Councillor Booth presented his Motion regarding Car Parking Charges and stated that:
"The purpose of the Motion was to provide assurance and certainty to residents and businesses within the Fenland District Council that Car Parking charges would not be introduced and therefore ensure the viability of the market towns. One of the corporate objectives of this Council is to ensure that we are "Open for Business". If car parking charges were introduced it would have a devastating impact on the towns and villages for the following reasons:
- it would drive trade to out of town shopping centres;
- it will also hit people in their pockets for just using the town centres;
- It will also affect workers who travel to the town centres;
- in the rural areas many people do not have access to public transport so have to use cars, you would be penalising them if parking charges were introduced
- it will undo in a single stroke the work this Council has undertaken to revitalise the towns through lottery bids and renaissance grants provided;
- it is also likely to lead to a decrease of investment by businesses in Town Centres, if their profits are going to be hit.
We also need to consider the consequences of introducing parking charges in towns. It will drive parking onto residential streets within the towns as people will naturally try to avoid any charges. This will have a detrimental effect on residents, which in turn could lead to residential parking zones being introduced.
Any revenue from Car Parking quickly becomes swallowed up by the capital costs and administration needed to enforce it. There is also the principle that revenue gained should be used to pay for transport related matters. Therefore it will not be the cash cow that people believe it will be. Instead it will slowly kill of our towns, resulting in lack of investment, potential loss of jobs and add more costs to the residents of this district. This should not be a political issue; instead this should be based on common sense. I understand that a petition started a week ago has already attracted around 1,000 signatures. This is an amazing response to a local issue and we need to take heed of what people are saying. This issue has also been covered in the local media; therefore Councillors should be aware of the strength of public feeling on this issue.
If charges are introduced or no firm decision taken today, residents will feel cheated. This was not a major feature put to them as part of the recent local elections. If introduced it will undermine further people's trust in local government and politics, which is already low. Also, let us not forget the advice that Councillor Melton passed onto this Chamber four years ago that he had received when he first became a Councillor, as elected District Councillors it is our primary duty to serve all residents of the District to the best of our ability. This should be our overriding goal above all other considerations. Therefore I ask Councillors to use common sense and support this motion, so that we can go forward and give peace of mind to residents and businesses for the next four years."
Councillor Mrs Bucknor seconded the Motion and the Chairman opened the Motion up for debate.
Councillor Boden stated he did not want to see paid parking and supported Councillor Booth but that there were three elements of his Motion that he had reservations about; the first was that it did not put this spending decision in the context of the overall spending challenges which face the Council; secondly, it did not follow good government principles in providing evidence based decision making and the third and most crucial element, was that it was not the best way to ensure that the Council did not end up with paid parking by default; because in eight months' time when the budget and financial strategy is set, Officers will come to Council (even with this Motion as it is written) stating that a certain amount of savings will need to be made and there will be no alternative but to impose car park charges to make up the revenue deficit and he would like that to be avoided and to do this he would like to amend the current Motion, building on the words of Councillor Booth as follows:
"This Council understands the pressures faced by the Market Towns to ensure they remain viable shopping and business centres for the whole of the Fenland District Council area. Therefore to ensure no avoidable additional burdens are unnecessarily placed on the Market Towns and to provide assurance to residents and businesses; this Council takes the decision that, unless and until Fenland District Council completes and properly evaluates a Comprehensive Spending Review, (a) no car parking charges will be introduced within Fenland District Council owned car parks and (b) no disposal will take place of any of the public car parks owned by Fenland District Council."
A Comprehensive Service Review would provide a transparent decision making process in a very difficult spending period and to avoid car parking charges being forced upon the Council, effectively by default, he wanted to see that there was a better way of evaluating all the options to show that less damaging decisions could be made to achieve the necessary savings that Fenland has to make. It would be officer led but it would give all Councillors the chance to choose between undeniably unpalatable options albeit a difficult set of choices therefore he invited all councillors to support the amendment but he particularly cordially asked Councillor Booth to do so to put aside any party politics and support the amendment for two reasons; firstly, a comprehensive service review would give opposition councillors more of a say in the way in which the very difficult decisions will be made over the course of the next year; secondly, this would be the best way to demonstrate how savings can be made by this Council without imposing car park charges.
