Agenda item

The following petition containing in excess of 1,500 signatures, which is the threshold to trigger a debate at Council, was submitted at the Council meeting held on 20 October 2022:

 

‘From January 2023 Wokingham Borough Council will double most car parking charges. It will also start charging for parking on Sundays, Bank Holidays and in the evenings up to 10pm.

 

We call on the Council to drop these punitive increases for the following reasons:

 

-        Residents face significant cost increases in every part of their lives due to the Cost of Living crisis. It is wrong to raise charges at this time.

-        Retailers in our town centre are recovering from the effects of Covid. They do not need their trade damaged by punitive car parking charges.

-        It is in the interests of every resident that we have a vibrant and active town centre which draws people to visit. These charges will be a disincentive to visiting your local town and damaging to the local economy.’

 

The Council considered a petition which had been submitted to the meeting on 20 October 2022. The petition, which contained over 1,500 signatures stated:

 

“From January 2023 Wokingham Borough Council will double most car parking charges. It will also start charging for parking on Sundays, Bank Holidays and in the evenings up to 10pm.

 

We call on the Council to drop these punitive increases for the following reasons:

 

·           Residents face significant cost increases in every part of their lives due to the Cost of Living crisis. It is wrong to raise charges at this time.

 

·           Retailers in our town centre are recovering from the effects of Covid. They do not need their trade damaged by punitive car parking charges.

 

·           It is in the interests of every resident that we have a vibrant and active town centre which draws people to visit. These charges will be a disincentive to visiting your local town and damaging to the local economy.”

 

Keith Baker presented the petition and addressed the Council as follows.

 

The Liberal Democrats have gone on record to say that they are the listening party and will operate in an open and transparent way. So, how are they doing to date? One of the most important Key Decision principles is consultation. Normally, consultation takes place before a decision is made. The results of that consultation are then used to shape the decision. The Conservative administration carried out consultation in 2018 over a small price change. The Liberal Democrats did it over the Woodlands Avenue cycleway proposals, the LCWIP plans and waste collection. So, they do know how to do consultations.

 

Why did the Liberal Democrats not consult over these exorbitant increases? Who knows? Maybe they knew what the result was going to be. So, we did it for them. The petition, with over 4,000 signatures is one of the largest expressions of disagreement on a change ever received. A new petition (not submitted) signed by 40 businesses in Woodley town centre highlights the impact of the proposed changes on them. These businesses include independent retailers, the hospitality sector and nationals like Waitrose, LIDL and Boots.

 

So, how did the Liberal Democrats wriggle out of this requirement? At the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting, the Executive Member stated that the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) would satisfy the consultation requirement. A TRO has never been used like this before. A TRO is the legal process to implement changes and includes a 28 day period when comments can be made. No date has been provided for the publication of the TRO. I do hope that they are not trying to sneak it out to minimise comments. I wonder if they will ignore those comments as well.

 

No business case in support of the decision has been made available to Councillors or the public. The only financial statement available refers to a shortfall of £600k in the parking services income. We will probably hear this about 20 times when the Liberal Democrats speak. Part of the business case would refer to the options considered, so that they can be scrutinised. It was confirmed that other options were considered but not published, in spite of the obligation for the Executive to do so. To date, in spite of repeated requests for the business case to be published, we get complete silence.

 

What did emerge was that parking services included the off street car parks and the park and ride facilities. The income loss was almost exclusively from the park and rides. Off street parking income was around 90% of pre-pandemic levels, even higher in Woodley. Off street parking increases are subsidising the loss-making park and rides. Even worse, park and ride charges are not being increased at all. I wonder if there was an option to close the park and rides or increase their charges instead? I welcome Labour Councillor Shirley Boyt’s question later, suggesting exactly that. I wonder if she will join us in voting against these increases.

 

Repeatedly, claims have been made that these increases would not have been needed if charges had increased each year. Wrong. Using Bank of England inflation rates, charges would be 34% to 92% lower than proposed. Repeatedly, claims have also been made that the new charges would be similar to neighbouring areas and are competitive. Wrong again. The Lexicon, a huge new shopping centre in Bracknell, runs the Princess Square Car Park, where charges are between 25 to 80% lower than our new charges. Even in Wokingham, the Elms Road NCP car park remains at the same level as our current charges, so will be significantly lower than the new charges.

