London Borough of Hackney
Parking & Enforcement Plan
1 Introduction 7
Issues Summary 8
Scope of Work 10
Policy Plan Structure 11
2 Plan Priorities and Objectives 15
3 Customer Satisfaction 19
Consultation Strategy 20
Customer Focus and Feedback 21
4 Data Management 23
Data Collection 23
Information Technology 23
5 Parking Supply and Charges 25
On-street Supply 25
On-street Charges 27
Off-street Supply 28
Off-street Charges 29
6 CPZ Strategy 31
CPZ Coverage 31
Zone Review 33
7 Parking Permits and Charges 37
Resident’s Permits 37
Visitor Vouchers 40
Business Permits 41
Essential Community Service Permits 42
Doctor’s Permits 42
8 Estate Parking 43
Estate Permits and Enforcement 43
9 Disabled Parking 45
Disabled Permits 45
Disabled Bays 48
10 Enforcement 51
Partnership Working 52
Parking Attendants and Patrols 52
Uncontrolled Areas 53
Abandoned Vehicles 53
Persistent Evaders 53
Clamping and Removals 53
Religious Festivals 54
11 Non-car Modes 55
Pedal Cycle Parking 55
Powered Two-wheel Vehicle Parking 56
Coach Parking 56
12 New Development 57
London Plan Parking Standards 57
Parking Standards Policy 58
13 Supporting Mechanisms 59
Congestion Charging 59
Travel Plan and Sustainable Travel Initiatives 59
Transport for London Road Network 61
Parking Finances 61
Internal Communications 61
14 Policy Recommendations 63
Appendix A Workshops
Appendix B Benchmarking Exercise Available
Appendix C Policy Inputs upon
Appendix D Blue Badge Scheme: Audit Recommendations application
Appendix E London Plan Parking Standards
Tables and Figures
Table 1.1 Hackney 1991 and 2001 Car Ownership Levels 10
Table 2.1 Hierarchy of Parking Need 16
Table 5.1 Council Off-street Public Car Parks 28
Table 6.1 Existing Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) 32
Figure 1.1 Borough Key Plan 13
Figure 6.1 Existing CPZs 35
Foreword Councillor Jessica Crowe
Deputy Mayor of Hackney and
Lead Cabinet Member for Environment
I am pleased to introduce Hackney Council’s Parking
Enforcement Plan which was agreed by the Mayor and
Cabinet in January 2005. A great deal of work preparing this
plan was overseen by my predecessor as lead Cabinet
member, and I would like to pay tribute to Cllr Stops for that
work. It is extremely welcome that we have a comprehensive
statement of the Council’s overarching strategic parking policies.
The management and fair allocation of road space has become an increasingly complex
and controversial issue for residents, businesses and visitors to our Borough, as set out in
the Plan. For this reason we engaged in a wide-ranging consultation with councillors,
residents, businesses, interest groups and regional stakeholders before adopting this
Plan, which was revised to take account of comments that we received. I hope that these
debates will continue as we roll out the Operational and Work Plans that will support the
delivery of the policy objectives set out in this Plan.
I want to reiterate - because there is a widespread misunderstanding of this - that the
Council does not use revenue raised from parking charges for anything other than those
prescribed by law under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (RTRA) 1984.
Thanks to this administration’s careful financial management of recent years, the
Council’s finances are now in a sound state, but even if they were not, we could not switch
money from the Parking Account to subsidise the Council’s general expenditure.
We do, however, have a legal obligation under the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, to
seek to reduce traffic and its impact on the health, safety and general environment of our
residents. Parking management is a tool that can contribute to this aim. However, the
Council wishes to work with residents - not against them - to help reduce their
dependency on the private car and to encourage alternatives where possible. The aim of
the PEP is to provide a framework for parking that supports economic regeneration
consistent with constraining overall traffic volumes within levels which do not jeopardise
We have recently seen a huge expansion in bus service, thanks to London Mayor Ken
Livingstone, and Hackney’s Mayor Jules Pipe is unstinting in his efforts and lobbying to
bring the tube to Hackney. Colleagues in schools and health services are also working to
highlight the health benefits - particularly for children - of more walking and cycling and of
a less polluted environment.
Over the coming year the Council will also be consulting on and approving a wide-ranging
Transportation Strategy, to which the policies set out in the PEP will contribute. I
commend this Plan to all stakeholders and believe that it will greatly assist us to meet our
wider social, environmental and economic objectives as set out in Hackney’s Community
Strategy, Mind the Gap.
Cllr Jessica Crowe
Deputy Mayor of Hackney and Lead Cabinet Member for Environment
The Council is seeking to improve parking conditions in the Borough. To help
achieve this, a Parking and Enforcement Plan (PEP) has been developed to
provide a strong policy framework to guide the Council’s parking management
activities. The overall aim of the PEP is to help support a better and safer
environment for the Borough.
The PEP has three parts: a Policy Plan, an Operational Plan and a Work Plan.
The Policy Plan addresses the why. It identifies the overall policy basis which will
guide the Council’s parking-related decisions and presents a series of policy
recommendations. The Operational Plan addresses the how. It explains how the
Council’s Parking Services, working in partnership with its Stakeholders, will
implement these policies. The Work Plan addresses the when and by whom. It
identifies a range of parking activities over the short to medium term, up to the
2006/07 financial year.
Policy recommendations in the PEP Policy Plan are based on prioritising clearly
identified parking needs, such as the needs of people with disabilities, local
residents and local businesses. This helps to manage parking in the Borough on a
fair and consistent basis.
Meeting the objectives in the PEP Policy Plan requires robust, accurate parking
data to help inform the decision-making process. A key policy recommendation,
therefore, is the development of a data management strategy to collect local
parking supply and demand data which is supported by the best use of information
1.1 The Council is seeking to develop and implement a Parking and
Enforcement Plan (PEP) for the Borough. The PEP is intended to
replace the previous Borough Parking Plan (1999 – 2002), which has
1.2 The PEP will provide the policy framework for effective parking
management, which is supportive of strategic objectives for integrated
land use and transport planning, environment, social inclusion,
economic prosperity and regeneration: all ingredients of sustainable
1.3 A PEP is a clear policy requirement set out in the Mayor of London’s
Transport Strategy (July 2001). Proposal 4G.17 of the Transport
Strategy requires London boroughs to submit a PEP as an integral part
of their Local Implementation Plan (LIP). A PEP is expected to fully
reflect the objectives of the Transport Strategy and, in particular:
• be comprehensive, including consideration of parking provision,
charging regimes, on-street controls and parking standards;
• be co-ordinated and compatible with surrounding authorities;
• provide a clear strategy for effective enforcement;
• support the economic viability of town centres, whilst reducing the
overall availability of long-stay parking;
• ensure that the needs of disabled people, motorcycles, buses,
coaches, business and freight are taken into account, along with
loading and signing issues in relation to parking; and
• demonstrate how the provision, location, safety and security of
public car parks will deliver the objectives of the strategy.
1.4 The scope of the PEP is necessarily broad, in part reflecting the
complex and challenging linkages between parking and transport,
environmental, economic and planning issues.
1.5 The PEP is an over-arching strategic policy tool which will be integral to
the Council’s review of its current Unitary Development Plan (UDP),
which was adopted in June 1995. This provides the opportunity to
develop a coordinated and systematic parking policy approach, with
clear linkages between the emerging Local Development Framework
(LDF) and the PEP.
1.6 The importance of complementary parking policies between the
emerging LDF (formerly UDP) and PEP is recognised in the Mayor of
London’s London Plan (February 2004), which states that an,
‘integrated approach is needed in boroughs’ parking policies in UDPs,
in exercising their development control functions, and in boroughs’
transport Local Implementation Plans’ (3.210).
1.7 The PEP is intended to make recommendations for the future direction
of parking policies in the Borough. The main outputs of the PEP will be
proposals for parking that support economic regeneration consistent
with constraining overall traffic volumes within levels which do not
jeopardise environmental objectives. The PEP needs to balance all
parking needs and demonstrate how they may be met against clear
policy objectives and indicate supporting measures that the Council can
1.8 The PEP comprises three elements as follows:
• Policy Plan;
• Operational Plan; and
• Work Plan.
1.9 This document presents the Council’s PEP Policy Plan, which gives
clear policy recommendations for the effective management of parking
in the Borough. Both the Operational and (five year) Work Plans are
presented in separate, supporting documents.
1.10 The PEP needs to address various challenging parking-related issues
which are currently experienced in the Borough. These challenges stem
largely from the fact that Hackney is a diverse Borough undergoing
change. A Key Plan of the Borough is provided in Figure 1.1 (at the
end of this section) for information.
1.11 The Borough’s population is increasing. Over the last decade the
population has grown from approximately 180,000 (1991 Census) to
just over 200,000 (2001 Census). The Borough’s average household
size (2.34 people/household) is close to the national average (2.36
people/household), according to the 2001 Census. The Borough is
densely populated and is formed by a complex network of Victorian
1.12 To the south, the Borough is bordered by the City of London and the
nearby City fringe area; the Bethnal Green area of London Borough of
Tower Hamlets and Victoria Park. To the east, the Borough is bordered
by Hackney Marshes and the Lower Lee Valley. To the north the
Borough is bordered by the South Tottenham area of the London
Borough of Haringey and Finsbury Park. To the west, the Borough is
bordered by both the Highbury and Canonbury areas of the London
Borough of Islington.
1.13 The Borough falls within the defined East London sub-region, as
defined in the London Plan. Large parts of the Borough are identified as
Areas for Regeneration. In addition, two Opportunity Areas,
Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch and Stratford, border the Borough to the
south and east respectively, for which clear targets have been set for
growth in jobs and new homes.
1.14 The Borough exhibits both Inner and Outer London characteristics. The
southern part of the Borough falls within the City Fringe and borders the
Congestion Charging Scheme (CCS) Inner Ring Road charging zone
boundary. Here public transport accessibility levels are generally high,
but so too is the demand for commuter parking around mainline rail and
underground stations and major bus interchanges.
1.15 To the north and east of the Borough conditions are more typical of
Outer London, with lower population and employment densities. Here
rail networks (overground and underground) are less dense, increasing
the importance of the local bus network.
1.16 The Borough has recently benefited from the introduction of a number
of new and extended bus routes. A total of 16 new and extended bus
routes, including three night buses, have been implemented.
1.17 Whilst social exclusion and multiple deprivations persist in parts of the
Borough, where sustained renewal is urgently needed, other
neighbourhoods are undergoing widespread gentrification. Increases in
population and higher car ownership levels mean that parking demand
will continue to grow. This socio-economic polarisation is a particular
challenge facing the Borough, as recognised in the Council’s
Community Strategy Discussion Paper, The Future of Hackney
1.18 Car ownership information for both 1991 and 2001 for the London
Borough of Hackney is summarised in Table 1.1 below for information.
1.19 The Census results for the last two decades indicate that the level of
car ownership has increased in the Borough over time. In 1991
approximately 62% of Borough households did not own a car. By 2001
this figure had fallen to 56%. An increase in multiple car ownership is
also evident in Table 1.1. Relative to other inner London boroughs, let
alone outer London boroughs, Hackney’s car ownership levels are low.
For example, approximately 51% and 29% of households in inner and
outer London respectively do not own a car.
1.20 Local evening and night time economies are expanding in particular
areas, notably Shoreditch, Hoxton and the Hackney Cultural Quarter.
This growth can exacerbate on-street parking conflicts between local
residents and visitors to these vibrant areas.
