Cabinet Member Report
City of Westminster
Cabinet Member:
Date:
Classification:
Title of Report:
Report of:
Wards involved:
Policy context:
Financial summary:
Report Author:
Contact Details:
CABINET MEMBER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
& TRANSPORT
2 August 2006
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
CONGESTION CHARGE, WESTERN EXTENSION –
OPTIONS FOR PARKING ZONE B
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKING & DIRECTOR
OF TRANSPORTATION
Bryanston & Dorset Square, Church Street, Little
Venice & Regent’s Park
The main aim of UDP Policies TRANS 21-26 states
that the City Council will seek to control on-street
and off-street parking, and to reduce the overall level
of parking, while maintaining adequate availability of
parking space for essential and priority users.
Residents are classified as priority users.
There are no direct financial implications arising
from this report.
Philip Basher
020 7641 3010
pbasher@westminster.gov.uk
Page 1 of 12
1.
SUMMARY
1.1
This report reviews the City Council’s options for addressing the potential
problems of residents’ parking in the streets and parking zones adjacent to or
within the proposed western extension of congestion charging.
2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1
That the City Council takes no further action i.e. as outlined in Option 1 (No
Change) in paragraphs 4.2 – 4.4 for the time being, and that the situation be
monitored and reviewed in spring 2007 following the implementation of the
congestion charging western extension.
3.
BACKGROUND
3.1
The Mayor’s proposed congestion charging western extension boundary will
divide parking Zone B and this report considers options to deal with it. In
September 2005 the Mayor announced that the western extension will be
implemented on 19th February 2007.
3.2
Zone B will be divided along Sussex Gardens, Sale Place, Praed Street,
Eastbourne Terrace, Bishop’s Bridge Road, Westbourne Terrace, Orsett
Terrace, Gloucester Terrace and Ranelagh Bridge (see figure 1). Residents
living within the charging zone will be entitled to the 90% discount, and TfL
has agreed to offer residents in Zone B living between the congestion
charging boundary and the Westway the 90% residents’ discount.
3.3
Nevertheless, a large part of Zone B (Sub-zones B4 & B/C1) lying north of
Westway will be excluded from the congestion charge and not eligible for the
90% residents’ discount, despite the best efforts of the Council’s
representatives. The City Council continues to lobby TfL to provide the
discount for all our residents and this remains our ultimate objective. This
would address the problems faced by Westminster’s residents accessing
parts of the City lying within the congestion charging zone.
4.
OPTIONS – ZONE B CONGESTION CHARGING WESTERN
EXTENSION
4.1
If the City Council’s lobbying is unsuccessful there are six options to address
the split of Zone B by the congestion charge zone (CCZ). They are:
1.
No Change;
2.
Create New Parking Zone J;
3.
Expand B/C Dual Zone;
4.
Add to Parking Zone C;
Page 2 of 12
4.2
5.
Reorganise Parking Zones; and
6.
Offer discount to residents living in B Zone outside the
congestion charging zone and the residents’ discount area.
Option 1. No Change
This option is self explanatory and leaves the boundaries of the parking
zones unaltered. However, Zone B residents from north of the Westway
would be subject to the £8 charge if they drove into the CCZ during the
charging hours to park elsewhere in Zone B. The primary purpose of
Westminster’s residents’ parking scheme is to provide parking as close as
possible to an individual’s home. The provision of parking for other purposes
such as shopping, schools, doctors’ surgeries, etc., is secondary, although
much valued by residents.
4.3
Taking this course could lead to complaints once the congestion charge
extension is implemented that the Council was unprepared, since it would not
be apparent that a review had taken place. Experience for the split in Zone F,
when the original congestion charge was introduced in February 2003,
showed that few residents complained about restricted parking, i.e. having to
pay the charge to drive and park east of Edgware Road. There were also
allegations that Zone F residents from inside the CCZ were avoiding any
charge by parking in Zone F streets west of Edgware Road. However, when
the area was surveyed in May 2004, there was very little evidence that this
was occurring.
4.4
It is not possible to say whether the situation would be the same when the
western extension is implemented. There are several factors that may
ameliorate the Zone B problem, they are:




4.5
Residents of the area are already used to the CCZ and may already
make journeys into the charging area, or they may have adjusted their
travelling behaviour to avoid the charge;
The split in Zone B occurs at the substantial boundary of the Westway
and the canal, which may already deter residents from the north of
Zone B driving to and parking in the southern part of the zone;
This boundary with its busy roads and the large roundabout, which can
only be crossed by pedestrian subways, may also deter Zone B permit
holders from the south avoiding the congestion charge by parking to
the north of this line; and
Two important destinations, Paddington Station and St. Mary’s
Hospital, will be within a charge free area part of the extended CCZ.