 

Do the Liberal Democrats listen to residents? No – they ignore the views of over 4,000 residents and 40 businesses and are likely to ignore the TRO comments. Do the Liberal Democrats operate in an open way? No – they hide the business case from public scrutiny. Do the Liberal Democrats operate in a transparent way? No – they hide the fact that the park and rides are the problem with the off street car parks subsidising their losses.

 

In the ensuing debate, Members made the following points:

 

Charles Margetts stated that the proposals were against the best interests of residents and businesses. The Council needed to attract visitors to our town centres, yet no survey had been carried out to model the impact of the new charges on footfall. The bulk of the budget gap related to the operation of the park and ride sites – this issue could continue into future years. The budget shortfall could be tackled in other ways, for example by freezing job vacancies (currently 35 on the WBC website) and reviewing the number of interim managers on the payroll.

 

Paul Fishwick stated that the cost of the car parking service was £2.5m per annum. This included the off street car parks and the park and ride sites. Two of the park and ride sites were closed – Winnersh Triangle (under construction) and the Conservative-approved financial white elephant at Coppid Beech. Although the sites were closed, operational costs continued – ongoing maintenance, insurance and business rates. With zero income, Mereoak only operating at 25% and off street car parking at 90% of pre-Covid levels, they did not cover the cost of running the service. To cover these revenue costs, the Council needed to raise income from car parking charges. Any shortfall would need to be covered by taking other revenue, funded by Council Tax, which was needed for the most vulnerable in our community. At the July 2022 Executive meeting it was reported that there was a forecast budget deficit of £600k to £800k. This has not changed. Without taking urgent steps to close the gap, the Council would need to raise additional income or cut services. The latter could impact on the most vulnerable.

 

Councillor Fishwick stated that the previous Conservative administration did consider raising car park charges - £500k of additional income was forecast in the draft MTFP presented to Overview and Scrutiny in November 2021. However, for whatever reason, the previous administration did not proceed with this and, instead, dipped into reserves to cover it with £2.2m. Taking funding from reserves was not an option now as the reserves were too low. The Council cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of central Government, like Slough and Thurrock, as the consequences would be devastating. Instead of helpful ideas, the Conservative Group’s response has been a petition to freeze the car park charges, which clearly will not work. Residents expect their roads and footways to be maintained to a high standard. This can only be achieved if funding is available. If car park charges are not increased, the Council’s ability to continue to maintain the highway to the current standard will be significantly compromised along with cuts in essential services which affect the most vulnerable in our community.

 

Alison Swaddle stated that the new evening charges would impact on clubs and societies which met in the evenings, such as the groups who met at the Oakwood Centre in Woodley. There was also an additional risk for women who had to stop to use the ticket machines during the hours of darkness.

 

Andy Croy reminded Members of John Kaiser’s statement that a “broke Council was no good to anyone”. The previous administration knew about the potential budget shortfall but did nothing about it. The Council had a responsibility to balance the books.

 

Gregor Murray stated that he had extensive experience in the retail sector. Footfall was not a right – it had to be earned. The proposals amounted to a tax on shoppers and low income workers. As mentioned earlier, other savings options could be considered.

 

Prue Bray stated that the concerns of residents and businesses were understood, but there were no alternatives. There was an overall budget gap of £4m and only limited options for savings. The Council had to minimise the impact on the most vulnerable in our communities. The current administration was implementing the Medium Term Financial Plan agreed by the Conservative administration.

 

Pauline Jorgensen stated that the Conservative administration did consider increasing off street parking charges in the previous year. The Conservative Group had not committed to reversing the current proposed increases as they had not seen the business case. The Group was working on an alternative budget for 2023/24 which would not include increases in charges at the same level.

 

Imogen Shepherd-Dubey stated that residents had signed the petition in good faith but were not informed of the consequences of maintaining the existing level of charges. WBC, along with every Council was facing difficult decisions. The top priority must be to protect the most vulnerable.

