting and is an important part of the process to demonstrate accountability in the use of public funds.
4. Publicity considerations 4.1 The Notice of Conclusion of Audit and Annual Return have been published on the
Colchester Borough Council website. Details of the notice and the Annual Return have been made available to partners.
5. Other standard references 5.1 Having considered consultation, equality, diversity and human rights, health and safety
and community safety and risk management implications, there are none that are significant to the matters in this report.
Background Papers Notice of Conclusion of Audit Annual Return
36
North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee
NOTICE OF CONCLUSION OF AUDIT AND RIGHT TO INSPECT THE ANNUAL RETURN
ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012
Section 14 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 The Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/817) The audit of the accounting statements for the North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee for the year ended 31 March 2012 has been concluded. The accounting statements are available for inspection by any local government elector for the area of the North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee on application to: Steve Heath Finance Manager Colchester Borough Council Rowan House, 33 Sheepen Road, Colchester CO3 3WG e-mail: [email protected] Copies will be provided to any local government elector upon request. This announcement is made by: Steve Heath, Finance Manager Date: 20 September 2012.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Page 1 of 3
Report to: Joint Committee, Parking Partnership 8
Date: 4 October 2012 Subject: Harwich Quay Pay & Display Area Author: Richard Walker, NE Parking Partnership Presented by: Richard Walker, Group Manager, NE Parking Partnership 1. Introduction and Purpose of Report
1.1 This report is about the on-street parking area at Harwich Quay.
1.2 A report was brought to the last meeting on the same subject, and Harwich Town Council has raised the matter again.
1.3 The Committee is requested to look again at the issue of Harwich Quay by Harwich Town Council, having raised the questions in the letter attached as an Appendix.
1.4 At the previous meeting, the Committee voted not to pursue the requested concession at this location.
2. Questions and Decision
2.1 The figures are drawn from the data recorded at the machine, which is uploaded in to a database and can then be reported on as to the sales of tickets and the total income received. The data was used to estimate an annual income, which was then extrapolated across the year to produce the estimate of £10,000.
2.2 Machines have recorded income of £15004.50 for the period 1 April – 28 September 2012, which would reasonably be expected to form a total in excess of £25k in the full year, allowing for seasonality, meaning that the previously-calculated loss of £10k may be an underestimate based on these new figures.
2.3 The concession requested is an offer to the motorist that after 3pm, no tariff is payable. This has been made available at the Tendring site as a financial concession, rather than a tariff amendment, and so could be introduced with almost immediate effect (information and signage pending).
2.4 The effect of introducing the concession would be to remove all income received after 3pm.
2.5 There is no evidence to suggest that the tariff is in any way confusing; drivers are instructed to check the tariff board whenever visiting a parking area, and there have been few penalty charge notices issued (two, since April) for the failure to display a valid ticket in these bays.
2.6 The graph overleaf shows that the actual time of purchase of tickets has two peaks, one around noon and the other during the evening:
44
Page 2 of 3
Total tickets purchased by time
2.7 On-street pay and display areas in other districts are controlled by North Essex Parking Partnership. No other concession is currently operated or proposed.
2.8 In addition, there is no statistical support for any suggestion that the imposition of parking charges has kept away visitors – the statistics imply that the usage has remained extremely consistent despite the “free” parking offer in the bays nearby with more tickets in fact having been sold in the subject period August-September than May-June 2012 (at a rate of 1.361 tickets per hour versus 1.359 tickets per hour, on average).
2.9 Members are asked to discuss the revised request to offer a concession, taking the new data into account.
2.10 Members are asked whether to consider, given the financial situation and request, and to decide whether to offer a concession at the machines at two machines at Harwich Quay, the decision to be communicated to Harwich Town Council.
45
Page 3 of 3
Appendix – Letter from Harwich Town Council
46
Page 1 of 3
Report to: Joint Committee, Parking Partnership 9 Date: 4 October 2012 Subject: CCTV Options Appraisal Authors: Richard Walker, NE Parking Partnership; with assistance from
Steve Heath, Accountancy Manager, Colchester BC. Presented by: Richard Walker, Group Manager, NE Parking Partnership
1 Introduction
1.1 Officers were asked, at the meetings of this year‟s AGM and subsequent Sub-Committee Meeting, to investigate all options for the possible funding of a CCTV car. This report updates the Committee on those findings.
