Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 22 January 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: that - I. Data capture of Denbighshire’s car parks over a longer period of time should be collated in order to present a more meaningful business case to the Capital Scrutiny Group for consideration. II. Enforcement activity should be strengthened through focus on: a. known hot spots b. peak parking times c. an intelligence / data led approach and III. The mechanism for public reporting of parking issues via the Contact Centre should be improved.
Resolved: that subject to the above, the Communities Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme be agreed and noted.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Carol Holliday.
None.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 22 January 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
The minutes of the Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 22 January 2026 were presented for consideration. It was – RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 22 January 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that - I. Data capture of Denbighshire’s car parks over a longer period of time should be collated in order to present a more meaningful business case to the Capital Scrutiny Group for consideration. II. Enforcement activity should be strengthened through focus on: a. known hot spots b. peak parking times c. an intelligence / data led approach and III. The mechanism for public reporting of parking issues via the Contact Centre should be improved.
The Lead Member for Environment and Transport introduced the report to the Committee. The report reviewed the parking activities undertaken by Denbighshire County Council officers and provided potential options for increasing parking enforcement coverage. The reason for making the report was to evaluate the effectiveness of current parking resources, to realise maximum benefits for residents and the Council and to give consideration to ways of improving the effectiveness of parking enforcement activities, including increasing resources. The Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services thanked the Committee for the feedback provided at a previous meeting, which highlighted several areas within the service that required attention. The team had since been working closely with finance officers and the Lead Member, Councillor Barry Mellor, to develop recommendations, outline the actions already taken, and set out the steps planned for the near future. The team had been working with the Corporate Executive Team (CET) to present a business case to consider further resources within the team. The team were eager to work with local members in the future to understand where parking problems exist in their wards, with plans to attend all Member Area Group meetings to discuss proposals further. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager provided further details on the report to the Committee. The Council employed 5 full time Civil Enforcement Officers to cover the whole county on a weekly rota. There was a vacant position for a Senior Civil Enforcement Officer. The team issued 7,380 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) in the financial year 2024-25, comprised of 4,874 issued on the highway and 2,506 issued in car parks. The total figure issued had increased by 753 from the previous year. A recent internal restructure had seen the Parking Enforcement Team move into the Traffic and Transportation department. That change had resulted in the enforcement team being managed by the Parking and CCTV Manager. Moving the Parking Enforcement Team to the Traffic and Transportation department offered clear synergies. The team assisted with car park maintenance, such as restocking blank tickets in pay and display machines and undertaking minor machine maintenance. Having the parking Enforcement Team managed by the Parking Manager enabled the vacant senior role to be replaced with a standard Civil Enforcement Officer. That would increase enforcement coverage capacity as the senior role had previously been 40% office based. In addition to the replacement of the senior role with a standard Civil Enforcement Officer role, CET had recently approved the recruitment of an additional Civil Enforcement Officer. The changes would increase the number of full time Civil Enforcement Officers from 5-7. The two new Officers would be based in the South of the County to reduce travelling time, and therefore increase time spent on enforcement. The decision to increase the number of Civil Enforcement Officers was based on several considerations. These included existing pressures on the team and requests for enforcement. The number of Enforcement Officers employed by the other nine partners in the Wales Penalty Processing Partnership was also considered and guidance by the British Parking Association was noted which recommended 1 Civil Enforcement Officer for every 10,000 members of the population. The team were currently exploring the potential role of ANPR camera enforcement, although it was important to note that Councils had fewer powers than private car park operators in the use of camera enforcement in car parks, such as issuing fines by post. However, ANPR cameras could potentially provide real time information on parking contraventions as a source of data for the Parking Enforcement Team. The data would also enable the provision heat maps of non-compliance to be gathered, to better inform the future deployment of staff. The Chair thanked the Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager for the report and opened the discussion. The Chair noted that 65% of PCNs issued were for cars parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket and questioned what the reasons were for this. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager explained that no analysis had been carried out into why some people did not pay for and display a ticket. However, all ticket machines were networked, allowing monitoring of their usage levels and indicating when reprogramming may be required. Fault reports could also be generated. Most car parks had more than one machine, therfore if one was out of order, another could be used. In addition to cash, alternative payment methods were available. Civil Enforcement Officers were also required to check that all machines were functioning while on patrol, if any were not working, PCNs would not be issued. Members asked how advanced the work on incorporating new technology into the business plan was, and whether implementation was expected within the next 12 months? They also queried the difference in legislation regarding the use of ANPR in Council car parks compared with private car parks, and asked if the possibility of leasing car parks to private companies was a potential option. Referring to Appendix B (previously circulated), Members queried the data on the number of cars parked during each visit, noting that it did not indicate how many visits were made. They asked whether the figures represent a single day or an average over a period of time. Additionally, they highlighted the absence of data from the far south of the county and pointed out that Market Street in Ruthin appeared to have significantly higher figures than other locations, asking if there is a specific reason for this. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager clarified that the development and integration of new technology was currently at the feasibility stage, with plans to prepare a business case in collaboration with the ICT service. It was anticipated that this business case would be submitted to the Capital Scrutiny Group for funding consideration by the autumn, for the 2027–28 financial year. In relation to the legal position on leasing car parks to private companies, the Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager stated that he would investigate this further following the meeting. Referring to the data in Appendix B, the number of visits was based on a snapshot in time, and the Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager acknowledged that additional data collected over a longer period would be necessary. Members noted that, due to those limitations, the data presented in Appendix B may not be particularly accurate and questioned its overall value, suggesting that more comprehensive data was needed. Members expressed concern that the exclusion of projected fee increases from the business case was a mistake. They noted that the primary aim was to encourage compliance so that people follow the rules and pay to park. If successful, this could result in a reduction in income generated directly from parking enforcement. However, they warned that if a decline in enforcement income was the only measure considered, there was a risk that the service could appear to be a cost burden to the Council. In the longer term, this could make it vulnerable to budget cuts. Members therefore emphasised the importance of including measures within the business plan to capture any increase in income from higher levels of parking compliance, as this would help safeguard the service in the future. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager welcomed the points raised and agreed that further studies were needed to compare income levels generated by parking compliance following the recruitment of two additional Civil Enforcement Officers. Members mentioned car parks in Chester, noting that many had barrier systems in place where a ticket was automatically issued upon entry. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager explained that the installation of barriers at car park entrances had been considered. However, if such systems were to fail, there would need to be staff available to manually operate them. Providing this level of on-call support across the whole of Denbighshire would present a significant challenge to the team. Members highlighted that many one-hour free parking areas across the county were being misused, with drivers frequently overstaying, and asked what action would be taken to address this. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager stated that he would take this point away from the meeting to discuss further with his team, acknowledging that it may be necessary to review those sites. He also noted that it was the team’s intention to attend all Member Area Group (MAG) meetings to engage with Members and discuss problem parking areas within their wards. It was noted that fake QR codes had previously been placed on parking payment machines, raising questions about what actions were being taken to address the issue and how the public were being informed. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager confirmed that Denbighshire County Council did not use QR codes on any ticket machines across the county. It was agreed that the possibility of adding permanent additional signage to inform the public should be explored, and that any reported instances of fake QR codes in car parks should be removed promptly. Members expressed their appreciation to officers for their support in addressing ongoing parking issues outside a school in Rhyl during pick-up and drop-off times. The use of traffic cones had significantly reduced illegal parking, although some problems still persisted. It was suggested that an ANPR camera could be deployed to patrol the school road during peak times, and clarification was sought on whether this would be feasible? The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager welcomed the positive impact of the traffic cones on reducing illegal parking. In response to the suggestion of a mobile ANPR camera, it was explained that some local authorities operated camera cars, which could be driven by any council staff member. However, any data captured must be reviewed offline by a Civil Enforcement Officer. A key limitation of mobile ANPR enforcement was that it was only suitable for certain types of restrictions, such as those requiring immediate enforcement (e.g. loading restrictions). For standard restrictions, such as parking on single or double yellow lines, a five-minute observation period was required, meaning camera cars could not be used effectively for this purpose. A School Street Scheme could be a potential option. That approach, also known as a rolling programme for moving traffic offences, involved monitoring vehicles entering a restricted area during specified times using fixed cameras. Implementing such a scheme would require the development of a business case, and the team would continue to explore this option, subject to consultation and feasibility. Concerns were raised regarding the team’s confidence in recruiting to the new positions. The Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services explained that the team had worked with HR to advertise the roles, ensuring clear job descriptions alongside opportunities for training and development. It was acknowledged that civil enforcement roles were often challenging to fill however, plans were in place to address this. Questions were raised about the process for reporting parking offences via the Denbighshire County Council website, including how frequently the system was used and whether residents could upload photographs that resulted in Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) being issued. The Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Manager clarified that parking offences can be reported online through the Council’s 360 service. However, PCNs could not be issued based on photographs submitted by residents, as a Civil Enforcement Officer must witness the offence in real time. The Corporate Director for Economy and Environment emphasised the importance of data in the management and enforcement of car parks, noting that the team was becoming increasingly data driven. It was anticipated that the introduction of new technology would further enhance the service in the future. Overall, the report highlighted positive improvements, and the addition of two Civil Enforcement Officers was expected to further support the service’s development. The Chair fully supported the increase in enforcement in the South of the County stating that enforcement should be targeted and success should be measured on compliance. At this point in the webcast was paused for the Committee to formulate their recommendations. Having considered the details contained within the report on the Effectiveness of Parking Enforcement Activities and information presented by officers and provided observations accordingly it was: RESOLVED: that - I. Data capture of Denbighshire’s car parks over a longer period of time should be collated in order to present a more meaningful business case to the Capital Scrutiny Group for consideration. II. Enforcement activity should be strengthened through focus on: a. known hot spots b. peak parking times c. an intelligence / data led approach and III. The mechanism for public reporting of parking issues via the Contact Centre should be improved.
Decision as recorded
Resolved: that subject to the above, the Communities Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme be agreed and noted.
The Scrutiny Coordinator guided members through the Communities Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme (previously circulated). The next meeting of the Communities Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for the 14 May 2026. The Planning Compliance Function due at that morning’s committee had been deferred until the next meeting on 14 May 2026. A business case needed to go to CET before the item could be presented to scrutiny. An update was given on the future item, Draft Tourism Signage. The project was on hold owing to all the additional workload that the Levelling Up Fund (LUF) and Local Resilience Forums (LRF) projects had generated over the past 2-3 years. A meeting was to be arranged with the Lead Member, Lead Officers and the Chair of Communities Scrutiny Committee to discuss the way forward. The next meeting of the Scrutiny Chair’s and Vice Chair’s meeting was scheduled for the 23 March 2026 with a further meeting scheduled for the 15 May 2026. Members were advised that if they would like to add an item to the Communities Forward Wok Programme to complete the proposal form included in Appendix 2 attached to the report. Resolved: that subject to the above, the Communities Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme be agreed and noted.
None. Meeting concluded at 11.16am
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.