Hampshire County Council Economy, Transport and Environment Select Committee Meeting

Apologies were received from  Councillors Derek Mellor, Rhydian Vaughan and Rupert Kyrle. Councillor Dominic Hiscock attended as a deputy for Councillor Kyrle.

Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter considered at the meeting they must declare that interest at the time of the relevant debate and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3, Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Non-Pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at the meeting they considered whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 2 of the Code, considered whether it was appropriate to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.

Councillor Martin Tod declared an interest as the Cabinet Member responsible for parking at Winchester City Council.

Councillor Nick Adams-King declared an interest as the Cabinet Member responsible for parking at Test Valley Borough Council.

Councillor Barry Dunning declared an interest as a Member at Lymington Town Council.

The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed and agreed.

It was confirmed that two deputations had been received for the meeting, both speaking on  ‘On-Street Chargeable Parking in Lymington’.

Alan Godleman, a local resident, felt that the proposals were not a positive step and shared his concerns regarding displaced parking and also the risks of discouraging shoppers from using the High Street. Neil Walker, a local business owner told Committee that there was unanimous local opposition to the proposals, which would have a detrimental effect on businesses.

The Chairman confirmed that the 12 May meeting had been cancelled.

The Select Committee received a report from the Monitoring Officer (item 6 in the minute book), which asked them to consider whether or not it should exercise its powers under Section 9F of Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’), referred to in the County Council’s Constitution as ‘Call-in’.

Members queried the implementation of the proposals and the reliance on teachers. In summarising the decision, officers confirmed that whilst teachers would be present, the training would be done by qualified instructors. Children did not pass or fail, but achieved a certain standard and level before completing the assessment. It was more effective to bring in-house as the grant could be better utilised and other sources of funding could also be potentially sourced if needed in the longer term. There were already two qualified instructors and it was anticipated that more would be TUPE’d across by the end of July.

It was anticipated that it would go to a Member Briefing and an update could be provided then.

RESOLVED

The Select Committee agreed that they should NOT recommend the Executive Member for Highways Operations re-consider his decisions as set out in the Decision Record attached at Appendix 1.

Voting
Favour: 12

The Select Committee received a report from the Monitoring Officer (item 7 in the minute book), which asked them to consider whether or not it should exercise its powers under Section 9F of Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’), referred to in the County Council’s Constitution as ‘Call-in’.

Councillor Tod summarised the concerns as highlighted by the deputations and confirmed that more information was needed regarding the location of parking metres, the amount of free and off-road parking and the financial consequences of the decision.

In a presentation by officers, the Committee learned that various surveys had been undertaken both before and during the pandemic and that the parking was regularly oversubscribed along the High Street. It was felt that 20mins of free parking would be a good balance and minimise impact whilst assisting with cost recovery. New Forest District Council had been liaised with throughout the process and officers would continue to work alongside to monitor off-street parking and any potential displaced parking. The aim was to align charges with off-street parking, also utilising payment Apps as well as enabling residents to pay with cash for accessibility in the short to medium term. It was anticipated that 10 machines would be suitable due to the length of the High Street.

During debate some Members felt that it reasonable to charge for parking on a cost-recovery basis and that it was unusual to get free on-road parking, whereas others felt like it was a missed opportunity for a better scheme that was more joined-up with the local community.

The Executive Lead Member for Economy, Transport and Environment enforced the importance of generating funds for highway improvements and how surveys had revealed that 155-160 cars had been witnessed parking in the High Street all day, which worked against local businesses. Further discussions were welcomed with New Forest District Council going forward.

RESOLVED

The Select Committee agreed that they should NOT recommend the Executive Member for Highways Operations re-consider his decisions as set out in the Decision Record attached at Appendix 1.

Voting
Favour: 7
Against: 5

The Select Committee received a report from the Monitoring Officer (item 8 in the minute book), which asked them to consider whether or not it should exercise its powers under Section 9F of Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’), referred to in the County Council’s Constitution as ‘Call-in’.

It was noted that additional financial information had been provided in an exempt appendix, which was noted by the Committee and helped better justify the decision that had been made. Where transfers had already taken place in the County, it was felt to be working well with complaints being handled in a timely manner and residents feeling supported.

Whilst some Members remained concerned that the proposals would not save money to assist with the highways maintenance budget, it was noted that the transition period would allow review of how things were working locally and officers would be able to reassess if it was felt necessary.

RESOLVED

The Select Committee agreed that they should NOT recommend the Executive Member for Highways Operations re-consider his decisions as set out in the Decision Record attached at Appendix 1.

Voting
Favour: 9
Against: 3

The exempt appendices were not discussed directly and therefore it was not required to exclude the press and public at this meeting.

This appendix was considered as part of the open item on the agenda without any of the information being declared.

This appendix was considered as part of the open item on the agenda without any of the information being declared.