Please find below answers to submitted questions for EGM Agenda Item 3:
2021.05.21 Question Submitted
1. What legal powers does the CCMC have to adjust the restrictive covenants?
2. If the proposed adjustments to parking restrictions are not voted for by members this means that the current restrictions still apply and will be tackled appropriately?
3. Where there are lowered pavements / no pavements how are rules relating to the Highway Code etc and parking restrictions on a path (so people, families, children etc can walk on them without being obstructed by a vehicle) going to be tackled?
4. What have CCMC instructed REMUS to do to enforce existing restrictive covenants?
- Directors have taken initial legal advice about the broader enforcement of covenants with the intention of proposing future regulations. However as we have been asked specifically to enforce those concerning parking and commercial vehicles, our priority has been to find a workable solution rather than embarking on a complex legal process (which will be a cost to residents via the Service Charge) to unpick all of the covenants that are part of TP1 agreements.
- If the proposed parking regulation is not agreed, we will have no option other than to enforce every covenant as they are laid out in residents TP1 agreements.
- The design of the ‘shared spaces’, such as that on the centre of Fairway Drive is something we have to live with and everyone needs to use due care and attention accordingly. In many areas there are no pavements and residents paths open up directly onto roads. Essex Highways will be proposing a mandatory 20mph speed limit, together with other traffic calming solutions, in the near future which should assist. To minimise obstructions residents and for the safety of all, it would be helpful if residents could use all available driveway space.
- As noted in Point 1, directors have worked with Remus and have taken initial legal advice about the broader enforcement of covenants. Per Point 2, Remus will be instructed to begin formal enforcement processes if the Parking regulation is not agreed. Should other covenant related issues be reported to directors, we will need to go through the same process of proposing a regulation that keeps everyone happy.
2021.05.20 Question Submitted
(1) Will our guests who will be parked on our drive way only be allowed to park for 4 hours with no return for 12 hours?
(2) If my car is parked on the raised pavement on my drive way but not blocking pedestrians, am I allowed to park?
- There is no restriction on parking resident owned private vehicles at any time, nor for their visitors, other than as detailed in Paragraph 5 of the recommendation.
- Parking is not permitted at any time on raised pavements. Parking on a pavement can constitute an obstruction that may be dealt with by the Police.
2021.05.20 Question Submitted
In relation to the parking situation, I have the following questions that I would be grateful could be answered ahead of any voting of the parking resolution. The questions are:
1) There are frequent mentions to the block paved areas on Fairway Drive and where or where not residents can park. Where can residents who do not live on the block paved areas, such as the start of Fairway Drive or Mashie Link, park?
2) What consideration, if any, has been given to adding double yellow lines to all areas where people should not park, such as turning heads and dropped kerbs?
3) Many reference have been made that the parking issues have caused accidents or near misses. What analysis has been completed to check that these parking changes will stop or limit these accidents or near misses?
4) If parking is not the root cause of these accidents or near misses, what, if any, traffic calming measures are being considered?
5) How will the visitor bays be managed?
6) What assurances can be given that the visitor bays will not simply be used by residents closest to these bays?
7) What consideration, if any, is there to increasing the number of visitor bays around the estate?
8) What consideration, if any, has been given to community led “enforcement” rather than contracting a parking enforcement company?
9) While it is understood that PCM have not been contracted, what discussions have taken place so far?
10) What, if any, other parking enforcement companies have been involved in any discussion?
11) Following from question 10, if no other companies have been involved in any discussions, why not?
12) Following from question 11, what guarantees will be offered that further parking enforcement companies will be involved in any discussions?
13) What assurances can the directors provide that they have no links, such as financial or contractual relationships, with PCM?
14) What factors are being considered when deciding what parking enforcement company is appropriate?
15) Once any discussions with parking enforcement companies has been completed, what reports will be passed to estate members?
16) What vote, if any, will take place on the recommended parking enforcement company?
17) Following question 16, if no vote will take place, why has this decision been taken and by whom?
18) Why has parking on the pavement been deemed grossly inappropriate when the Highway Code only forbids this in London?
19) Linked to question 19, with regard to confidentiality, what complaints have been made about vehicles being parked wholly or partially on the pavement?
20) Reference has been made that non-residents have been the cause of some damage due to poor driving, what steps are being taken to address these issues with these non-residents either directly or through the residents visited?
1) They can park wholly on the Road or on their Driveway as long as this does not contravene the requirements as detailed in Paragraph 5 of the recommendation.
2) This has been considered and would need to be added as part of any enforcement but we would hope residents would use common sense and think of others and not park inconsiderately. In addition there would need to be further discussion with highways to ensure that additional lining would not impact on adoption.
3)There can be no conclusive evidence but we have taken guidance from Highways on best practice and have considered the requirements of the Highway Code.