Option 2. Create New Parking Zone J
This option would split Zone B and create a new parking zone (J) north of the
Westway. The new zone would be separate from Zone B and its residents
would not be entitled to park on residents’ parking bays in Zone B and vice
versa. The new zone could be designated as J, and would consist of subzones B4 & B/C1. Zone J permit holders would not be entitled to use Zone B
residents’ parking bays.
Page 3 of 12
4.6
4.7
This option would require the re-signing of all the residents’ parking bays, the
shared use parking bays, the replacement of all the pay & display machine
plates and the parking meter plates. It would also be necessary to redesignate the dual B/C zone, which would become J/C zone. In addition all
residents’ parking Zone B permits in these areas would have to be reissued.
If this option is pursued the new permits would be issued for the time
remaining on them to avoid any problems with a large number of renewals
occurring on the same date. It would be beneficial to implement the new
parking zone before or at the same time the congestion charge western
extension is implemented in February 2007.
Option 3. Expand B/C Dual Zone
The existing B/C zone straddles the boundary of Zones B & C between the
Regent’s Canal and Clifton Gardens/St. John’s Wood Road (figure 1).
Residents living inside the B/C zone are entitled to a B permit allowing them
to park in the Zones B, B/C & C/B. The signs for residents’ parking bays
have B/C on them and holders of either a B or C permit would be able to park
in the Zone B/C.
4.8
This option would involve expanding the dual zone north into Zone C, which
would allow the residents of the part of Zone B outside the CCZ to choose
whether they want to enter the CCZ and be charged, or choose alternative
destinations in Zone C without the charge. However the dual zone would
have to be either large enough to accommodate demand in what is a largely
residential area, or create small dual zones around local centres, such as St.
John's Wood High Street, Harrow Road, Maida Vale, etc. The expanded dual
zone(s) would be designated as C/B, and residents of the area would
continue to receive Zone C permits.
4.9
This option however, would be more complex and may lead to confusion by
residents on where they are allowed to park lawfully because of new, and
perhaps, confusing signs. This option would also require residents’ parking
bays to be re-signed, the cost of which would vary depending on which
direction is chosen. This option may not prove popular with either Zone B or
Zone C residents, with the former because residents of certain streets around
Little Venice Underground station complain of their streets being taken over
by Zone C permits. The Zone C permit holders may also be subject to parking
problems generated by Zone B permits in areas close to popular shopping
streets.
Option 4. Add to Parking Zone C
4.10 The portion of Zone B (sub-zones B4 & B/C1) outside the CCZ boundary and
the discount area could be incorporated into Zone C. This would mean that
the existing Zone B residents in this area would be issued with a Zone C
permit to start on the date the new traffic order(s) took affect. The new
permits would be issued for the unexpired time remaining on their existing
permit and they would be required to surrender their Zone B permits. This
option would also required the extensive re-signing and re-plating as outlined
Page 4 of 12
for Option 2 in paragraph 4.6 above. The dual B/C zone would be redesignated as part of Zone C.
4.11 Residents tend to resist any boundary changes to “their” parking zones, and
this may be encouraged by the belief that the area would be swamped by
residents from neighbouring parts of Zone C. We already receive complaints
from residents of the B/C dual zone, particularly around Warwick Avenue
Tube station, about Zone C permit holders’ vehicles using bays in this area.
4.12 This option would also increase the size of Westminster’s largest (both
physically and numerically) residents’ parking zone.
Option 5. Reorganise Parking Zones
4.13 Alternatively rather than just considering the relatively limited options
discussed above it may be better to consider a City-wide reorganisation of the
parking zones. As noted above (paragraph 4.11) residents tend to resist any
boundary changes to “their” parking zones. This would be the most expensive
option, and it would probably generate more complaints than the other
options. In addition this option would be time consuming, as it would be
necessary to consult all residents across the City on any proposals before a
decision could be taken to implement. This could mean that any changes
would not be in place until after the western extension of congestion charging
was implemented in February 2007, because of the extensive consultation,
on-street and administrative works required. This matter is considered in
more detail in the 2006 Parking Policy Review Report, that is currently being
prepared.
Option 6. Offer discount to some B Zone residents
4.14 Those residents of Zone B who are likely to be disadvantaged by virtue of
living in the part of the zone outside both the charging zone and the residents’
discount area could be offered a discount on the Respark fee in order to
ameliorate the disadvantage.
4.15 Given that the annual charge for a permit (£110 or £105 for on-line renewals)
is made of the cost of administering the scheme (£70), and the provision of
other services to improve it, there is little latitude to offer a discount. If for
instance a £32 discount was offered this would only allow the holder four
“free” visits a year (based on the £8 daily charge) into the congestion
charging zone.
4.16 Offering a discount on this basis may also encourage other residents to ask
for a discounted permit, either because they feel they are not getting the full
residents’ parking service, e.g. because of a shortage of parking places,
and/or because of shorter controlled hours. It is felt that this option is of very
limited benefit to the residents in question.
