Issue - meetings

[Councillor Bull left the meeting for the duration of the item]

Deputation in relation to item 14

Mr Paul Burnham and Mr Jacob Secker addressed the Cabinet in relation to item 14 on the agenda –Council Housing Parking Estate Charges.

Mr Burnham felt that parking on Council estates would become worse if the charges were implemented. He referred to the 2000 garages within Council estates and questioned why these were not integrated within the strategy. Mr Burnham also referred to a previous consultation, where less than 30% of consultees supported charging for parking on Council estates.

Mr Burnham considered that there was no economic need for the charges and that the Council could run estates without implementing charges.

Mr Burnham also questioned the transfer of funds received from parking charges between the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund.

Mr Burnham advised that he was opposed to applying parking charges to carers, and to the transfer of funds from the HRA to the General Fund.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estates Renewal responded to the points raised by Mr Burnham and provided a copy of her response for the minutes.

·           “Resident charges were rejected in a full Statutory Consultation last year and also rejected by a resident focus Group earlier this year”

The proposals outlined represent the only workable option identified which achieves the aims of the estate parking review approved by Cabinet in July 2019 and presented to residents in the consultation on the “Future of Estate Parking”. The proposals are designed to mitigate financial impact on residents be ensuring every household can apply for one free permit for any vehicle at or below the average emissions level.

The views of respondents to the “Future of Estate parking” consultation are detailed on page 3 of Appendix C (Resident and stakeholder consultation and engagement).

·           50.5% disagreed with introducing permit charges and 29.9% agreed.

·           36% agreed only service users should pay for it (i.e. by buying permits)

·           40.6% agreed to subsidising costs from rent and service charges.

As outlined at section 5.2 of the report (page 3-4), resident views on Permit charges were recognised and alternatives considered. In all instances the alternative options have had to be discounted for the following reasons.

1.      A Free scheme would not generate enough income to pay for itself.

2.      Service Charges could not be collected from all Leaseholders, Businesses and Freeholders

3.      Permit charges for some (i.e. Leaseholders) and Service Charges for others (i.e. Tenants) would make the scheme financially unviable due to the additional administrative and fraud prevention costs.

·           “There is no business case for charges to residents and carers. The proposed scheme would generate an annual surplus of £245,000 while the income from residents and carers parking fees would be £55,350”

Appendix B (Financial Assessment including permitting and permissions to park proposal) outlines the business case for levying some charges to ensure the proposed scheme is both financially viable and financed fairly.

Until end 2024/25 the Housing Revenue Account will be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 380