4) Essex Highways will be proposing a mandatory 20mph speed limit, together with other traffic calming solutions, in the near future and Highways will be working with Bellway as part of the remedial works prior to adoption on installation of traffic calming measures once approved.
5) Visitors bays will be marked and initially there will be no formal enforcement in the hope that they are not abused, if they are then we will look at enforcement.
6) We would hope as per above that residents would be courteous to others but again if abused we will look at formal enforcement.
7) There are a set number of visitor spaces as per original planning and this cannot be altered.
8) Yes this is a good idea but in practice could lead to confrontation if disputes took place hence this is best left to an expert third party. This does not preclude neighbours from talking to each other to resolve any issues or to advise if there may be extra traffic from visitors in the area.
9)We had only preliminary conversations with PCM about Permit Parking, no further discussion will take place post the EGM and unless the parking regulation recommendation is approved. Please note however that there has been parking enforcement in place near to the Western Mitigation Area for over 2 years, administered by PCM who were contracted by POD Management.
10) We have also contacted South Essex Parking Partnership to see if they can advise and help, these are used by Essex Police, Essex and Chelmsford Councils.
11) See question 10 above.
12) As we have stated numerous times no one company has been decided upon and we would also look to Remus to assist us in finding an appropriate expert third party.
13) This has been answered before, the CCMC Directors are volunteers who get no remuneration for any of the work they do and do not have an affiliation to PCM nor as previously asked would they gain any benefit from engaging them. Directors are impartial to any contract awarded to a third party as they work for the best interest of the development.
14) What ever is deemed best for the development and residents whilst being able to enforce any breach of the regulation. As noted above, would also look to Remus to assist us in finding an appropriate expert third party.
15, 16 & 17) Directors are duly authorised to decide on such and need only publish to Members as a courtesy as they have been voted as a director, any resident member can apply to be considered.
18) The Government is looking to implement this countrywide (see link here) and to park on a pavement blocking access for Prams or Wheelchairs or Pedestrians is an Offence.
Unnecessary obstruction of the highway
The offence of unnecessary obstruction of the highway, which includes the road as well as the pavement, already exists and has not been decriminalised. There are existing statutes and regulations which allow proceedings to be brought by the police under criminal law for situations where parking on the pavement, in such a way as to cause obstruction, is deemed to be avoidable. These include:
- Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended; for wilfully obstructing the free passage along a highway
- Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 as amended; for causing or permitting a motor vehicle or trailer to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road
19) There have been numerous complaints about parking in general and requests to enforce the Parking Covenants full details of which cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality. Directors have to work within the legal framework set out as the RMC is a limited company and even if only 1 member requests covenant enforcement, there is no option but to do so unless another solution can be found.
20) Where there is ample evidence offending residents (or visitors) have been written to formally by the managing agent unfortunately the cost of repair has to come out of the service charge unless there it is possible to pursue an insurance claim against the offender.
2021.05.20 Question Submitted
There are several covenants on our estate which are not adhered to and haven’t been since day one. Are these also going to be addressed as well as the parking covenant.
For example Sky dishes on the front of properties, outside TV aerials, changes to people’s front gardens. Surely if we are going to address the parking covenant then the others will need to be addressed as well ?
Directors have received formal requests from residents to enforce covenants about parking and commercial vehicles. The directors have a legal obligation to enforce them and that’s the legal advice. The proposed parking regulation is a common sense approach in an attempt to keep everyone happy whilst representing a solution for those residents that have formally requested the parking & commercial vehicle covenants to be enforced.
Directors have to work within the legal framework set out as the RMC is a limited company and even if only 1 member requests covenant enforcement, there is no option but to do so unless another solution can be found.
Directors have taken initial legal advice about the broader enforcement of covenants with the intention of proposing future regulations with the same common sense approach to keep everyone happy. However as noted above if the proposed parking regulation is not agreed, we will have no option other than to enforce every covenant as they are laid out in residents TP1 agreements.
2021.05.08 Question Submitted
I have been through the planning portal to try and locate the refuge plan and whilst it is referenced in one of the planning submissions, it is not included. For absolute clarity can you confirm whether any of the entry points into the side roads along the longest main central stretch of Fairway Drive are considered turning heads for the purposes of the parking regulations. For example the entry point to the side road just after 16 Fairway Drive?
The diagrams below show the defined ‘turning heads’ (except for those on areas of private road). The diagrams also show a number of pedestrian access points that need to be kept clear. These are often at the end of ‘no through’ roads or where a pedestrian route directly meets a road with no defined pavement. In addition there are two areas marked where 24/7 access may be required and where no parking is permitted. There are already signs in place in these locations and parking enforcement has been in place for one of them (access to the gravel path on the Western Mitigation Area) for over two years.
2021.05.07 Question Submitted
Why can’t members vote if their service charge account is not fully paid up?
