Agenda item

Councillor B Mickelburgh, Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to present in relation to parking charges.

(In the event Cabinet decide to implement the budget proposal for the charge increase, this item will be withdrawn as there will be no decision to take from Council).

Prior to the introduction of the report, the Council’s Section 151 Officer who clarified the reasons for the inclusion of the report for consideration by Council. Following a question from Councillor Davenport-Ray, the Council were advised that through management of the Council’s budget and finances, delegations were available to the Section 151 Officer to maintain a balanced budget through the management and performance of all services, it would not be prudent to advise to use reserves funding to cover a deficit which doesn’t exist, furthermore the Officer assured the Chamber that the decision on the matter taken by Cabinet wouldn’t put financial pressures on the operation of the Council or its Services.

In response to a question from Councillor Martin, the Section 151 Officer advised that through prudent financial management she would not be supporting the decision, however she also noted that the use of reserves was not required at the present time. It was further noted that a budget surplus reserve had been built up over time and set aside to support eventualities which arose in year and it would be normal practice to use this to meet any deficit that may arise.

It was clarified to the Chamber by the Section 151 Officer, in response to a question from Councillor Hodgson-Jones, that there was sufficient in year funds could accommodate the deficit and that there was no requirement to use reserves or a transfer of reserves for this matter.

Following a question from Councillor J A Gray, the Section 151 Officer advised that the Medium Term Financial Strategy would be updated and presented to the Council again in February 2026 alongside the new budget for 2026/27.

Following which, the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, Councillor B A Mickelburgh presented the Parking Charges – Implementation of Increase (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) to the Chamber.

Upon opening the debate to the floor, and following an observation from Councillor A Jennings in relation to the recommendations, the Council were advised that the first recommendation was to note. Following which Councillor Jennings moved the amended proposed by the Conservative Group and published within the agenda. In supporting the proposed amendment, Councillor Jennings addressed the Chamber and advised he felt that this was about accountability and the management of public funds. He observed that following an earlier issue with planning charges, it had been agreed that further variations would be considered by a wider group of Councillors to include shadow portfolio holders to ensure transparency and cross party confidence. He noted that this process had not be applied in this case. He expressed further concern that that report  was a significant budget variation which had not been properly debated nor did he feel that a sufficient agreement for how to address the resulting budget gap had been reached. He advised that the proposed amendment  asked for a full and transparent cost analysis of the decision, including how the shortfall would be funded and be brought through the Council’s scrutiny function, it was further noted that the December meeting of Scrutiny had been cancelled due to lack of business and argued that this report could have been properly scrutinised at that time.

Councillor Ferguson addressed the Chamber and noted that a proposed amendment to reverse a Cabinet decision to not increase car parking charges would be very brave in the run up to a local election.

In response Councillor Martin addressed the Chamber and noted that car parking was an Executive Function but that Council could add some scrutiny to the debate.

Councillor B Mickelburgh disputed the earlier claims about the lack of transparency on the matter and noted that the budget itself had been fully scrutinised through the democratic cycle earlier in the year and that robust data had been provided to Cabinet by Officers to support the recommendations at hand. He clarified that data was currently been collated to inform the future Parking Strategy and that the Budget for 2026/27 would be considered during the February 2026 cycle of meetings.

Councillor Hunt addressed the Chamber and advised as a point of clarity to the Chamber that the December meetings of both Overview and Scrutiny Panels had been cancelled  in agreement with the Chairs following an unprecedented quantity of additional work and meetings in relation to LGR during November. He noted that there would be additional Overview and Scrutiny meetings incorporated into the diary in January 2026 to maintain the formal levels of scrutiny.

Councillor Wakeford addressed the Chamber and observed that the earlier comments from the Section 151 Officer did not contradict the proposed recommendations of the Executive Councillor and that he would be in support of those recommendations.

Councillor I Taylor enquired whether it would be possible for the report to be seen retrospectively by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Following an enquiry from Councillor Davenport-Ray in relation to the proposed amendment, the Chief Executive advised that should the proposed amendment proceed, the Council would operationally need to reprioritise existing workloads to meet Committee deadlines and that due to the ongoing collection of data to inform the Parking Strategy it would not meet the previously mentioned January 2026 deadline.

Councillor Hodgson-Jones addressed the Chamber and clarified that he felt there was a lack of committed timescales in relation to the proposed recommendation and that the proposed amendment was seeking to bring back discipline over process. He expressed his view that there seemed to be a lack of scrutiny due to a disconnect between the executive and scrutiny functions and not through the Panels themselves.

Councillor M Hassall commented that whilst he was a firm believer in the scrutiny process, he felt that the proposed amendment had bundled many factors together and therefore he could not support it.

Councillor B S Chapman reflected on previous car parking charge increases over the years and particularly noted how they had previously affected the footfall for local businesses. He further noted that rebate schemes in conjunction with local supermarkets had been ongoing over time and that they also be reviewed to ensure a fair deal for all. Councillor Chapman expressed further concern over the deadlines in relation to the forthcoming Parking Strategy, having been noted during the discussion as unrealistic, and expressed his desire that this be dealt with fully and also observed that it may be prudent to work in collaboration with the CPCA who had announced their intention to look at local car parking.

Councillor Gray continued the debate by clarifying he felt that the Chamber were in agreement  that there should not be increases to car parking charges in the district. He expressed dismay that the report had not been through the formal scrutiny process and did not feel that this had been sufficiently addressed during the meeting, further observing that comment had been made to earlier discuss the item in September, however it had not been brought forward until December. Furthermore he enquired about a realistic delivery date for the Parking Strategy, noting that the January 2026 date had been declared unrealistic during the meeting.

Councillor Jennings advised a point of order to withdraw the sentence “and that the strategy by published no later than 28th January 2026.” from the proposed amendment in light of the conversations during the debate. Having been duly proposed and seconded this proposed variation to the amendment and upon being put to the vote, the proposed variation was agreed by the Council.

Councillor Conboy clarified to the Chamber that the report had come through at this time as it was prudent to do so and was not in order to actively avoid scrutiny. In response to a request from Councillor Conboy, the Monitoring Officer addressed the Chamber to confirm that the matter of setting charges for off-street parking was an executive function and was brought to Cabinet at an appropriate time as advised by Officers.

Councillor Martin added that another option open to members to ensure full scrutiny would be to call in the decision however he was mindful that the resulting follow up would fall in between Christmas and New Year however by supporting the proposed amendment, would ensure that the report be seen by the relevant Scrutiny Panel in January 2026. Further to this the Deputy Monitoring Officer clarified the call in procedure to the Council and that this would apply to decisions made by the Executive rather than the Council.

Following the debate and being put to the vote, the amendment was declared to be LOST.

Following which, and it having been duly proposed and seconded, it was

RESOLVED

that the 20p increase as set out in the MTFS should not be implemented and;

that authority be delegated to the Corporate Director (Finance and Resources) and Section 151 Officer in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Finance & Resources to make necessary changes to the Councils finances, including movements from Reserves, to ensure that a balanced MTFS position for 25/26 is maintained.