1.2 The Committee has at previous meetings received: an introduction to the CCTV car, a demonstration and presentation from one of the private suppliers of a “lease back” scheme.
1.3 Alternatives to be investigated include a desktop-assessment of the suppliers in the market, and the possible viability of a self-funded scheme.
2 Assessment
2.1 A number of suppliers has been found to offer similar services; there are still very few companies which offer the “unattended mode” automatic CCTV car system which the operation requires.
2.2 If the service is to progress, a full procurement exercise will be undertaken.
3 Financial Appraisal
3.1 Partnership joint lease
Equita, a bailiff company, have proposed an option to supply and operate a CCTV car within the North Essex Parking Partnership on a „Pay per PCN‟ basis.
Ultimately the full capital cost of the vehicle, customisation, approvals and licences would rest with Equita, along with the cost to supply the review station and operational driver.
The NEPP would be responsible for the patrol areas that the CCTV car undertakes and therefore can maximise the cover for schools and difficult areas in each district across the partnership.
47
Page 2 of 3
An agreed set of routes would be established.
All reviews would be undertaken by NEPP staff and our policies and discretion would be applied in line with all Penalty Charge Notices issued across the partnership.
We would be invoiced monthly by Equita for £17.50 per PCN issued after review.
There would be a minimum 1 year Agreement.
3.2 Purchase & lease back
This has been investigated and the high financial cost (in percentage terms) of leasing far outweighs the benefit of the system. This option has been discounted.
3.3 Outright Capital Purchase
Similar to option 2 above, but to build the outright purchase into the business model, capitalising the purchase. The cost of borrowing is extremely low in percentage terms presently.
The vehicle and software plus review station has a value of about £63,000
3.4 Comparable CEO Enforcement
The very high cost of this option meant that this was discounted at the time of the last report.
3.5 “Do nothing”
The option “to continue as we are” is included for consideration. Enforcement would continue without using a CCTV car and the resources would be deployed as best as NEPP is able. The two existing CEOs per area would still patrol each area.
4 Appraisal Results and risks
4.1 Taking into account the funding and budgets from known projects and claimed returns from similar operations – plus the details presented by Equita – the following short table is given to compare three financial possibilities, based on a rate payable.
4.2 The options are based on a like-for-like comparison with the proposed outsourcing solution, where the risk is carried by the contractor. The contractor would retain half of each £35 issued PC, regardless of its follow-up success.
4.3 Whilst the contracted-out service is based only upon “good PCNs issued”, statistics suggest an 80% payment rate, meaning that the risk of cancellation would be borne by the Partnership, the contractor taking the income regardless. This would skew the “payback” of any such scheme.
4.4 From available data and statistics, it is estimated that the purchase cost of a vehicle is around £44k. Any income over this would be returned to the
48
Page 3 of 3
funds if the operation was kept in-house. The share would keep increasing in the case of a contracted-out solution.
4.5 In the three examples below, as the statistics suggest, it has been assumed that £10.50 per PCN would be retained by the council, with “half the value of every issued PCN” being diverted to funding the vehicle.
The first example has been worked to show a break-even income to the Partnership, to show how many PCNs would be required simply in order to service the operation.
The second option illustrates what the income would be if the South Essex operating conditions were reflected here.
The third example shows the “break-over” level, where the operating costs would be covered out of the share of the income. If the level of PCNs increased beyond this level (i.e. towards the levels in the South area) then it would appear to be of more benefit to purchase the vehicle outright.
No. PCNs
Income Surplus
Payable to fund
purchase Retained Income
1,575 Break Even £0 £27,562.50 £16,537.50
3,171 South Essex Assumption £44,698 £55,498.75 £33,299.25
2,520 In house surplus = outsourced £26,460 £44,100.00 £26,460.00
5 Decision
5.1 The recommendation would be that, to assist and enhance the effective enforcement of difficult patrols across the NEPP that a CCTV car be procured, and funded by means of one or other option set out in section 3.1 or 3.3 of the above report, depending upon a discussion of the risks outlined above.