Note 3 of the voting form advises that “No member may vote at any general meeting whether in person or by proxy or in the event that the member is a corporation, by corporate representative in respect of any of the units owned by that member unless all monies currently due and payable by that member to the company have been paid in full“.
The above requirement therefore excludes members not currently up to date with payment of service charges from voting, however this is defined by the Articles of Association for CCMC Ltd under section 15.6 and is a rule that we must follow:
Remus will notify any member where their vote is not valid and the reasons for this. The results from voting will be published after the meeting (within 48 hours) and details of any invalid/excluded votes will be detailed alongside the results.
2021.05.07 Question Submitted
1) 4.1 – This statement is ambiguous. Can you clarify that this only relates to commercial vehicles and not resident owned domestic vehicles.
2) 4.4 – Please confirm that this only relates to how the visitor bays are operated and that visitor parking more generally is allowed outside people’s houses as long as it doesn’t contravene any of the stated parking regulations
3) Please provide a site plan which identifies all areas on the estate which are considered a turning head. Please also provide detail in terms of what would constitute a parking violation relevant to turning heads (proximity to turning head etc)
4) Please confirm that residents can park resident owned domestic vehicles outside their homes at any hour of the day as long as they don’t contravene any of the stated parking regulations in section 4.5 of the revised parking management regulations.
5) 4.5 v. Please define what is considered a pedestrian access way. Please also define what the acceptable clearance needs to be. I assume this is a fixed measurement.
6) Please can you confirm who this mysterious 3rd party is? At this juncture I can only assume that this is PCM Ltd (read the reviews) who you are having to appease as a hangover from the previous parking scheme. We need a name so we can undertake the necessary due diligence before we willfully invite this type of operator into our estate.
7) Please provide a site plan showing all proposed location of parking regulation signage. Please also confirm that a required advertising consent applications will be submitted to the local authority for all signage so that residents have a formal process in which to object if a sign is to be erected outside of their home.
8) I would like assurance from CCMC Ltd that this will be the full extent of the parking regulations and that there will be no additional rules or restriction added to the parking management regulations in the future.
9) Please can you detail the minimum contract period with the 3rd party parking management company?
10) Please can you confirm all break provisions within the agreement/contract with the 3rd party parking management company?
11) Please can you confirm what evidence will be issued alongside a PCN notice to the owner of a vehicle who is perceived to have breached a parking regulation?
1) 4.1 – We clarify that this only relates to commercial vehicles and not resident owned domestic vehicles.
2) 4.4 – We confirm that this only relates to how the visitor bays are operated and that visitor parking more generally is allowed outside people’s houses as long as it doesn’t contravene any of the stated parking regulations in Section 4, Paragraph 5.
3) The link below gives a complete description of what a Turning Head is, these should also be shown in the Refuse Collection Plan included in the Developments Planning Documents. The turning heads mostly have ‘no parking’ signage in place already which were installed by Bellway over 2 years ago.
4) We confirm that residents can park resident owned domestic vehicles outside their homes at any hour of the day and night as long as they don’t contravene any of the stated parking regulations in Section 4, Paragraph 5 of the revised parking management regulations.
5) The pedestrian accessways mentioned in 5v are the dropped kerb areas with tactile paving for the visually impaired. As well as providing a crossing point for the visually impaired, their use is also intended for prams, wheelchair users and bicycles. The Highway Code Rule 143 states that you cannot stop or park where a kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users. In addition, there are ‘gaps’ in a number of locations across the development (usually at the end of no through roads) which should not be blocked for the same reasons as previously described. It would not be acceptable to park in such a manner to prevent access for Pedestrians, cycles, prams & wheelchairs etc.
6) We initially had conversations with PCM but no 3rd Party has been engaged. This will not be undertaken until a decision on the measures has been agreed. Due diligence will of course be undertaken by directors in conjunction with the CCMC managing agent.
7) This will be provided by whomever we decide to engage, and we would ensure all necessary planning and/or consent has been approved prior to signage being placed. Notwithstanding that placement of signage is important to enable enforcement, plans will also be shared with residents. We will ensure the placement of signage is sympathetic to residents’ wishes however should a resident have a valid objection, it will be considered.
8) We have no reason at this time to consider the need for regulations additional to those currently recommended however it does not preclude the need to do so. Any further amendments, should they be required, will be put to members for a vote and will not be progressed by the board unilaterally. CCMC Ltd also has no direct control over what Essex Highways may wish to introduce in the future.
9) As previously stated, when a company is contracted, we would seek a rolling agreement with break clauses. The break clause could be enacted if we feel that the company’s enforcement of the regulations is not benefitting the community.
10) See point (9) above.
11) From past discussion this would be in the form of photographic evidence.
