Letter: Council Cannot Quickly Fix Burpham Car Park Problem

Published on: 25 Oct, 2019
Updated on: 25 Oct, 2019

From: David Goodwin

borough councillor for Onslow Ward and lead member for Licensing, Parking and Waste

As lead member for parking at Guildford Borough Council, I’d like an opportunity to respond to Cllr Potter’s letter: No One Was Asking for Things to be Done on a “Whim”

The purpose of the decision before the GBC Executive was to adopt a way forward: not to adopt a principle position on the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) – whether to suspend, revoke, etc.

Cllr George Potter [Lib Dem, Burpham] seems to assume that the meeting would decide there and then on this. The Executive was advised that this could not occur without the preparatory work, analysis, and appropriate consultation. This had not occurred, and could not occur in the time allowed.

In response, Cllr Potter has publically set out a range of powers that he believes we can use, and that the Executive was not informed of these by officers. A link was made to Experimental Traffic Orders and s.10 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA).

The use of s.10 is actually governed by s.9 of the Act. Unfortunately, the RTRA 1984 s.9 is quite clear that Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders only relate to roads and the powers are only available to a traffic authority. Sutherland Memorial Park car-park is not a road nor are we a traffic authority.

Section 9 states:

Experimental traffic orders.

F1 (1) The traffic authority for a road may, for the purposes of carrying out an experimental scheme of traffic control, make an order under this section (referred to in this Act as an “ experimental traffic order”) making any such provision.

Similarly, Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders only relate to roads, and can only be used in a specific set of circumstances, which does not apply here as it is not a road.

The off-street order was made under s.35 of the RTRA 1984.

35 Provisions as to use of parking places provided under s. 32 or 33.

(1)As respects any parking place –

(a)provided by a local authority under section 32 of this Act, or

(b)provided under any letting or arrangements made by a local authority under section 33(4) of this Act, the local authority, subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 to this Act, may by order make provision as to –

the use of the parking place, and in particular the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use it,
the conditions on which it may be used,
the charges to be paid in connection with its use (where it is an off-street one), and
the removal from it of a vehicle left there in contravention of the order and the safe custody of the vehicle.

It is therefore absolutely correct that the Executive did not have authority to unilaterally and immediately introduce, revoke or suspend the order without going through the statutory process. The Executive had authority to undertake a review of the policy and to instruct officers to commence a new TRO process as per the motion put forward, but this would take a long time. The Executive instead chose to do the latter in isolation, as soon as practicable, as this was the quickest way to achieve a review and further public consultation on the controls and chose to consider the wider policy at a later date.

Officers have been tasked to review the order, see what changes are possible so as to balance use of the park to accommodate other community use, whilst remaining within the bounds of the existing policy framework, propose a new TRO for agreement with the relevant Lead Cllr and then consult on this order.

I hope this clarifies the situation.