5.2 Members are asked to review the options outlined both in part 3, and the risks and options in part 4 above and consider if this is a viable option to the partnership.
5.3 Members are asked to decide which of the options to progress.
49
Page 1 of 8
Committee Date / Reference
North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Parking Committee
4 October 2012
Report Title Pricing of Elements Report 2012
Report Subject Setting the scale of fees and charges for on-street items to maintain the Business Case and introducing and discussing kerbside management
Parking Permits; Kerbside Parking Management (Unpaid/Pay and Display)
Parking Suspensions, Dispensations and other associated charges
Temporary no-waiting cones and associated Orders Reason and Decision being sought
Agree fees and charges for on-street parking 2013/14
For good financial control and to maintain parity with the Business Plan
Type of Report Parking Financial
Report Author/ Job Title
Report by Richard Walker Parking Partnership Group Manager
Fees and Charges for the Parking Partnership 2012/2013
1 Summary and Scope
1.1 Fees and charges for on-street operations provide a quarter of the Partnership’s on-street income, the rest coming from issued Penalty Charge Notices (PCN).
1.2 When the Partnership started, it inherited a wide variety of different pricing structures for on-street parking. The Partnership’s Business Case was based on a plan to bring the account out of deficit within two years, a process which includes harmonising and simplifying the pricing structures and finding ways to make the service more efficient. Substantial efficiencies are planned, especially in the way permits are delivered.
1.3 At the meetings in June and November 2011, Members were asked to decide the future pricing structure for the Parking Partnership. Members supported the case made in the Business Case and the supporting papers and to close the differential between Resident Parking Permit prices, keeping the Committee informed of progress.
1.4 Prices were increased slightly in line with the case in the Business Case and implemented in April/May 2012. A further increase is due leading into 2013 if the Business Case position is to be maintained.
1.5 This item is brought to the Committee’s attention before final budget setting so that Members can debate the issues locally and if required before the October 4 2012 meeting. This will feed into the December 13 2012 meeting where final budgetary decisions will need to be made.
1.6 In order to meet the aims of the Business Case, to take the Partnership operation out of deficit, it is recommended that fees continue to change in line with the Business Case over the course of coming years in order to harmonise the way charging is carried out and schemes are administered.
1.7 The different charges currently in operation have been presented at previous meetings. There remains a variation in prices, terms and conditions, which is especially evident in the variety of Resident Parking schemes. These are being addressed by ECC in the Parking Orders.
1.8 The Business Case recommended kerb side machine-managed parking (using machines like “pay and display”, with an initial/free period depending on locality) in place of some limited-waiting parking to bring combined benefits of policing space turnover (as expiry time is shown on a ticket, not observed) and making best use of CEO time.
1.9 Effective enforcement of “limited waiting” parking areas is inefficient. The process to successfully enforce a restriction of this type consumes time and resources with multiple future visits and evidence collection by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) whilst giving the motorist ample opportunity to contravene parking restriction and evade penalty.
51
Page 3 of 8
Individual Elements
2 Kerb Side Machine-Managed Parking
2.1 The introduction of kerb side machine-managed parking is recommended and will be investigated alongside other Traffic Engineering issues. An income stream will be a by-product of this kerbside parking management technique, but must be considered alongside the Order-making and objections timescale, and carries a large Order-making overhead cost, thus, as for TRO work, income figures have not been included at this stage.
2.2 The Business Case stated that the Partnership would identify suitable areas within the six districts and boroughs for on-street kerb side machine-managed parking to be considered.
2.3 This is a process to make more efficient the turn-over of spaces and enforcement in order to assist local traders and the efforts of district councils in supporting vibrancy of local towns. Client Officers have been shown the type of sites where such measures could be implemented and discussions will continue through the TRO process.
