This Council regrets the proposals that have been the subject of recent consultation which would, if approved, see increased charges to the current resident parking schemes across Warwickshire.
This Council therefore asks that a select committee be established to consider the implications of maintaining the current charging base and what if any changes need to be made to the current parking permit schemes and parking enforcement arrangements.
The findings of the Select Committee shall be included in a report to Cabinet with clear recommendations.
Proposer: Councillor Maggie O’Rourke
Seconder: Councillor Dave Parsons
Decision:
Resolved
“The Council supports the timetable in respect of the recent consultation on parking charges. The timetable allows the analysis of the consultation to be assessed and presented to Overview and Scrutiny to give Members time to consider and comment on. The report will then be presented to Cabinet with any recommendations that may be made by Scrutiny”.
Minutes:
1) Revisions to Permitting for On-Street Parking
Councillor O’Rourke proposed the motion as set out on the agenda.
This stated, “This Council regrets the proposals that have been the subject of recent consultation which would, if approved, see increased charges to the current resident parking schemes across Warwickshire.
This Council therefore asks that a select committee be established to consider the implications of maintaining the current charging base and what if any changes need to be made to the current parking permit schemes and parking enforcement arrangements.
The findings of the Select Committee shall be included in a report to Cabinet with clear recommendations”.
In proposing the motion Councillor O’Rourke made the following points.
1) When Rugby Borough Council had recently considered the proposals for parking as put forward by the County Council, they unanimously rejected them.
2) Local residents are concerned to have their views heard.
3) The proposed system will rely heavily on a digital interface. Many residents do not have access to computers or struggle to use them.
4) Many of the streets where permitting is proposed have houses of multiple occupancy. These require more than one parking permit and have a very limited number of parking spaces along their length.
5) Shift workers struggle to find parking spaces when they return from work. Having to walk any distance at unusual hours of the day can leave people feeling vulnerable. Councillor Dave Parsons seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Amendment 1
An amendment was tabled by the Conservative Group.
This was proposed by Councillor Clarke and seconded by Councillor Seccombe.
This stated, “The Council supports the timetable in respect of the recent consultation on parking charges. The timetable allows the analysis of the consultation to be assessed and presented to Overview and Scrutiny to give Members time to consider and comment on. The report will then be presented to Cabinet with any recommendations that may be made by Scrutiny”.
Following some discussion over the nature of the amendment the Chair confirmed that it was acceptable.
Amendment 2
An amendment was proposed by Councillor Roodhouse.
This stated, “This Council regrets the proposals that have been the subject of recent consultation which would, if approved, see increased charges to the current resident parking schemes across Warwickshire. This Council therefore asks that a select committee be established and takes evidence from Bed & Breakfast owners, community and business groups from across Warwickshire. The select Committee should consider an impact analysis on the implications of maintaining the current charging base and what if any changes need to be made to the current parking permit schemes and parking enforcement arrangements. The findings of the Select Committee shall be included in a report to Cabinet with clear recommendations”.
(Amended wording in bold).
In introducing the second amendment Councillor Roodhouse made the following points.
1) The proposed scheme appears to be ill thought out having been driven by a need to replace the current scheme.
2) Permit prices have not increased for years but to increase them by such a large amount in one go is unfair.
3) The proposed scheme would have a negative impact on the vulnerable.
4) If the proposals are to be considered by overview and scrutiny committee a special meeting will be required.
5) The political composition of overview and scrutiny committees mean that there is a risk that impartiality in their proceedings is lost.
6) The implementation of the new scheme should be deferred pending the procurement and commissioning of a new computer system.
7) Detailed figures have previously been requested from officers, but these have not been forthcoming.
Councillor Jenny Fradgley seconded the amendment and reserved her right to speak.
Councillor Maggie O’Rourke accepted amendment 2 as a friendly amendment.
Debate
A series of elected members addressed Council on this matter.
Councillor Webb recognised that services have to be paid for but noted that parking charges take no account of affordability. Thus, any increases will impact most on those who can least afford to meet them. He added that there is evidence of abuse of the current scheme but regardless of which scheme operates there remains a shortage of parking spaces for those who need them. Increasing the cost of parking will not resolve this issue. A full review of parking is required.
Councillor Olner stated that when parking permits were initially introduced in Nuneaton there was resistance from people who considered it was wrong to have to pay to park on the road. Nevertheless, whilst they were unable to have a dedicated parking space, they did receive some priority. The division represented by Councillor Olner is dominated by terraced housing. As a consequence, around 80% of car owners must leave their vehicles on the road.
Councillor Bill Gifford expressed concern that it was the need to replace an obsolete computer system that appeared to be driving the new permitting system. This he suggested is not what businesses and residents want. He added that when new parking arrangements were introduced in Leamington Spa decisions were based on a street by street analysis. This approach should be taken now across the County.
Councillor Gilbert noted that many small businesses are currently struggling financially. Increases such as those proposed may be provide the tipping point leading to the closure of the business. He agreed that examination by overview and scrutiny would be appropriate.
Councillor Kondakor highlighted the shortage of car parking in many urban areas. Regardless of parking arrangements it would be preferable to examine why people are choosing to drive. Improvements to public transport systems could lead to reductions in car ownership and usage. He noted that bed and breakfast businesses in Scarborough are issued with localised permits for use of their guests.
Councillor Fradgley raised the interests of bed and breakfast business owners explaining that in Stratford upon Avon proposals for three new hotels are already presenting a threat to bed and breakfast businesses. She reported instances where people have been reluctant to use their cars knowing that on their return, they would be unable to park.
Councillor Kate Rolfe spoke in support of the friendly amendment.
Councillor Boad agreed that a street by street analysis of parking need and solutions would be preferable to a blanket. County-wide approach. She added that the income from parking should be directed to helping town centre businesses at a difficult time for high streets.
Councillor Chattaway observed that all members receive complaints regarding parking. Residents are disappointed with the proposals and a full review by scrutiny is required.
Councillor Dominic Skinner considered that the quality of parking enforcement is in need of improvement adding that abuse of permits is known about but there are insufficient resources to follow up on these cases. Councillor Caroline Phillips expressed reservations over the potential for overview and scrutiny to make a positive contribution.
Councillor Chilvers stated that he had been waiting for a considerable time for financial figures concerning car parking. He noted that there have been media reports stating that around £2m of income comes from car parking. However, this is largely from parking infringements and not from parking charges.
Councillor Chilvers stressed that income from car parking should be reinvested in parking related issues. He suggested that some of the income could be used to subsidise permits for those less able to afford them. Support for a scrutiny meeting to review the proposals was expressed by Councillor Dan Gissane.
Councillor Parsons (Seconder of Labour amendment) reiterated the need for a special scrutiny meeting that would provide local residents with the opportunity to share their views.
Councillor Seccombe (Seconder of the Conservative amendment) reminded Council that there has been no decision agreed. There are however options to be considered. Councillor Seccombe observed that eight years has elapsed since charges for parking permits were increased. There is no proposal to stop residents from being able to park.
Councillor O’Rourke (Proposer of Labour motion) reminded Council of the extent of dissatisfaction felt by local communities. Councillor Clarke (Proposer of the Conservative amendment) concluded by calling for overview and scrutiny to review the matter.
Vote
A vote was held on the Conservative amendment. This was carried with two abstentions and eighteen votes against.
Thus, the Conservative amendment became the substantive motion.
A vote was held on the new substantive motion. This was carried with one abstention and eighteen votes against.
Resolved
“The Council supports the timetable in respect of the recent consultation on parking charges. The timetable allows the analysis of the consultation to be assessed and presented to Overview and Scrutiny to give Members time to consider and comment on.
The report will then be presented to Cabinet with any recommendations that may be made by Scrutiny”.
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.50 and reconvened at 13.35.