To receive a petition under the local petition scheme opposing the introduction of car parking charges.  The petitioners believe that the introduction of these charges would:

• be detrimental to the economic welfare of the towns
• be too costly to set up and service
• not generatie the income required

The petition organiser will be given five minutes to present the petition, members will then decide how to respond.

The Council may decide to agree or disagree with the petition, or ask for more work to be done and/or refer the matter to Cabinet.

The clerk of Lydney Town Council, Jayne Smailes, presented the petition to the chairman, who thanked her and commented that it was the first for this council term.

Upon invitation Jayne Smailes made several points in support of the petition. She began by stating that there were 6521 signatories to date. She had submitted a letter on 3 October 2011 drawing members' attention to a judicial review in 1995. It concerned the fact that income from parking charges should not be used to plug gaps in councils' budgets, but should be self-financing. The petition sought a full debate and investigation to determine how any income would be re-invested. There were also anomalies in the consultants' (RTA) and cabinet reports, so members needed to become fully informed on financial details and the economic effects of the proposal on the district, which was 'flat lining'. She suggested that if the council addressed other services like it had the CCTV issue, it might not need to charge for parking. She also questioned the fact that five members (the cabinet) had made a decision when 48 members were corporately responsible.

Cllr Molyneux, Leader of the Council, proposed and Cllr Ede seconded the following motion.

That Full Council notes the petition and the views it contains and refers it to the cabinet, along with the views of the members here tonight, to fully consider as part of its determination of how best to manage council owned off-street car parking in the district.

Speaking to his motion, Cllr Molyneux welcomed the petition to get the views of the community and to give the matter a full debate with views from all sides. He reminded members that the matter was not new and that the cabinet had considered it last in 2008 after a lot of background work.

The key concerns at the time had been economic detriment of such a move to the community and he emphasised the need for accurate figures in any report. The modelling on modest charging was designed to cover costs. Any small surplus would always be needed to improve the car parks, traffic flow and town centres.

Currently car parks were not free but paid for by Council Tax payers. He asked if that was fair and was the best use of limited resources. The cabinet had looked at all services carefully and believed that people who use car parks should contribute toward the cost of providing them, so that the council could use its budget for other key areas such as support for leisure centres, the CAB and others. He maintained that unless someone could suggest a feasible alternative the council was in a cul-de-sac on the matter. He guaranteed that the cabinet would give the matter full consideration, taking into consideration views from this debate and from the scrutiny process.

Cllr O'Neill proposed and Cllr Morgan seconded the following amendment.

That the Chairman of the Council receives the petition at this stage and after a full and thorough scrutiny investigation, including consulting with relevant town and parish councils, a debate will be held by the Full Council, whereby recommendations will be made to the cabinet for its consideration.

The Solicitor confirmed that the amendment did not negate the meaning and wording of the original motion and did not seek to fetter or direct the cabinet.

Speaking to his amendment Cllr O'Neill reminded members that the petition contained no views, but points of justification for why the debate should be held. It mentioned issues in need of full scrutiny, which should have happened to begin with. He believed that the only way to do the matter justice was to have a full investigation and then a debate before giving recommendations to the cabinet.

Cllr Hogan expressed his long held view that a modest charging regime was necessary to properly use the council's resources and to regulate use of the council's car parks. Modest charging could actually stimulate usage. The amendment took the heat out of, but allowed light to be shed on the issue and a fully informed debate would help to achieve a fully informed decision. He reminded members that Full Council must resolve a legal budget in February 2012 and could not simply vote down a proposed budget. He looked forward to a full debate in the near future. To consider the matter again after a full scrutiny would also be paying the petition due respect.

Cllr Martin, Leader of the Labour group, responding to Cllr Molyneux's comments on the budget said that she was not seeking an alternative budget, but was just asking for a scrutiny exercise to take the views of parish and town councils and to ensure the accuracy of the detail within the proposal.

Cllr Osborne cautioned that the council should not 'bulldoze' ahead in the light of a current judicial review involving another council. The council must ensure value for money, as the town councils had achieved in taking over the operation of CCTV at a lower cost.

Cllr Bill Evans believed that the reasons for not introducing charges on 2008, when inflation was 1.5 per cent were even more prevalent in 2011 with inflation at 5 per cent and the cost of living up by £150 per year for families. He asked the council to seek an independent legal view on the issue relating to reinvestment of income.

Cllr Hiett, one of the members to have called in the cabinet decision, believed the figures in the RTA report to be fundamentally flawed, being based on 2006 figures. He said that since he was elected to represent his ward and the wider district, it was imperative to listen to the public and have a debate based on informed scrutiny.

Cllr Pugh said that he believed the proposal to be about raising money. The amendment suggested a sensible process to inform a full debate before recommendations back to the cabinet.

Cllr Burford welcomed the petition and, as chairman of the Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee, confirmed that an investigation would be started as a matter of urgency. All members would be able to contribute.

Cllr Allaway Martin, vice chairman of the committee, confirmed that the investigation would also seek views from town and parish councils.