2.4 It is not intended to use kerb side machine-managed parking in the high-street simply to raise income. Income is not the main focus; the reason for implementing is for turnover and greater use of spaces, supporting local traders, district council investment in towns, car parks, and efficiency.
2.5 There is also a proposal for a temporary relaxation in the policy rules to allow for the implementation of self-supporting Resident Parking schemes where these would be more beneficial and there is a clear majority in the local area calling for such implementation, for example to solve commuter traffic problems.
2.6 If any surplus income should be gained as a result this shall firstly enable resident permits to be kept at a reasonable price in future and then be used to offset costs of parking management schemes and maintenance and provision of parking signage or infrastructure.
3 Resident Permits
3.1 The business case set out that there should be a base price set for all permits. The base price will be set to ensure that operational costs are met to initially implement any new resident parking schemes and the subsequent successful enforcement of the schemes to ensure they are being used as intended.
3.2 For existing schemes, a 3-year plan was suggested in order to soften the transition when levelling out the wide disparity in pricing. This is the second of the interim years, and the focus is on closing the disparity between schemes, especially where costs are not covered by the permit fee.
52
Page 4 of 8
3.3 The business case set out a path for the future year's charges in order to meet the business case profile, and this is shown in table 1, below:
Residents' Permits First permit charge (price table agreed by JPC in 2011) B
Table 1 – Business Case Proposed Resident Parking Charges 2011-16
3.4 It is recommended to continue to even out the charging disparity by making the changes detailed in Table 1, above, in order to keep in line with the Business Case.
3.5 There is an ongoing option for an individual borough or district to subsidise the cost of the service in its area if it so chooses. Any concession will require a reimbursement from the borough or district to the Parking Partnership on-street account to meet the full cost.
3.6 It was also recommended in the Business Case that all other visitor scratch card, worker and business permits and on-street pay and display charges are subject to at least an annual 3% increase. These price increases will be implemented on or soon after April 1 each year.
3.7 Resident and Visitor Permit Parking Prices were last revised starting in April/May 2012 following decisions made by the Joint Committee in 2011.
3.8 Resident permits differ between districts in the number allowed to be purchased and in the price charged for permits. Some allow for a second, third and so on, some at a premium – and others have an incremental pricing structure, and in some places a limit is set.
3.9 It is recommended that harmonisation be brought about through incremental increases of these other permits, phased over the coming years to ensure fairness and ease of transition.
3.10 It has been decided that there should be a maximum of two permits per residence and that “grandfather rights” to higher numbers allocated should be reduced over time with an advertised cut-off time for final reduction to two.
53
Page 5 of 8
4 Resident Visitor Permits
4.1 These again differ in the style and number allowed. Some areas are annual, some are by the pack, and some are sold by the day or by a fixed duration. The cost of providing the stationery or system must be covered by the fee charged as schemes cannot be subsidised.
4.2 Substantial efficiencies can be gained by converting this to a digital process administered online and through the patrolling officer’s online computer. Plans are well advanced for this transfer to “MiPermit” which it is hoped to introduce between winter 2012 – spring 2013 and well in time for the new financial year.
5 Special Dispensations
5.1 It would be much simpler to administer a single “Waiver Certificate” for people calling at properties where there is no resident (presently only the resident can apply for a permit or visitor permits).
5.2 Many trades work in residential areas at unoccupied premises and to make their job easier a single “Waiver Certificate” is proposed. More information is in shown Appendix A
54
Page 6 of 8
6 Decisions for consideration
6.1 Members are asked to consider the attached fees and charges for adoption and to decide if, and in broad detail, where and how to implement kerb side machine-managed parking.
At the 2011 Annual General Meeting, Members were asked to consider the prices for future years. Discussion at that meeting centred around restructuring prices for coming years, including concessions. It was agreed that the pricing of these elements would be approved annually, hence this progress report.
Members are therefore asked to debate and consider the fees and charges shown in the Tables and Appendices, and summarised below, and decide what the future pricing structure should be.
Members are asked to debate and decide the prices in the attached Appendix:
For Resident Parking and other permits
at what level and basis, the charges in Appendix C should be levied – using the table as a guide;
how to converge the pricing and conditions over coming years;
whether to allow concessionary permits, to whom, and at what level; and
whether to continue to review these annually.