 

Phil Cunnington stated that the cost of living crisis was impacting on visitors to the Borough’s towns. Visitors with less disposable income may decide to go elsewhere. The imposition of Sunday charging would impact on low paid workers such as baristas working in cafes. If asked, businesses would have shared their concerns at the proposed charges.

 

Clive Jones stated that the concerns expressed were understood. No one wanted to increase the car park charges. Councillor Jones had spoken to many retailers to understand their views. However, the Council’s finances had been left in a poor state by the previous administration and the shortfall in parking income had to be addressed. The impact of recent Government actions (such as mortgage rate rises) were likely to have a much bigger impact than the increase in parking charges.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh referred to an article in the Sunday Times by the Chancellor. In the current climate facing the Borough, difficult decisions were necessary in order to prevent a negative impact on frontline services. Members had to be honest about the situation facing the Council.

 

Chris Bowring stated that the situation was very challenging. The Liberal Democrats had stated that the proposals were necessary to address the budget deficit. However, this was the worst response – they should think again.

 

Stephen Conway stated that many councils were facing huge financial challenges, with up to one in six being close to insolvency. WBC received one of the lowest levels of Government funding and tough decisions were necessary. The previous administration had been able to use reserves to paper over the cracks. This option was no longer available.

 

John Halsall stated that the Conservative Group had managed to balance the budget for 20 years whilst delivering £30m of savings. Increasing car parking charges by the amount proposed was not a necessity. Other options should be considered.

 

Norman Jorgensen stated that the Liberal Democrats had stated that there was no other choice but to increase the car park charges substantially. However, there was always a choice. The proposals were not based on a wider view of the local economy. The proposals may drive away local businesses with a negative impact on the Council’s rent income.

 

In responding to the debate, Keith Baker referred to the number of comments made about increasing car park charges in order to protect essential services such as Children’s Services. However, it was possible to find savings in other highways services, for example by closing park and rides. That would generate a saving. One of the big issues was the lack of a business case. A proper business case would have looked at options and consequences. Increased charges would lead to a reduction in demand, as borne out by previous experience. That was common sense. The last time that car park charges were increased (by 10p on a one hour charge) the result was a 15% reduction in usage. Demand did not recover for two years. The national increase in mortgage rates was very difficult for residents. However, the proposed increase in car park charges would only make the situation worse for our residents.

 

It was proposed by Keith Baker and seconded by Pauline Jorgensen that the petition be supported.

 

In accordance with Section 4.2.15.5 a recorded vote was requested on the petition.

 

The result of the voting was as follows:

 

FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
Keith Baker	Rachel Bishop-Firth	Jim Frewin
Laura Blumenthal	Shirley Boyt
Chris Bowring	Prue Bray
Anne Chadwick	Rachel Burgess
Phil Cunnington	Stephen Conway
David Davies	David Cornish
Michael Firmager	Gary Cowan
John Halsall	Andy Croy
Peter Harper	Peter Dennis
Norman Jorgensen	Lindsay Ferris
Pauline Jorgensen	Paul Fishwick
John Kaiser	Maria Gee
Abdul Loyes	David Hare
Charles Margetts	Clive Jones
Rebecca Margetts	Sarah Kerr
Stuart Munro	Tahir Maher
Gregor Murray	Morag Malvern
Wayne Smith	Adrian Mather
Bill Soane	Andrew Mickleburgh
Alison Swaddle	Alistair Neal
Shahid Younis	Beth Rowland
	Ian Shenton
	Imogen Shepherd-Dubey
	Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey
	Caroline Smith
	Mike Smith

 

The Mayor announced that, following the vote, the petition was not supported.

 

It was then proposed by Pauline Jorgensen and seconded by Gregor Murray:

 

“That the petition be sent back to the Executive and that the Executive consider the feedback from residents, the feedback from businesses and also options and the impact assessment of increasing the charges and what that will actually do to revenue in order to come up with a more thought-through proposal.”

 

Clive Jones stated that referral of the petition to the Executive, at its meeting on 24 November 2022, was acceptable.

 

Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the petition be sent back to the Executive and that the Executive consider the feedback from residents, the feedback from businesses and also options and the impact assessment of increasing the charges and what that will actually do to revenue in order to come up with a more thought-through proposal.