Agenda item

The Committee considered a report which detailed the proposed Fees and Charges to be implemented from the 1st of April 2023 for services within the remit of the Committee (Appendix A) as well as those recommended by Prosperous Communities Committee (Appendices B and C). Service specific detail relating to performance and demand were included within the report at Appendices 1 to 19.

 

Members noted that two additional recommendations had been made by the Prosperous Communities Committee when considering their fees and charges, namely for the free parking period in Gainsborough to be increased from one to two hours, in line with Market Rasen to establish parity across the district; and that all charges relating to car parking fixed penalty notices be halved.  Regarding the latter Members were advised that unfortunately the Council was not able to amend such fines as they were set by statute under the Road traffic Act 2007 and as such Members should reject the recommendation on legal grounds.

 

The net impact of the original fees and charges review was an increase in income of £6,700 in 2023/24, rising to £58,300 by 2027/28, however, the proposed increase in free parking in Gainsborough was forecasted to reduce this by £27,000 per year. 

 

Members further noted inflation currently stood at 12.00% but it was being proposed that a lower rate of 6% be applied, to reflect the impact of the pay award on service provision, with employee costs and Officers, time being the main cost driver for many of the proposed fees.  This reduced inflation rise would also ensure services remained accessible to all residents given the current cost of living crisis.

 

Furthermore, the proposal reflected the result of the budget consultation event, where the majority of respondents had felt that a cap less than inflation be used to increase fees and charges for 2023/24.

 

Two service areas had had income budgets reduced to reflect updated Business plans, presented to Committee earlier in the year, these related to the Crematorium and Markets. Members were also advised that car parking permit demand had also fallen and as such it was proposed to reduce the income budget to reflect this as part of the budget setting process for 23/24, the report before Members reflected an expected pressure on income in this area.

 

No new fees were being proposed, but the usual one-day free parking requests usually dealt with on Annual basis had been included with the report requesting not only approval for the current year but for each year up to 2025, covering the period of the current Parking Strategy, with a further review of this arrangement to be included in the next Parking Strategy, due in 2025.

 

Debate ensued and Members sought indication, given that Gainsborough’s Christmas Event was held over three days, who had determined the date on which it should be held, and the process by which this would be determined each year up and until 2025. 

Members were advised this had been determined with the event organisers and the free parking would be on the Saturday this year.  Given the point raised regarding the process for future years, the Chief Executive indicated a process would be required.  With Members debating whether there was a need for a formal process for future years and if so what that should look like.  Agreement was reached a formal process would be required, and the Chief Executive made a suggestion for Members to consider.

 

As a result, a Member proposed the following additional recommendation be added, “Delegated Authority be granted to the Chief Executive to determine the date on which free parking is held each year, in consultation with Event Organisers and the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee”

 

During the course of further debate, it was identified that there was a discrepancy with the date stated with the report in relation to the Gainsborough Event in 2022, having earlier heard, free parking would be Saturday. In the absence of absolute clarity, it was suggested the earlier proposal be further slightly amended to read as follows, “Delegated Authority be granted to the Chief Executive to determine and vary the date on which free parking is held each year, in consultation with Event Organisers and the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee.” This was duly seconded and on being put to the vote was carried.

 

Referencing the recommendation made by the Prosperous Communities Committee, which related to extending free parking in Gainsborough to two hours to establish parity across the District with Market Rasen, the Chairman of that Committee advised the meeting, that he would be unable to support the recommendation, outlining his reasoning. At the time of making the recommendation, there had been no evidence provided as to how it would support either businesses or car-park users in Gainsborough, nor was the financial impact of the proposal available to the Committee.  Members were now aware extending free parking would result in a loss of income of £27,000 with additional costs for updating parking machines and infrastructure.  The suggestion of achieving parity was questioned given the offer at the two towns was very different and in effect would have to be subsided by residents across the entire district.  The Council had also only just recently adopted its revised Car Parking Strategy.