Table 1.1 Hackney 1991 and 2001 Car Ownership Levels
No. Cars/Vans No.% Hackney Households by Car Ownership
per Household 1991 2001
No. % No. %
0 46,674 61.7 48,219 56.1
1 (1) 23,878 31.6 31,876 37.0
2 4,422 5.8 5,018 5.8
3 657 0.9 689 0.8
4+ - - 240 0.3
All 75,631 100.0 86,042 100.0
(Source: Local Area Statistics from 1991 and 2001 Census, www.hackney.gov.uk)
1. 1991 data available for 0 to 3+ cars/vans per household only.
1.21 The PEP takes on board the diverse range of both internal and external
challenges to the Borough, particularly the need to balance economic,
social and environmental objectives. The growing demands for car
ownership and access within the Borough threaten air quality objectives
and undermine the maintenance of a safe and efficient road network.
Change is the main challenge facing Hackney and this will place an
increasing emphasis on the need for effective parking management to
resolve potential policy and practical conflicts.
Scope of Work
1.22 The PEP is a strategic policy instrument, with a firm basis in transport
policy, which sets out in a clear and transparent way in which parking
management within the Borough will progress over the coming years.
1.23 There are a number of key parking issues which are addressed in the
PEP. The PEP will:
• provide a clear framework for the possible expansion of CPZs
within the Borough;
• take into account planning, land use and transportation issues;
• ensure that a clear parking enforcement strategy is developed and
that it is reflected within the new Parking Enforcement Contract
(PEC) - commenced September 2004. This will also include
possible parking enforcement on housing estates which will allow
the Council to provide a seamless parking service as well as
exploiting operational synergies to support an efficient and effective
• ensure that a clear framework which addresses parking for
disabled persons within the Borough, as well as mechanisms for
dealing with fraud of the Blue Badge Scheme;
• ensure that the PEP is consistent with the Council’s overarching
strategic policies and strengthens linkages with the cross cutting
services, for example Streetscene – in targeting abandoned and
untaxed vehicles and allowing access to street cleansing and
refuse vehicles; and Enforcement Strategy;
• develop a coherent and transparent policy for different types of
parking permits, including; rational underpinning of the pricing
structure of permits; criteria for dispensations; waivers and
• sets out short, medium and long term action points for parking
within the Borough over the coming years and will include data
collection and management to establish a clearer understanding of
supply and demand issues at local area level. This allows major
changes to be made after adequate review against observed
parking patterns of demand.
1.24 The PEP is sufficiently flexible and robust to evolve and adapt to
incorporate and address new parking issues, as and when they occur.
The PEP sets out a positive, ambitious vision for the Council’s Parking
Service as the premier service shaping best practice in the field of
parking management in London.
1.25 The PEP will form one (albeit important) element of the Council’s wider
traffic and transportation policies, which together have the common
aims of reducing the need to travel by private car, improving alternative
travel modes, whilst supporting initiatives to increase economic activity
and community and environmental regeneration throughout the
Borough. It is recognised that PEP parking initiatives in isolation are
insufficient to achieve wider transport, environmental, social and
economic benefits and must be assisted by a range of supporting
mechanisms. This highlights the need for the integration of the PEP
with LIP and UDP as the Borough’s integrated transport strategy.
Policy Plan Structure
1.26 The Policy Plan provides the strategic policy framework for the PEP
and presents a series of policy recommendations to guide the overall
direction of parking management in the Borough.
1.27 Following this introductory section, Section 2 identifies the PEP
priorities and objectives, followed by customer satisfaction, including
consultations (Section 3).
1.28 Good parking management is underpinned by robust parking data and
information technology and informs the decision-making process.
Section 4 describes the policy with regard to data collection and
1.29 The main body of this document presents policy recommendations for a
range of parking management topic areas, comprising: on & off-street
parking supply and charges (Section 5); the Council’s CPZ Strategy
(Section 6); parking permits and charges (Section 7); estate parking
(section 8); disabled parking, including Blue Badges (Section 9);
parking enforcement (Section 10); non-car modes such as cycles,
powered two-wheel vehicles and coaches (Section 11); parking
guidelines for new developments (Section 12).
1.30 Supporting policy mechanisms, such as the Congestion Charging
Scheme, travel plan initiatives and the management of the Transport for
London Road Network (TLRN) or Red Routes are discussed in Section
1.31 A series of PEP workshops were held in September 2003 to assist in
an issue identification process. The main purpose of the PEP
workshops was to help understand the Council’s current parking
management practice; identify problems (and opportunities); review
issues at a more detailed level and assist in general ‘fact finding’. In
addition, the workshops provided the opportunity to identify future
aspirations and direction for the Council. PEP workshop minutes and a
summary note of the PEP workshop discussions are included in full at
Appendix A for information.
1.32 The following workshops were held (in alphabetical order):
• Corporate Centre;
• Parking Function;
• Social Services; and
1.33 The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy makes clear the importance
of co-ordination and compatibility with surrounding authorities. This
highlights the important role of benchmarking the Council’s parking
service against other London boroughs, especially neighbouring and
other comparable boroughs.
1.34 A bespoke pro-forma was developed for the purposes of the
benchmarking exercise. Parking officers at each of the 33 London
boroughs (including Hackney) were identified and contacted. The
benchmarking exercise output is included in full at Appendix B.
2 Plan Priorities and Objectives
2.1 The Policy Plan provides the basis for a strongly policy-led PEP, which
reflects parking policies across the national, regional, London-wide and
local policy tiers. The PEP Policy Plan will be reviewed in order to keep
up to date with relevant emerging policies and best practice. Details of
key parking policies are included at Appendix C for information.
2.2 Parking management can influence how and when people travel by car
and other transport modes and, therefore, affects a wide range of
people, organisations and places in Hackney. Parking policies, from
national to local level, seek to restrain unnecessary private car travel,
especially for local trips within the Borough, and encourage sustainable
travel choices, such as public transport, walking and cycling.
2.3 Transport for London (TfL) is responsible for the Transport for London
Road Network (TLRN), or Red Routes, including the A10 (amongst
others), which runs north/south across the Borough. The Council is
responsible for all other public streets in the Borough.
2.4 The supply, location and pricing of parking can influence travel choice,
including car use and, ultimately, car ownership. Parking policies are
generally used to reduce unnecessary car trips, for example by
deterring long-stay commuter parking in town centre areas with good
public transport accessibility, such as Hackney Central and Dalston.
2.5 Parking policies therefore can help achieve the Council’s traffic
reduction targets, as well as National Air Quality Strategy objectives to
reduce vehicle emissions and improve local air quality in the Borough.
The Council also aims to provide for short-stay shopper and other
visitor parking in the Borough’s main retail areas to support town centre
2.6 This section sets out both the priorities and objectives of the PEP Policy
2.7 It can be helpful to define a clear hierarchy of parking need for the
Borough to assist overall parking management and prioritisation. This
can be from both a road user and vehicle type perspective, as shown in
Table 2.1 overleaf.
2.8 A clearly defined hierarchy of parking need helps to balance the use of
street space in the Borough and create a safe and pleasant street
scene. Parking management should take specific account of pedestrian
needs and access as a priority and generally improve the walking
Table 2.1 Hierarchy of Parking Need
Hierarchy Type Priority
Road User • local disabled resident parking need
• non-local disabled parking need
• local resident parking need
• essential worker in the delivery of public service
• local business essential parking/servicing need
• short-stay shopper/visitor parking need
• long-stay shopper/visitor parking need
• long-stay commuter parking need
Vehicle Type • emergency vehicle
• pedal cycle
• public service vehicle
• delivery vehicles/lorries and vans
• powered two-wheeler
• shared/pool car
• cleaner/greener private car
• conventional private car
2.9 This section identifies both Strategic Objectives and Parking Objectives
to provide a robust policy framework for the PEP. The Strategic
Objectives are drawn from strategic policy guidance, as well as over-
arching themes from the Council’s emerging Community Strategy (see
Appendix C), and will deliver high-level strategic policies in relation to
the broader transport environment. The Parking Objectives are more
specific and provide guidance for parking management in the Borough.
2.10 The six PEP Strategic Objectives (S1 to S6) are:
S1 Support strong, diverse and sustainable economic growth and job
creation, and locate new development where it can be readily
accessed by non-car travel modes.
S2 Reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and encourage more
sustainable patterns of travel.
S3 Manage overall traffic levels in the Borough to reduce traffic
congestion and realise environmental and safety benefits.
S4 Encourage the development of an efficient and effective transport
system which maximises economic development opportunities.
S5 Promote the social and economic revitalisation and regeneration
of the Borough’s existing town centres by improving accessibility
for all modes of travel.
S6 Deliver an integrated transport policy which supports community
opportunity, inclusion and equity by improving access to jobs and
services for all, in accordance with clearly identified priorities.
2.11 The twenty PEP Parking Objectives (P1 to P20) are:
2.12 The Council should meet the needs of all road users by:
P1 Managing the overall parking supply and demand to allocate
space in accordance with policy principles based on transparent
assessment of needs and priorities.
P2 Recognising the needs of disabled people and providing
conveniently located and effectively enforced parking to enable
easy access to activities and facilities.
P3 Ensuring that parking management is supportive of road safety
initiatives (especially for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable
road users), including Safer Routes to School initiatives and
emergency access requirements.
P4 Supporting the legitimate parking and loading requirements of
businesses, taking into account commercial needs for delivery and
servicing movements and the opportunity for changing delivery
schedules and vehicle sizes.
P5 Ensuring that parking management is supportive of the safe and
efficient operation of the public transport network in the Borough.
2.13 The Council should support effective parking management by:
P6 Coordinating the management (including charging) of on- and off-
street parking to ensure a comprehensive and complementary
P7 Giving priority to short-stay shopper/visitor parking over long-stay
commuter parking, to complement policies to encourage town
centre vitality and discourage inter and intra Borough car trips.
P8 Allocating parking permits with clear conditions of use based on
transparent and consistent principles, which give priority in
accordance with the defined hierarchy of parking need.
P9 Regularly collecting parking data and monitoring changes in the
parking stock to inform parking management activities.
P10 Maximising the potential of the Council’s information technology
(IT) to support an effective and efficient parking management
2.14 The Council should seek to improve sustainable access by:
P11 Providing secure and conveniently located cycle parking,
especially in areas of high demand.
P12 Providing adequate powered two-wheel vehicle parking, especially
in areas of high demand.
P13 Setting car parking standards for new development as maxima in
accordance with the London Plan standards, taking into account
the relative levels of public transport accessibility across the
P14 Ensuring that parking management is supportive of sustainable
travel initiatives, such as travel plans, car clubs and car free
2.15 The Council should meet environmental objectives by:
P15 Ensuring that parking management complements the Council’s
transport policies, having regard to the Council’s ability to meet
road traffic reduction targets for the Borough and to reduce
unnecessary car travel.
P16 Supplying and locating parking spaces and set parking charges,
having regard to the Council’s ability to meet air quality and other
environmental objectives for the Borough.
P17 Ensuring that parking management is supportive of local
environmental improvement initiatives, including the Council’s
2.16 The Council should focus on Customer needs by:
P18 Ensuring an efficient, robust and customer-friendly parking permit
system which effectively tackles permit fraud, especially in relation
to the Blue Badge Scheme.
P19 Ensuring an effective and fair (i.e. consistent) enforcement
operation to maximise compliance with the Borough’s parking
P20 Consulting and communicating with both internal and external
stakeholders to inform cross-cutting parking management issues.
3 Customer Satisfaction
3.1 To improve consultation is not only a Council aspiration; it is also a
statutory requirement. Consultation operates at a number of levels,
from informing people to partnership in decision-making.
3.2 The Council recognises the importance of involving its citizens and key
stakeholders in mapping out the future of the Borough. One of the
Council’s three key objectives set out in the Corporate Plan 2003 –
• Involving the public in what we are doing to get better.
3.3 The Council can achieve this through:
• Improving consultation;
• Making it easier to find out about Council services; and
• Dealing with service requests promptly and efficiently.