Councillor Clark seconded the amendment and the Chairman opened the Motion up for debate.
Councillor Booth stated he had quickly appraised Councillor Boden's amendment and it almost negated his original Motion because it effectively "kicks it into the long grass" therefore he did not think that this amendment could be considered under the Procedure Rules of the Constitution because an amendment to a Motion can only be made if it did not alter the intent of the original Motion yet the amendment was in effect continuing with what he believed the Council would be doing anyway; his Motion in its original form was quite clear in its intent therefore he did not believe this was an admissible amendment.
Carol Pilson, Monitoring Officer, stated that officers had scrutinised the amendment prior to the meeting and the legal advice was that the amendment to the Motion did not negate the original Motion; it simply qualified it.
Councillor Booth responded stating that the Constitution states that "as long as such omission, insertion or addition of words does not have the effect of negating the Motion before the Council." Councillor Booth stated that this Motion was quite clear in saying no car parking charges, yet the amendment stated it would be considered in the future therefore it definitely negated the original motion.
Councillor Mrs French stated she supported and welcomed the amendment as she totally opposed car parking charges as she had done in previous years and pointed out that on 19 January, Cabinet went to the Overview & Scrutiny Panel with the Draft Corporate Plan 2015/18 and the wording contained within the report stated "attract new businesses and jobs and support existing businesses in Fenland, raise the economic profile of Fenland" and if car parking charges were introduced it would be against the policy of Cabinet.
Councillor Mrs Bucknor stated she did not agree with the legal advice as she thought the amendment negated the original Motion as it stated no car parking charges would be introduced prior to carrying out cost analysis which meant charges could be brought in after the analysis whereby the original Motion stated clearly that there would be no car parking charges. Councillor Mrs Bucknor stated, that like Councillor French, she had opposed car parking charges previously and she still stood by that as it would have a negative effect in Fenland but she still believed that the amendment to the motion was out of order.
Councillor Tierney asked for clarification as to whether the amendment was now being discussed, to which he was informed that the amendment was legal and now under discussion. He stated that he found himself in a difficult position; he would not vote against the Comprehensive Spending Review, information fairly gathered and presented was a good thing and comes with a guarantee of no car parking charges; he would never vote for car parking charges.
Councillor Hoy stated that during this year's budget discussions, the information available to Members did suggest that the books were balanced and there was no need to put council tax up. Now with the discussion of paid parking was confusing and disappointing; some things must be ruled out and she believed paid parking was one of those; it would severely damage the Council's reputation and damage the towns. As the Council was now allowed to keep 100% of the business rates from shops and restaurants; damaging them with paid parking was a false economy. However she supported the amendment for two reasons, firstly, as she was Conservative, she was never opposed to gathering information and looking carefully at budgets and secondly, this amendment made it clear that no paid parking would be introduced in the meantime however she wanted to make it clear that she would never vote for any motion or policy that would seek to introduce paid parking in Fenland. She welcomed the spending review and that this would show that paid parking would not need to be considered at all.
The Chairman stated that before a vote was taken on the amendment that she would like to remind Members of the revised Motion which had been circulated earlier and invited Councillor Booth to give his right to reply.
Councillor Booth stated that a number of Councillors had said that they would never support car parking charges but if they agree to the amendment then they are effectively delaying the decision until sometime in the future and unfortunately this amendment clearly did not have a timetable and therefore Members would not really know when the spending review would be completed by plus this amendment did not give a clear message that they did not support car parking charges in the future therefore he urged Members to vote against the amendment and instead vote for the original motion and this would give certainty to all across the District that car parking charges were not on the agenda for the next four years.
Councillor Mrs French stated she would like to remind Councillor Booth and other Members that this was never in the Conservative manifesto and if it was to be introduced it should be done near to an election so that residents were aware when they made their vote.