 

Opposing Members outlined their reasoning as to why the Committee should support the recommendation acknowledging the financial impact, but also indicating this was not insurmountable in their view.  Again, as it had been at the Prosperous Communities Committee it was suggested that there needed to be greater focus on the cost implications for the wider economic community, and recognition that the Cost of Living Crisis did not just impact households but was impacting the Council’s wider stakeholders.  Consideration needed to be given to the impact of losing return visitors due to parking charges and how this reduced spend in the town impacted local businesses’ revenues regardless of their nature.   There were concerns that the town centre was declining at an alarming rate and that the LUF investment would be too late if action was not taken. The suggestion that the offer between the two settlements was also disputed.

 

Returning to the cost of the proposal a Member indicated he had posed a number of questions to Officers outside of the meeting, to ascertain  how this additional funding may be financed.  Accepting there had been little time between the two Policy Committees for Officers to undertake work, but in light of this, proposed that recommendation four be deferred to allow Officers to give further consideration to financing options.   Members were reminded they would need to raise the options and the Officers were charged with costing these.

 

The need for parity was supported by some Members however the timing was questioned, Members had already approved a Parking Strategy, which had been evidence based, had  assessed various aspects such as short stay and long stay parking, geographical assessments and comparisons with similar locations and offers.  It was even suggested if parity was being sought the free period should be one hour across both settlements.

 

Further debate ensued, Opposing Members suggested the schedule of charges did not reflect local people’s shopping habits, that additional hour allowed people to not only shop but to make those spontaneous spends a little more time allowed for, such as stopping for coffee.  Human nature was not being reflected or recognised and this was impacting on local businesses.  Local nearby towns were offering free parking and people would naturally migrate to those areas due to the ease of parking. It was suggested action needed to be taken soon to save the town centre, as opposed to being rolled over into future reviews.  This was the only charge across the District where people were charged differently dependent on where they lived.  Some suggested there would be little value in the cinema opening if the town centre had closed down around it.  It was disputed that business closures were as a result of car parking charges.

 

Having quoted a number of empty shops in the town centre, Members were challenged as to the accuracy of their statements, given the premise audit which had been undertaken in August 2022 and shared with Members.

 

The proposal to defer recommendation 4 was seconded, but a Member of the Committee, raised a Point of Order, seeking advice as to whether such an action was constitutionally acceptable.

 

Whilst advice was being sought, there was further lengthy debate on people’s shopping habits and concerns again voiced by several Members that these were not being considered to a greater enough degree.  The Chairman reminded the Committee, that whilst they were all valid points being raised, they were not charged with Policy setting, all these points were relevant to that matter, and not the recommendation under discussion.

 

During the course of the debate there had been concerns raised in reference to fixed penalty notices, the numbers issued and the Council’s general approach to both on and off-street parking.  Accepting the position in the report regarding charges, Members were still of the view there needed to be a wider debate and requested whether a report could be brought forward on this matter.  A Member indicated that he had requested a break down of the type of infringements enforced, in assurance that a pragmatic approach was being adopted.

 

The Democratic Officer addressed the Point of Order, made earlier in the meeting and indicated she was content the request was constitutionally acceptable and should be treated like any other amendment.  On request it was clarified if the amendment was carried at this stage, it would be voted on again at the conclusion of the debate, and if supported a further paper would be submitted to the next Committee in line with the amendment. If the amendment was lost, recommendation 4, as printed stood, and Members would need to vote on that at the end of the meeting either supporting or rejecting it.

 

Having proposed and seconded on being put to the vote the proposal to defer recommendation 4, for the reasons outlined in the debate, was not carried.

 

Having debated the matter at length, and in moving to the recommendations, a Member made a request for a recorded vote and this was duly seconded. 

 

The Democratic Officer sought and received clarification that the Members required a recorded vote for all six recommendations, given they were to be taken individually.

