Agenda item

New approach to address vehicle idling

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

 

** N.B: This report has a non-public appendix at Item 24**

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment proposing the introduction of a Traffic Management Order (TMO) to prohibit unnecessary idling of vehicle engines which would allow for enforcement by Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).

 

Officers explained that these proposals would allow fines of up to £80 to be issued for vehicle idling. Members were made aware that there were some issues around the availability of appropriate signage informing drivers of this but that the City Corporation would continue to lobby the Department for Transport (DfT) on this point. Option 3, as detailed within the report, was recommended for approval – whereby drivers would be issued one warning and then issued with a fine for vehicle idling for a second incident. This would be policed using number plate recognition.

 

A Member questioned how the scheme would operate in relation to hire cars or different drivers of the same vehicle. She added that she had some concerns around legitimate excuses for vehicle idling and also around vulnerable people. Finally, she questioned whether the approach taken in New York City, whereby members of the public were able to film and report vehicle idlers in return for a sum of money had been properly considered.

 

Officers reported that there was no legislation in place at present that would allow the City Corporation to take the approach adopted by NYC.

 

The Deputy Chairman spoke to state that he felt that the Committee should be taking a very hard line on this – vehicle idling was damaging public health and air quality and the City Corporation should therefore be doing everything within its powers to ban this. He added that the Lord Mayor had made this a key priority this civic year and that his recommendation was that fines issued should be for £100 as opposed to £80. He therefore spoke in favour of implementing Option 3 as a bare minimum.

 

A Member asked a question about the existing 35 CEOs and questioned whether they would be encouraged to visit more regularly those streets where this was known to be a frequent problem. Officers reported that it would be possible to focus on specific areas and that Members and the general public should make them aware of where there were particular issues so that CEOs could be instructed accordingly.

 

Another Member stated that he was of the view that only one warning per vehicle should be permissible before a fine was imposed, regardless of who was driving. He recognised, however, that hire cars may cause issues with the policing of this scheme. Finally, he spoke to suggest that taxis should not be exempt from the scheme, he questioned whether this matter was at the City Corporation’s discretion or was an essential exemption.

 

A Member spoke to suggest that it was possible to issue fines via car hire companies as she had experience of this elsewhere in Europe.

 

A Member, also the serving Deputy Chairman of the Port Health and Environmental Services Committee, spoke to support Option 3. He added that the need to see air quality improved was urgent and that steps to address this matter were already way overdue. He too, supported a fine of £100 being issued.

 

Other Members spoke to support a fine of £100 and also the notion that taxis on ranks should not be omitted from the scheme. It was, however, recognised that some taxis were driven by multiple drivers.

 

A Member, also the serving Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board, spoke to underline the inconsiderate and unacceptable behaviour of vehicle idlers. She stressed in the strongest possible terms that poor air quality kills and highlighted that the City Corporation had led on the introduction of a 20mph limit on its roads and that they should now also look to lead on this and tackle engine idling. She underlined that the scheme needed to be made as practical and useable as possible and stressed that this was not about money making but about tackling an incredibly serious issue.

 

After hearing the views of other Members, the Deputy Chairman proposed a motion as follows:

 

MOTION: That Option 3 be amended to read that CEOS be deployed with the prospect of issuing a £100 fine. He also proposed that taxis waiting on ranks should not be included within the exemptions from the scheme.

 

The Motion was seconded, put to the vote, and passed unanimously.

 

Members questioned what range of fines were possible in relation to vehicle idling and whether it would, in fact, be feasible to impose fines in excess of the £100 already proposed.

 

The Transportation and Public Realm Director reported that PCN levels were dictated by London Councils and were normally set around the £120 mark with a reduced charge issued if these were settled within a certain time period.

 

Members therefore questioned where the recommendation of £80 had come from and whether the City Corporation were bound to follow London Council’s guidance when setting these charges.

 

Officers undertook to look into this matter in further detail and the Committee agreed that the setting of an appropriate level of fine and the finalisation of the list of exemptions should be delegated to the Director of the Built Environment in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman of the Committee. The Committee were unanimously supportive of introducing a fine of £120 if this were possible. Officers recognised the Committee’s desire to be as robust as possible in this respect.

 

With regard to comments made around legitimate or frequent excuses for vehicle idling, Officers reported that the scheme was to be policed by CEOs who were well versed in such matters.

 

A Member questioned whether TfL buses would also be issued with PCNs in the same way that coaches parked in bays with engines idling would be. He also questioned what would happen if a driver were caught engine idling a third or subsequent time.

 

Officers reported that they could see no reason as to why buses should be exempt and undertook to discuss this matter further with TfL. In terms of a third or subsequent offence, Officers clarified that offending vehicles would be issued with further fines as opposed to having their position ‘re-set’ after a second offence.

 

RESOLVED – That Members authorise officers to:-

a)               proceed with the proposal to introduce a TMO to implement the Scheme, and in particular to:

 

                I.             Consult with the statutory parties[1] on the proposal to make the TMO;

               II.             Carry out the publicity requirements in respect of the TMO[2];

             III.             Report back for a decision if any objections raise significant or unexpected concerns;

             IV.             Seek the consent of the Secretary of State (if required);

              V.             Make the TMO after the statutory period for objections has ended SUBJECT TO the Director of the Built Environment, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee, deciding to proceed with the TMO after considering any objections and any other relevant considerations;

             VI.             Commence enforcement of the TMO after an appropriate warning notice period;

           VII.             Monitor the impacts of the Scheme (for a minimum of 6 months);

          VIII.             Report back with an Issues Report concerning the impacts of the Scheme (approximately 8–12 months after implementation of the TMO); and

 

b)               lobby the Department for Transport (DfT) for a new sign to be approved.

 

 



[1] As provided for in Regulation 6 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

[2] As provided for in Regulation 7 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

Supporting documents: