The Regulatory Committee of Richmond upon Thames Council was scheduled to meet on Wednesday 19 November 2025. The meeting was to focus on the proposed introduction of a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) to address vehicle idling, and to review the responses to a public consultation on the matter. The committee was also scheduled to approve the minutes of a previous meeting.

Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for Idling Vehicles

The main item for discussion was the introduction of a Public Spaces Protection Order¹ to tackle vehicle idling. The report pack included a summary of the consultation responses, a proposed enforcement approach, and a recommendation to delegate responsibility to the Executive Director of Resident Services to deliver the scheme. A supplementary agenda was added, recommending that the committee seek full council approval to make the order, and to approve the proposed level of fixed penalty.

Background

According to the report pack, pollution from vehicle idling remained a problem in the borough, despite resources being added to parking services to address the issue. The report stated that Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) had recorded over 3,314 interventions in the first two quarters of 2025.

The report noted that current legislation, the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002, makes vehicle idling an offence, but only one fine had been issued in the past six years, despite over 68,000 interventions.

The absence of a realistic risk of a fine means there is little incentive to change their behaviour.

The report also stated that around 60% of the borough's Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) emissions come from internal combustion engines associated with road traffic, and that the borough had adopted some of the strictest objectives in the UK for Nitrogen Dioxide, in line with stage two of the World Health Organization's interim target levels.

Consultation

Between 19 August and 28 October 2025, the council carried out a public consultation on the proposed PSPO. According to the report pack, the consultation was promoted through social media and direct engagement with statutory consultees, including the Police, the National Trust, The Royal Parks, sporting venues, local cab and coach companies, Kew Gardens, Hampton Court and Transport for London (TfL). Additional communications were sent to local community groups, such as the Kew Society, Richmond Society, the Teddington Society and the Hampton Society.

The consultation received 814 responses, with 92% from residents living within the borough. Of these, 96% were aware of the health risks posed by idling vehicles, and 70% had come across unnecessary and persistent idling in the borough. 70% of respondents either 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that idling has a detrimental effect on the quality of life in the borough, and around 65% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that it is reasonable and justified to implement a PSPO to address vehicle idling.

Of those who disagreed with the proposals, the reasons given included that the PSPO was unnecessary and disproportionate, a perceived attack on motorists, an overreach by the council, a revenue raising scheme, a waste of taxpayers' money, and concern over enforcement.

Enforcement

The report pack stated that any enforcement would need to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, and within the council's established Parking Enforcement and Cancellation Protocol. The principles of transparency, fairness and accountability would apply to the delivery and assessment of the pilot PSPO scheme.

The report pack outlined that officers were in discussion with external service providers on how the scheme would be implemented, including the move from issuing warnings to enforcement, the required back-office functions, and existing contract arrangements. The report stated that the scheme should ideally not lead to additional cost to the council, while taking into account existing resources dedicated to idling prevention.

The report pack stated that if the scheme goes ahead, a small number of enforcement officers and some relevant council officers would be authorised to take action and enforce the legislation. Any initial concerns or 'appeals' would be made to the service provider and escalated where necessary to the relevant council officers in accordance with the current Parking Enforcement Protocol.

During a potential pilot, the council would maintain the right to enforce the PSPO in any part of the borough, but would focus on areas that have historically caused concern or where evidence shows that this behaviour is endemic, such as schools, level crossings, and areas subject to complaints raised by residents.

New signage would need to replace existing anti-idling signage, and a communications plan would announce the start of the scheme. There would be a minimum period of 8 weeks from the launch of the pilot scheme where motorists breaching the PSPO would be issued with a formal written warning, after which enforcement officers would start to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs).

To gather evidence, the enforcement officer would need to gather evidence that the vehicle is idling without a reasonable excuse, in an area subject to the PSPO. This would include observations of idling for a period exceeding 2 minutes, including the use of body worn cameras. Any council officers enforcing idling would need to be in marked high-vis jackets or tabards with anti-idling logos clearly visible.

The driver would be approached and issued with the FPN. If the driver refuses to provide details and/or leaves the scene, a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) check would be made. The fine issued would be £100, reduced to £50 if paid within the given period.

Exceptions to the PSPO could include refrigerated vehicles where the engine is needed to power cooling systems, where the engine is required to power hoist or lifting equipment of deliveries, and defrosting in order to make a vehicle safe to drive.

The application of any scheme and its delivery would be under constant review, to ensure fairness and consistency. Monthly data would be gathered throughout the pilot phase, including numbers of FPNs issued, appeals upheld and dismissed, cost of enforcing the scheme, legal challenges, and prosecutions. Where reasonably practical, air quality monitoring would take place in key areas to assess the impact of the new scheme. A report would be taken before the Regulatory Committee at the end of the first year with a recommendation as to whether the scheme should be halted or continued.

Appendix 1 (The Public Spaces Protection Order)

The report pack included a draft of the PSPO, which stated that the council was satisfied that the requirements of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 had been met, and that it was appropriate to make the order. The draft order stated that the idling of motor vehicles when stationary has had and will continue to have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality.

The draft order applied to any public place within the administrative area of the council. It stated that the driver of a motor vehicle must, when the vehicle is stationary, stop the engine, unless the vehicle is stationary owing to the necessities of traffic, or for a period not exceeding two minutes, or when it is necessary to maintain operation of essential vehicle functions, or when it is required for safety reasons, or so as to prevent the examination or working of the machinery.

The draft order stated that an authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone he or she has reason to believe has committed an offence under Section 67 of the Act. A person issued with a FPN must pay the fixed penalty of £100 within 14 days to discharge any liability to conviction for the offence. The penalty is automatically reduced to £50 if paid within 10 days.

Approval of Minutes

The committee was also scheduled to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2025.