3.4 Hackney’s Community Strategy Discussion Paper, The Future of
Hackney, sets out the Council’s commitment to ‘open and honest’
consultation. The paper states that:
In order to ensure our consultation is of the highest quality we will:
1. Say what we are consulting on and why;
2. Say who we are consulting;
3. Say how we will consult;
4. Tell people about the consultation;
5. Use the results; and
6. Be inclusive.
3.5 This commitment is enshrined in Hackney’s Public Consultation
Charter, which is contained in draft form in the Council’s Consultation
and Public Information Strategy (Part 3). The Charter is built around the
six standards identified above. Meaningful consultation is about seeking
the public’s views, not simply asking for ticks in boxes.
3.6 This section examines both the contribution of the Council’s
Consultation Strategy and the importance of customer focus and
feedback to delivering a better Parking Service for the Borough.
3.7 In order to ensure continuity in communication with key stakeholders,
Parking Services will make provision to facilitate a Quarterly or Half
Yearly ‘Parking Forum’ enabling any issues to be raised, ensuring
timely responses and interaction by Parking Services.
3.8 The Council’s October 2003 Issues Paper from the Director of
Environment for the PEP identifies a number of consultation-related
issues. This paper highlights the importance of making a clear
distinction between a public referendum and a public consultation
exercise and raises the question of whether the introduction of new
CPZs should be a referendum issue or not.
3.9 The difference lies in the level of influence residents have on deciding
matters, such as parking, in their local areas. With consultation
exercises, responses from residents are only one part of the process of
policy formulation. Although it is a crucial part, other aspects are
considered, such as cost and environmental impacts. Within a
referendum framework, residents have a clear veto.
3.10 Consultation response rates are discussed in the paper. It is not
uncommon for the Council’s public consultation exercises to yield an
overall response rate of under 10%, with many of the participants either
strongly supportive or strongly opposed to the proposals.
3.11 The Council has appointed a Public Consultation Officer within the
Communications Team to help deliver best practice consultation in the
Borough. Parking Services is working closely with Corporate
Communications to meet the standards set out in the Consultation
Charter, for example through the development of a CPZ Consultation
Strategy. This includes both Stage One (In Principle Consultation) and
Stage Two (Detailed Design Consultation) elements.
3.12 Stage One (In Principle Consultation) is an initial consultation exercise
to gauge the level of public support for new parking controls from the
local community. A number of consultation tools are available,
• 20% doorstep surveys with both residents and businesses;
• Public consultation leaflet drop, including questionnaires;
• Translation provision;
• The use of Hackney Today to ensure a high level of awareness;
• Local Ward Member consultation.
3.13 The 20% doorstep surveys are designed as a quality control
mechanism to specifically increase the response rate and increase
community awareness of an on-going consultation exercise.
3.14 Through the Stage One (In Principle Consultation) process the Council
will have ensured that local needs are taken into account before any
decision is made.
3.15 Stage Two (Detailed Design Consultation) addresses specifics such as
operational hours and days and the allocation of road space and
parking bays, rather than re-visiting the in principle stage. The above
consultation tools are used, in addition to local public exhibitions staffed
by Council officers.
3.16 The Council should ensure that the issue of displaced parking is fully
and transparently addressed in any CPZ consultation. New parking
controls invariably result in displaced on-street parking activity to
adjacent uncontrolled streets. Local residents and businesses in these
adjacent areas (or ‘buffer zones’) should be kept fully informed of
possible parking displacement effects.
3.17 After Stage Three (Implementation), the Stage Four (Review) process
takes place. This is looked at under customer focus and feedback
3.18 The future potential of on-line public consultations via the Internet is
Customer Focus and Feedback
3.19 Customer focus and feedback channels are very important means of
communication between the Council and the Borough’s diverse
communities. They provide means of disseminating and receiving
information and to help identify public views on the Council’s services.
3.20 Current means of obtaining public feedback are through letters, email
via the Council’s website, phone contact and ‘mystery shopper’
exercises by phone. The Council disseminates information via its
website and newspaper, Hackney Today.
3.21 The Council recognises the importance of improved communications
and is currently preparing a Communications Strategy for the
Environment Directorate. This Strategy aims to put in place a proactive
system to help deal with various communications issues, such as bad
press. The Strategy also highlights the importance of parking
consultation and the need to allocate a budget for it.
3.22 The Council proposes to carry out a review one year after a new CPZ
has been implemented to obtain customer feedback. The findings of
each review process will be presented to the CPZ Implementation
Project Board (see para. 6.11). The review will encompass the
consultation, design and implementation stages of the CPZ. The
Council also proposes to undertake a review of all CPZs in the Borough
on a three yearly basis.
3.23 The use of periodic customer satisfaction surveys and the provision of
customer feedback forms, e.g. at the councils parking shop are useful
tools to obtain customer feedback.
3.24 In addition, the Council should consider ways of improving customer
access to its parking services, such as extending the parking Shop
Opening times and maximizing the potential of e-government via the
4 Data Management
4.1 Data management is essential to the operation of an effective parking
management system. Systematic and robust data collection enables
resources to be effectively targeted, interventions (e.g. the introduction
of new parking controls) to be justified and the outputs of any policy or
operational change to be monitored and assessed.
4.2 As a priority, the Council is seeking to develop and implement a data
management strategy to guide parking management in the Borough
and inform the decision-making process. This section briefly examines
the roles of both data collection and information technology.
4.3 The Council does not currently undertake a programme of systematic
data collection to monitor the use of both on-street and publicly-
available parking in the Borough. As a result, there is limited data
available on parking supply and demand in Hackney.
4.4 The collection of information on parking supply and demand at the local
area level is essential and informs parking management decisions, e.g.
the identification of parking stress areas in the Borough.
4.5 There is a clear need for a comprehensive annual parking survey
programme to obtain accurate parking supply and demand data for the
Borough. Parking survey requirements are detailed in the Operational
4.6 The availability of up-to-date, accurate and usable parking data for the
Borough is essential for effective parking management. The use of
current and future information technology (IT) systems, to their full
capabilities, is vital to maximise the potential of this parking data.
4.7 The Council is developing a Corporate IT Strategy, which is currently in
draft format. This emerging strategy will help realise the full potential of
the Council’s IT systems, such as Geographical Information Systems
(GIS), the ParkMap system, close circuit television (CCTV) systems
and Internet services. The importance of compatible, integrated IT
systems is recognised here.
4.8 The best use of IT is essential to maximise customer access to the
Council’s parking services. In order to realise this potential, the Council
is investigating options for the outsourcing of a 24/7 payment line, to
enable customers to pay Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) at any time.
4.9 In the longer term, as effective e-government systems are put in place,
the Council’s parking services can be accessed via the Internet, e.g.
on-line public consultations, parking permit renewals and general
parking information for the Borough. Camden’s Parking Solutions
website provides one-stop solutions for people parking in the borough
and is an example of best practice in this field (see
4.10 It is recommended that:
• The Council should employ CCTV and traffic management
enforcement cameras to assist parking enforcement in the
• The Council should investigate the future potential of an on-line
one-stop shop for parking on the Council’s website to meet
customers’ needs and promote effective consultation through e-
5 Parking Supply and Charges
5.1 Parking supply, especially on-street road side space, is limited and
under increasing pressure as car ownership (and multiple car
ownership) grows in the Borough. An effective parking policy framework
is therefore essential in order to manage potentially competing and
intensifying parking demands in the Borough.
5.2 Charging policies for both on- and off-street parking can significantly
influence parking demand, parking space turnover and, ultimately, car
use and ownership. Parking charges are also a highly sensitive subject
and are often the result of political judgment, rather than being the
outcome of defined pricing criteria.
5.3 This section examines the coordinated management and charging of
both on- and off-street parking supply in the Borough.
5.4 Approximately one half of the Borough’s area is presently controlled,
i.e. has a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in place (CPZs are discussed
further in Section 6). Outside of these CPZs, generally in the
uncontrolled areas to the north and east of the Borough, only limited
lengths of kerbside waiting and loading restrictions or yellow lines are in
5.5 The Council is actively introducing new parking controls at junctions on
the Borough’s road network. These parking controls make the junctions
safer for vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, as
well as drivers. They also keep junctions on bus routes free from
obstruction and delay.
5.6 Where the Council has introduced CPZs, different types of on-street
parking bays are put in place (e.g. resident’s bays, business permit
bays, pay and display bays and shared use bays) to meet specific local
5.7 Shared use bays can be introduced in CPZs to meet a range of local
parking needs. These bays can be used by any parking permit holder
and also offer pay and display parking for visitors. Shared use bays are
therefore a flexible form of parking suitable for areas with competing
on-street parking demands.
5.8 However, in some parts of the Borough, especially outside public
buildings (e.g. Hackney Town Hall) long-stay parking activity by parking
permit holders in shared use bays reduces the availability of short-stay
and pay and display parking. In these circumstances there is a need for
pay and display only bays to meet short-stay on-street parking
5.9 In parts of the Borough footway parking currently takes place. In these
areas parked vehicles dominate the street scene and can cause
obstruction to other road users, such as parents with push chairs and
disabled people. This contravenes the Highway Code, which requires
drivers to show consideration for all road users.
5.10 The problem of footway parking was highlighted in the House of
Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. Eleventh
Report entitled Walking in Towns and Cities, printed in May 2001. This
Parliamentary Select Committee Report states (75):
Parking on the pavement is a serious and growing problem, especially
outside London (in the capital it is illegal, elsewhere it is not). It blocks
the way of parents pushing buggies and of elderly and disabled people
in wheel chairs and electric carts. The pavement surface is soiled
by oil stains and broken by the weight of vehicles, leading to an uglier
walking environment and an increased risk of trips and falls. Moreover,
tolerance of it symbolises the widespread assumption that the car driver
is king and encourages contempt for pedestrians. It indicates that all
public space, pavements as well as roads, belongs to the motorist.
5.11 Footway parking is not permitted in London under Section 15 of the
Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1974. Exceptions are in
designated streets for which Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) are
published that regulate such activity. There is very limited designated
footway parking across the Borough.
5.12 On-street disabled parking policy is specifically examined in Section 9.
On-street powered two-wheel vehicle and cycle parking policies are
examined in Section 11.
5.13 As competing parking demands intensify and conflict, the need for
skilled and effective on-street parking management based on clearly
defined priorities increases. It is essential that this management
process is guided by a firm understanding of variations in on-street
parking supply and demand across the Borough.
5.14 The designation or allocation of on-street road side space therefore
needs to accord with the parking need hierarchy set out in Section 2
(see Table 2.1).
5.15 The Council can vary the supply, location and charging of on-street
kerb side space to both encourage or discourage specific parking
demands, e.g. giving priority to short stay shopper/visitor parking in the
Borough’s main town centres of Hackney Central, Dalston and Stoke
Newington to support the local retail economy.
5.16 Footway parking results in higher maintenance costs for the Council.
Footways are not designed to take the weight of motor vehicles and, as
such, damage to the pavement can occur. Transport policies
emphasise the need to prioritise pedestrians, reduce the dominance of
the car and, in doing so, improve the street environment. The Council
should therefore minimise footway parking in the Borough to ensure
that local pedestrian access and amenity is not adversely affected.
5.17 The Council should review on-street parking supply in a clear,
consistent and transparent manner. This review process should be
informed by robust data generated by the data management strategy,
as well as local consultation. The review process is important to identify
local parking supply and demand and, in doing so, help to meet and
manage local on-street parking needs.
It is recommended that:
• The Council review the extent of footway parking within the
borough, identifying any exempt roads. An enforcement plan to
address the issue would need to be agreed and appropriate
enforcement action applied.
