Introduction of School Parking Scheme

school zizAs readers may be aware, a number of schools in the borough, including James Oglethorpe and Engayne in the Upminster/Cranham area, have consulted on the possible introduction of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) around the respective schools which would not permit school drop-offs or pick-ups within a restricted time period (typically 8am to 9.30am and 2.30pm to 4pm during term time). A report will be considered by Havering Council on 14th September which provides an update on the scheme.

Following consultation, St Peter’s (33% in favour) and Broadford (44% in favour) schools have declined the scheme. However, Wykeham (77% in favour), Parsonage Farm (78% in favour), James Oglethorpe (81% in favour) and Engayne (79% in favour) are proposed to go ahead.

Enforcement is undertaken by CCTV and will only focus on pupil drop-offs/pick-ups in the specified area. All other activity (eg residents, visitors, deliveries, emergency services, etc) would not be subject to enforcement action.

The scheme is due to start on 14th November at James Oglethorpe, but due to the considerable amount of building works being undertaken at Engayne and at the request of the school, the scheme there will begin on 16th January 2017. There will also be a two-week ‘warning’ period from the date of implementation to make sure the new regulations are fully understood before any penalties are issued.

Further information will be issued to residents prior to the start dates.



  1. How will residents be informed and what redress will they have should the problems be pushed out to further distances?

  2. I along with other residents of Chester Avenue contacted the local authority several months ago when the PSPO’s were first mentioned. We were told that due to the numerous objections that they had received from the Cathedral Estate residents regarding the displacement of traffic and parking into an area that was already bursting at the seams, they were delaying the scheme until further studies had taken place. They now deny that any of their staff would have said this.

    Ashvale gardens and Canterbury Terrace were the subject of a traffic management survey involving CCTV and other surveillance options.

    I contacted the local authority on 24th October 2016 to ask them when they were going to reply to my letter to them dated 10th October2016. In this letter I pointed out that the residents of Chester Avenue and Litchfield Terrace under the PSPO legislation had to be afforded the same protection and safety of the children as the residents of Ashvale Gardens.

    I asked if a traffic management survey had been conducted for the Cathdral Estate. The answer was NO. I asked if their studies had covered the school crossing patrol point in St Mary’s Lane. The answer was NO. I pointed out that if the PSPO was to protect the children, they had missed the most dangerous area which is the crossing. They were not aware that a school crossing patrol officer had in the past been knocked down and died as a result of his injuries.

    They had not looked at the very narrow pavement on the Litchfield Terrace side of the crossing which caused children crossing at this point to walk into the road when crossing from Westbury Terrace side or having to queue in the road when crossing the other way.

    They had not looked at or taken into consideration that at this point, one of the two entry/exit points from the Cathedral Estate was feet away from the crossing. They had not studied how children and parents crossed Litchfield Terrace diagonaly from the crossing to the East side of Chester Avenue when they could not see vehicles entering the estate, most of which enter this junction at speed, due to parents parking in the dead end section of Litchfield Terrace.

    They had not seen the double parking that occurs during school start and finish times in Chester Avenue that prevents ambulances and fire engines from accessing this road. The refuse collection cannot be done at these times. Deliveries to residents are prevented and delayed. Residents face colourful abuse should the ask a parent not to park blocking their drive as they wished to go to work. They had not seen the amount of vehicles that are parked in Chester Avenue and Litchfield Terrace by students at Cooper and commuters coming from Bretwood to use the cheaper C2C line

    Basically, the Cathedral Estate is not a priority for the local authority. I asked why I had to, along with other residents, put up with the parking etc, which under the PSPO legislation would require us on the Cathedral Estate, the same protection that the new PSPO on the other side of the road. No one was prepared to answer this. However they kept saying that it was under review but refused to expand on that.

    I have no problem with the PSPO in principal. it is way in which it has been introduced. I agree that the safety of children is paramount, however, the local authority have failed completely to look at the whole picture. Instead they had put on the blinkers and used tunnel vision of using solely on the school and Ashvale Gardens.

    It would be interesting to see how residents of Chester Avenue and Litchfield Terrace legally stand under the PSPO legislation and if the local authority has failed them by the introduction of a PSPO in one road whilst ignoring the main areas that cause the most danger to the children and activities that have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of residents. Below is the part of the legislation that the local authority are using:

    The law in relation to PSPO’s under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 clearly states that in order to make a PSPO
    1. A local authority may make a public spaces protection order if satisfied on reasonable grounds that two conditions are met.
    2. The first condition is that-
    (a) Activities carried on in a public place within the authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or
    (b) It is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place within that area and that they will have such an effect.
    3. The second condition is that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities-
    (a) Is, or is likely to be of a persistent or continuing nature,
    (b) Is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and
    (c) Justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.