Decision Maker: Waste & Street Scene Policy Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: February 14, 2025

Purpose: Policy review to allow for changes since policy review in Feb 2024, to include; review of dropped kerb requirements, review of enhancing suspension removals / relocation, introduce Anti-idling PCNs; policy approach to food delivery drivers waiting time and school streets enforcement.

Content: 10.1.1 Members of the committee considered a report of the Executive Director Neighbourhood Services detailing the current enforcement policy regarding the criteria for dropped kerb and raised carriageway enforcement, to propose that bus gates are still enforced as bus lanes rather than under moving traffic enforcement, to detail circumstances for vehicle removal under dangerous / obstructive removals criteria. Also, minor amendments including sections explaining car club permit holder bays, adding cycle track exemptions for utility companies, bus stand exemptions and more detail on loading (general guidelines and food delivery drivers).     10.1.2 During discussion of the item it was decided that the recommendations be amended by the deletion of paragraph (b) from the original report; (b) Agree to enforcement against vehicles parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge without the requirement for tactiles to be present.   10.2 RESOLVED: That the Waste and Street Scene Policy Committee;   a)    In relation to dropped-kerb parking enforcement :                                           i.    Request that officers conduct a review of the resourcing implications for the enforcement of vehicles parked in front of dropped kerbs for driveways and report back to committee with detailed proposals, and,                                         ii.    approve the temporary application of the amended enforcement priorities detailed in paragraph 5.1, Alternative Option 1 pending the conduct of that review, and presentation of that report. b)    Agree to proposals to continue enforcement of bus gates as a bus lane contravention instead of a moving traffic contravention. c)    Agree other changes to the Sheffield City Council Civil Parking, Bus Lane and Moving Traffic Enforcement Policy v1.2 as listed in the summary changes, including previously omitted exemptions, reference to car club permit holder bays and more information on loading guidelines. d)    Agree to delegate the decision to reduce the loading observations concessions for food delivery drivers in line with standard loading observations to the Executive Director, City Futures as an Officer Decision once consultation on this is completed.     10.3 Reasons for Decision     10.3.1 Continue to enforce dropped kerbs in front of driveways regardless of an H marking being present but to further review the impact on resource due to requests for such enforcement.     10.3.2 Prevent parking at junctions with raised carriageways and risks to other road users     10.3.3 Continue enforcement of bus gates using bus lane enforcement to avoid the risk of being challenged based on statutory guidance directions for not issuing 6 months warning notices for existing bus gate sites.     10.3.4 Improved information for transparency in the Sheffield City Council Civil Parking, Bus Lane and Moving Traffic Enforcement Policy.     10.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected     10.4.1 Dropped kerbs in front of driveway       Alternative Option 1: An option that alters priorities so that the tactile dropped kerb (and raised carriageways) remains the highest priority due to safety issues for other road users; for driveways an “H” marked kerb is a medium priority and a dropped kerb with no H marking is the lowest priority. Staff would be deployed to enforce based on this priority criteria depending on staffing resource available.       Alternative Option 2: Make it a requirement for enforcement that driveways must have a H marking for a PCN to be issued. This would reduce demand on CEO time to help meet other demands for enforcement deployment. There is an opportunity cost deploying officers to often more outlying areas which generally have few if any other restrictions close by which can be tied in for checks whilst an officer is deployed there.     10.4.2 Carriageways raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge.       Alternative Option 1: Where a carriageway has been raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge, only enforce where there are tactiles (as is the case for pedestrian dropped kerbs).   However, the above would still need to be considered for appeals. This would not negate parking issues at locations such as Division Lane where tactiles have not been provided.       Alternative Option 2: Where a carriageway has been raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge, do not enforce in the absence of other restriction signage. However, this would risk unenforceable parking on such junctions and problems for other road users as a result.       Alternative Option 3: Where a carriageway has been raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge, sign the street as a Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) to negate the need for yellow lines. However, this would need changes to signs and lines on the rest of the street and wider zone and a budget to do so. It is also likely to need a TRO review as the waiting and loading restrictions would need to be uniform within the zone created.     10.4.3 Bus gate enforcement       Alternative Option 1: For new and existing bus gates issue PCNs for contravention reason ‘Using a route restricted to certain vehicles’ (moving traffic enforcement) instead of ‘Being in a bus lane’ (bus lane enforcement).   However, we risk being challenged in the first 6 months of this being changed at the existing 9 bus gate locations if we continued to issue PCNs for these rather than revert to warning notices. If warning notices are issued for that period there would be a financial impact on the service, as well as different enforcement being applied to drivers depending on when they drove through the existing bus gates.   If we issued for contravention reason ‘Using a route restricted to certain vehicles’ (moving traffic enforcement) for new bus gates only and ‘Being in a bus lane’ (bus lane enforcement) for new sites, this may cause confusion for motorists that receive PCNs having driven through bus gates at different locations.