5.18 The Council’s current on-street pay and display charges vary by zone
and maximum length of stay, with charges highest close to the City
fringe. The Council’s charges are generally in line with other London
boroughs, as shown by the benchmarking exercise (see Appendix B).
5.19 The Council’s current on-street pay and display charges structure
establishes the principle of variation in parking charges across the
Borough to reflect local parking conditions.
5.20 Pay and display charges should reflect local on-street parking demand
and turnover of spaces. Where demand for short-stay parking is high
(e.g. around busy shopping areas and public buildings), the pricing
mechanism (in parallel with the maximum length of stay) should be
used to encourage rapid turnover of spaces.
5.21 To measure the accuracy of parking charges levied in any geographical
area, occupancy levels should be monitored to assess whether they
exceed 85%. Occupancy levels greater or less than 85% may indicate
that a review of the charges is required.
5.22 It is recommended that:
• The Council should undertake a comprehensive and coordinated
review of on-street pay and display charges, informed by output
from the data management strategy. Any decision for variable
charges to be introduced should be weighted against demand
within the locality, be subject to justification and reviewed to
5.23 Publicly available off-street parking is an important element of the total
parking stock and, similarly to on-street provision, its availability
influences the overall number of car trips. The management of off-street
car parks can therefore be an important tool in discouraging non-
essential car-based trips, such as commuter journeys, where there are
alternative and more sustainable travel choices realistically available.
5.24 The Council owns a limited number of small publicly-available off-street
car parks in the Borough, located in Hackney, Dalston and Stoke
Newington town centres. Details of these are shown in Table 5.1 below
Table 5.1 Council Off-street Public Car Parks
Town Centre Location No. Spaces
Hackney Amhurst Road 25
Dalston Gillett Street 74
Dalston Bentley Road 109
Stoke Newington Wilmer Place 34
Total - 242
5.25 The Councils four car parks are open from 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday
to Saturday, with all day stay permitted in all car parks, except Gillett
Street, Dalston, where a two hour maximum stay applies.
5.26 There are a number of privately-operated public off-street car parks in
the Borough. A number of these (mainly National Car Parks Ltd or NCP
sites) are located in the City fringe area. Given their location, these car
parks are likely to serve a commuter market for nearby employment
uses. The Council’s previous Parking Plan (1999 – 2002) estimated
that there were approximately 800 spaces in the Borough’s privately-
operated, publicly-available off-street car parks.
5.27 There are also a number of temporary car parks, especially towards the
south of the Borough close to the Congestion Charge Scheme (CCS)
boundary. TfL is currently funding a study to review all off-street car
parks in the south of the Borough, close to the CCS boundary, to
identify authorised and unauthorised facilities.
5.28 Unregulated, ad hoc off-street parking activity is not confined to the
southern parts of the Borough, close to the CCS boundary; this is a
problem in other areas, e.g. two informal car parks on Dalston Lane.
5.29 The Council’s ability to intervene in the private operations of public car
parks is severely limited, in the absence of site-specific planning
conditions relating to, for example, the annual review of parking
5.30 It is a policy objective of the PEP that different types of parking, i.e.
public/private and on-street/off-street, should not be considered in
isolation, but managed collectively to achieve a balance of supply and
5.31 The Council aspires to improve off-street public parking facilities in the
Borough. There is potential to negotiate public use of new off-street car
parks associated with new development (e.g. supermarkets), to
maximise shared parking facilities in the Borough’s main town centres.
5.32 Through the pricing mechanism, the Council should seek to encourage
short-stay parking with rapid turnover of spaces and deter long-stay
parking. The Council should also seek to encourage the use of publicly
available off-street paid parking facilities, over the use of on-street pay
and display parking.
6 CPZ Strategy
6.1 A Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) is an area within which specified
hours of parking control apply to the public highway; CPZ controls do
not apply to private roads. CPZs are designed and implemented to
assist areas suffering from parking stress.
6.2 The main purpose of a CPZ is to effectively manage on-street parking
activity in an area and, in doing so, improve road safety and the general
street scene. An important objective of a CPZ is to protect local
residents’ parking needs from non-local parking demands, e.g.
commuters, to enable residents to park conveniently close to their
homes. The introduction of CPZs help to fund parking enforcement,
which provides tangible benefits to other priority road users.
6.3 CPZs can be tailored to meet the parking needs of disabled people and
short-stay shoppers, as well as the essential waiting and loading needs
of local businesses. CPZ controls assist the operation of local buses by
preventing illegal, obstructive on-street parking activity. They can also
enhance the local environment by creating a safer, less cluttered street
scene, free from dangerously parked and abandoned vehicles. The
Council is developing a Streetscene Strategy and a Public Realm
Design Guide to assist the delivery of an improved street scene in the
6.4 The Council has introduced a total of eleven CPZs to date. These are
shown in both Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1 (at the end of the section) for
6.5 CPZs now cover approximately half of the Borough, and are focused
around main town centres (Zones C, D and E), main rail stations (G1,
G2 and G) and towards the City fringes towards the south-west corner
of the Borough (Zones A, B and F). Extensive parts of the Borough,
mainly towards the north and the east, remain uncontrolled.
6.6 The Council recognises the need for a robust, systematic framework,
rooted in policy, for future CPZ implementation in the Borough. This will
help gain and maintain public confidence in the CPZ roll out process.
There is a strong policy presumption in favour of extended parking
controls. Policy 4G.5 of the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy
specifically supports the expansion of CPZs in Inner London (see
6.7 A range of internal pressures, including pressures from new
development, increased car ownership and residents’ complaints,
increase the need for additional parking controls.
Table 6.1 Existing Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs)
Zone Area Hours of Control
A Wenlock Monday – Friday, 8.30am – 6.30pm
B South Shoreditch Monday – Saturday, 7.00am – 11.00pm
C Dalston Monday – Saturday, 7.00am – 7.00pm
D Hackney Central Monday – Saturday, 7.00am – 11.00pm
E Stoke Newington Monday – Saturday, 7.00am – 7.00pm
E ext Stoke Newington Monday – Saturday, 8.30am – 6.30pm
F Hoxton Monday – Saturday, 7.00am – 7.00pm
G1 Manor House Monday – Saturday, 7.00am – 7.00pm
G2 Finsbury Park Monday – Saturday, 7.00am – 7.00pm
G Brownswood Monday – Friday, 8.30am – 6.30pm
H De Beauvoir Monday – Friday, 8.30am – 6.30pm
J Queensbridge Monday – Friday, 8.30am – 6.30pm
J ext Queensbridge Monday – Friday, 8.30am – 6.30pm
M Clissold Monday – Saturday, 8.30am – 6.30pm
6.8 The Borough also faces a number of external pressures for on-street
parking controls. The southern tip of the Borough lies directly adjacent
to the City of London, London’s financial hub. Without suitable parking
controls, this area would be prone to acute parking stress caused by
commuter parking activity.
6.9 The expansion of CPZs in neighbouring boroughs increases the
pressure for further parking controls in Hackney, as a result of cross-
boundary, displaced on-street parking activity.
6.10 A seamless and accountable process, for the whole ‘life cycle’ of a CPZ
from consultation and design through to implementation and review, will
be provided by the Council’s Parking Services to successfully deliver
6.11 It is proposed that a CPZ Project Implementation Project Board is set
up to oversee the process. This Project Board should be chaired by a
chief officer, the Assistant Director of Planning and Transportation. The
Cabinet Member for Environment, Transportation and Planning will be
invited to attend.
6.12 The Council should adopt a phased approach to assessing parking
stress areas and their need for new parking controls. This will allow
better management and control of the process and ensure that the
necessary resources are targeted effectively to deliver a robust
6.13 The need for the introduction of new parking controls in identified
parking stress areas should be assessed using the following three
• Technical assessment: officer-level assessment using robust local
parking data generated by the data management strategy;
• Member support: the level of member support for the scheme; and
• Deputations: the level of public comment, complaints and petitions.
6.14 The consultation process, which forms a key element of the Council’s
CPZ strategy, is developed in detail in Section 3. The process
comprises both Stage One (In Principle Consultation) and Stage Two
(Detailed Design Consultation) consultations.
6.15 Current hours of control for the Council’s eleven existing CPZs are
shown in Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1.
6.16 The Council’s CPZ strategy seeks to roll out CPZs in a phased and
consistent manner to improve conditions in areas subject to parking
stress. Having implemented new parking controls, it is vital that the
Council subsequently reviews the CPZ to ensure that it is operating
effectively and to assess the need for scheme modifications, if required.
6.17 An important objective of a CPZ is to protect local residents’ parking
needs from non-local parking demands. Parts of the Borough are
becoming popular late-night hot spots and this has led to an increase in
on-street visitor parking, as well as parking related anti-social behaviour
e.g. slamming doors and loud car stereos, in some areas. The Borough
also comes under parking pressure as a result of events taking place in
neighbouring boroughs, for example, on match days due to the
proximity of Arsenal FC’s current home ground, at Highbury in Islington,
as well as concerts held at Finsbury Park.
6.18 The Council should systematically and thoroughly review both new and
existing CPZs in the Borough. This review process should be directed
by the CPZ Project Implementation Board. Consultation techniques for
each review are identified in Section 3.
6.19 It is recommended that:
• The Council should carry out a review of every new CPZ
introduced in the Borough within one year of implementation.
The review process should include full consultation with both
local residents and businesses in the zone. This should involve
an assessment of the success of the CPZ and include an
evaluation of the design and bay allocation and other scheme
adjustments, as required. In addition, other smaller scale issues
may be brought to the Council’s attention by local residents and
businesses, and these will be addressed on an on-going basis.
• There may be a clear need for the review of a new CPZ to be
completed earlier than within one year of implementation.
Circumstances of this nature will be reviewed as a priority should
the need be identified.
• The Council should review each existing CPZ in the Borough
every three years. This triennial review should take into account
the impact of CPZ parking controls on the local resident and
business community and other regeneration factors which
support the sustainability of the local area.
• Specifically, the CPZ review process should include an
assessment of displaced parking activity in the surrounding area.
The review should consult local residents and businesses in
streets adjacent to existing CPZs to identify the need for
additional parking controls in adjacent streets to relieve local
parking stress areas.
Existing Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ’s)
7 Parking Permits and Charges
7.1 This section considers the issue and charging of all permits currently
issued by the Council’s Parking Shop. It also considers the introduction
of the Council’s new essential community service permit scheme.
Estate residents’ permits are discussed separately in Section 8.
7.2 The number and type of parking permits issued by the Council can
have a significant impact on parking demand across the Borough.
Parking permit policies (primarily through the pricing mechanism) can
also influence car ownership patterns. Consequently, parking permits
are a vital parking management tool to help achieve stated PEP policy
7.3 To ensure that parking permit policies and pricing structures continue to
meet the demands of stakeholders, a comprehensive parking permit
review will be performed to identify if any changes are required.
7.4 Parking permits are issued by the Council’s Parking Shop for the use of
designated parking places in the Borough’s CPZs. Parking permits are
currently issued to several groups of users, including residents, visitors,
businesses and doctors: - however provision will soon be made to
restrict permit issue on the grounds of payment contravention. Permits
will not be issued to those residents and/or business users who have
outstanding parking fines which are neither at appeals stage or
indicated as being in the process of payment.
7.5 The Council’s Social Services administers parking permits for disabled
people under the Blue Badge Scheme, which is discussed separately in
Section 8 below.
7.6 Any permanent resident of the Borough over the age of 17 who owns a
car, motorcycle or small van and lives within a CPZ is eligible to apply
for a resident’s parking permit. A resident’s permit allows the holder to
park in any vacant resident’s or shared use bay during the CPZ’s hours
of operation. The Council issued approximately 16,900 resident’s
permits during 2002/03.
