Minutes:
Cabinet decision 66 of 3 November 2020 – Review of Parking Charges had been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Constitution, by Councillors Plowman, Apel, Bowden, Bangert, Evans and Johnson.
The criteria identified by Mr Plowman for calling in the decision was that a) the decision is likely to cause distress, harm or significant concern to a local community or to prejudice individuals within it and h) Whether the views of the members requesting the call-in were taken into account in arriving at the decision.
Mr Plowman was invited to present his evidence on behalf of the Call In signatories in respect of the decision taken by Cabinet to consult on proposals to increase the Council’s parking charges from 1 April 2021. The Call In request stated that the proposal to increase parking charges would cause significant harm to the local economy with detrimental effects on the local businesses leading to a further decline of the Chichester city centre and High streets in the District. The impact of these charges during the current Covid 19 pandemic and the long-term ability to recover long after the new charges were implemented was not fully considered by Cabinet in their debate.
Mr Plowman added a request that the Committee recommend to full Council that there should be no car parking charges in Chichester and in other high streets as deemed appropriate for the current local down period up to 1 January 2020. He also asked for a new Parking Strategy to be devised that supported local businesses.
Mr Plowman wished to call a witness, Mrs Tidy, who presented the views of local businesses in support of the call in.
Mr Dignum, Cabinet member for Growth, Place and Regeneration was invited to respond to the call in and put the case for the decision made by Cabinet.
Mrs Hotchkiss explained that each year the Council reviewed its parking charges in accordance with its Fees and Charges Policy. She explained the role of the Chichester District Parking Forum and that the results of the public consultation, yet to take place, would be considered by Cabinet before a final decision was made.
Mr Ward advised that a parking charge increase freeze would have a detrimental impact on the Council’s financial budget, as an underlying principal within the Financial Strategy was that any increase in the Council’s forecast base budget had to be met by either additional funding or a reduction in spending elsewhere in the budget.
Mrs Murphy set out the consultation process for parking charge increases. There was no requirement to bring the results of the consultation to Cabinet unless objections to the proposals were received.
Mr Bennett clarified that members were debating on whether the Cabinet decision to take the proposed parking charge increases to consultation required to make was 1) contrary to the Council’s normal decision making requirements, 2) contrary to the Council’s Policy Framework or 3) the Council’s Budget. Members should be mindful of whether they need further information from Cabinet or whether they thought Cabinet should consider further information to explain why the decision was taken. He pointed out the Call In had been made prior to the public consultation on the proposals and therefore the full evidence was not yet available. For a decision to be legally compliant the Council would normally seek to consult in a way that was required under the relevant Statute. Referring to Mr Plowman’s additional request, he advised members that they were required to keep within the Call In issues. Although one of the options in the Council’s Constitution referred to an option for the Committee being to refer the matter back to Full Council he did not recommend this. Full Council was not the decision making body and in any case, would have to refer the matter back to Cabinet to reconsider their decision.
Mr Plowman made a closing statement. He was of the view that the Call in was not about the consultation, it was the Cabinet decision to increase the Council’s parking charges. He referred to the implications of the Covid 19 pandemic and stated that the decision to increase parking charges was before the pandemic. He asked that Cabinet be requested to reconsider the decision, so that it could be reviewed in light of the pandemic and the financial effect it was having on local businesses.
Mrs Hotchkiss responded to comments concerning the timing of the Chichester District Parking Forum decision, which were incorrect. The Forum’s decision on the parking charges had not been taken before the start of the pandemic, but at the meeting held on 9 September 2020. Clarification was given that the Cabinet decision was to go out to public consultation for the implementation from 1 April 2021.
The Chairman summed up the views expressed during the meeting and referred to the Council’s need to be financially prudent. He provided a comparison of the parking costs of some surrounding councils and some further away and advised that it was about the quality of the ‘offer’ not the cost to park. He felt this Council was in the difficult positon of neither having destination or larger shops. He referred to the number of currently empty shops and said that Chichester could no longer draw in the large number of people that it had done historically. The Council should do everything in its powers to encourage people to visit with car parking being a small element of that. Therefore, on balance and taking into account the comments of Mr Johnson in respect of his suggestion that the Council could use some of its reserves, there was a duty to the Council’s residents and shop owners to keep the costs of car parking down. He was not totally satisfied that Cabinet had considered that point sufficiently in their debate.
The Chairman reminded the committee of the options available to them to either refer the decision back to the decision maker, Cabinet, for reconsideration, or to accept the Cabinet decision in which the decision stands.
Mr Bennett provided advice on the voting process.
The members voted on the recommendation below.
RECOMMENDED
That the Cabinet reconsider the decision made at its meeting on 4 November 2020 relating to Item 14 Review of Parking Charges taking into account the comments made by the Committee.