For kerbside management and pay and display
to consider, debate and decide if kerbside management should be introduced, and suggest where this would be most appropriate to support the Business Case; and
to consider the level of pay and display charges, in co-ordination with local car park prices;
And
to consider providing a new traders’ permit known as a Waiver Certificate for use at empty properties and for frequent visits.
55
Page 7 of 8
Appendix A – Waiver Certificate details
Waiver Certificate To make it easier for businesses who need to work at empty properties and make frequent short visits, we propose a Waiver Certificate which will be for sale. This would be available wherever a Visitor Permit would otherwise be used when providing services such as plumbing, building, electrical, gas or Estate Agents. The permit is issued so that traders can make frequent stops to visit customers. Only one NEPP district was offering a concession for business use which was sent to residents. It meant that they were charging their residents to park but not traders and it is not mentioned in the traffic order. The process needs to be formalised, and a cost decided. We would ask that traders provide proof of trading. There are only certain proofs that we would accept:
Utility bill (dated within three months)
Business rates (for the current year)
Tenancy agreement (dated and signed within three months)
Letter from Inland Revenue (dated for the current tax year)
Letter from solicitor confirming business name and address (dated within three months)
Invoice into the company confirming business name and address (dated within three months)
It is considered reasonable to introduce the permit at a price of £300 (for example) to park throughout the NEPP (avoiding the need for traders to end up paying twice if working near the border of two districts). Half yearly and quarterly permits could be provided at a small surcharge at £90 a quarter or £175 for six months with a discount of (say) 15% offered on MiPermit for using the digital system. The proposed price fits well with the current Business work rate in such properties which otherwise requires a dispensation at £20 a day and £5 for each day thereafter per location. Dispensations would continue for yellow-line exemptions which would be on a case-by-case basis.
56
Pa
ge
8 o
f 8
Ap
pe
nd
ix B
– P
rice
de
tails
The
Com
mitte
e is a
sked
to
re
vie
w,
de
bate
and
de
cid
e o
n n
ew
price
s f
or
Pe
rmits o
f a
ll t
yp
es f
or
the
com
ing f
inan
cia
l ye
ar,
in
ord
er
to m
ain
tain
pro
gre
ss a
ga
inst
the
Bu
sin
ess P
lan
, to
ha
rmon
ise
the
sche
me
price
s, a
nd
to
en
su
re t
ha
t th
e o
pe
ratio
n
co
ve
rs t
he
co
sts
of
adm
inis
terin
g t
he
sche
me
s.
[ple
as
e n
ote
th
is t
ab
le is
att
ac
he
d in
a s
ep
ara
te s
pre
ad
sh
ee
t fo
r e
as
y r
efe
ren
ce
]
57
Tab
le o
f P
rices
Park
ing O
rder:
Scale
of
Exis
tin
g C
harg
es
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
Resid
en
t P
erm
it (
Aim
£70)
30.0
0£
33.0
0£
35.0
0£
50.0
0£
52.0
0£
55.0
0£
18.0
0£
21.0
0£
25.0
0£
35.0
0£
39.0
0£
42.0
0£
70.0
0£
70.0
0£
70.0
0£
25.0
0£
30.0
0£
35.0
0£
Seco
nd