7.7 Resident’s permit applications require proof of vehicle ownership and
proof of residence in a CPZ. The proof, must be less than three
months old and where applicable, be valid for more than half of the
permits term of validity. A utility bill or bank statement would be an
acceptable evidence as proof of residence. A resident is defined as a
person who resides for a minimum of 5 days a week within that CPZ.
Residents are required to update their permit if a vehicle is replaced.
7.8 The Council currently has no limit on the number of resident’s permits
issued per household. This conflicts with traffic reduction policies.
Permit allocation criteria and measures to influence demand will need
to be used increasingly to ensure that PEP objectives are met. This
may mean, for example, that the Council introduces an upper limit on
the number of resident’s permits issued per household.
7.9 Resident’s parking permit charges are a highly sensitive subject, with
the issue being frequently raised by local residents during CPZ public
7.10 The same rates for resident’s permit charges apply to all zones across
the Borough (i.e. a flat rate). Charges for second and subsequent
resident’s permits are the same as those for the first. A resident’s
permit currently costs £80/year.
7.11 Parking permit issue is an essential function of the Council’s Parking
Shop. The Council should prepare an Annual Parking Report which
details the number of permits issued by type for the financial year.
7.12 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 requires local authorities to
monitor air quality in their area. If a local authority identifies a local air
quality problem, the authority is required to declare an Air Quality
Management Area (AQMA) and prepare a Local Air Quality Action Plan
to improve local air quality in the designated AQMA.
7.13 In March 2001 the Council designated the South Shoreditch area, and
areas along major arterial roads, as AQMAs. Current air quality
assessments indicate that the annual mean levels of nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) are expected to exceed National Air Quality Strategy thresholds.
Similarly, fine particulates (PM10) are expected to exceed these
thresholds in the South Shoreditch area.
7.14 The Council has recently prepared a Local Air Quality Action Plan,
which sets out the Council’s intention to designate the whole Borough
an AQMA. PEP policies have an important contribution to make with
respect to improving local air quality in the Borough.
7.15 The resident’s permit charging structure can be used to encourage the
take up of cars run on alternative fuels, i.e. recognised ‘greener’ fuel
such as electric, LPG or LNG or hybrid vehicles. Similarly, the pricing
mechanism can be used to encourage ownership of cars with smaller
engine sizes, such as Smart Cars.
7.16 HM Customs and Excise currently offers Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)
discounts for cars run on cleaner, alternative fuels (HM Customs and
Excise, November 2000, Using the Tax System to Encourage Cleaner
Fuels: The Experience of Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel, 2.6; HM Treasury,
2000, Tax and the environment: using economic instruments, 6.22).
7.17 Housing Services currently operates a strict policy of not issuing estate
resident’s permits to applicants who are in debt to the Council, in
addition to applicants who cannot prove that a vehicle is taxed. This is
recognised as an effective policy to reduce the number of untaxed
vehicles on the Borough’s streets.
7.18 It is recommended that:
• When a resident applies to renew a permit, and providing the
vehicle details and place of residence that were provided as
evidence has not changed since the previous years application
was processed, there would be no requirement to provide the
relevant documentation prior to reissuing the permit. Under
these circumstances the renewal letter will be sufficient
evidence. However, the council will require actual sight of all
original documents every three years. This would apply to all
permit applications and types.
• The Council should review the residents permit structure to take
into account the emissions based best practice model currently
used by the DVLA. The revised structure should be transparent,
fair and equitable. This has been included within the Work Plan,
and is scheduled for action during 05/06.
• It is therefore recommended that the Council introduces a 25%
discount for the charge of a residents permit for LPG, LNG and
hybrid cars in accordance with the emission-based best practice
model currently used by the DVLA. This environmentally led
discount has been in effect since 1st April 2004.
• It is also recommended that the Council offers free resident and
business permits for electric cars. This exemption has taken
effect from the 1st April 2004, however currently it is only
applicable to resident permits. Business permit holders with
electric cars, will qualify for free permits with effect of 1st April
• The Council should take measures to reduce the number of
untaxed vehicles parked in a CPZ displaying a resident permit,
while also displaying an expired Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), will
invalidate the resident permit resulting in a Penalty Charge
Notice (PCN) being issued. This will further develop the
Councils partnership with the DVLA.
• Any changes to the terms and conditions for use of a permit will
need to be added to all permit application literature and reflected
in Traffic Management Orders.
7.19 On-street visitor parking in the Borough’s CPZs is controlled through
the issue of visitor’s vouchers, which may be purchased in books of ten
by the Borough’s residents. Visitor vouchers allow holders to park in
residential and shared use bays for up to five or six hours, depending
on the CPZ. Visitor vouchers are identified by zone, i.e. ‘Zone A’ etc. is
stamped on the voucher. The Council issued approximately 200,000
visitors vouchers during 2002/03.
7.20 The period of time that a vehicle is permitted to park while displaying a
visitor voucher varies across the Borough. In order to match the
voucher permitted parking time to the specific zone, a review will take
place, incorporating all permits managed by Parking Services.
7.21 The Council does not currently require powered two-wheel vehicles to
display visitor vouchers, as displayed vouchers are vulnerable to theft.
7.22 The workshop discussions indicated that the visitor voucher scheme is
prone to abuse, details of which can be found in Appendix A.
7.23 It is recognized that both the number of, as well as need for, visitors
varies by household, with specific visitor needs for households with
elderly and/or disabled residents. Limiting the number of visitor
vouchers issued per household could therefore adversely impact some
of the Borough’s residents.
7.24 Given the specific enforcement difficulties associated with the theft of
visitor vouchers from powered two-wheel vehicles, it is recommended
that the Council maintains the current policy of not requiring them to
display visitor vouchers.
7.25 To manage the distribution of available parking space, the Council
should withdraw the option of parking in a shared use bay when
displaying a visitor voucher, and restrict the use of visitor vouchers to
resident parking bays only.
7.26 It is recommended that:
• The Council should comprehensively review the visitor’s voucher
scheme, including charges, when robust visitor parking demand
data is made available through the data management strategy.
7.27 The Council’s business permit scheme applies to all businesses located
in the Borough’s CPZs. A business is entitled to a business permit if
vehicles are, ‘essential for the efficient operation of the business’. The
Council issued approximately 1,200 business permits during 2002/03.
7.28 Businesses that make multiple applications are required to justify their
request for more that one permit. Provided that the vehicles are
specified, the Council allows the permit to be issued in the company
name, so that it can be transferred between company vehicles.
7.29 Business permit charges vary by zone and charges for the second and
third permit are the same as those for the first. Business permit charges
are currently higher for Zones A and B, as these areas are close to the
7.30 The Council also currently issues what is termed an all zone business
permit, which can also be issued to either an individual or shared
between a number of specified vehicles. To date, the Council has
issued approximately 400 all zone permits, approximately 70% of which
are issued to Council employees. An all zone business permit allows
the holder to park in resident’s bays, business bays and shared use
7.31 The Council needs to ensure that the legitimate on-street parking needs
of local businesses are met to support the Borough’s local economy.
7.32 There remains a strong case for varying business permit charges
across the Borough. On-street business parking is an alternative to off-
street provision, the costs of which are higher in some parts of the
Borough than others.
7.33 In 2000, the Road Charging Options for London (RCOL) report
estimated that the rental value of a parking space in inner London was
approximately £1,500. This estimate will have increased with inflation
and the introduction of the CCS. Current business permit charges for
Zones A and B on the City fringe compare highly favourably with this
7.34 The Council should therefore undertake a medium-term review of
business permit charges, in the light of local parking data generated by
the data management strategy.
7.35 It is also suggested that the private sector usage of the all zone
business permit is reviewed. The review should consider the need for
stricter allocation criteria with the permit charge linked to the number of
zones required, rather than issuing a blanket all zone permit at a flat
Essential Community Service Permits
7.36 Owing to the development of Controlled Parking Zones in Hackney and
the absence of a specific, affordable, parking permit available for staff
working with public sector and voluntary sector organisations in
Hackney, the Council have identified a growing need for a specific
parking permit enabling public servants, who may, for example, be
providing health and social care to house-bound residents, to park
within the Borough.
7.37 Equally, due to the limited parking space available within Hackney, as
detailed elsewhere in this report, the Council have identified a need to
adopt a balanced approach by balancing parking priorities. In order to
establish the appropriate balance, the Council has performed a
comprehensive consultation exercise to establish the relevant
stakeholders and have held round-the-table meetings with senior
representatives to establish the appropriate criteria under which
Permits will be provided.
7.38 The Council has comprehensively described the policy mechanisms
implemented in respect of the Essential Community Service Permits in
its report to Cabinet on 25th October 2004 entitled Essential Community
Services Permits, which is fully consistent with the principles
established throughout the Parking and Enforcement Plan.
7.39 It is recommended that the Essential Community Service Permit
scheme is monitored in order to establish whether the scheme meets
the needs of public servants and whether it should be extended to other
groups working within the community. This will be an ongoing process
lead by Parking Services and informed under the Data Management
Strategy described in this report.
7.40 The Council currently issues annual doctor’s parking permits. A total of
48 permits were issued in 2002/03. Doctor’s permits allow doctors to
park in designated doctors bays.
8 Estate Parking
8.1 Approximately 30% of the Borough’s residents live on the Council’s
housing estates across the four Neighbourhood Areas (Homerton,
North East, Shoreditch and Stoke Newington).
8.2 Parking was identified as the single most important issue affecting
estate residents in workshop discussions; it was rated above crime in
terms of importance (see Appendix A).
Estate Permits and Enforcement
8.3 The Council’s Housing Services is responsible for the management of
the Borough’s housing estates, including responsibility for parking
control and enforcement. Though a number of the estates are gated,
some estate roads are indistinguishable from public roads in the
8.4 Similarly to elsewhere in the Borough, increasing levels of car
ownership among estate residents is resulting in greater parking
pressure, to an extent that local amenity is being adversely affected in
some areas. Certain estate households are suggested to own up to four
cars, with many lone parents owning cars (lone parents over twenty are
identified as the most frequent car owners).
8.5 Parking enforcement on the Council’s housing estates is currently
enforced independently of the Borough’s public highway. Vehicles not
displaying a valid parking permit in estates with controlled parking
schemes are either clamped or removed.
8.6 Current methods of enforcement are by means of clamp and tow.
However where it has been implied that a driver is in breach of local
parking regulations the motorist has the right to appeal in accordance to
the Road Traffic Act 1991. This provides motorists with a transparent
appeals process where they can appeal directly to the Local Authority
failing that they may approach an independent adjudicator.
8.7 An alternative method of Parking Enforcement within Estates is
ticketing followed by removal. This ensures the residents are offered a
seamless and fair service as enforcement is made in relation to the
severity of the offence. The resident is not put at risk whilst waiting for
the clamp to be removed and they still have the same rights to appeal.
8.8 The Council’s housing estates are prone to illegal parking (including
footway parking) and abandoned vehicles, and the anti-social
behaviour associated with these activities. In response to this, Housing
Services has implemented (or is currently implementing) gated
schemes in some 25 estates across the Borough. To date, the gated
schemes have been received positively by estate residents.
8.9 Parking issues cut across the Council’s housing estates and the
Borough’s streets and this highlights the need for a regular liaison
group, bringing together officers from both Housing and Parking
Services to discuss common parking issues.
8.10 There are clear benefits for parking enforcement on the Council’s
housing estates to fall into the remit of Parking Services. Parking
Services are better resourced by means of their appointed parking
enforcement contractor, to provide a consistent level and quality of
service within the Borough.
9 Disabled Parking
9.1 Many disabled people rely on the private car as a main mode of
transport. The ease with which they can reach their destination is
largely dependent on whether they can park close to that destination.
The availability of conveniently located disabled parking bays at key
destinations, e.g. place of residence, workplace, shops and public
buildings, is therefore vital.
