Agenda item

i)                    Report of the Monitoring Officer

ii)                  Report of the Interim Director of Urban Environment

TO FOLLOW

iii)        Appendix (For information only):

a)     Copy of the ‘call in’

b)     Draft minutes of meeting of the Executive of 23 January 2007 (Subject to confirmation by the Executive)

c)      Parking Charges report from the Executive of 23 January 2007

A decision on the above item was taken by the Executive on 23 January 2007. The decision has been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Constitution, by Councillors Newton, Oakes, Hoban, Oatway and Whyte.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is requested to decide what further action it wishes to take regarding the Call In.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may deal with the Call-In in one of three ways:

i)                    The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide not to take any further action, in which case the decision is implemented immediately.

ii)                  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide to refer the decision back to the decision taker, in which case the decision taker has 5 working days to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision.

iii)                The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide to refer the decision to Full Council.

It is proposed that consideration of this item be structured as follows:

(i)         A brief outline by the above Members on the reasons for the Call In.

(ii)        Response by the Executive Member for Environment.

(iii)       Debate by Members on action to be taken.

(iv)       Decision.

Note: Under Standing Order 32.6 no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

Councillor Newton outlined the reasons why the decision taken by the Executive on 23 January 2007, review of parking fees and charges, had been called-in.  These reasons were:

-          That it was unacceptable that the Council had not proposed to fully consult local residents before proceeding to statutory consultation.

-          That the Council had brought disrepute onto its existing consultations on controlled parking oweing to the different regime of charges recently proposed to residents.

-          That the call-in signatories believed that the report agreed by the Executive contained factual errors

-          That the proposed banding scheme would create confusion and limit environmental benefits

-          And that the charges would fall only on certain parts of the borough

The Councillor further drew attention to favourable consultation on similar schemes which had taken place in Richmond and Camden.  Other factors prompting the call-in were the disparity between Haringey’s proposed four-band system and the DVLA-approved seven-band system, and the significant budget implications which would scheme entailed.  The Councillor stated his commitment in principle to green taxes, but stated that his principled objection lay in both the proposed format of the scheme and what was seen as a lack of adequate consultation.

The Legal Service representative stated that the decision was within the polciy framework, and thus the call-in was valid.  He further stated that the statutory consultation as proposed would meet legal requirements.  Although the course of action proposed by those calling the decision in was to refer it to Full Council, it was noted that the Executive was the only committee which could take the decision, and Full Council would be obligated to refer it back should this outcome occur.

 The Executive Member for Environment responded to the points made by Councillor Newton.  He stated that the review of parking charges had been in the public domain, through the Local Implementation Plan (LIP), and that the review had been identified in the Council’s Forward Plan.  It was also stated during the recent CPZ consultation that a review of parking fees and charges was to take place.  The banding structure had been simplified from that used by the DVLA in order to facilitate simplicty.  The Executive Member further stated that those in the lowest brackets would typcially see a small £5 increase in their parking permits.

Member noted that the response to the proposal in the LIP had been minimal and requested an approach which engaged thoroughly with local residents.  Concern was raised that in proceding with statutory consultation, the scheme would lack the resident acceptance and understanding that a longer period of consultation would allow.  Despite this, some Members were in favour of implementing the decision as planned, citing the relative urgency of the climate change agenda.

Members raised concerns over the lack of evidence that the proposal would have a significant effect on reducing CO2 emisions.  The Executive Member assured Members that, in conjunction with the Mayor of London’s Air Quality Team, a policy to meausre the efficacy of the proposal over the first eighteen months of its implementation had been established.

Members questioned whether the new policy was financially motivated; the Executive Member assured them that the total projected increased revenue figure (£507,000) was not significant enough to be the motivating factor in the proposed change of policy.  Members were assured that these additional funds would be ring-fenced for spending on transport and green projects.

Following a discussion and a number of points of clarification given by officers to Member concerns, Councillor Winskill MOVED a MOTION that the decision TEX148: Review of Parking Fees and Charges be referred back to the decision taker, that being the Executive, with the request that a reworked review of parking fees and charges scheme contain a schedule of community engagement, and that the scheme be revenue neutral.  On there being three votes in favour (Councillor Winskill, Bloch and Butcher) and four against (Councillors Bull, Cooke, Bevan and Jones), the MOTION fell.

Councillor Bevan then MOVED a MOTION that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee should take no further action regarding the decision TEX148: Review of Parking Fees and Charges.  On there being three votes in favour (Councillors Cooke, Jones and Bevan) and four against (Councillors Bull, Winskill, Bloch and Butcher), the MOTION fell.

Councill Bull then MOVED a MOTION that the decision TEX148: Review of Parking Fees and Charges, be referred back to the decision maker, this being the Executive, with the recommendations that the proposed consultation period for the Parking Fees and Charges be increased from three to six weeks, and that the Executive take account of concerns voiced by Members of the committee over the consultation process, and ensure that a full consultation strategy be put in place.  On there being five votes in favour (Councillors Bull, Cooke, Winskill, Bloch and Butcher) and two votes against (Councillors Bevan and Jones), the MOTION was carried.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the decision TEX148: Review of Parking Fees and Charges, be referred back to the decision maker, this being the Executive to reconsider the decision within five working days (this being the meeting of 20/2/07).

2.         That the committee recommend to the Executive that the proposed consultation period for the Parking Fees and Charges be increased from three to six weeks.

3.         That the Executive take account of concerns voiced by Members of the committee over the consultation process, and ensure that a full consultation strategy is put in place.