HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

CABINET

MONDAY, 23 APRIL 2012 AT 2.00PM

MOOR END BUS LINK

Report of the Director Environment & Commercial Services

Author: Steve Johnson Head of Network Management (Tel: 01707 356469)

Executive Member: Stuart Pile, Highways and Transport

Local Members: Stephen Holmes, Jan Maddern, Ron Tindall

1.Purpose of Report

1.1To present to Cabinet a review of the Moor End prohibition of driving enforcement scheme following a recent adjudication decision.

1.2To seek a decision from Cabinet on whether Penalty Charges which have been received by the Authority should be refunded and, if so, the principles to apply to that process.

1.3To seek endorsement from Cabinet on the need to review and enhance a scheme to improve access for buses in this vicinity

2.Summary

2.1In August 2011 Hertfordshire County Council started to use camera technology to enforce an existing ‘prohibition of driving’ restriction in Moor End Road, Hemel Hempstead. The objective of the prohibition is to improve the flow of buses in the area and hence improve service to bus users. Since the scheme was introduced 34,931 penalty charge notices (PCNs) have been raised of which 30,335 have been paid. A number of drivers have appealed against their PCNs to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

2.2On 2 April 2012 the Council received a decision from the Tribunal adjudicator, following a telephone hearing on 7 February, stating that in the adjudicator’s view;

  1. The traffic regulation order only restricts traffic other than buses and taxis entering and driving westwards along Moor End Road from the Waterhouse Street roundabout; and
  1. Hertfordshire County Council have failed in their duty under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 reasonably to bring the effect of the order to the attention of road users;

2.3On receipt of this decision, enforcement activity was suspended.

2.4Having taken Counsel’s opinion, the Chief Legal Officer has advised that the County Council would be unlikely to succeed in challenging the adjudication decision

3.Recommendations

3.1Cabinet are asked to agree that:-

(i) the County Council does not challenge the adjudicator’s decisions; and

(ii) the Director, Environment & Commercial Services, in consultation with the Executive Member for Highways and Transport, and having sought the views of local members and groups representing objectors, redesigns a scheme with the aim of improving service to bus users in the area of Moor End Road.

3.2Furthermore, Cabinet is asked to agree a position with regard to the penalty charges received.

4.Background

4.1A ‘prohibition of driving except buses and other vehicles’ has existed in the Marlow’s area of Hemel Hempstead since at least 1998, when ‘The Hertfordshire (Marlow’s [Moor End Bus Link], Hemel Hempstead) (Prohibition of Driving and Entry, Except for Buses and Pedal Cycles) order 1997’ was introduced.

4.2The aim of the restriction has always been to improve journey time reliability for buses on this key route.

4.3Following changes to the carriageway layout, as a result of redevelopment in the town centre, a new order was introduced ‘The Hertfordshire (Moor End Road, Hemel Hempstead) (Prohibition of Driving Except Authorised Vehicles and Cyclists) Order 2006’, which came into force on 11th February 2008.

4.4The purpose of the 2006 order was to prohibit vehicles except buses and other authorised traffic from using a section of Moor End Road between Waterhouse Street and the New Bus Link. The aim at the time was for the section of highway to be restricted by the use of hydraulic bollards that would lower when a vehicle equipped with a suitable transponder approached. The bollards were never operational and enforcement of the restriction was with the police.

4.5A large number of vehicles ignored the restriction and this had an impact on bus journey times. The Council investigated the options for enforcing the restriction. The use of hydraulic bollards was not favoured by the emergency services because of the delays they would potentially suffer when using this road.

4.6In January 2011 a paper was presented to the Highways and Transport Cabinet Panel recommending a trial using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras to enforce the Moor End restriction. The Panel recommended approval of the trial.

4.7An amended traffic order was introduced ‘The Hertfordshire (Moor End Road, Hemel Hempstead) (Prohibition of Driving Motor Vehicles Except Buses and Taxis) Order 2010’, with effect from 25 April 2011. Works to install new signing and the enforcement cameras was completed on 1 August 2011. The amended order did not change the intention of the original restriction, which was to prohibit all motor vehicles except buses and taxis and other authorised traffic from driving along the section of Moor End Road between Waterhouse Street and the New Bus Link.

