Agenda item

ECS20035

Members were briefed on the Moving Traffic Contraventions report by the Interim Head of Shared Parking Services (Bromley and Bexley) and the LBB Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking. It was noted that the current responsibility for enforcing moving traffic conventions lay with the police, but the police usually only issued about three fixed penalty notices per year. By comparison, the neighbouring borough of Bexley had issued 14,000 fixed penalty notices during the same period.

The aim of the recommendations was to improve traffic flow and air quality. The Committee noted that if the recommendations were approved, the relevant procurement route would be established in 2021. The purpose of the report was for the Portfolio Holder to make recommendations to the Executive. The final decision would be made by the Executive or by the Leader.

The consensus was that this was a good report, however one Member expressed concern regarding the source of funding; this had been identified  as coming from the contingency budget; the Member recommended that the source of funding should be changed--so that the funding would come either from Invest to Save or from an alternative budget.

A Member noted the proposed 12 locations for the implementation of the first phase regarding enforcing moving traffic conventions. He expressed the view that Widmore Road and St Blaise should have been included in the first phase, as both these areas seemed to have more potential for traffic contraventions.  The Interim Head of Shared Parking Services (Bromley and Bexley) explained that that twelve locations were not fixed in stone, and that cameras could be moved to different locations as the need arose. She made it clear that the aim of enforcing any contraventions was to encourage people to drive properly and was not simply a means of enforcing financial penalties and revenue generation for the Council. To this end, in the initial phase of implementation, warning notices would be issued in the first instance to give people a chance to avoid being penalised until they got used to the new regulations.

There was a consensus amongst Members that the cameras should be installed where the need was greatest. It was noted that in terms of best compliance rates, this was normally 85%. This meant that there would be 15% of drivers that would never be fully compliant.

The timescales involved were explained, and that the target date for implementation was October 2021 for two reasons:

1.  Initially, permission to implement the recommendations would need to be obtained from London Councils.

2.  There was uncertainty as to the length of time required for the procurement process. This was because a decision would need to be made either to simply add new cameras to the existing network or to refresh the whole of the network .

A Member had asked what length of time needed to expire if a vehicle was caught in a yellow box, before enforcement action would be taken. The answer was that the camera would send images to the CCTV reviewer after three seconds.

The Portfolio Holder reminded Members that the Executive would be making the decision, but he was happy to suggest the inclusion of some flexibility in terms of where the cameras would be placed.

The Chairman commented that the A21 (which was administered by TfL), had now become a permanent bus lane which they were enforcing. He asked if officers were aware of this. The Assistant Director replied that they were aware in the summertime that this may be happening, but it only been notified to the Council on the previous Monday. He further clarified that this only affected the A21 outside of Bromley College.

The Member that had previously raised the issue regarding the budget head for the project re-raised the matter, as the answer had not been provided earlier in the meeting. He asked for clarification of where the money would come from to fund this project—reiterating his point that (in his view) it should not come from the contingency budget. The Director of Environment and Public Protection  stated that the budget had been signed off by the Director of Finance, so this was something he would need to go back and speak to him about. He promised that after he had clarified this with the Director of Finance, he would update the Member accordingly .

The following recommendations were agreed for the Portfolio Holder to recommend to the Executive :

1.  to approve that Bromley apply to adopt powers to enforce moving  traffic contraventions from the 1st April 2021

2.  to agree to adopt powers on the basis that Bromley enforces as set out in the report

3.  to agree that cameras will be initially installed at the top twelve sites listed in table one, but with some flexibility built into this recommendation to allow cameras to be moved to different locations if required

4.  To authorise officers to enter into any necessary agreements or arrangements with neighbouring boroughs

5.  to agree to a one-off expenditure of an estimated £266k to implement the policy through a suitable procurement route which would be determined going forward. The funding to be taken from the Councils 2020/21 central contingency fund

6.  to request officers to investigate what service providers offered the best value for money for the Council, given the possible need to replace the Council’s existing bus lane and school keep clear enforcement cameras within the next 18 months, and to produce a further report to Members, including a decision on the recommended procurement route .