Resid
en
t P
erm
it (
whe
re a
va
ilable
at p
rem
ium
)30.0
0£
41.2
5£
58.0
0£
50.0
0£
52.0
0£
70.0
0£
34.0
0£
42.5
0£
55.0
0£
52.0
0£
55.0
0£
100.0
0£
50.0
0£
55.0
0£
70.0
0£
Third R
esid
ent P
erm
it50.0
0£
£62.5
080.0
0£
50.0
0£
52.0
0£
disc
ontin
ued
70.0
0£
87.5
0£
110.0
0£
£ 1
00.0
0
125.0
0£
130.0
0£
Fourt
h R
esid
ent P
erm
it100.0
0£
£125.0
0di
scon
tinue
d50.0
0£
52.0
0£
disc
ontin
ued
130.0
0£
£162.5
0205.0
0£
Concessio
nary
Resid
ent P
erm
itfr
ee
disc
ontin
ued
free
free
Concessio
nary
non-d
river
resid
ent perm
itfr
ee
disc
ontin
ued
Annual V
isitor
Perm
it10.0
0£
TB
C X
disc
ontin
ued
Vis
itor
Perm
its (
each)
0.5
0£
Vis
ito
r P
erm
its (
pack o
f 10)
up to 2
4hr
(A
im £
1/d
ay)
3.0
0£
5.0
0£
8.0
0£
8.0
0£
8.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.0
0£
8.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.0
0£
6.5
0£
9.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
12.0
0£
13.0
0£
Vis
ito
r P
erm
its -
bo
ok o
f te
n p
erm
its o
ver
4 h
r (d
ay)
10.0
0£
12.0
0£
13.0
0£
Vis
ito
r P
erm
its -
bo
ok o
f te
n 2
ho
ur
perm
its
2.0
0£
3.0
0£
4.0
0£
Vis
ito
r P
erm
its -
bo
ok o
f te
n 4
ho
ur
perm
its
7.5
0£
8.0
0£
disc
ontin
ued
5.0
0£
6.0
0£
7.0
0£
Vis
ito
rs P
erm
it 2
0 x
on
e h
ou
r seg
men
t (a
s in
Ord
er)
5.0
0£
7.0
0£
disc
ontin
ued
Vis
ito
rs P
erm
it 2
0 x
fo
ur
ho
ur
seg
men
t (a
s in
Ord
er)
15.0
0£
16.0
0£
disc
ontin
ued
Repla
cem
ent fo
r lo
st or
sto
len p
erm
it
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.5
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
8.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
Dis
pensation/S
uspensio
n P
erm
it –
First D
ay
15.0
0£
20.0
0£
22.0
0£
15.0
0£
20.0
0£
22.0
0£
15.0
0£
20.0
0£
22.0
0£
15.0
0£
20.0
0£
22.0
0£
15.0
0£
20.0
0£
22.0
0£
22.0
0£
Dis
pensation/S
uspensio
n o
ther
days (
up to 7
days)
5.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
5.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
10.0
0£
Busin
ess P
erm
it –
month
ly
45.8
0£
45.8
0£
Busin
ess P
erm
it –
3 m
onth
s
98.0
0£
98.0
0£
100.0
0£
122.5
0£
122.5
0£
Busin
ess P
erm
it -
Yearly
384.0
0£
384.0
0£
400.0
0£
428.0
0£
428.0
0£
Pre
miu
m B
usin
ess P
erm
it –
month
ly
125.0
0£
125.0
0£
Pre
miu
m B
usin
ess P
erm
it –
3 m
onth
s
320.0
0£
320.0
0£
Pre
miu
m B
usin
ess P
erm
it -
Yearly
£ 1
,275
.00
£ 1
,275
.00
Dedham
Exem
ption C
ert
ific
ate
16.0
0£
16.0
0£
22.0
0£
Colc
heste
r &
Tendring W
om
ens A
id
90.0
0£
90.0
0£
95.0
0£
Colc
heste
r H
igh S
chool
25.0
0£
25.0
0£
30.0
0£
Ham
ilton S
chool
90.0
0£
90.0
0£
95.0
0£
Kin
gsw
ode H
oe S
chool
90.0
0£
90.0
0£
95.0
0£
Wals
ingham
Road r
esid
ent season tic
ket -
Yearly
175.8
0£
175.8
0£
185.0
0£
Wals
ingham
Road r
esid
ent season tic
ket – 6
month
s
92.2
0£
92.2
0£
100.0
0£
Resid
ents
Perm
it (
Un-r
egis
tere
d c
ar)
130.0
0£
130.0
0£
130.0
0£
Resid
ents
Perm
it (
Com
merc
ial vehic
le)
250.0
0£
250.0
0£
250.0
0£
Resid
ents
Day
Pass
0.5
0£
0.5
0£
1.0
0£
Com
merc
ial D
ay
Pass
4.0
0£
4.0
0£
10.0
0£
Specia
l P
erm
it (
Zone a
ddre
ss)
25.0
0£
25.0
0£
30.0
0£
Specia
l P
erm
it (
All
zones)
25.0
0£
25.0
0£
30.0
0£
Dis
able
d P
erm
it
free
free
???
free
free
???