4.8Following a communications campaign to advise motorists of the new scheme, enforcement through the cameras started on 8 August 2011.

4.9The introduction of the enforcement regime at Moor End Road has resulted in 34,931 Penalty Charge Notices being raised of which 30,335 have been paid (figures to 31 March 2012).

4.10The total amount of charges paid is approximately £930,000. However, the net income to the Council is approximately £185,000, once payment for the infrastructure and fees have been deducted.

5.Adjudication

5.1Up to the end of March 2012 the Council had received notification of 568 Traffic Penalty Tribunal appeals. Two initial appeals were heard in January 2012 where the adjudicators’ decision went against the Council.

5.2On 7 February 2012 a telephone hearing was held regarding 2 further appeals, which were being treated as something of a test case for the scheme. The decision, received on 2 April, was, ‘Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur’.

5.3The reasons given for upholding the appeals were:

  1. The wording of the Traffic Regulation order was interpreted by the adjudicator to apply to westbound traffic only and therefore vehicles travelling from Leighton Buzzard Road to Waterhouse Street did not contravene any traffic order.
  1. The westbound restriction was unenforceable because Hertfordshire County Council had failed in their duty under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 reasonably to bring the effect of the order to the attention of road users;

5.4Given the implications of the decision, legal advice was sought on the likelihood of a successful challenge. The Chief Legal Officer has advised that the County Councilwould not be likely to succeed in a challenge of the Adjudicator's decisions.

6.Proposals

6.1The operation of the Moor End Roadbus lane is key to the smooth operation of bus services in Hemel Hempstead.

6.2Even though the route has been restricted for a number of years, a high number of unauthorised vehicles have continued to use the route, probably as a result of the lack of enforcement. Since the camera enforcement was introduced there has been a significant fall in the number of unauthorised vehicles using this road, with a corresponding improvement in bus journey times.

6.3It is considered important, therefore, to continue with a scheme which improves the flow of buses in the area and it is proposed that a scheme should be redesigned to take account of the adjudicator’s concerns.

6.4The views of local members should be sought on the redesign and, given the interest of various groups with the current scheme, their commentstoo should be sought.

6.5Removing or covering up the existing signs is likely to lead to increased numbers of vehicles using the route and with a resultant impact on bus movements. However, leaving signs visible which have subsequently been shown to be unenforceable, particularly given the high profile this case has experienced, may be judged to be distracting. On balance, it is proposed, that the signs be left in situ and bagged over until such time as a suitable scheme can be introduced.

7.Financial Implications

7.1Counsel has advised that the County Council is not obliged to refund monies that have been received through this mechanism. However, the Council has the powers to do so as explained in the paragraph 7.2 below.

7.2The Chief Legal Officer has delegated authority to repay the sums paid pursuant to the PCNs under Section 92 of the Local Government Act 2000 on the basis that there has, or may have been maladministration. The Council also has a general power to repay such sums on the basis that, given the adjudicator’s decisions, those who have paid could bring a legal action for restitution.

7.3The total value of Penalty Charge Notice payments received to date is approximately £930,000.

7.4After deductions of payments for the infrastructure and fees, the net income to the Council is approximately £185,000.

7.5The cost of processing any refund is estimated at approximately £11 each and is estimated to cost the Authority a total of £330,000 if all refunds were to be processed. The total cost, assuming a refund on all PCN’s, would be approximately £1.26 million. A provision for this sum would need to be made within the 2011/12 accounts.However, on the basis that camera enforcement is deployed in the revised scheme, much of the infrastructure will be re-usable and will produce income which, eventually, will reimburse the costs of establishing the scheme, including any refunds made.

7.6It should be noted that any refund process would not be instantaneous and could take a number of months to complete.

Background Information

None

1