Agenda and minutes

To receive from Members declarations as to disclosable pecuniary and other interests in relation to any Agenda item.

No interests were declared.

The Panel is to discuss the call-in of the Combined Authority Mayoral Car Parking Subsidy.

Executive Councillor: J Kerr

The Chair introduced the item concerning the call-in of the Combined Authority Mayoral Car Parking Subsidy decision and invited the Members who had called in the decision to present their reasons and outline the matters they wished Council to consider.

Councillor Martin, speaking on behalf of the members who called in the decision, outlined three principal concerns:

1.  Evidence base: He stated that the Cabinet decision appeared inconsistent with the evidence presented and argued that the decision-making process lacked a robust evidence base, contrary to the Council’s Corporate Plan commitment to evidence-based decision making. While a business case had been produced, it was not central to the Cabinet’s discussion or decision.

2.  Alignment with corporate priorities: He contended that the decision was not in keeping with either the previous or current Corporate Plan.

3.  Potential budget implications: He referred to comments made by the Executive Councillor indicating that changes in parking behaviour could result in a financial impact on the Council. This potential cost had not been discussed at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel and he argued that, if it resulted in a variation to the approved budget, the decision may not be fully compliant with the Budget and Policy Framework.

Councillor Martin therefore requested, under paragraph 7A of the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules, that the Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer consider the matter and provide a report, similar to that produced in relation to a previous parking scheme. The Cabinet did not have delegated authority to vary the approved budget.

Councillor Gardner endorsed the points raised by Councillor Martin, particularly regarding whether the proposal would give rise to any additional costs for the Council.

Councillor Kerr responded that the Council’s position remained unchanged: long-term parking charges should be considered through the development of the parking strategy and would continue to be addressed through that process. she emphasised that the current proposal was not a decision on future parking tariffs, but a temporary offer funded by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA). The CPCA-funded proposal contained a financial neutrality clause to ensure the scheme remained cost-neutral to the Council and therefore would not affect the budget or MTFS.

Councillor Kerr advised that financial protection had been a key consideration. She referred to a previous proposal for Council-funded free parking, which had not been supported following advice from the Section 151 Officer that the loss of income without replacement funding would be unsustainable. She contrasted this with the current CPCA-funded intervention and stated that Cabinet had declined to contribute Council funding to extend the offer as there was no budget provision to do so. The Council retained the ability to withdraw from the scheme should it result in financial or other adverse impacts. The trial would support, rather than bypass, the development of an evidence-based parking strategy by providing real-world data and insights alongside resident feedback gathered through consultation. It was further explained that Cabinet had considered delaying the decision until September but concluded that doing so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.