Agenda item

This report informs Budget Panel of the proposal for fees and charges in 2014/15.

The Panel received a report of the Senior Accountant which included the proposed fees and charges for 2014/15 for the various services by the Council.

Following a question from Councillor Turmaine about an impact assessment being carried out, Councillor D Scudder, Portfolio Holder for Corporate Strategy and Client Services, informed the Panel that an impact assessment was not completed every year.  The fees and charges report was part of the annual process in the preparation of the budget for the following year. 

In response to a question from Councillor Turmaine about Meriden Community Centre, the Portfolio Holder advised that all community centres were managed by external groups and were subject to Service Level Agreements.

Parking Services

Members noted the officers’ proposals to increase the permit charges for the first and second permits.  The Chair commented that at the last meeting the Panel had had a thorough discussion on this matter and it had been agreed that the Panel was unable to make any suggestions to Cabinet regarding an increase.  The Chair asked whether this report was being presented to Cabinet on 2 December.

The Head of Regeneration and Development advised that, in December, officers would be presenting a report on the results of the recent parking survey.  The fees and charges report would not be presented.  She explained that all Heads of Service were tasked with reviewing the fees and charges every year.  It had been decided that the parking permit charges should be increased annually.  The proposal was to increase the first permit from £22 to £25 and the second permit from £52 to £55.  She did not consider it useful to take note of the percentage increase.  As the permit charge was relatively low, the percentage increase gave a skewed reflection of the actual increase which was £3.

Councillor Derbyshire stated that he disagreed with the proposal, however a modest increase would be more acceptable.  He felt that the percentage increase was relevant, as people would be aware that the proposal was substantially in excess of current inflation.  He questioned whether the increase was necessary.  He referred to the publicly available Annual Parking Enforcement report for 2012/13.  The account should be self-funding and at no expense to the taxpayer.  He stated that it was important that officers took into account the management fees from Three Rivers District Council and Dacorum Borough Council.

Councillor Derbyshire then referred to the report and appendices presented at the previous meeting.  He said that the report had stated that there would be a carry forward of £297,000.  The documents had also included a list of proposed schemes for 2014/15 which meant that there would be approximately £100,000 in the parking reserve account.  He acknowledged that the account should be ‘topped up’, but not by the amount suggested by officers.  A modest increase would be reasonable and should be limited to 5%.  He suggested that the first permit should be increased by £1 and the second permit increased as proposed in the report.

The Shared Director of Finance informed the Panel that additional paperwork circulated at the meeting clearly showed that parking reserve account would be depleted by the middle of 2014/15.  She stated that the Panel had previously agreed that the service should not be funded by taxpayers.  It would be necessary either to reduce the number of schemes on the list circulated at the last meeting or to increase charges.  At the last meeting Budget Panel had opted not to make any suggestions.

The Head of Regeneration and Development explained how much income would be raised by the charges proposed in the report. 

Following a question from Councillor Taylor regarding comparisons with neighbouring authorities, the Head of Regeneration and Development advised that Three Rivers District Council charged £50 for the first permit and £100 for the second.

Councillor Greenslade questioned whether it would be possible to increase the car parking charges.  The Head of Regeneration and Development responded on street parking charges were paid into the parking account, however, any increase might deter people and then there would be an impact on local shops in those areas.  The minimal income from the Council-owned car parks was added to the General Fund.  She explained that the parking account included on-street charges, for example near shops, and penalty charges which were set nationally.  Following a further question from Councillor Greenslade she confirmed that the cost of the permits did not cover the cost of the Controlled Parking Zones. 

Councillor Martins commented that he wanted to support Councillor Derbyshire’s suggestion.  He did not know how much income would be generated from the proposed schemes, therefore he did not feel he was in a position to consider whether the charges should be increased as much as officers had proposed.  He added that he would prefer to see smaller increases on a regular basis.

The Head of Regeneration and Development informed the Panel that there were a wide range of schemes.  She outlined some examples of schemes including how much they would cost.  In some cases there would be very little or no income generated.  She advised that the CPZ-wide survey had cost a significant amount but there would be no income generated from it.  In some cases, for example the introduction of a new scheme in St Albans Road, any income would need to be balanced against the increased cost of enforcement. 

Councillor Martins said that schemes had always had to be enforced.  In the past schemes had generated a surplus and he questioned why this would not happen in the future.

The Head of Regeneration and Development explained that when new schemes were put in place they generated a surplus due to the number of penalty notices issued.  Once people became familiar with the control, the penalty notice income reduced.  As a result of the survey some areas wanted the enforcement hours extended.  This would not generate additional funds but would cost more to enforce. 

Following the Chair’s questions about the cost of yellow lines and which account paid for these to be installed, the Head of Regeneration and Development advised that the Parking account covered all parking controls across the Borough, not just CPZ areas.  The biggest source of income was Penalty Charge Notices, which were issued across the whole Borough.  She said that it was wrong to call it the CPZ account. 

Councillor Turmaine asked whether it would be possible to make a decision at the next meeting to enable Members to consider the information from the previous meeting, owing to Members uncertainty of the figures and the contradictory reports presented at that meeting.  The Shared Director of Finance advised that the next meeting would be in January. 

Councillor Derbyshire commented that the Panel would be reviewing the budget report in January, including the fees and charges.  The Panel could make its recommendation either now or at the next meeting.

Councillor Meerabux, a non-Panel Member, was invited to speak.  He said that he agreed with Councillor Derbyshire’s comments and Members needed to be in touch with people.  He had been under the impression that each scheme should be self-financing.  It appeared that some areas made a loss and others made a profit.

Councillor Derbyshire proposed the following –

“that Budget Panel recommends to Cabinet that the increase in the cost of the single permit for those living in CPZ areas should be limited to £1, an increase of 4.56%, from £22 to £23.  The second permit as proposed in the officers’ report.”

On being put to the Panel the proposal was AGREED.

RESOLVED –

that Budget Panel recommends to Cabinet that the increase in the cost of the single permit for those living in CPZ areas should be limited to £1, an increase of 4.56%, from £22 to £23.  The second permit as proposed in the officers’ report.