Cllr Morgan, as seconder of the amendment, maintained that a survey conducted in 1995 had highlighted the fragility of the towns, as they were close together and dependent on convenience trade. In other parts of the country shoppers used out-of-town shopping centres with free parking. Work on Cinderford regeneration had identified shared zones with the need for initial 20 minute free parking to give trade a chance.

Cllr Winship asked why members were debating the issue, when the amendment called for a deferral of debate. She also asked for clarification of the six-month rule.

The Solicitor confirmed that the rule only disallowed rejection within six months of an earlier decision.

Cllr McMahon believed that the council could still make savings in other areas and quoted the Prime Minister as having said that the economic climate was as bad now as in 2008.

Cllr Robinson, Cabinet Member for and Efficient Council and Planning Policy, welcomed the petition but emphasised that the council was facing a reduction of £1.8 million over the next two years. Charging was proposed to offset the current cost of operating car parks and the timing of a final decision was important to enable the regime to be in place in July 2012. He was pleased that the town councils had managed to take over the running of CCTV at reduced cost, but emphasised that the district council had already achieved £4 million of savings over the past four years.

He accepted the views of the community and would take them into consideration, alongside the views of all members. He was concerned that the amendment was putting off the decision.

Cllr Whitburn questioned both the amount of income projected and the sense in the RTA survey of comparing Mitcheldean with towns such as Ledbury.

Cllr Lawton agreed that the petition was useful, and informed members that Newent Town Council had already debated the issue, resolving to support charging after an initial free period. Parking needed urgent management and to do nothing was not an option. He believed that it was time to listen and then act, just as Newent Town Council had done on CCTV.

Cllr Coborn claimed that CCTV operation was dumped on town councils and they had implemented it now. Traders in Cinderford were not happy with charging proposals. He alluded to the council's wisdom in refurbishing the reception area at a cost of £400,000 and not being successful in selling Lawnstone House. He asked if the council might end up losing money again.

Cllr Hale agreed with Cllr Hogan that charging could stimulate trade and needed to be considered alongside on-street parking.

Cllr Gooch was concerned that the survey showed current parking habits and not how those habits might change should car park charges be introduced. In addition there was an argument that charges might turn shoppers away and as a result businesses would be close. She asked if the cabinet had a strategy should parking charges not generate the projected income.

Cllr Thomson believed that the amendment represented a sensible way forward with no time lost by the process of scrutiny.

The Solicitor agreed to send a note to all members regarding the statutory rules governing referendums and the approximate cost of running one, after a query from Cllr Baynham.

The chairman asked Cllr O'Neill what timescale he envisaged, should his amendment be successful.

Cllr O'Neill replied that there could be an extra Full Council meeting timetabled after the scrutiny inquiry.

Cllr Burford agreed that scrutiny had resolved to consider the matter urgently, so that it could feed into the budget process. He recognised that it would be virtually impossible to complete before the cabinet's November meeting, but Full Council would be able to debate it in December.

Summing up his amendment, Cllr O'Neill said that due to the wording of the petition, the council's need to either agree or disagree with it as at the agenda was not suitable. He reminded members that the petition contained no views, but reasons for asking for a debate. Already the number of signatories represented 10 per cent of the electorate. He urged members to support his amendment, which suggested a sensible way of achieving an informed debate and subsequent recommendations to the cabinet.

Cllr Molyneux, in reply, still thought that the petition expressed a view, because it contained the words 'believe that'. He maintained that the amendment was a delaying tactic and emphasised that no councillor needed to wait for a Full Council meeting to ask cabinet members questions. Both officers and cabinet members were readily available. He conceded that the proposal was aimed at generating income, but only to fund the cost of car parks. If the council did not implement this measure it would have to find an alternative way of saving the equivalent amount in the budget. He believed that any alternative would lead to service cuts and further redundancies. He emphasised that the cabinet had looked at the issue carefully, but that it would consider the detail of the work scrutiny would undertake.

When put to the vote the amendment was successful.

Voting was as follows:

For (20) – Norman Stephens, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Clive Elsmore, Paul Hiett, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser,

Against (19) - Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Arthur Thomas, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Abstained (1) - Philip Burford

N.B Cllrs O'Neill, Hobman, Sterry and Stewart thought they had voted.

The amended motion became substantive.

RESOLVED -

That the Chairman of the Council receives the petition at this stage and after a full and thorough scrutiny investigation, including consulting with relevant town and parish councils, a debate will be held by the Full Council, whereby recommendations will be made to the cabinet for its consideration.

Voting was as follows after a written recorded vote was called:

For (26) – Frank Baynham, Roy Birch, Philip Burford, Max Coborn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Clive Elsmore, Bill Evans, Jackie Fraser, Julia Gooch, Paul Hiett, Val Hobman, Bruce Hogan, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Bernie O’Neill, Bill Osborne, Don Pugh, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Helen Stewart, David Thomson, Ian Whitburn, Marion Winship

Against (18) - Carole Allaway Martin, James Bevan, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Peter Ede, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Len Lawton, Patrick Molyneux, Martin Quaile, Brian Robinson, Marrilyn Smart, Arthur Thomas, Roger Yeates

Abstained (0)

The chairman adjourned the meeting at 9.15pm for a short break.

The chairman reconvened the meeting at 9.35pm.