2021.05.07 Question Submitted
Why have you decided the approach of if you don’t vote then you assume acceptance of the parking scheme?
Have you signed a contract already with PCM?
Are PCM the third party you are engaging with?
Why has the approach you have taken not of transparency and openness?
Are you getting some benefit from employing a parking agent?
The approach of members who do not vote being in acceptance of the resolution is not described or implied anywhere in the resolution papers and in line with our Articles of Association, a simple majority of 50% will be required to approve the recommendation, or prevent it from being passed. The voting form clearly asks eligible members to vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ and in line with normal voting protocol, those members can choose to abstain from voting on any of the resolutions and as such they will have no impact on the outcome.
The narrative does note that members are asked to vote if they do not agree and this is to reflect (as explained in the formal Notice) that directors have agreed each resolution in principle and the agenda items are presented as board recommendations. Ultimately as the outcome will be determined by a simple majority by eligible members voting ‘for’ or ‘against’, it makes no difference
There is no contract yet signed with PCM or any other parking management company. The process for choosing a partner will take place if the recommendation is approved.
We have been asked by some residents to enforce covenants in relation to parking and commercial vehicles. The directors of the RMC have a legal obligation to enforce them, (that’s the legal advice) and even if only one member requests this, there is no option but to enforce them unless another solution can be found. We cannot pick and choose which covenants to enforce and it would have to be blanket for everything which would be far worse. As such the approach we have taken is a common sense one in an attempt to keep everyone happy and if everyone parks sensibly, there won’t be any problems. The fact that all members have the opportunity to look at the recommendation, vote on it and attend a meeting to hear from directors (where you will have the right to change your advance vote) is fair and transparent.
Neither CCMC or Remus will derive any benefit from employing a parking agent. It may even increase the level of input required from directors who of course undertake their roles voluntarily.
2021.05.07 Question Submitted
Hi, if the parking proposals are voted against, are they thrown out the window or changes made and proposed again? Although I agree in what’s been proposed, I feel the yellow lines should go around the bend of Fairway Drive no matter what. Is it possible to split the voting so members can vote for each part of the proposal?
Is there any consideration being made to a give way sign at the junction of fairway drive?
Thanks for all you’re doing 🙂
If the proposal is rejected then we would endeavour to revise again or seek guidance from Essex Highways to bring forward adoption and introduce TRO’s (Traffic Regulation Orders) then it will be out of our hands. We don’t have the option to ignore our legal obligation to members and we are trying to be fair and use common sense in the proposed regulation. We would need to propose a new resolution to split the recommendation into different parts so that won’t be possible for the scheduled EGM. In summary all the current proposal is doing is asking residents to park in a manner that is safe and responsible.
With regard to a give way sign we will need to speak with Bellway and Highways to confirm as this might be part of the remedial works due to start.
2021.05.07 Question Submitted
Following on from the previously submitted question about parking. Would it be possible to expand on 5.v? What would be considered suitable access? Also in what form would penalties be made, a warning letter first or straight to a fine? Would it be possible to give a real world example or a photo of appropriate parking on the road which has enough access way space?
The pedestrian access ways mentioned in Paragraph 5v are the dropped kerb areas with tactile paving for the visually impaired. As well as providing a crossing point for the visually impaired, their use is also intended for prams, wheelchair users and bicycles. The Highway Code Rule 143 states that you cannot stop or park where a kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users.
Parking on the raised pavements (where a car has its wheels on top of a pavement) also restricts access for the same groups catered for by pedestrian access ways. Lastly, there are ‘gaps’ in a number of locations across the development (usually at the end of no through roads) which should not be blocked for the same reasons as previously described. This section of the proposal is intended to give free and safe access around the development for all people.
The fines/penalties have not been set as we haven’t appointed an enforcement company yet and the process for choosing a partner will take place if the recommendation is approved.
2021.05.05 Question Submitted
How does stopping residents parking their own vehicles outside their own house between 19:00 and 07:00 daily help the problem. All parking examples shown are during the day. Also how is this to be policed ? If people park on the main part of fairway drive, for example, not breaching anything from paragraph 5, is this ok?
Also, are all visitors expected to use the visitor bays? There are not enough and in many cases are very far from certain properties.
There are NO restrictions for residents parking NON-Commercial vehicles outside their properties at anytime. Parking along the block paved areas along Fairway drive complying with the items listed in paragraph 5 would not be classed as a breach.
There are no intentions to implement any form of Permit Parking so Visitors are allowed to freely park anywhere as long as again complying with the items in Paragraph 5.
The Visitor Bay restrictions are only in place to stop long term parking and that of commercial vehicles and to give genuine visitors another option.
With regard to policing we would use a 3rd Party but under strict guidance and a short termination notice should they not adhere to the terms and conditions of such an engagement. We would hope not to see any enforcement as residents are now more aware of the current issues.