Busin
ess P
erm
it
50.0
0£
50.0
0£
60.0
0£
Rail
Com
mute
rs P
erm
it –
Yearly
500.0
0£
500.0
0£
500.0
0£
Rail
Com
mute
rs P
erm
it –
3 m
onth
s
130.0
0£
130.0
0£
130.0
0£
Bus/C
oach P
erm
its
0.1
0£
0.1
0£
???
Moto
rcycle
16.6
7£
18.0
0£
20.0
0£
incre
ase h
arm
onis
es p
rice
unconfirm
ed p
rice
pro
posed incre
ase d
oes n
ot harm
onis
e p
rice
pre
vio
us c
harg
e/c
onfirm
ed p
rice
not availb
ale
/dic
continued
consid
er
for
dis
continuation
not availa
ble
Uttle
sfo
rdE
ppin
g F
ore
st
Bra
intr
ee
Colc
heste
rH
arlow
Tendring
58
Page 1 of 4
Report to: Joint Committee, Parking Partnership Date: 4 October 2012 Subject: North Essex Parking Partnership Operational Report Author: Emma Day and Trevor Degville, NE Parking Partnership Presented by: Emma Day and Emma Powell, Enforcement Manager, NE Parking Partnership 1. Introduction and Purpose of Report 1.1 The report gives update of any Parking Partnership on-street operational issues since the
last Joint Committee meeting in June 2012. 1.2 The report is presented for information and scrutiny and for ease of reference the following
section has again been organised using relevant operational headings. 2. Detailed considerations 2.1 Recruitment / Structure 2.1.1 The Enforcement Manager and Technical Managers positions have now been filled. Emma
Powell and Trevor Degville were the successful candidates and have been in position now for approximately 6 weeks. Emma Day has been seconded into the Parking Business Managers role, covering Lou Belgrove while she is on maternity leave.
2.1.2 With all the positions now filled, Emma Powell will be covering all aspects of Enforcement,
Trevor Degville is responsible for the implementation of new restrictions and re-instating any existing lines and signs. Emma Day will be managing the back office team and partnership income. Now the management team is fully in place this will achieve efficiencies and ensure the business case remain on target.
2.1.3 A re-structure has been completed for the enforcement team creating new team leader posts
and area managers to oversee the larger enforcement team that has grown over the last 18 months and with the merger of Epping Forest’s operations and will continue with ongoing recruitment. A separate restructure will concentrate on the technical and operational teams.
2.2 Accommodation 2.2.1 A new central hub at the Latton Bush Centre in Harlow for the Western Enforcement Team
has been leased. The facilities leased are in the process of being adapted to accommodate the current Harlow based staff and the Epping staff due to join the Western team on the 1st October.
2.2.2 The new base, once established will allow all staff to access all Colchester Borough Council
led systems, including the intranet. 2.2.3 The technical team will be operating from Latton Bush when dealing with machine
maintenance and lines and signs maintenance for the west of the partnership.
59
Page 2 of 4
2.3 On - Street Performance measures 2.3.1 On-street PCN issue rates appear to have remained consistent since the start of the
extended Partnership, in line with the assumptions set out in the Business Plan put to Essex County Council.
2.3.2 Based on the first full year of operation Braintree, Harlow and Uttlesford have exceeded the
amount of PCNs expected in the business plan with Colchester and Tendring not reaching the expected figures.
