FOI003475 EIR Parking and Enforcement

Please treat this as a request for environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).
If the Council considers that any discrete item does not fall within the EIR, please process that part under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and identify which regime has been applied to which item.
This request concerns the proposal, consultation, signature-gathering exercise and subsequent consideration and implementation of double yellow lines / waiting restrictions on Vicus Way, Maidenhead, particularly the section adjacent to The Loftings and the waste transfer / recycling facility on Vicus Way.
The relevant period is 1 January 2023 to 20 August 2026, being the date of this request.
I am not requesting general information concerning odour, planning enforcement or regulation of the waste transfer station. This is a discrete request concerning the Vicus Way parking and highways scheme.
1. Origin and initiation of the scheme
Please provide any recorded information showing:
•    when and how the proposal for double yellow lines or waiting restrictions on Vicus Way was first raised with RBWM;
•    who referred or initiated the proposal;
•    any scheme, project, petition, consultation, traffic-management or case reference allocated to it;
•    any instructions, recommendations or decisions to progress the proposal.
Please also provide any correspondence received by the Highways team from residents of The Loftings concerning traffic, HGVs, speed, parking or road conditions on Vicus Way, including relevant correspondence received following the publication of the Highways@rbwm.gov.uk contact address to residents in January 2023.
For context, on 19 January 2023 residents were directed to contact RBWM Highways regarding Vicus Way concerns. On 11 March 2023, a resident subsequently informed Councillor Hill that he had contacted the Council several times and lodged a formal complaint, stating:
“They still haven’t changed the speed limit or put double yellow or red lines like we discussed. HGV’s sometimes park on the road for 20, 30 or even an hour…”
Councillor Hill responded:
“I’ll get onto this.”
and:
“I’ll chase this up again.”
These references are provided to assist identification of the relevant records.
2. Councillor involvement and records of the resident consultation
Please provide Council-held emails, correspondence, meeting notes, Teams messages or other recorded communications between Councillor Helen Taylor, Councillor Geoff Hill and officers within Parking & Enforcement, Highways, Traffic / Transport, Neighbourhood Services, Place, or any other relevant RBWM team concerning:
•    Vicus Way double yellow lines or waiting restrictions;
•    HGV or lorry parking;
•    overnight lorry parking;
•    the requirement for resident consultation or support;
•    the door-to-door canvassing/signature-gathering exercise; or
•    the results of that exercise.
On 24 October 2023, Councillor Taylor informed residents, in relation to lorries parking on Vicus Way:
“we can put yellow lines down but we need to do a consultation. So we will be coming around to knock on doors on the blocks facing Vicus Way in the next two weeks.”
The subsequent exercise involved door-to-door canvassing, the collection of signatures and pursuit of a stated 50% level of resident support.
I appreciate that information held by councillors solely in their ordinary capacity as elected ward representatives may not be information held by the Council for the purposes of regulation 3(2)(a).
However, the contemporaneous material indicates that resident consultation was understood to be required before the Vicus Way waiting-restriction proposal could progress. This request therefore seeks recorded information capable of establishing the relationship, if any, between the canvassing/signature-gathering exercise and RBWM's administrative process for progressing the scheme.
Accordingly, please provide any recorded information showing:
•    whether RBWM required resident consultation or a particular level of resident support before the Vicus Way waiting-restriction proposal could progress;
•    whether any RBWM officer requested, authorised, instructed, encouraged or otherwise communicated to Councillors Taylor and/or Hill that resident consultation or signatures should be obtained;
•    whether RBWM received the results, returns, signature totals, property lists or other outputs of the canvassing exercise;
•    whether RBWM relied upon, considered or used the canvassing results when deciding whether or how to progress the waiting restrictions;
•    how any percentage or signature threshold, including the stated 50% threshold, was determined or communicated; and
•    whether Councillors Taylor and/or Hill were asked or expected to undertake any part of the consultation or resident-engagement process associated with the scheme.
Please also provide any consultation records, canvass returns, property lists, response records or related material which are held:
1.    by RBWM within regulation 3(2)(a) because they were produced or received in connection with the Council's administrative functions; or
2.    by another person on behalf of RBWM within regulation 3(2)(b) in connection with the consultation or resident-engagement process for the scheme.
Please search relevant RBWM officer records and RBWM-held correspondence to or from Councillors Taylor and Hill accordingly.
If the Council concludes that consultation or canvassing information known to exist is not held by or on behalf of RBWM for the purposes of regulation 3(2), please state that conclusion expressly and provide the reasons required by the Regulations for refusing or declining that part of the request, including sufficient explanation to identify the factual basis on which the Council reached its conclusion.
In particular, where relevant recorded information is held, please disclose information showing whether the canvassing exercise was undertaken solely as independent ward representation or whether it formed part of, was requested for, was supplied to, or was relied upon in RBWM's traffic-management process.
