Agenda and minutes

Attendees were welcomed to the meeting.

Apologies for absesence were received from Councillor Katherine Chibah, and Tony Murphy. It was noted that Councillor Claire Stewart was substituting for Councillor Katherine Chibah and Councillor Terence Neville was substituting for Councillor Joanne Laban as she was leading on the Call-in item.

The Chair then outlined how the meeting was to proceed. The meeting would focus on the Call-in – ‘Results of The Proposal to Changes Resident Permits Tariffs’ and would take questions on this item, in relation to the ‘Reasons for Call-in’.

The Chair also reminded members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that they need to be fully committed to ensuring that scrutiny works in Enfield by being impartial and leaving party politics out of the scrutiny process.

Officers were asked to arrange a development session for all the members of OSC and those interested in the Scrutiny process. It hoped that the session will consider the GLA workbook and the role of Councillors at Scrutiny.

Members of the Council are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were received.

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services outlining a Call-In received for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny on the following reason: (Report No:59).

Portfolio Decision by Cabinet Member for Environment (12 July 2016): Results of the proposals to changes resident permits tariffs.

Decision included on Publication of Decision List No:14/16-17 Non-Key Decision (List Ref:4/14/16-17) issued on Tuesday 12 July 2016.

It is proposed that consideration of the Call-In be structured as follows:

·         Brief outline of reason for Call-In by representative(s) of the Members who have called in the decision.

·         Response to the reasons provided for the Call-In by the Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agreement on action to be taken.

The Chair invited Councillor Laban to outline the reasons for the Call-in, - ‘The majority of respondents disagreed when asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the Council’s proposals to change from a CO2 emissions based scheme to one in which permits are based on engine size.’

Councillor Laban stated:

·         The changes to the residents permit tariffs according to paragraph 3.6 of the report were subject to consultations. Despite the consultation, the views of the residents had not been taken into consideration.

·         The NSL contract for parking enforcement had been extended by one year. The cost of the new contract was an increase on the price last year. There was no work done to look into the savings which could have been made by looking for a new provider for parking enforcement in the borough. Had this been looked into the options for the consultation may have been different, or there may have been no need for the consultation at all.

·         Paragraph 4.6, Chart 1 shows that the majority of the residents disagreed with the proposals to change from a CO2 emissions based scheme to one based on engine size.

·         Could the changes to the tariffs not have waited until a new contract for parking enforcement in the borough has been developed as the current suggested savings do not have the support of the residents?

Councillor Laban requested that the decision be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Environment for reconsideration.

The Chair invited Councillor Anderson to respond, as follows:

·         The decision to extend the NSL contract could have been Called-in when the decision was made in July so the extension of the contract should not be discussed at this Call-in.

·         Changes to the tariffs for permits would be needed even if this particular model was not chosen; there would have been a price increase regardless.

·         Paragraph 3.3 refers to the cost of enforcement and administration has increased by 42% whilst the income from tariffs has only increase 20%, creating a deficit.

·         Less than 4% of permit holders have cars that are considered CO2 efficient which shows the current scheme which benefits those with low CO2 emissions has not encouraged people to switch to less polluting cars.

·         The current scheme which benefits those with lower CO2 emissions benefits those who can afford a new car and discriminates against those who can’t.

·         Any formula used to work out the costs of residents parking tariffs must be fair, easy to use and understand.

·         Other options were considered such as length of car and value of car although these would be hard to monitor and assess.

·         The system chosen was reasonable, fair to all and balanced.

The following questions and comments were then taken from Members of the Committee:

Councillor Keazor asked what is the purpose of a consultation if the decision goes against what the residents wanted? She wanted to know whether resident’s views should have been taken into account.

Councillor Anderson answered that the consultation was more about hearing people’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

No issues were raised during any other business.

To note the dates for future meetings as being:

Potential Call-Ins:

Wednesday 24 August 2016

Please note that the next Overview & Scrutiny Committee business meeting is to be held at 7.30pm on Thursday 8 September 2016.

The item for the 8^th September 2016 meeting on the Budget Review will now be moved to 11^th October 2016 which is already set aside for a Call-in. The meeting on the 8^th September will still go ahead.

To consider, if necessary, passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 excluding the press and public from the meeting for the item of business listed in Part 2 of the agenda on the grounds that it will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs of Part 1 Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006), as are listed on the agenda (Please note there is no Part 2 agenda).