 

Having been proposed and seconded recommendation one was put to the vote, with votes cast in the following manner: -

 

For:- Councillors Bierley, Devine, Fleetwood, McNeill, Summers, Waller and Welburn (7)

 

Against:- Councillors  Boles, Bunney, Howitt-Cowan, Rollings Snee and Young (6)

 

With a total of 7 votes in favour and 6 votes against recommendation one was carried

 

 

Having been proposed and seconded recommendation two was put to the vote, with votes cast in the following manner: -

 

For:- Councillors Bierley, Boles, Bunney, Devine, Howitt-Cowan, Fleetwood, McNeill, Rollings, Snee, Summers, Waller, Welburn and Young  (13)

 

Against:-  None (0)

 

With a total of 13 votes in favour and 0 votes against recommendation two was carried.

 

 

Having been proposed and seconded recommendation three was put to the vote, with votes cast in the following manner: -

 

For:- Councillors Bierley, Boles, Bunney, Devine, Howitt-Cowan, Fleetwood, McNeill, Rollings, Snee, Summers, Waller, Welburn and Young  (13)

 

Against:-  None (0)

 

With a total of 13 votes in favour and 0 votes against recommendation three was carried.

 

 

Having been proposed and seconded recommendation four was put to the vote, with votes cast in the following manner: -

 

For:- Councillors  Boles, Bunney, Howitt-Cowan, Rollings Snee and Young (6)

 

Against:- Councillors Bierley, Devine, Fleetwood, McNeill, Summers, Waller and Welburn (7)

 

With a total of 6 votes in favour and 7 votes against recommendation four was NOT carried

 

 

Having been proposed and seconded recommendation five was put to the vote, with votes cast in the following manner: -

 

For:- Councillors Bierley, Boles, Bunney, Devine, Howitt-Cowan, Fleetwood, McNeill, Rollings, Snee, Summers, Waller, Welburn and Young  (13)

 

Against:-  None (0)

 

With a total of 13 votes in favour and 0 votes against recommendation five was carried.

 

 

Having been proposed and seconded recommendation six, added earlier in the debate, was put to the vote, with votes cast in the following manner: -

 

For:- Councillors Bierley, Boles, Bunney, Devine, Howitt-Cowan, Fleetwood, McNeill, Rollings, Snee, Summers, Waller, Welburn and Young  (13)

 

Against:-  None (0)

 

With a total of 13 votes in favour and 0 votes against recommendation six was carried.

 

In light of the above votes it was RESOLVED that:-

 

(a)    the proposed Fees and Charges at Appendix A, as well as those recommended by Prosperous Communities Committee detailed at Appendices B and C* (commercially sensitive*) be RECOMMENDED  to Council for approval;

 

(b)    the recommendation from the Prosperous Communities Committee be ACCEPTED and as such, free car parking on 18/11/2022 (Gainsborough) and 10/12/2022 (Market Rasen) when Christmas Events are to be held (Section 5.1) be approved;

 

(c)    the recommendation from the Prosperous Communities Committee be ACCEPTED and as such, the request for one day of free parking in Gainsborough and Market Rasen when Christmas Events are to be held, for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 (Section 5.1) be approved, with a further review to be included in the next Parking Strategy, due in 2025.

 

(d)    having reviewed the additional financial and legal implications, the recommendation from the Prosperous Communities Committee that the current free parking period in Gainsborough be extended to 2 hours in line with Market Rasen to establish parity across the District be REJECTED

 

(e)    having reviewed the additional legal implications, the recommendation from the Prosperous Communities Committee that car parking fixed penalty notices (FPNs) be reduced by 50% across all current charges, be REJECTED, as all such charges were set by Central Government through statute, and were therefore not within the legal powers of West Lindsey District Council to alter; and

 

(f)     Delegated Authority be granted to the Chief Executive to determine and vary the date on which free parking is held each year up until 2025, in consultation with Event Organisers and the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee