Agenda item

The response to the reasons for call-in.

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Rick Jewell, responded to the reasons for the call-in and explained that there were clear reasons for the proposed changes to the controlled parking zone permits charges.  These were to ensure that all operating costs were fully recovered with no costs to the Council to administer the scheme and that other residents, who did not require a parking permit, did not subsidise the scheme.  The scheme continued to contribute to the Council’s wider transport objectives.  There had not been a review of the scheme in recent years.  However, whilst the Administration fully understood the current cost of living crisis there was the necessity, due to the both the Council’s and the wider current economic situation, a careful and thorough review of all budget areas had been undertaken.  Costs had been stripped down to the bare essentials to enable the Council to deliver on budget.  Cost recovery on all items was necessary.  Revenue from the car parking was not ring fenced from other areas of the budget, which was extremely complex with overlapping in some areas. 

Officers advised that the proposals were designed to support the Council’s objectives to encourage active and sustainable transport in the light of a developing policy framework locally and Pan London.  The Council remained a highways and transport authority to manage the road network.  The charges would also better manage existing kerbside space.

Officers reiterated that a consultation had been carried out between December 2020 and February 2021 which had generated 890 responses.  As a direct result of the consultation, where Officers had paused, reflected, and carried out further research, a number of the proposals were subsequently amended. These included the link between permit price and engine size was retained (rather than being linked to emissions).

As a larger engine size would generally equate to a larger vehicle, the connection between the price of the permit and the amount of kerb-side space occupied was also retained.  The proposal to limit the number of permits per household had not been implemented.  The 25% uplift in price applies to individuals rather than households that want more than one permit.

The consultation results had been fully considered and had helped to shape the proposals set out in the report and one recommendation, and as a result of the consultation exercise, had been to retain the current between permit price and engine size.

Officers reassured Members that a great deal of thought had been given to the impact the proposed changes would have on people who share one of the different nine protected characteristics.  The Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) had been completed fairly with knowledgeable colleagues across the Council.  Where it had been recognised that where there would be some impact on particular groups, such as large, multi-generational households of certain ethnic groups, the original proposal to limit the number of permits per household was not being taken forward at this stage to enable further investigation to determine whether this would disadvantage large, multi-generational households.  Members noted that many minority ethnic groups had greater proportions of multigenerational households. 

Members expressed dissatisfaction that the basis of the proposal and decision had been based on the estimated financial implications and not actual number of permits sold and income generated. 

Officers advised that the figures contained in the forward-looking report had been taken as a base without the costs and income from actual permit sales as there were a number of variables. In the year 2021/22, 8,200 resident permits had been issued which had generated a revenue income of £390k, which was used to cover the costs of the scheme, such as contractor costs, visitor scratch cards and Officer time.  Revenue from Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued in relation to the quieter neighbourhood schemes was used to for concessionary travel passes and any residual revenue funded other highway expenditure.  Any funding shortfall in revenue in previous years had been funded from the operation.  It was not the Council’s intention to make a surplus on the revenue. 

Responding to a question from a Member, Officers explained that it was difficult to compare Enfield’s CPZ scheme with other London Boroughs on a like for like basis as each one differed in, characteristics, circumstances and services offered, which was reflected in the prices charged.  Enfield had 15% CPZ, others had significantly more, such as Islington, where all areas were covered with the CPZ schemes, all permits incurred a charge.

Members requested that:

                        i.         Members be advised of the outcome of the carers permits review, once undertaken. 

                       ii.         Once completed, the list of comparator figures for permits issued in other London Boroughs be shared with the Committee Members.

                     iii.         Information on the differentials of the figures contained in the Officer’s report was requested.

                     iv.         The Committee be updated on the outcome of Section 4 – Monitoring and Review (page 45 of the Equality Impact Assessment) and Section 5 – Action Plan for Mitigating Actions (page 46).                                                         ACTION

In summary, the Cabinet Member and Officers acknowledged that there was never a good time to increase fees and charges however it was necessary to ensure the cost of the scheme was fully recovered.  The result of consultation with residents had shaped the proposed recommendations and the EQiA had recognised that, although there would be an impact in some areas these would not be huge and had been taken into account in the final recommendations.  The prices of permits had not changed frequently however, due to the current unprecedented times. It was now necessary and essential to do so to enable the Council to focus on the most vulnerable residents in the Borough and children’s services.

The Call-In Lead, Councillor Alessandro Georgiou summarised the points made during the discussion.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the reasons provided for the call-in and responses set out in the Officer’s report.  Having considered the verbal responses and information presented by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Officers, the Committee AGREED to confirm the original decision made by the Cabinet Member for Environment.

The Director of Environment and Operational Services thanked the Committee for the constructive feedback regarding the quality of the information provided by Officers, which would be taken on board and be used to reflect and improve information in future reports to provide back to the Committee.

With the agreement of the Committee, at 20:07 the meeting was adjourned for seven minutes.