Agenda item

(To receive a report by Matt Jones, Parking Services Manager, regarding the CCTV enforcement trial implemented outside eight schools within the County)

The Committee received a comprehensive report regarding the CCTV enforcement trial implemented outside eight schools within the county.  It was noted that the Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee had previously supported and recommended that Lincolnshire County Council implement a trial scheme involving a CCTV vehicle to be used outside of eight primary schools to monitor motorist's behaviour on school keep clear markings.  The scheme was implemented in January 2017 and was ongoing at the time of the meeting.

It was reported that the eight schools involved in the trial were as follows:

·         William Alvey Primary School, Eastgate, Sleaford

·         St Thomas' School, Wyberton Low Road, Boston

·         Boston West Academy, Sussex Avenue, Boston

·         National Junior School, Castlegate, Grantham

·         Sir Francis Hill School, Bristol Drive, Lincoln

·         The Priory Witham Academy, Shannon Ave, Lincoln

·         Leslie Manser Primary School Kindgsdown Road, Lincoln

·         Kingsdown Nursery School, Kingsdown Road, Lincoln

Members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         The Executive Councillor commented that it was an excellent report, and reported that he had visited each of the locations before the trial, and again during the trial with an officer.  It was acknowledged that there were some substantial challenges with some of the locations.

·         Generally the trial had been very well received, and there had been a number of head teachers who had been in contact requesting the trial for their school.  There had been some negative feedback from those schools where the authority had found it difficult to engage on these issues.

·         It was clarified that a majority of the parents spoken to as part of this trial were drivers, and it was not just the 'walking' parents who were supportive of this initiative.

·         One member commented that safety outside schools was regularly reported as an issue at the Carholme Forum meetings. 

·         It was suggested that extending the trial was the right thing to do and then would need to be examined whether it became part of the day to day business of the authority.

·         It was queried how long a vehicle had to be on zig zag lines for it to be classed as an offence.  Members were advised that these were no stopping areas and as soon as the car stops it would be in breach of the restrictions.

·         It was noted that evidence had to be strong enough to be able to issue a ticket, such as recording the car registration number as well as clear signage in the area.  The footage would then be sent to the back office to review and it would be determined whether there was enough evidence to issue a ticket.

·         It was commented that the CCTV vehicles were expensive items to purchase and it was queried whether there would be a way to make better use of them as they would probably not be used between 9am and 2.45pm.  It was queried whether they could be used for pedestrian crossings, however, members were advised that there were limits on what the camera could actually do.

·         It was noted that the safety signs around schools were only advisory and were not enforceable, and a traffic regulation order was required to make them compliant.  The only areas where they were enforceable were outside of those schools which were included in the trial.

·         It was queried whether the perception that it was negative to drive to the school could be encouraged, and other methods of travelling to schools such as walking trains, linking with pub car parks for parking and then walking the rest of the school etc. be promoted.  It was noted that in relation to these initiatives, after an initial burst of enthusiasm take up often dropped off.

·         In terms of the suggestion for the CCTV vehicles to be able to park on yellow lines, members commented that they would support it, and it was confirmed that a dispensation would be issued to allow the vehicle to park and there would be a notice which could be displayed in the vehicle clarifying why the vehicle was there. 

·         It was highlighted that in terms of the proposal to extend the trial for a further 12 months, each year there would be a new intake of children and therefore new sets of parents.  It was noted that one of the aims would be to carry out education and ongoing training.  It was suggested that it should not be looked at for just 12 months and it was hoped that this would continue.

·         It was commented that schools played a key role in getting information out to parents.

·         It was reported that in some areas it had been known for some parents to park in other peoples' driveways.

·         It was noted that due to the layouts around some schools, at some site, the parking restriction could not be made enforceable.

·         One member commented that at the parish council meetings they attended, the parking situation around schools came up at almost every meeting.

·         The lack of schools in the South Holland area in the trial was highlighted, and it was requested whether a school from South Holland could be included if the trial was extended for another 12 months.  It was noted that the parking outside of schools was one of the issues which generated the most comments and queries from the public.  It was also noted that a lot of feedback was received from the area highways managers about where particular issues were occurring.  It was also noted that if officers became aware of a particular school where there were a lot of complaints then someone would look at it more closely.

·         In relation to the particular query about the inclusion of schools in South Holland, it was noted that the council did not receive a lot of comments from this area of the county.

·         It was queried whether there was any way that the Police could help in terms of cars parking illegally and causing an obstruction.  Members were advised that it would be almost impossible to prove cars were causing an obstruction without a lot of effort.  However, a number of fixed penalty notices had been issued around the county from obstruction.

·         It was commented that it had been observed where cars had started parking outside of schools from 2.00pm.  It was thought that there was a need to enforce tickets as fully as possible, as this was an issue outside all schools in the county.

·         It was suggested that parking a CCTV vehicle in an area with parking restrictions would make the council look hypocritical and the public would not respect the Authority for that action even though the vehicle would have been issued with a dispensation.

·         It was queried what the authority wanted to achieve through the extension of the trial, was it to try and deliver and equitable service or to address the areas with the greatest pressures.  It was also queried whether the trial, if it was extended, would be a replication of the eight existing sites, or if it would look to have a more even spread of schools throughout the county.

·         There was support from the Committee for the extension of the trial, but caution was expressed regarding the issue of granting permission for the CCTV vehicles to park in areas with parking restrictions.

·         It was felt that further information was required on how the trial extension would be implemented, as well the use of fixed point CCTV.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee support the extension of the CCTV enforcement trial for a further 12 months.

2.    That a feasibility study be carried out and the outcomes reported back to a future meeting of the Committee.

3.    That a further update be presented to the Committee in 2018.