3. Neil Walter / Parking & Enforcement records
Please specifically search records held by or involving Neil Walter, Parking & Enforcement Manager, Neighbourhood Services, Place, including correspondence between Mr Walter, Councillor Taylor, Councillor Hill and other relevant officers concerning:
•    double yellow lines on Vicus Way;
•    consultation with residents;
•    the need to obtain resident support;
•    any percentage or signature threshold;
•    approval or agreement to progress the scheme;
•    preparation or implementation of the restrictions.
This item is directed at a specific and identifiable agreement.
In December 2024, Councillor Taylor informed residents that the Vicus Way yellow lines had been:
“agreed earlier this year with Neil.”
Please provide the recorded information underlying or relating to that agreement.
4. Door-to-door consultation
Please provide all records concerning the decision or arrangement to conduct door-to-door engagement with residents of properties facing Vicus Way, including:
•    consultation plans;
•    instructions to councillors or officers;
•    lists of properties to be visited;
•    door-knocking sheets, canvassing records and address lists;
•    leaflets, scripts or questionnaires;
•    dates of visits, including repeat and follow-up visits;
•    records of unsuccessful visits or planned return visits;
•    records explaining the purpose or status of the exercise.
Canvassing visits are understood to have taken place on at least 21 April, 5 May, and 27 and 28 May 2024, with follow-up visits to properties where there had been no answer.
5. Consultation / petition responses and results
Please provide:
•    the wording of any petition or consultation;
•    petition or consultation forms;
•    signature sheets;
•    spreadsheets or databases recording responses;
•    totals of residents and properties contacted;
•    totals supporting and opposing the proposal;
•    any consultation summary or analysis;
•    records showing how responses were counted or validated;
•    any report or communication conveying the results to RBWM officers.
I am content for names, signatures, contact details and other third-party personal data to be redacted.
I am seeking the structure and outcome of the consultation, rather than the identity of individual respondents. Where personal information cannot lawfully be disclosed, please provide the remainder of the record in anonymised or appropriately redacted form wherever reasonably possible.
6. The 50% threshold
Please provide any recorded information showing or explaining:
•    why a 50% level of support was being sought;
•    who determined that threshold;
•    whether it was an RBWM requirement, officer recommendation, councillor decision or other criterion;
•    what geographical area, buildings or number of properties formed the denominator against which 50% was calculated;
•    the total number of properties included in that denominator;
•    whether reaching 50% triggered any particular next step in the scheme.
For context, Councillor Taylor stated during the door-to-door exercise on 27 May 2024 that the exercise was:
“FOUR signatures away from having 50%.”
7. Property-level record for the blocks canvassed
Please provide any record showing, for the residential blocks canvassed, including Orchid House, Marigold House and Speckled Wood House, which properties were:
•    approached;
•    recorded as responding;
•    recorded as supporting;
•    recorded as opposing; or
•    recorded as not responding / not answering.
I am content for names, signatures, telephone numbers, email addresses and other identifying personal information to be redacted in full.
I am asking for the underlying record showing the property identifier and consultation outcome, not the identity of the individual respondent.
If the Council considers that even a particular property identifier must be withheld in an individual case, please nevertheless disclose the remainder of the record, including the overall property list, response categories and totals, insofar as that information can reasonably be separated.
8. Parking and highways scheme file and implementation
Please provide the relevant Parking, Enforcement, Highways or Traffic scheme file, including insofar as held:
•    officer notes;
•    site-visit records;
•    assessments and recommendations;
•    maps, drawings and proposed restriction plans;
•    Traffic Regulation Order documentation;
•    consultation notices and objections;
•    internal approvals and decision records;
•    implementation instructions;
•    contractor instructions;
•    enforcement arrangements;
•    records showing whether and when the yellow lines were approved, ordered, programmed, installed or deferred;
•    records of any post-implementation review, inspection, amendment or enforcement consideration concerning the restrictions.
Within that material, please also provide records concerning:
•    HGVs or lorries;
•    overnight lorry parking;
•    vehicles waiting for the waste transfer / recycling facility to open;
•    Serco;
•    the recycling centre / waste transfer facility;
•    noise;
•    obstruction;
•    visibility; and
•    road-safety concerns attributed to those vehicles.
This information is requested to establish the recorded reason and evidential basis for the proposed restrictions and their subsequent implementation.
Searches requested
To assist the Council in locating the information efficiently, I ask that searches include, where appropriate:
•    Neil Walter's relevant records and mailbox;
•    Parking & Enforcement shared mailboxes and systems;
•    the Highways@rbwm.gov.uk mailbox and relevant Highways records;
•    Highways, Traffic and Transport records;
•    RBWM-held correspondence to or from Councillors Helen Taylor and Geoff Hill concerning the scheme;
•    any councillor-held material which RBWM determines is held by or on behalf of the authority within regulation 3(2);
•    relevant case-management, petition, consultation and traffic-order systems.
Potentially relevant search terms include:
“Vicus Way”
“yellow lines”
“double yellow”
“red lines”
“waiting restrictions”
“consultation”
“petition”
“50%”
“signatures”
“lorry” / “lorries”
“HGV”
“speed limit”
“recycling centre”
“waste transfer”
“Serco”
“The Loftings”
“Orchid House”