Timetable
4.17 Apart from Option 1, Options 2, 3 & 4 are considered better solutions than
Option 5 to the problems arising from the division of Zone B by the western
extension of congestion charging. Option 5 would probably take longer as it
Page 5 of 12
involves a much larger number of residents’, metered and shared use parking
bays requiring re-signing and new plates, as well as new traffic orders. If
Options 2, 3 & 4 are pursued it would be necessary to consult residents of the
area likely to be affected by the proposals before a final decision could be
taken. The consultation would include Option 1 “No Change”.
4.18
The estimated timetables for the six options are:






Option 1 – No Change: No time required;
Option 2 – Create New Parking Zone J: if we consulted residents in
summer 2006, and report on the results in autumn 2006, it would then
be feasible to implement the new Zone J in February 2007;
Option 3 – Expand B/C Dual Zone: if we consulted residents in
summer 2006, and report on the results in autumn 2006, it would then
be feasible to implement the new dual zone in February 2007;
Option 4 – Add to Parking Zone C: if we consulted residents in
summer 2006, and report on the results in autumn 2006, it would then
be feasible to implement the extended Zone C in February 2007;
Option 5 – Reorganise Parking Zones: if the consultation of
residents took place in summer 2006 the results could be reviewed in
the early autumn for a decision. However, given the extensive on-street
works, the permit administration re-organisation and the printing of new
documents it is unlikely that the new zones would be fully implemented
for at least 12 months. It may be necessary to refer this matter to the
Cabinet Member at least twice; and
Option 6 – Offer discount to residents living in B Zone outside the
congestion charging zone and/or the residents’ discount area: this
option could be implemented in February 2007, subject to Cabinet
Member approval.
Expense
4.19 In terms of expected costs they range from Option 1 (no additional cost) to
Option 5 (most expensive). However, at this stage it is too early to provide
detailed estimates of the cost involved until it is clear which option(s), if any,
will be investigated further. It is possible that Transport for London may pay
the majority of the costs involved from the congestion charging alleviation
measures’ budget, although this has not been confirmed, and this budget is
reportedly much smaller than for the existing scheme.
5.
BUSINESS PLAN IMPLICATIONS
5.1
The 2005/06 Parking Services Business Plan does not contain a specific
performance target in respect of the matters set out in this report.
6.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1
There are no direct financial implications arising from this report.
Page 6 of 12
7.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1
There are no direct legal implications arising out of this report. However,
Options 2,3,4,5 & 6 would require traffic orders to amend the existing parking
places order(s) for the zones in question. Making and amending traffic orders
involves consulting certain organisations and allowing a period for objection
from members of the public.
8.
WARD MEMBERS’ & STAKEHOLDERS’ COMMENTS
8.1
The Members for Bryanston & Dorset Square, Church Street, Little Venice, &
Regent’s Park Wards have been asked for their views on the conclusions
contained in this report and their responses are set out below.
Member
Comment(s)
Cllr M Caplan
(Little
Venice)
My view is that in the absence of a proposal
that would carry overwhelming support, we
should always choose an option that reflects
the status quo which is the proposed option (1)
- no change.
Option 2 makes no sense in isolation unless
we are planning a series of small zones in the
future.
Option 3 should be resisted as it produces
winners and losers and would lead to
resentment by many residents who would be
losers in such a scheme.
I would strongly oppose Option 4 as we
already have a zone C which is too large.
I would also oppose Option 5 at this time,
although it is something that should be
considered in total in the future.
I would oppose Option 6 as it is unfair on the
remaining residents in Little Venice ward and
other wards who are also disadvantaged by
the proposed congestion charge zone
Director’s
response
Noted
extension.
Cllr P Batty
(Hyde Park)
Thank you for asking for my comments on the
Congestion Charge extension and Respark.
First I would like to make reference to the very
poor map. If we are to take any steps we must
look at a good map - this is not your fault. I
have been saying this for years. If you look at
that map you will see that F1, F2 and F3 do
not really abut on B5 nor do they abut on B1.
There are large main roads which are not
manifest on this map and of course paint a
very different picture as they are barriers in
themselves.
Page 7 of 12
Noted
We are
constrained by a
lack of space into
providing a more
detailed map.
Cllr C Keen
(Bryanston &
Dorset Sq.)
The second thing I would like to mention is that
I think we should emphasise more strongly
how very hard we have tried to get TfL to give
the discount to all residents in Westminster. I
support the primary recommendation which is
to do nothing but I do not accept or support the
reference in your report to the fact that we
intend to send a letter to residents who and
what number is not shown. These residents to
be written to in the summer of 2006. This
seems to be ridiculous and you may well get
very large numbers of different responses. It
would be important for us to see that letter if it
were ever to be sent out. I have noted that
you do not consult the residents in the B zone
which receives the discount. They may not
like your proposals for J and B/C.