Councillor Tibbs stated that as a new councillor he had a lot to learn but he looked forward to learning by experience and from the wise advice of his fellow councillors but he did know that the people who elected him, did not vote for him because he would vote for paid parking and he would support the amendment regarding the comprehensive spending review but he would never support a motion for paid parking
Councillor Booth replied stating that the original motion made it crystal clear that car parking charges would not be introduced for the next four years and by amending it, Members were merely delaying any decision to an undetermined date and not sending a clear message that it would never be introduced.
A vote was taken on the amendment and the amendment to the Motion was adopted.
Councillor Booth requested it be recorded that he voted against the amendment.
Councillor Booth requested to move an amendment to the new substantive motion, stating he would like to add in "The Comprehensive Spending Review should be completed no later than the September 2015 Full Council meeting".
Councillor Mrs Bucknor seconded the amendment and the Chairman opened the amendment up for debate.
Councillor Mrs Bucknor stated that this amendment would dispel the concerns that any business thinking of opening up in the market towns would have. What would Members do if the review were to show that there would be an economic benefit to bringing in car parking charges because this was what Members were supporting.
Councillor Mrs French reminded Members that the Council had a balanced budget and therefore there was no panic and no need to rush and to suggest that a Comprehensive Spending Review could be produced in this timeframe was ludicrous and totally unfair of Members to do that; she thought the Leader should make that decision when the budget was being looked at for 2015/16/17 and it would be up to him to bring it at a reasonable time, possibly prior to budget setting next February.
Councillor Boden stated he agreed with Councillor Mrs French in that if officers were asked to produce a Comprehensive Spending Review then more time would have to be given although it could not go on indefinitely as the budget would need to be set for 2016/17. The whole purpose of a Comprehensive Spending Review was to allow Members to make a decision within a reasonable timeframe in order to effect budgets for future years and it was unreasonable and unfair to give officers less time to find alternative sources of savings or income generation to be able to stop car parking charges; therefore he encouraged Members to reject the amendment.
Councillor Humphrey stated that the original amendment that became the substantive motion certainly dealt with this in the best way and did think that the original motion was "putting the cart before the horse" because car parking charges had not been discussed and was something that was whipped up by the opposition and the media and therefore believed Members should reject the proposed amendment.
Councillor Count stated that as Members were aware, there was a Cambridgeshire County Council by-election coming up in Wisbech and he was sure that part of the motion that had come forward for discussion was purely to grab some headlines on that day but this latest proposition showed a lack of understanding of how the government and councils worked; George Osbourne will announce a budget in July which may affect the Council and to ask officers to unpick the detail of this by September, was unrealistic. This was a nonsense amendment to the substantive motion as there was now a terrific Motion in front of Members as amended stating that no charges would be introduced until after the Comprehensive Spending Review was completed that gives the Council more options; the additional amendment had been thought up on the moment to affect the County Council election and urged Members to oppose it.
Councillor Mrs Bucknor stated that to say this was something that had been whipped up by the opposition could not be further from the truth; as far as she was aware, no opposition Members were aware of the possibility of introducing car parking charges and understood that this was a discussion held by two Conservative Councillors which she queried.
Councillor Mrs French interjected stating the vote should be taken as Councillor Mrs Bucknor's comments were not relevant to the vote.
The Chairman invited Councillor Boden to give his right to reply.
Councillor Boden stated the amendment was unrealistic and suggested the amendment be rejected.
The Chairman reminded Members that they were now voting on the amendment made by Councillor Booth.
The amendment to the Motion was not passed.
The Chairman explained that a vote would now be taken on the substantive motion as tabled by Councillor Boden.
Councillor Booth asked for a right to reply to which Carol Pilson informed him that the person that put the substantive motion had the right to reply therefore it was Councillor Boden. The person that moves the amendment does not get a right to reply.
The Chairman again asked for a vote to be taken on the substantive motion as tabled by Councillor Boden.
The Motion was passed.
(Councillors Tierney and Skoulding declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item due to owning businesses in the town centres that could be affected.)