Agenda item - Fees and Charges 2015/16

Report of the Executive Director Environment, Development & Housing (copy attached).

1.            That Committee approves the proposed fees and charges for 2015/16 as set out within the report and its appendices with the exception of Appendix 4 (Parking Fees and Charges)

2.            That the Committee agrees that Appendix 4 (Parking Fees and Charges) be referred to Budget Full Council for consideration.

74.1      The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment, Development & Housing that set out the proposed 2015/16 fees and charges for the service area covered by the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee in accordance with corporate legislations and policy.

74.2      The Chair read the following statement:

“Members will note that advice has been circulated by the council’s Head of Law with reference to the following report stating that given the potential complications with the budget process, it is proposed that:

1.    All elements of the proposed fees and charges that are not contentious/have cross party support will be agreed at the meeting.

2.    The parts of the proposals which Members would like to vote against or amend will be referred to full Council to be decided as part of the budget. At the moment, the only item that we are aware of is the one relating to parking fees and charges.

This will enable the Council to make decisions taking account of the full financial implications in the context of the overall budget and, at the same time, avoid everything going to full Council, which would make the Council agenda unmanageable”.

74.3      Councillor Mitchell stated that she agreed with the suggestion provided and asked if a formal amendment to the recommendations was required.

74.4      Councillor Theobald stated that he understood the reasoning behind the proposal and that he would support any motion to amend the recommendations accordingly.

74.5      The Deputy Head of Law suggested the following technical amendment to the recommendations as shown in bold italics below:

2.1      That Committee approves the proposed fees and charges for 2015/16 as set out within the report and its appendices with the exception of Appendix 4 (Parking Fees and Charges)

2.2     That the Committee agrees that Appendix 4 (Parking Fees and Charges) be referred to Budget Full Council for consideration

74.6      Councillor Hawtree asked why this specific element of the report was to be deferred to Full Council as he could not recall any previous examples.

74.7      The Executive Director Environment, Development & Housing clarified that as the pressure on the authorities funding became more onerous the council’s fees and charges would become more important. The proposals would provide the political groups a fuller scope of the various parts of the council’s budgets and perhaps allow for further briefings on the matter.

74.8      Councillor Cox referred to paragraph 3.14 and enquired whether Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) of on street parking was introduced in 2011 as stated.

74.9      The Head of Transport clarified that this was a typing error and DPE of on street parking had been introduced in 2001.

74.10   Councillor Janio stated that he had heard various reports that PCSO’s could now issue Penalty Enforcement Notices and asked if this was the case.

74.11   The Head of Transport stated that as far as he was aware, PCSO’s could only issue obstruction notices but he would provide further clarification to Members subsequent to the meeting.

74.12   Councillor Cox stated that a High Court ruling had been taken against Barnet Council for misinterpreting the law and implementing excessive parking charges and he believed that the proposals for parking charges presented to the Committee would present a similar risk to this authority if agreed. Councillor Cox noted his particular concern that the proposals recommend charges higher than those that had led to the judgement against Barnet Council. Councillor Cox stated that he was sure an argument would be made that parking charges were being implemented in a legal manner but cautioned that there would be serious implications if the charges would be used towards the General Fund for example, as this would be against the law stipulating that parking revenue could only be used for specific purposes. Councillor Cox urged a further review of the proposals before its submission to Full Council as it would not be in the authority’s interest to operate outside the law. Councillor Cox supplemented that it was very unclear whether charges were being increased to raise revenue or to reduce congestion and pollution as the case was regularly made for both. Councillor Cox stated that continued rises were not in the interests of residents or businesses in the city.

74.13   Councillor Mitchell stated that her group were also concerned by the proposals in particular the increases and decreases for annual and six monthly permits. Councillor Mitchell relayed that the figures clearly demonstrated that in some areas the charges for these permits were far too high and in some instances, no permits had been sold at all. Councillor Mitchell stated her concern that charges were being increased to offset the proposed reductions on annual and six monthly permits. Councillor Mitchell stated that parking permits needed to be fair and this in turn would ensure that parking in the city could be effectively controlled. Councillor Mitchell added that every other charge contained within the report was proposed to increase at the rate of inflation and it was only fair that parking charges did likewise.

74.14   Councillor Davey stated that there was no question regarding the legality of the parking charges proposed. Councillor Davey stated that over the past three years most charges had been frozen or reduced and across all areas there was a modest increase of 2%-4% with some going down, some going up and some remaining the same. Councillor Davey provided the example of Regency Car Park that had 10 price tariffs. Of those 10, 7 would be reduced, 2 would increase and 1 would stay the same. Councillor Davey noted that the proposals would mean that parking in Regency Car Park would be less expensive than under the previous administration. Councillor Davey added that there were 220 parking tariffs in the report and he urged the opposition parties to review their position as the proposals presented were fair and coherent. Councillor Davey supplemented that prices were targeted to encourage use and overall, grounded in managing congestion and air quality problems on which Brighton and Hove were improving but was still a huge concern.

74.15   Councillor Robins asked if the allotment waiting list charge of £15 was refunded when applicants were successful.

74.16   The Executive Director Environment, Development & Housing stated that he was unable to answer that question at this time but would relay the answer to Members subsequent to the meeting.

74.17   The Chair then put the amended recommendations to the vote which passed.

74.18   RESOLVED-

1.            That Committee approves the proposed fees and charges for 2015/16 as set out within the report and its appendices with the exception of Appendix 4 (Parking Fees and Charges)

2.            That the Committee agrees that Appendix 4 (Parking Fees and Charges) be referred to Budget Full Council for consideration.