9.2 Disabled access is enshrined in law. Part III of the Disability
Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 requires service providers to take
reasonable steps to ensure that disabled people do not find it
impossible or unreasonably difficult, to enjoy the service on the same
basis as non-disabled people.
9.3 The priority accorded to disabled parking needs, particularly local
resident disabled parking needs, is also reflected in the Borough’s
parking need hierarchies (see Table 2.1 on p.15). This section
considers both disabled parking permits and the supply of on-street
disabled parking bays in the Borough.
9.4 Social Services’ Mobility Services Unit administers the disabled parking
permit system in the Borough, under the national Disabled Persons’
Parking Badge Scheme, known as the Blue (formerly Orange) Badge
Scheme. The Orange Badge Scheme elapsed at the end of March
9.5 The Blue Badge Scheme allows badge holders considerable flexibility
in where they can park on-street. Badge holders can park free of
charge without time limit in pay and display bays and shared use bays,
provided a valid Blue Badge is displayed, the bay has not been
suspended and the vehicle is being used to transport the Blue Badge
holder. Blue Badge holders are also allowed to park for a maximum of 3
hours on single and double yellow lines, except where there is a
loading ban or where a bus or cycle lane is in operation.
9.6 Blue Badge holders in the Borough cannot park in resident’s bays, but
can obtain a free resident’s parking permit if they live within a CPZ.
9.7 The Blue Badge application process is fairly basic and the guidelines
are broad. Applicants qualify automatically for a Blue Badge if they
meet any one of the following criteria:
• receive the higher rate of the mobility component of the Disability
• use a vehicle supplied by a government health department;
• are registered blind;
• receive a War Pensioners' Mobility Supplement; or
• have a severe disability in both upper limbs, regularly drive a motor
vehicle but cannot turn the steering wheel of a motor vehicle by
hand, even if that wheel is fitted with a turning knob.
9.8 There is an additional discretionary criterion under which a Blue Badge
may be issued. The applicant must have a permanent or substantial
disability that means they are unable to walk or have very considerable
difficulty in walking up to 50 metres. The Council requires a letter from
the applicant’s GP under this criterion.
9.9 There is an appeals process in place, and not many Blue Badge
applications are ultimately rejected by the Council. The renewal
process is currently on a biennial basis.
9.10 The number of Blue Badges issued by the Council is the highest in
London. The Council’s audit report (see para. 9.17 below) identifies a
total 5,526 permits (with a further 1,003 duplicates issued for badges
reported lost or stolen) have been issued since the Blue Badge
Scheme came into effect on 1st April 2000.
9.11 Since the introduction of CCS, Blue Badge applications to the Council
have tripled (Blue Badge holders are eligible for a 100% CCS discount).
The Council, like many other London boroughs and local authorities
elsewhere, experiences extensive fraudulent use of Blue Badges, to the
extent that the level of fraud actually undermines the scheme itself.
9.12 Blue Badges displayed in parked vehicles in London are a target for
theft and illegal distribution. This is because, under the national
scheme, Blue Badges can be used for any vehicle (i.e. are not linked to
a specific car registration) and allows significant flexibility in free on-
9.13 Under the scheme, if the Police issue a crime number, the badge is
simply replaced. The Council’s audit report (see para.9.17 below)
identified a particular problem whereby requests for replacement
permits are being made when permits have not been genuinely lost or
stolen, and are then passed on to family or friends, or sold on.
9.14 Evidence suggests, fraudulent use of Blue Badges is mainly carried out
by relatives of Blue Badge holders. For example, the Council has made
ad-hoc observations of Blue Badge abuse on Ridley Road, where
approximately 200 vehicles displaying Blue Badges were observed in
9.15 Such problems are not unique to the Borough and there are some
issues that the Council has no direct control over; reports on the BBC
and elsewhere indicate that this is a large national problem.
Notwithstanding this, there are a number of measures that the Council
could introduce to improve the current situation.
9.16 In response to the range of Blue Badge problems identified above, the
Disabled Person Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) has
undertaken a comprehensive review of the Blue Badge Scheme.
9.17 The Council has also carried out its own detailed audit (2002/03) of the
operation of the Blue Badge Scheme and a number of
recommendations to combat the current high level of fraudulent use
experienced in the Borough have been made. Audit recommendations
are included in full at Appendix D for information.
9.18 The Council’s audit report highlights that misuse of a Blue Badge is a
serious offence, with the following penalties:
• it is a criminal offence for non-disabled people to use a badge and
they will be liable to a fine of up to £1,000; and
• it is a criminal offence to drive a vehicle displaying a Blue Badge
unless the badge holder is in the vehicle.
9.19 The audit report identified a number of weaknesses in the system,
particularly in relation to lack of application assessment and evidence of
proper checks. In addition, it was specifically noted that information on
lost or stolen permits is not currently passed on to Parking Enforcement
9.20 Implementation of the Blue Badge Scheme audit recommendations
(see Appendix D) would significantly improve the overall scheme
operation, and reduce the traffic in badges that have been obtained by
fraudulent means. These disabled parking issues and progress against
audit recommendations should be specifically reported in the Annual
9.21 Unlike the national Blue Badge Scheme, independent concessionary
schemes, such as the ones operated by the central/inner London
boroughs require disabled badges to be referenced to a specific vehicle
with registered details clearly displayed on the badge. Such schemes
have far lower levels of fraud associated with them since the
‘companion’ borough car badge is worthless on the ‘market’.
9.22 Tower Hamlets’ companion borough badge scheme has been attributed
with devaluing the ‘street’ value of a Blue Badge in the Borough. It has
resulted in a 25% reduction in car break-ins for Blue Badges over the
first 3 months of the scheme.
9.23 This scheme requires the creation of a special disabled resident’s
parking permit. This permit includes Blue Badge information directly on
the permit, thereby eliminating the need for the display of Blue Badges.
This scheme compliments the current Blue Badge scheme and offers
the same priority. Non-local Blue Badge holders have extensive rights
to park on-street (see para. 9.5 above) and it is considered that the
scheme does not prejudice their ability to park conveniently in the
9.24 There is strong support in the Council for the introduction of a
companion borough badge scheme in Hackney, similar to that for
9.25 Rigorous enforcement is key to running a successful Blue Badge
operation. A call centre to specifically report blatant Blue Badge abuse
has been suggested. This issue is also addressed in the DPTAC report,
which gives the following recommendation:
• 34: Legislation be introduced at the earliest opportunity in England
and Wales to enable Badges to be checked by police officers,
traffic wardens and parking attendants.
9.26 The Government accepted this recommendation and is seeking to
introduce a power for the Police, traffic wardens and parking attendants
to check the holder’s details on the reverse of the badge.
9.27 Finally, a stronger partnership between the Police and the Council’s
Parking Services and Social Services will provide the basis for a more
robust Blue Badge Scheme.
9.28 The Council has approximately 400 on-street disabled parking bays
across the Borough. There is no time restriction on these disabled
9.29 The DDA (1995) aims to end the discrimination which many disabled
people face by giving them employment, access to goods, facilities and
services and other areas. Part III of the DDA gives disabled people
important rights of access to everyday services that others take for
granted. Under these DDA requirements, the Council should ensure
that adequate, conveniently located disabled parking facilities are
provided close to public buildings in the Borough.
9.30 The need to prioritise on-street space for local disabled residents is
recognised. It is acknowledged that non-local Blue Badge holders have
extensive rights to park on-street (e.g. on single and double yellow
lines) and it is considered that this prioritisation does not prejudice their
ability to park conveniently in the Borough.
9.31 The introduction of a companion badge scheme, described above,
would assist the management of on-street disabled bays.
9.32 The Council should ensure that adequate, conveniently located
disabled parking facilities are provided outside public buildings to fully
meet access requirements set out in the DDA.
9.33 To ensure that disabled bays within CPZs, allocated for use by disabled
residents are still required, a method of assessing the continued need
for the existing bays should be implemented. This should form a
method of a scheduled review of each CPZ every three years, and
when necessary, revoking any disabled bay should it no longer be
required by a disabled resident.
9.34 Any future disabled bays located within CPZs should only be approved
for cases where severe mobility issues are identified. However, there
should be no further implication in regard to the issuing of a free
resident permit for residents who have been issued a disabled persons
10.1 Parking management includes the enforcement of on-street parking
regulations. Illegal parking is inconsiderate; and it can be dangerous.
The Council is directly responsible for on-street enforcement in the
Borough, with the exception of the Transport for London Road Network
(TLRN) (Red Routes), which remains the responsibility of Transport for
London. TLRN issues are specifically examined in Section 13.
10.2 The aim of enforcement is to maximise compliance with regulations to
make Hackney’s streets safer for all road users, particularly vulnerable
road users such as school children; to prevent obstruction and delays
(especially for buses and emergency vehicles); to ensure that parking
bays are available for their intended use and to improve the general
10.3 For enforcement to be effective, it needs to be supported by the
application of IT (see Section 4) and a robust data management
10.4 During Spring 2004 the Council commenced the procurement process
for a new contract for the provision of a Parking Attendant (PA) service,
including also vehicle clamping and removals. The service will cover
both on-street and off-street areas in the Borough.
10.5 The new contract was awarded to Controlled Parking Services (CPS) in
December 2004 and will run for five years. It is based on the new
British Parking Association (BPA) standard contract for the provision of
decriminalised parking and traffic enforcement. Hackney will be one of
the first local authorities to adopt this new standard contract, and
Council officers worked closely with the BPA during contract
10.6 The new contract will be quality-driven. The general premise is to
develop a better way of operating the contract, by introducing varied
forms of contract management, which encourages continuous
improvement through the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). The
standard contract is based on an open book accounting system and
may include future add-ons, e.g. Housing Estate parking enforcement.
10.7 The new contract will form the basis for an enforcement operation that
is fair, consistent, transparent, policy-driven and quality-led.
10.8 Successful enforcement is delivered through partnership working.
Together with the Metropolitan Police, Council officers have developed
new and innovative protocols to be incorporated within the new contract
and monitored through a specific KPI. The contractor will be expected
to develop and maintain a good working relationship with both the
Council and the Metropolitan Police in Hackney.
10.9 It should be acknowledged that Parking Services has, and continues to,
assist the Metropolitan Police in crime awareness and reporting
initiatives. There is a real opportunity to work in close collaboration with
the Metropolitan Police, establishing useful reporting tools that capture
valuable intelligence for the service.
10.10 Illegal parking on zigzags, double yellow lines and footways can cause
a serious road safety hazard, especially for child safety near schools.
The Council will work with schools through the Learning Trust to
manage local parking stress areas around schools (caused by the
school run and associated short-stay on-street parking activity). The
Council will adopt a ‘joined up thinking’ approach and consult on wider
solutions, e.g. Safer Routes to School initiative.
Parking Attendants and Patrols
10.11 Enforcement should not be uniform across the Borough, but targeted to
tackle problem areas. The new contract specification will provide a
schedule of streets and prescribe the frequency of PA patrol visits,
dependent upon the location. This will ensure a good parking
enforcement regime that is both consistent and transparent.
10.12 A good parking enforcement regime needs to be backed up by the
issue of good quality Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), which comply
with issue guidelines and are supported by the relevant information.
The application of IT such as handheld computers with in-built digital
cameras and Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities can support
quality PCN issue.
10.13 The PAs core role is to issue good quality PCNs; however PAs are also
required to report defects. Accurate and timely reporting of all
defective/missing signs and lines, as well as faulty/damaged pay and
display machines and street furniture, is also important.
10.14 Good quality PCN issue is backed up in turn by highly trained, informed
and motivated PAs. The success of the new Contract is dependent
upon attracting PAs that are trained to the required standard and have
achieved the appropriate BPA accreditation.