Noted, the report
emphasises the
Council efforts to
extend the
residents’
discount. It is
possible that
residents will not
be advised of all
six options
considered in this
report.
I think that more or less covers my brief
comments but I do repeat again that you have
to get a decent map, the one that was
prepared of which we now have a copy and
which shows all the area affected should be
used.
Noted as above.
I think it’s important too that you do a proper
costing on all these proposals and let
Councillors see them before any decisions are
taken. Your proposals will be very expensive.
Further to your note of 7th April with information
on the various options, I am concerned that
any charge should be in conjunction with
improved residents’ parking after 6.30 p.m.
and at weekends in B Zone. As you know the
sizeable correspondence and recent petition
residents feel very strongly that there must be
additional protection.
Noted.
Noted, residents
of this area (Subzone B4) will be
consulted on
extended
residents’ parking
controls later this
year.
8.2
The South East Bayswater Residents’ Association (SEBRA) has also
commented on the draft report and the association is concerned about the
impact on the Council’s resources of option 5. SEBRA also felt that Options 3
(enlargement of the B/C overlap) & 4 (add to Zone C) would be unacceptable
because they would create large zones. SEBRA feels that Option 1 (No
Change) is the best course at present.
8.3
The question of the impact of congestion charging on our parking service,
and more particularly Zone B was raised at the relevant area forum during
June 2006. The comments are summarised below:
Page 8 of 12
Forum
Marylebone
05/06
Bayswater
13/06
North 27/06
Maida Vale
28/06
Comment(s)
None recorded
Director’s response
N/A
1) Broadly agree no need to change
restrictions in B Zone as a result of Western
Extension but it makes sense to review
restrictions in any event to see if there is any
impact after implementation in February
2007, as this will also affect people visiting F
Zone. One person said that they might be
more likely to use their car because of the
charge.
Noted
2) Concerns that B Zone permit holders
won't be able to use ResPark to use
Porchester Centre facilities. Other comments
that B Zone permit holders north of
Marylebone Road shouldn't be allowed to
park near Queensway to visit Whiteleys.
Congestion charging
does not change the
legal status of the
Parking Zones.
Residents would
have to pay the
appropriate fee to
pay in other zones.
3) We should be looking at zoning in general.
Noted - this may
became part of the
review process.
4) F Zone residents in eastern extension of
24 hour controls asked about visitor parking
and were advised that there are no current
plans but this will be considered as part of
the ongoing permit strategy and kerbside
strategy review.
None recorded
None recorded
Noted
N/A
N/A
9.
PROGRAMME
9.1
If the recommendation in this is approved no further action needs to be taken
until after the introduction of the congestion charging, western extension in
February 2007. The recommendation commits the Council to review this
situation in late spring 2007, and officers will continue to monitor residents’
correspondence. A Cabinet Member report may be drafted if the situation
warrants this.
10.
CONCLUSIONS & REASONS FOR DECISION
10.1 If the City Council were confident that it could persuade TfL to include all
Westminster’s residents outside the CCZ for the 90% discount, then Option 1
would be the best choice. However, it is unlikely that TfL will at this stage
agree to this concession.
Page 9 of 12
10.2 Each option involves advantages and disadvantages, but they show the
Council’s intention to alleviate the problems arising from the division of
parking zone B. In light of the overwhelming challenges Option 5 is likely to
raise and the considerable cost it is felt that it should not be pursued further.
It is also felt given the limited benefit of offering Option 6 that this should also
be abandoned.
10.3 If it is felt that it is necessary to make changes to the parking zones in this
area then there is probably little difference between Options 3 and 4. Option 2
(new Zone J) is likely to offer residents of Zone B south of the Westway a
satisfactory solution to any problems arising from the western extension of
congestion charging. If the new parking zone (Option 2) were chosen it is
likely that this could make the situation worse for the Zone B residents north
of Westway as their access to facilties south of that highway would be
worsened as they would be obliged to pay to park as well as paying the
congestion charge.
10.4 It is recommended that Option 1 (No Change) remains the best option for the
time being, and we can review the situation in spring 2007 if it is felt that
action should be considered following the implementation of the congestion
charging western extension.
Background Papers
None
Page 10 of 12
For completion by Cabinet Member
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development
and Transport

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development
and Transport
(N.B.: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate
to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation in the report entitled
Congestion Charge, Western Extension – Options For Parking Zone B and
reject any alternative options which are referred to but not recommended.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for ……………………………….
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection
with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out
your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the
Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Page 11 of 12
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and, if there are staffing
implications, the Head of Human Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you
can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into
account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be
properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to
the Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision
falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working
days have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
Page 12 of 12