District
Business Plan
Figures (12 mths)
Business Plan
Figures (5/12 mth)
01 April –
30 Aug 2011
01 April –
30 Aug 2012
% vs. 2011/
12
% vs. BP
Braintree 3511 1462 1840 2255 +415 22.6 54.2
Colchester 19000 7916 7360 6377 -983 -13.4 -19.4
Harlow 6500 2708 3890 2335 -1555 -40.0 -13.8
Tendring 9300 3875 3039 2879 -160 -5.3 -25.7
Uttlesford 1950 812 775 1258 483 62.3 54.9
40261 16773 16904 15104 -1800 = 17 per day
2.3.3 Western districts still show the most consistency over the last five months whereas the
districts in the east have suffered compared with the same period last year. This fluctuation in issue levels is still felt to be mainly due to low staff numbers and the need to train new staff who started in May until they could issue by themselves after July.
2.3.4 From May/June the issue statistics picked up again, although they have been affected in
Tendring by the implementation of the free-parking-for-residents initiative, which seems to have diverted some “just chancing contravention” stays into parking properly in car parks.
2.3.5 In addition, in the Colchester area two extra off-street areas became enforceable (West
Mersea car parks and evenings), which has shifted the enforcement bias away from on-street slightly. The number of overall PCNs issued between May & August for all Colchester and Tendring areas (on-street and off-street) was 9671 in 2011 and 9832 in 2012.
PCNs 01 April - 30 August
2011/12 and 2012/13
010002000300040005000600070008000
Brain
tree
Colch
ester
Har
low
Tendrin
g
Uttl
esfo
rd
2011/12
2012/13
60
Page 3 of 4
2.3.6 The proportional decrease in on-street PCN issue levels of around 17 PCN per day is roughly equivalent to one extra CEO on the beat in each area on normal shifts. This is recognised in recruitment and the number of new recruits will in turn help to bring PCN levels up again for this year of operation, as has already been seen in the current recruitment round.
2.3.7 To date, the Partnership has received payment for approximately 10,069 of the PCNs
issued on-street since 1st April 2012 until 30th August 2012. 9230 paying at the discounted rate (91.7%) – although the figure is high, all the cases paid in this block are early in the process.
2.4 Back Office 2.4.1 The office workload continues to be consistent with the administrative caseload remaining at
a high level with approximately 5034 challenges and representations being made within the last 5 months (Apr – Aug) of operation. This equates to an average of 24% of the total PCNs issued being challenged at either the informal or first formal stage of the process.
2.4.2 Web challenges continue to be the most popular way to challenge a PCN, with
approximately 41% of motorists choosing to challenge the issue of a PCN, doing so in this manner. The back office consistently receives around 50 challenges at the weekend and about 20 per day on weekdays.
2.4.3 The number of cases at Appeal is around 0.06% of all cases, showing that a tiny fraction of
cases are appealed. This tends to show that a good proportion of the PCNs issued are well-issued. At appeal around half the cases are found in favour of the motorist and around half in favour of the council.
61
Page 4 of 4
2.5 Future work 2.5.1 Plans are well advanced in the implementation of cashless parking across the Partnership.
Testing began in May 2012 and the Colchester off-street system was made live in August. The intention is to roll out the system in these areas first. This will be swiftly followed by implementing the system across Uttlesford and Harlow car parks.
2.5.2 Once the cashless parking element of MiPermit is implemented, the project team will start
the process of implementing the virtual permit side of the system over winter. 2.5.3 MiPermit was launched in Colchester on 30th July 2012. There was a campaign in the local
press and notices were displayed in the car parks prior to launch. To date (early September) MiPermit has processed 1545 transactions, with the average value being £4.38, meaning that the balance of usage in the system is biased towards the long stay).
2.5.4 The changeover for motorists during this time seems to have been problem free as the back
office has received minimal calls in regard to setting up new accounts or processing transactions. The Paybyphone service has been switched off from September.
2.5.4. Due to the volume of calls now being received by the NEPP we have now installed a
Macfarlane “wallboard” monitoring system. This will enable the back office to monitor the calls being received, average waiting time and call lengths. This will also reflect any increase in calls once Epping Forest’s back office operation has been passed over.
2.5.5. Phone lines open at 9am and there are seven lines into Parking with usually 3 agents per
shift awaiting calls in three shits over the day. Over 100 calls are received daily. With new monitoring systems, average wait time is around half a minute.