10.15 Parking in just under half of the Borough is currently controlled through
CPZs. Uncontrolled areas are mainly to the north and east of the
Borough, where limited lengths of yellow lines have been introduced.
10.16 The Council’s enforcement operation includes the strict enforcement of
yellow lines outside of CPZ areas to support the safe and efficient
operation of the Borough’s road network.
10.17 Abandoned vehicles are a particular problem in parts of the Borough.
These vehicles are an environmental nuisance and are associated with
anti-social behaviour. Abandoned vehicles not only cause an
unnecessary hazard wherever they are dumped, they also have a
serious impact on residents’ quality of life and fear of crime in the local
10.18 Under the new contract, PAs will continue to report potential
abandoned and untaxed vehicles on the Borough’s streets.
10.19 Persistent evaders (defined as individuals with three or more unpaid
PCNs) are a particular problem in the Borough. This is because of their
continuation to park illegally; the resulting multiple PCN issue; the
nuisance caused; the loss of pedestrian space in the case of illegal
footway parking and the ‘bad example’ they set, which can result in
further non-compliance in the area.
10.20 The Council’s enforcement operation will target persistent evaders in
the Borough and reduce the level of evasion. To this end, the Council
will remove vehicles belonging to persistent evaders to the car pound,
Clamping and Removals
10.21 The new contract will support robust enforcement through an effective
clamping and removals operation. The contract will specify the times
during which the clamping and removals operation must be available
and duly responsive.
10.22 Currently a maximum of 10 dispensation waivers are offered for a time
limit of 4 hours. The Council will work with Funeral Directors (or
equivalent) to issue a book of visitor permits per funeral, easing the
burden on the family.
10.23 The Council recognises that religious festivals of the six main faith
groups in the Borough may have specific parking needs.
10.24 The Council should therefore seek dialogue and discussion with the six
main faith groups, facilitated through the Council’s Equalities Unit. This
will help to clearly identify and understand specific parking
requirements generated by religious festivals. Council-run workshops
should be held with faith group representatives to tease out the
• What are the faith group’s requirements?
• What are the faith group’s aspirations regarding parking provision?
• How can effective parking management assist the faith group’s
10.25 These workshop discussions should be informed by the collection of
local parking data generated by the data management strategy, to help
officers reach a rational and robust parking management decision.
11 Non-car Modes
11.1 The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy recognises that the needs of
all road users have to be continually balanced as part of the
management of London’s streets. In Section 2 above (see Table 2.1),
the PEP identifies a parking need hierarchy which gives priority to non-
car modes. This section examines parking for pedal cycles, powered
two-wheel vehicles and coaches.
Pedal Cycle Parking
11.2 The 2001 Census identifies Hackney as the Cycling Borough. As
detailed on the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) website (see
http://www.lcc.org.uk/), a UK wide comparison of journeys to work by
pedal cycle shows that London boroughs lead the country in terms of
growth. Moreover, this comparison ranks Hackney as number one in
11.3 The difficulty of finding a safe and secure place to park a pedal cycle is
identified in the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy as one of the
biggest obstacles to cycling in London (4J.19). Proposal 4J.7 of the
Transport Strategy expects London boroughs to require developers,
wherever practicable, to:
• provide good pedal cycle access to the development;
• install secure pedal cycle parking; and
• provide showers, lockers and changing facilities.
11.4 The Council should survey the occupancy levels of current pedal cycle
parking facilities within the borough including locations where a high
volume of unauthorised pedal cycle parking takes place. Areas
identified as having a high demand for pedal cycle parking greater than
the current provision should therefore be considered for additional
provision to be provided.
11.5 Pedal cycle parking too can obstruct the footway. Where there is a high
demand for pedal cycle parking and available footway space is limited,
the Council should consider introducing secure on-street pedal cycle
parking within the carriageway.
11.6 To encourage the use of pedal cycles by Council staff for the purpose
of commuting to and from their place of work, the council should
consider offering dedicated secure pedal cycle parking, available solely
for use by staff.
Powered Two-wheel Vehicle Parking
11.7 Strategic policy guidance emphasises the air quality and traffic
congestion benefits that may arise from the use of certain types of
powered two-wheel vehicles (PTWs), e.g. mopeds and small
motorcycles (under 800cc). This is if they substitute for car use,
although not if people switch from walking, cycling or public transport.
The relatively low pollutant emissions and effective use of road and
kerb side space are recognised, e.g. a single on-street car space can
accommodate up to five PTWs.
11.8 The Council should seek to introduce more on-street PTW parking
facilities in the Borough, especially in areas of high demand, such as
the Borough’s main commercial areas and around key public transport
interchanges. This on-street parking should be free and without time
11.9 The specific location of PTW parking facilities needs to be carefully
planned. These facilities need to be highly visible, allowing the
opportunity for public surveillance to minimise the risk of theft.
11.10 The London Plan states that all large developments should provide for
appropriate coach parking/stands (annex 4, 32).
11.11 The Borough does not currently have any on-street or off-street coach
parking facilities. Similarly, the Council does not presently have a coach
management strategy in place. This is mainly owing to the low level of
coach parking demand in the Borough.
11.12 It is recommended that the Council review coach parking provision in
the Borough, to ensure that any future coach parking demands are met,
so as not to constrain tourism initiatives and other development
12 New Development
12.1 Parking standards prescribe the amount of off-street parking space by
vehicle type (e.g. car, cycle, etc.) to be provided for new development
in the Borough.
12.2 The Council’s parking standards are set out in the Adopted UDP (see
Appendix C), and have not been comprehensively reviewed since
June 1995. More recent planning policy guidance has stressed the
need for local authorities to review parking standards and develop
maximum, restraint-based standards, supported by location policies
and travel plans. The aim is to reduce reliance of the private car and
encourage sustainable travel choices in areas with good public
London Plan Parking Standards
12.3 Policy 3C.22 of the London Plan (February 2004) seeks to, ‘ensure that
on-site car parking at new developments is the minimum necessary and
that there is no over-provision that could undermine the use of more
sustainable non-car modes’. Specifically, the London Plan requires
London boroughs to:
• adopt on- and off-street parking policies that encourage access by
sustainable means of transport, assist in limiting the use of the car
and contribute to minimising road traffic;
• adopt the maximum parking standards set out in the annex on
parking standards (Annex 4) where appropriate, taking account of
local circumstances and allowing for reduced car parking provision
in areas of good transport accessibility;
• recognise the needs of disabled people and provide adequate
parking for them; and
• take account of the needs of business for delivery and service
12.4 Following on from this, Policy 3C.23 of the London Plan requires
London boroughs to specifically set out appropriate parking standards
for town centres. These should, help the attractiveness of town centres
and reduce congestion; they should also take into account:
• the standards set out in Annex 4;
• the current vitality and viability of the town centres;
• regeneration and town centre management objectives;
• existing on- and off-street parking provision and control;
• public transport provision and the need to reduce travel by car; and
• pedestrian and cycle access.
12.5 London Plan parking standards are reproduced in full at Appendix E
for information. The Council should review its parking standards and
develop revised standards which accord with the requirements set out
in the London Plan, which take into account Hackney’s local
12.6 The London Plan acknowledges that parking standards are only one
mechanism or policy instrument to limit car use and achieve wider
objectives. The London Plan states that parking standards, ‘should be
used in conjunction with other transport and spatial integration
mechanisms, including location polices and travel plans’ (3.201).
Parking Standards Policy
12.7 The development and application of revised parking standards, which
meet the requirements set out in the London Plan, should have specific
regard to a number of policy objectives. The Council’s revised parking
standards should contribute to the delivery of new development in the
1. Supports the Council’s road traffic reduction targets, as prescribed
by the Road Traffic Reduction Act (1997).
2. Encourages the efficient use of land by avoiding over-provision of
(under-used) parking space, which is an inefficient, unattractive
and wasteful use of the Borough’s land.
3. Supports higher density, better designed new development in the
4. Meets the car-based access/car parking needs of disabled people,
in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the
Mayor of London’s emerging Supplementary Planning Guidance
(SPG) Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment.
5. Meets the operational requirements of new development in the
Borough with respect to maintenance, servicing and deliveries.
6. Recognises the specific access needs of parts of the Borough
currently characterised by poor transport accessibility.
7. Facilitate sustainable low-car/car-capped and/or car-free
development in parts of the Borough characterised by good
transport accessibility and the presence of parking controls.
13 Supporting Mechanisms
13.1 The PEP is one element of the Council’s traffic and transportation
policies, which together have shared strategic aims to reduce the need
to travel by private car, whilst supporting initiatives to increase social
inclusion and economic activity in the Borough. It is recognised that
parking initiatives in isolation are insufficient to achieve wider transport,
economic, social and environmental benefits and must be accompanied
by supporting policies or mechanisms.
13.2 The Congestion Charging Scheme (CCS) was introduced by the Mayor
of London in February 2003, with the aim of reducing traffic congestion
in and around the charging zone. The congestion charge is a £5 daily
charge for driving or parking a vehicle on public roads within zone
between 7.00am and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday (excluding weekends
and public holidays). The Inner Ring Road forms the boundary of the
congestion charging zone.
13.3 Hackney’s Zone A CPZ is bounded by the congestion charging
boundary and the southern section of Zone B is within the charging
zone. Local residents living within the congestion charging zone can
register for a 90% discount, and Blue Badge holders are eligible for a
13.4 The close proximity of the Borough to the congestion charging zone
presents additional parking pressures in the Borough, particularly in the
southern areas. Since the introduction of CCS, there has been an
increase in fraudulent use of Blue Badges, increased pressure on
short-stay parking and the increased use of temporary car parks in the
south of the Borough.
13.5 TfL are funding a study of all the off-street car parks in the south of the
Borough, close to the CCS boundary, with a view to identifying which
ones are authorised and which are not. This will inform the need for
enforcement action against illegal car parks in the area. The aim is to
reduce the opportunity to drive to the boundary and walk/bus into the
congestion charging zone. It is recommended that the Council should
extend the scope of this study to the rest of the Borough.
Travel Plan and Sustainable Travel Initiatives
13.6 The Council is in the process of developing its own Travel Plan. The
Council is seeking to introduce a range of measures that will encourage
staff to switch from the private car (especially single occupancy vehicle
trips) to alternative, more sustainable travel modes. The Council’s
Travel Plan, when adopted, will provide ‘best practice’ for future travel
plans in the Borough.
13.7 The use of Car Clubs is not a new concept, although it is still relatively
uncommon in the UK (there are an estimated 1,000 car club members
across the country). In essence Car Clubs provide for ‘pay as you drive’
motoring and offer ‘mobility insurance’ without car ownership.
13.8 Car Clubs offer the use of a shared pool of vehicles from
neighbourhood car stations, providing short-term car access for periods
as brief as one hour. Typically one Car Club vehicle can replace up to
seven privately owned vehicles, releasing road space for other users.
Similarly, Car Club users typically reduce their car mileage by up to
50%, relative to private car users.
13.9 Car Clubs are a practical tool to support reductions in parking
standards for new development. There are currently two well
established Car Club operators in London, SmartMoves and Urbigo.
See the following websites for further information:
http://www.carclubs.org.uk/ and http://www.smartmoves.co.uk.
13.10 Car Clubs are particularly suitable in high density urban areas where
there is good public transport and existing on-street parking pressures;
characteristics typical of southern parts of the Borough. As Car Clubs
are introduced in the Borough, it will be important to ensure that
accessible parking, including on-street parking, is made available to
13.11 Car Clubs are best suited to mixed use development, with a minimum
100 residential units. Mixed use development allows complementary
usage patterns, with commercial use of Car Club vehicles during day
time weekday periods, and residential use of the vehicles during
evening weekday and weekend periods. Car Club developments should
be supported by reduced parking standards.
