Issue - meetings

Parking Review - 20 Minute Free Parking Initiative

Meeting: 18/11/2013 - Cabinet (Item 713)

713 Parking Review: 20 Minutes Free Parking Initiative - Referral by Call-in Sub-Committee pdf icon PDF 88 KB

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That, having reconsidered the decision of the Cabinet meeting held on 17 October 2013, set out at Appendix 3 to the reportin relation to Parking Review:  20 Minutes Free Parking Initiative, as a result of the decision of the Call-in Sub-Committee, the original decision of Cabinet be confirmed.

 

Reason for Decision:  To reconsider the decision within 10 clear working days of a referral by the Call-In Sub?Committee, in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 46.8.3.  To ensure that a consistent parking charges policy was implemented.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  To amend the decision made by Cabinet on 17 October 2013.

 

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

 

[Call-in does not apply].

Minutes:

Cabinet received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services setting out the  decision of the Call-In Sub-Committee meeting held on 5 November 2013 following the receipt and consideration of a Call-in Notice in relation to the Cabinet decision of 17 October 2013 on the ‘Parking Review: 20 Minutes Free Parking Initiative’.

 

The Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Environment referred to the decision of the Call-in Sub-Committee, including the discussion at that meeting.  The Leader was of the view that it was unlikely that Cabinet would be minded to amend its original decision.  Her preference was for a cross-party group to be set up to identify how a borough-wide free parking scheme, which was an admirable aspiration, could be implemented.  She added that it was essential that similar schemes in other boroughs were explored, in particular the scheme in operation in the Borough of Hillingdon, in order to ensure that a suitable scheme for Harrow was considered and implemented across the borough and for the right reasons and supported by the correct technology.  The Leader acknowledged that a borough-wide free parking scheme for Harrow could prove to be unviable and a drain on the Council’s finances, however all options ought to be explored in the interests of all residents and businesses in Harrow.

 

The Leader stated that the discussion at the Call-In Sub-Committee had also helped to identify ideas, including how other boroughs dealt with parking issues.  A cross-party group would help progress these ideas with a view to identifying a positive scheme and which all parties would be able to sign up to.  A scheme that was supported by all was the best way forward for Harrow’s residents and businesses.  A scheme that was linked into a Library/Leisure Card and which offered discounts might be a better way forward and needed to be investigated.

 

The Leader urged Members of the Opposition to participate in the proposed cross-party group so that ideas could be discussed and explored.  She referred to the Call-in grounds and made the following comments:

 

·                     with regard to ‘inadequate consultation’, there was no requirement for any consultation, including if the scheme were to be rolled out.  No consultation had been taken at the outset of the Scheme under the former administration(s).  However, she acknowledged that consultation was a key aspect of any proposal and suggested that it would be prudent to carry out consultation at various stages for any trials for future proposals for free parking.  She added that any scheme implemented should be borough-wide so that all residents and businesses could enjoy the benefits of free parking;

 

·                     with regard to ‘action was not proportionate to the desired outcome’, detailed legal and financial implications were a key aspect of any report and decision-making and her administration would not expect anything less.  It was also important to appreciate that the money that would be spent belonged to the residents and it was important that any spend provided value  ...  view the full minutes text for item 713


Meeting: 05/11/2013 - Call-In Sub-Committee (Item 64)

64 Call-In of Cabinet Decision (17 October 2013) - Parking Review: 20 Minutes Free Parking Initiative pdf icon PDF 63 KB

The following documents are attached:

 

a)     Notice invoking the Call-in

 

b)     Draft Minute Extract of the Cabinet meeting held on 17 October 2013

 

c)      Report submitted to Cabinet on 17 October 2013

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee received the papers in respect of the call-in notice submitted by 6 Members of Council in relation to the decision made by Cabinet on Parking Review: 20 Minutes Free Parking Initiative.

 

The Chair advised the Sub-Committee on the suggested order of proceedings and reminded Members of the timings allowed for submissions and questions.  The Sub-Committee agreed that Councillor Chris Noyce, backbenching, should be allowed to speak and participate in the meeting.

 

The Chair invited the lead representative of the signatories, Councillor David Perry, to present the reasons for the call in of the decision to the Sub?Committee.

 

Councillor Perry stated that the main ground for call-in was the lack of consultation.  No feedback had been provided from local businesses as to the success of the initiative, and no interested groups – such as the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel (TARSAP) and Chamber of Commerce had been approached for comment.  There was no reference to the Compact agreement with the voluntary sector, and the interest of pedestrians had not been addressed.  He queried the statistics provided in relation to increased parking and footfall in the area, and whether they could be interpreted to show an increase in trade.  He believed that reference to PCNs was a cynical attempt to show the initiative in a negative light.  He added that the Leader of the Council appeared to have pre-determined the issue according to comments quoted in the media. 

 

In respect of ground (b), the absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision, he stated that no account had been taken of seasonal variations in traffic and parking, and as the period included the school summer holiday, this was a significant omission.

 

In respect of ground (d), the action is not proportionate to the desired outcome, he considered that the presentation of information, and in particular the inclusion of statistics relating to PCNs, was irrelevant and potentially inappropriate.

 

In respect of ground (f), insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice, he considered that the same reasons as for ground (d) applied, in addition to reference to the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS).

 

In conclusion, Councillor Perry stated that this Cabinet decision had not met the expected high standards of decision making in that local residents’ and businesses’ views had been ignored.

 

Councillor Krishna Suresh, signatory to the call-in notice, outlined his concerns as a ward councillor for Rayners Lane, which he believed needed successful initiatives in order to compete with neighbouring high street shopping centres.  He informed the Sub-Committee that local traders had expressed a preference for free parking over a sum of investment in the area.  He was in regular contact with all 140 local traders, and the consensus was that they all benefitted from the free parking.

 

Councillor Idaikkadar, signatory to the call-in notice, stated that Cabinet had been profoundly wrong in their decision to remove the free parking.  He reiterated the views in respect of seasonal variations and the inclusion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64


Meeting: 17/10/2013 - Cabinet (Item 710)

710 Key Decision - Parking Review - 20 Minutes Free Parking Initiative pdf icon PDF 208 KB

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That

 

(1)               the review of the Rayners Lane free parking trial, as set out in the report, be noted;

 

(2)               having considered the implications of on-street free parking borough-wide and reviewed the options available, the following preferred option be agreed:  Do not implement 20 minutes free parking in the borough and remove the Rayners Lane trial of 20 minutes free parking.

 

Reason for Decision:  To ensure that a consistent parking charges policy was implemented.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

 

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

Minutes:

The Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Environment introduced the report, which set out the background to the Rayners Lane 20 minutes free parking trial and provided options for Cabinet’s consideration on the future use of free parking periods in the borough.

 

The Portfolio Holder invited questions from Members and, having been asked that her administration was unlikely to expand the trial borough-wide, responded as follows:

 

·                    that the expansion of the businesses in North Harrow had been as a result of the excellent work carried out by the Head of Economic Development and Research (Minute 706 refers);

 

·                    the majority of shoppers required more than 20 minutes to do their shopping.  The trial in Rayners Lane had increased the footfall by a small amount only and that unlike the previous administration, it was important that her administration did not rush into implementing a scheme which had not been fully researched;

 

·                    her administration would be looking to implement a fully researched scheme and she cited the example of a scheme that had been implemented in Hillingdon which had taken up to two years to implement.  The Hillingdon Scheme had been linked to the Oyster Card and allowed a driver to park for one 20 minute session unlike the one in Rayners Lane.  She explained that the trial in Rayners Lane had been open to abuse, as the same driver had been able to use the free parking by printing out a ticket at 20 minute intervals.  The cost of the scheme, £1m, was considerable and unsustainable.

 

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member referred to the contradictions within the report and asked what consultations had been carried out prior to formulating the report.  He was of the view that free parking had brought economic viability for businesses.  The Portfolio Holder reiterated that the 1?hour free parking in North Harrow had not revitalised the businesses which had declined in numbers and that it had been the splendid work carried out by the Head of Economic Development and Research that had helped to rejuvenate this area.  A number of measures needed to be explored to bring about vitality to an area and free parking in itself was not an attraction.

 

In relation to the consultation, the Portfolio Holder replied that specific consultation had not been carried out but that the trial had provided sufficient information that this scheme was not right for implementation borough-wide bearing in mind that it would have unacceptable cost implications.  She re?iterated that her administration supported free parking scheme(s) but this scheme was not the right one for the borough.

 

The same non-voting non-Executive Member was of the view that the arguments used for non implementation of the scheme had been based on the reduction of income from the issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).  The Portfolio Holder refuted this as chart 7 of the report did not support this argument, as it showed a variable result week-on-week and it was difficult to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 710