Agenda item

Parking Outside Schools - Review Progress of Implementation of Recommendations from the Scrutiny Review

[A verbal update will be given at the meeting on the progress of the implementation of the recommendations from the Scrutiny Review of Parking Outside Schools. John Roseblade (Head of Transport), Nick Broomhall (Service Lead – Traffic and Road Safety) and Earl Piggott-Smith (Scrutiny Officer) will be in attendance].

 

[The initial report from the Scrutiny Review which was received by Cabinet on 20 February 2018, containing the recommendations in Section 9, is attached for information]. 

Minutes:

The Service Lead for Traffic and Safety gave a presentation on the progress of the implementation on the recommendations from the Parking Outside Schools Scrutiny Review.  Officers had completed a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) Data Sheet as requested from the recommendations.  This had been created to help develop Councillors understanding of the different types of parking restrictions outside schools.  Officers had also produced a similar public information sheet which was now available on the Council’s website to view.  A media release had been issued highlighting that the information sheet was available.  Whilst not an explicit recommendation from the review, the Council had implemented Traffic Regulation Orders outside 26 schools, totalling 71 roads in the City, over the last twelve months.  There were 37 schools still on their schedule awaiting Traffic Regulation Orders.  There were some schools where current Traffic Regulation Orders would be amended. 

 

The Service Lead for Traffic and Safety remarked that the letter to the Secretary of State, as requested by the Scrutiny review, had been drafted.  It was currently awaiting the Leader of the Council’s signature.  Officers had been asked to review the principle and the findings of traffic exclusions zones at schools.  The two which they had conducted research on were in Solihull and Edinburgh.  The main issue, when considering implementing a traffic exclusion zone, concerned ensuring there was the support of the school, parents, the local community and the Police.  Solihull had found that it was key not to implement an exclusion zone where there was a through route.  A further key requirement, they had concluded, was ensuring there was a convenient car park to avoid complete displacement of the traffic to other roads outside the exclusion zone.  This requirement clearly limited the number of areas where a traffic exclusion zone could be implemented.   Finally, it was important to implement a permit scheme for residents and other road users who had a legitimate reason to access the area at school travel times. 

 

The Service Lead for Traffic and Safety stated that the findings from Solihull and Edinburgh had not surprisingly showed a net reduction of traffic volume in the exclusion zones.  There was a reduced level of complaints about parking outside schools in the exclusion zones.  In addition, parents and children reported an improved perception in road safety following their implementation.

 

The Service Lead for Traffic and Safety stated the negative findings included displacement of parking on roads outside of the zone, even where there was a car park.   They also recognised that because there was less congestion in the exclusion zone, those people driving in the zone legitimately, had the opportunity to drive at an increased speed.  It was therefore worth considering the introduction of traffic calming measures in the exclusion zone to reduce speeding.  The exclusion zone relied heavily on Police support to enforce the restrictions.  There was also an ongoing revenue cost to the Council to implement a permit scheme required for the residents.   

 

A Member of the Panel asked how many schools met the criteria suggested by Solihull and Edinburgh.  The Service Lead for Traffic and Safety responded that after conducting an initial assessment, two schools in the City had been identified as potential areas.  The most suitable school was St. Michael’s Roman Catholic Primary School in Merry Hill.  He gave a description of the site using a visual aid.  One main concern was that Trysull Road was a local distribution road, which they wouldn’t traffic calm because it was integral to the road network.  An exclusion zone would push traffic out of Trysull Gardens to park on the other side or further along Trysull Road.  Trysull Road had approximately 4,500 cars passing every day at 85% percentile speeds of 35MPH.  Children and parents would be then walking along a road with significantly more traffic and at high speeds.  It was therefore important to think carefully before even considering developing the concept further. 

 

A Member of the Panel asked if the community would be consulted should a proposal be put forward.  In response, the Service Lead for Traffic and Safety stated consultation would be essential.

 

A Member of the Panel asked how much a car parking permit would cost for residents each year.  The Service Lead for Traffic and Safety responded that the issuing of parking permits was administered by a different team in the Council and he would liaise with them to find out the cost.

 

The Service Lead for Traffic and Safety remarked that the second school which they considered for a traffic exclusion zone was Oak Meadow Primary School in Wednesfield.  The issue was the exclusion zone would have to cover a wide area, meaning more permits would need to be issued.  The car parks were already at full capacity in the vicinity and there was potential for them to be sold in the future.  These reasons meant it had not been selected as an appropriate site to put forward to consultation as a traffic exclusion zone. 

 

The Chair stated that with the use of number plate recognition, people could be charged for entering streets where there were schools, during opening and closing times.  The idea was an alternative to having to issue specific permits.  A list could be kept on the system of residents who needed access to the street, who wouldn’t be charged.  On the subject of TROs, the Chair stated that he had seen in the media recently that the Police were accepting dashcam footage of reckless drivers.  He asked if there was any scope for citizen reporting of people breaching TROs or dangerous car parking.  He thought with the widespread use of Smartphones there was potential for such a reporting mechanism.  He also asked if Officers had looked at filtered permeability options recently, which was a type of road design that allowed through access for walkers and cyclists, but removed it for motor traffic.

 

In response to the points raised by the Chair, the Service Lead for Traffic and Safety responded that they had not looked at filtered permeability recently but had in the past.  There were some physical difficulties with the method, if the resultant cul-de-sac which was blocked off was longer that 25 metres, a turning head was required.  The method had been used in the past when problems had arisen with the use of “rat runs.”  The Head of Transport stated they could do some analysis of the Citizen reporting concept raised by the Chair.  There were some offences that required a Fixed Penalty Notice but there were others which were enforced by their mobile camera enforcement car, which followed the same principle.  There were also some issues with citizen reporting, concerning quality of evidence and the potential need to require witness statements.  He was aware of people using social media to name and shame people to reduce incidences of dangerous parking. 

 

A Member of the Panel stated that it was important for the Planning Department of the Council to consider parking issues outside schools when they were building schools in the future. 

 

A Member of the Panel stated enforcement activity was the key to reducing the problem of dangerous parking outside schools.  The public could help with enforcement by producing filmed footage. 

 

Scrutiny Officer, Earl Piggott-Smith, asked how many fines had been issued in the last twelve months for parking offences outside schools.  The Head of Transport stated the information could be provided after the meeting. 

 

Scrutiny Officer, Earl Piggott-Smith, asked about the walking strategy.  The Health Business Partner stated there was a strategy titled “towards an active city” approved by Cabinet last year.  The strategy was going to be refreshed to reflect the new vision of the Director of Public Health, which was less about intervention and more about creating a healthy environment.  The walking strategy would be part of the physical activity strategy.  A report on active travel was scheduled to be received by the Scrutiny Panel in early December.  Information on “Park and Stride” had been sent out to schools.  He was pleased to report the positive news that 15 sports and health apprenticeships had been established in schools.  These apprentices would helped to embody the principles of “Park and Stride” within schools.  They had also appointed a PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) Advisory teacher in the previous week who could go out to schools. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: