Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:  That Councillor Chris Mote be appointed Chair for the meeting.

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance of the following duly constituted Reserve Members:

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 Sub-Committee;

(b)               all other Members present.

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

That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2013, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Chair drew attention to the document ‘Protocol for the Operation of the Call-In Sub-Committee’ and outlined the procedure to be followed at the meeting.  He indicated that, with the Sub?Committee’s agreement, he would permit those member signatories who wished to speak on the issue to do so, within the timeframe allowed.  He further informed the sub-committee that Councillor Chris Noyce had stated his intention to backbench, and had also requested to speak on the called-in item.

In accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 46.5, a notice seeking to invoke the call-in procedure must state at least one of the following grounds in support of the request for a call-in of the decision:-

(a)               inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;

(b)               the absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision;

(c)               the decision is contrary to the policy framework, or contrary to, or not wholly in accordance with the budget framework;

(d)               the action is not proportionate to the desired outcome;

(e)               a potential human rights challenge;

(f)                 insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice.

He informed the Sub-Committee that the grounds (a) - (f) had been cited on the Call In notice, of which grounds (a), (b), (d) and (f) had been deemed to be valid for the purposes of Call-In.

RESOLVED:  That the Call-In would be determined on the basis of the following grounds:

(a)       inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;

(b)       the absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision;

(d)       the action was not proportionate to the desired outcome;

(f)        insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice.

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

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.