13.12 The introduction of Car Clubs in the Borough needs to be codified in
planning policy, through the emerging LDF (see Appendix C).
13.13 Car sharing involves the use of a formally organised lift taking or giving
service using private cars. A web-based service has grown rapidly in
the last few years across the UK, especially in London. The biggest
operator is Liftshare with several thousand users within the London
area (see http://www.liftshare.com/).
13.14 This section has identified a range of sustainable travel initiatives,
including Car Clubs, car sharing, pool cars and bike pools that come
under the umbrella of a comprehensive travel plan. The Council’s
emerging Travel Plan, along with other travel plans implemented across
the Borough, will support the delivery of the PEP Policy Plan objectives.
Transport for London Road Network
13.15 The Council is not responsible for the designation or enforcement of
parking spaces in Red Routes or Transport for London Road Network
(TLRN), which is the responsibility of Transport for London (TfL).
13.16 The Council is concerned about the current level and effectiveness of
TfL enforcement on the TLRN within the Borough boundaries. For
example, specific concerns have been expressed about inadequate
enforcement on the A10 Kingsland Road, Dalston, which has affected
London Bus Initiative (LBI) (known as BusPlus) Route 149.
13.17 Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (RTRA) 1984 (as
amended by section 282 (Financial provisions relating to parking places
on the highway), subsection (3) of the Greater London Authority Act,
1999) governs the operation of the Council’s On-street Parking Account
and sets out rules for the application of the surplus of that account.
13.18 Section 55 restricts expenditure of surplus on-street parking income to
making good any charges against an authority’s general fund; provision
and maintenance of off-street parking; highway improvements and
public transport schemes. The Council fully complies with the
requirements set out within this section of the RTRA Act.
13.19 Discussions with Council officers have indicated that there is strong
support for the instigation of a cross-department Parking Steering
Group for effective parking management in the Borough. Through
regular meetings, the steering group would provide further opportunities
to improve internal consultation and communications.
14 Policy & Operational Recommendations
14.1 Recommendations included within the Parking and Enforcement
Plan Policy Document:
P-DM1 The Council should employ CCTV and traffic management enforcement
cameras to assist parking enforcement in the Borough.
P-DM 2 The Council should investigate the future potential of an on-line one-
stop shop for parking on the Council’s website to meet customers’
needs and promote effective consultation through e-government.
Parking Supply and Charges
P-PS1 The Council reviews the extent of footway parking within the borough,
identifying any exempt roads. An enforcement plan to address the
issue would need to be agreed and appropriate enforcement action
P-PS2 The Council should undertake a comprehensive and coordinated
review of on-street pay and display charges, informed by output from
the data management strategy. Any decision for variable charges to be
introduced should be weighted against demand within the locality, be
subject to justification and reviewed to measure effectiveness.
Controlled Parking Zones
P-CPZ1 The Council should carry out a review of every new CPZ introduced in
the Borough within one year of implementation. The review process
should include full consultation with both local residents and businesses
in the zone. This should involve an assessment of the success of the
CPZ and include an evaluation of the design and bay allocation and
other scheme adjustments, as required. In addition, other smaller scale
issues may be brought to the Council’s attention by local residents and
businesses, and these will be addressed on an on-going basis.
P-CPZ2 There may be a clear need for the review of a new CPZ to be
completed earlier than within one year of implementation.
Circumstances of this nature will be reviewed as a priority should the
need be identified.
P-CPZ3 The Council should review each existing CPZ in the Borough every
three years. This triennial review should take into account the impact of
CPZ parking controls on the local resident and business community
and other regeneration factors which support the sustainability of the
P-CPZ4 Specifically, the CPZ review process should include an assessment of
displaced parking activity in the surrounding area. The review should
consult local residents and businesses in streets adjacent to the
existing CPZs to identify the need for additional parking patrols in
adjacent streets to relieve parking stress areas.
Parking Permits and Charges
P-PP1 When a resident applies to renew a permit, and providing the vehicle
details and place of residence that were provided as evidence has not
changed since the previous years application was processed, there
would be no requirement to provide the relevant documentation prior to
reissuing the permit. Under these circumstances the renewal letter will
be sufficient evidence. However, the Council will require actual sight of
all original documents every three years. This would apply to all permit
applications and types.
P-PP2 The Council should review the residents permit structure to take into
account the emissions based best practice model currently used by the
DVLA. The revised structure should be transparent, fair and equitable.
This has been included within the work plan, and is scheduled for action
P-PP3 It is therefore recommended that the Council introduces a 25% discount
for the charge of a resident permit for LPG, LNG and hybrid cars in
accordance with the emission based best practice model currently used
by the DVLA. This environmentally led discount has been in effect
since 1st April 2004.
P-PP4 It is also recommended that the Council offers free resident and
business permits for electric cars. This exemption has taken effect from
1st April 2004, however it is only applicable to residents permits.
Business permit holders with electric cars will qualify for free permits
with effect of 1st April 2005.
P-PP5 The Council should take measures to reduce the number of untaxed
vehicles within the borough. By introducing an enforcement policy that
any vehicle parked in a CPZ displaying a resident permit, while also
displaying an expired Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), will invalidate the
residents permit resulting in a penalty charge notice (PCN) being
issued. This will further develop the Councils partnership with the
P-PP6 Any changes to the terms and conditions for use of a permit will need to
be added to all permit application literature and, reflected in Traffic
P-PP7 The Council should comprehensively review the visitor’s voucher
scheme, including charges, when robust visitor parking demand data is
made available through the data management strategy.
14.2 Recommendations included within the Parking and Enforcement
Plan Operational Document:
O-CS1 The standards set out in Hackney’s draft Public Consultation Charter
should be fully adopted in all the Council’s parking consultation
O-CS2 The Council should implement the CPZ Consultation Strategy,
undertaking Stage One (In Principle Consultation) and, where required,
Stage Two (Detailed Design Consultation) consultations.
O-CS3 When consulting on new CPZ proposals, the Council should keep local
residents and businesses in adjacent areas (or ‘buffer zones’) fully
informed of possible parking displacement effects.
O-CS4 The Council should undertake a review of new CPZs in the Borough
one year after implementation, and a review of all CPZs in the Borough
every three years, including an evaluation of customer feedback
O-CS5 The Council should develop tools to regularly obtain customer feedback
on parking matters in the Borough.
O-CS6 The Council should develop tools to improve customer access to its
O-DM1 The Council should develop a robust annual parking survey programme
that monitors both on- and off-street parking supply and demand in the
Parking Supply and Charges
O-PS1 The allocation of on-street kerb side space should accord with the
Council’s defined hierarchy of parking need.
O-PS2 The Council should assess the need for parking controls at junctions on
the Borough’s highway network, based on road safety, bus operations
and general access requirements.
O-PS3 The Council should monitor, manage and review on-street pay and
display parking to help manage long-stay commuter parking and
promote short stay shopper and visitor parking in the Borough.
O-PS4 The Council should review and minimise footway parking in the
Borough to ensure that priority is given to pedestrian access needs; the
introduction of new footway parking should be discouraged.
O-PS5 The Council should maximise off-street parking facilities in the
Borough’s main town centres. Their usage should be reviewed to
ensure that spaces adequately turnover to meet short-stay
shopper/visitor parking needs, in support of the local retail economy.
O-PS6 The Council should undertake a comprehensive and coordinated
review of off-street pay and display charges, informed by output from
the data management strategy.
O-CPZ1 The Council should adopt a two-phased approach to consultation:
Stage One (In Principle Consultation) to assess parking stress areas
and their need for new parking controls; and Stage Two (Detailed
Design Consultation) to inform the CPZ strategy.
O-CPZ2 The Council should assess the need for new parking controls based
on the following criteria: technical assessment, member support and
deputations from the local community.
O-CPZ3 The Council should undertake a review of new CPZs in the Borough
one year after implementation.
O-CPZ4 The Council should undertake a rolling review of all CPZs in the
Borough every three years.
O-CPZ5 The Council should extend parking controls in specific locations
experiencing continual parking pressures, subject to consultation.
Parking Permits and Charges
O-PP1 The Council should review the resident’s permit structure to take into
account the emissions-based best practice model currently used by
the DVLA, ensuring a transparent, fair and equitable system.
O-PP2 The Council should introduce an environmentally-led 25% discount for
resident’s permit charges for LPG, LNG and hybrid cars, as well as
cars with engine sizes below 1200cc. This has taken effect from 1st
O-PP3 The Council should offer free resident and business permits for electric
vehicles. This has taken effect from 1st April 2004.
O-PP4 The Council should explore the extension of Housing Services’ policy
of not issuing estate resident’s permits for untaxed vehicles to the
Neighbourhood Housing Office.
O-PP5 The Council should only allocate business permits to businesses who
can demonstrate a genuine need to use a car to carry out their daily
employment duties, supported by clear permit allocation criteria.
O-PP6 The Council should undertake a medium-term review of business
permit charges, informed by local parking data generated by the data
O-PP7 The Council should implement the essential worker’s permit scheme
during the 2004/05 financial year, subject to the findings of the on-
going consultation process.
O-PP8 The Council should investigate the possibility of linking charges for
doctor’s permits to the proposed charging structure for business
O-EP1 The Council should establish a regular liaison group to enable Housing
and Parking Services to discuss cross-cutting parking issues and
improve parking management in the Borough.
O-EP2 The Council should review the outcome of the three pilot housing
estate enforcement schemes and investigate the scope for a wider roll-
O-EP3 The Council’s Parking Services should investigate the benefits of
operating a seamless parking enforcement service, and enter into
further discussions with Housing Services to explore taking over
responsibility for the enforcement (through ticket issue and vehicle
removal) of off-street parking on the Council’s housing estates.
O-DP1 The Council should introduce a companion borough badge scheme,
similar to that for Tower Hamlets, to reduce fraud and give greater
priority to local disabled residents’ parking needs. A rigorous,
consistent policy should be implemented, backed up by stringent,
targeted enforcement, to combat Blue Badge misuse and raise public
O-DP2 The Council should ensure that adequate, conveniently located
disabled parking facilities are provided outside public buildings to fully
meet access requirements set out in the Disabilities Discrimination Act
O-E1 The Council will deliver an enforcement contract that supports a fair,
consistent, transparent, policy-driven and quality-led enforcement
O-E2 The Council will specify key performance indicators (KPIs) which are
regularly and systematically monitored to ensure Parking Services’
performance and continuous improvement.
O-E3 The Council should work in partnership with the contractor, the
Metropolitan Police and other agencies to achieve a safer, more
attractive street scene.
O-E4 The Council should maximise road safety throughout the Borough
through the fair and consistent enforcement of parking regulations.
O-NCM1 The Council should ensure that secure and conveniently located cycle
parking and storage facilities are provided across the Borough,
especially in areas of high demand.
O-NCM2 The Council should consider the introduction of secure on-street cycle
parking where there is a high demand for such facilities and available
footway space is limited.
O-NCM3 The Council should ensure that secure, conveniently located and free
powered two-wheel vehicle parking facilities are provided across the
Borough, especially in areas of high demand.
O-NCM4 The Council should review coach parking in the Borough and develop
a coach management strategy which ensures that adequate provision
is made to meet both existing and future needs.
O-ND1 The Council should develop revised parking standards which accord
with the requirements set out in the London Plan, which take into
account the Borough’s local circumstances.
O-SM1 The Council should extend the scope of the TfL funded study on illegal
car parks to the rest of the Borough.
O-SM2 The Council should maximise linkages between the PEP and the
Council’s emerging Travel Plan, and identify mechanisms to deliver a
range of sustainable travel initiatives, including Car Clubs, car sharing,
car and bike pools within the context of travel plans for existing and
new development in the Borough.