Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies for absence (if any).

Received from Councillor Manji Kara, Portfolio Holder for Community and Culture.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests arising from business to be transacted at this meeting from:

(a)               all Members of the Cabinet; and

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

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].

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.

RESOLVED:  That the Motion be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To consider alongside the referral by the Call-In Sub?Committee.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

[Call-in does not apply].

Cabinet received a Motion, which had been referred by Council in relation to the 20 minutes free parking.  Council had considered and debated the Motion and a summary of the comments had been submitted for Cabinet’s consideration.

RESOLVED:  That the Motion be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To consider alongside the referral by the Call-In Sub?Committee.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

[Call-in does not apply].

RESOLVED:  That the petition be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To consider alongside the referral by the Call-In Sub?Committee.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

[Call-in does not apply].

Cabinet received a petition, which had been referred by Council in relation to the Cambridge Road Car Park.  It was noted that the Council, in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, had considered and debated the petition and a summary of the comments had been submitted for Cabinet’s consideration.

RESOLVED:  That the petition be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To consider alongside the referral by the Call-In Sub?Committee.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

[Call-in does not apply].