Proposed amendments added 22.2.22

The Leader introduced the report which set out the proposed fees and charges for 2022/23.  He advised that the report had been considered by Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee and whilst Cabinet had considered the recommendations put forward by the Scrutiny Committee, there was not enough grounds to support them.  He proposed the recommendations in the report which were seconded by Councillor Angela Harrison who reserved her right to speak.

The Mayor advised that two amendments had been received.  These had been circulated to Members and published on the Council’s website and, in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.3 included information from the Section 151 Officer on the impact of implementing the amendments.

Amendment 1

Councillor Oliver Eakin proposed, and Councillor Mike Dendor seconded that:

“To help town centre traders, this Council proposes to freeze car parking charges at the current rate for the 2022/23 financial year. This should be funded using the council reserves.”

Councillor Eakin highlighted the difficulties that High Street traders had suffered in recent years and said the Council should be encouraging people into the town centre.  He said public transport was not a viable option in some parts of the Borough and many were reliant on their cars.

The Mayor read out the response from the Section 151 Officer.

Members debated the amendment and made points including:

·                There was no evidence that lower parking charges increased footfall;

·                why had some Swale Borough Councillors (SBC) who were also Kent County Councillors (KCC) not supported the use of reserves by KCC when bus services were recently cut?;

·                the amendment should have been raised at Scrutiny Committee;

·                the proposal encouraged drivers but did not necessarily benefit traders;

·                highlighted unbalanced increases in parking charges in different areas of the Borough;

·                town centres needed revitalising and freezing parking charges would encourage shoppers;

·                as change was not given from parking machines, the realistic costs to the consumer were higher that the increases shown;

·                it was a one-off for one year;

·                SBC had some of the lowest car parking fees in the County;

·                the cost of maintaining car parks was increasing and costs had to be met;

·                the percentage increase in real terms was very small;

·                could not keep freezing car parking fees;

·                non-drivers should not have to supplement car drivers;

·                could support traders in other ways;

·                town centres were changing;

·                Members should use their own High Street shops; and

·                free parking was given during lockdown.

A Member raised concern over the use of emotive language during the debate and asked Members to consider this when speaking.

Councillor Dendor, who had reserved his right to speak reminded Members that freezing parking fees would result in a reduced income, but this was not a cost to the Council. 

In response, the Leader warned of future difficulties in the budget should the proposal be supported. He said that it would be carried forward in future years resulting in a shortfall and it would be irresponsible to use all the reserves.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

For:    Councillors Beart, Bowen, Darby, Dendor, Eakin, Fowle, A Hampshire, N Hampshire, Horton, Hunt, MacDonald, Marchington, McCall, Neal, Nissanga, Simmons, Tatton, Whiting. Total = 18.

Against:  Councillors Baldock, Bonney, S Clark, Davey, Henderson, Gibson, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Knights, Ben J Martin, Palmer, Perkin, Rowles, Saunders, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thomas, Truelove, Valentine, Whelan, Winckless and Woodford. Total = 23.

Abstain:  0.

Amendment 2.

Councillor David Simmons proposed and Councillor Cameron Beart seconded:

“That the fee for replacement bins is removed from the schedule of fees and charges 2022/23.  Any shortfall of expected additional income to come from reserves in 2022/23”.

Councillor Simmons said it was the wrong time to bring in a new charge when the waste contract would be renewed in 2023.  He reminded Members that the charge did not relate to new housing as developers funded the cost of a new bin but the proposed fee to replace bins would raise £85k pa and a bin remained the property of SBC. He said that more investigation into why bins went missing was necessary.

The Mayor read out the response from the Section 151 Officer.

Members debated the amendment and made comments including:

·                Why would £85k be raised in the first year but £200k the following year?;

·                not against charging but the fee proposal was premature;

·                more investigation was needed on fraudulent claims for replacement bins;

·                the figures should refer to increase in percentage terms for replacements as housing increased, more replacement bins would be requested;

·                gave examples of bins damaged by Biffa not reported by them;

·                should look at issues this year then introduce the charge next year;

·                should monitor where bins were lost;

·                some properties had to leave bins at the front of their house and were more likely to go missing;

·                was better to introduce this year so that terms for the waste contractor damaging bins could be added to the new contract;

·                the fee would encourage bins to be looked after;

·                there was CCTV on bins to check for damage caused by refuse trucks; and

·                relying on CCTV of contractor was not impartial.

The Cabinet Member for Environment explained that SBC could not keep relying on reserves, which could be spent elsewhere. He said charging for a replacement was an incentive to look after a bin and the costs of collection were rising and economic efficiencies were required now.  He added that SBC fees for replacement bins were at the lower end compared to many other Councils.

Councillor Beart, who had reserved his right, said that more investigation work was needed before reconsidering the charge next year.  He said the reserves were residents’ money and should be used for their benefit.

In response, the Leader said accepting the amendment would have a serious economic financial impact as £200k was the real costs, as the reserve fund for bins would be exhausted.  He reminded Members that other authorities in Kent charged, mostly at a higher rate.  Finally, the Leader said he was confident that the issue over lost and damaged bins would be addressed.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

For:    Councillors Beart, Bowen, Dendor, Eakin, Fowle, A Hampshire, N Hampshire, Horton, Hunt, Knights, MacDonald, Marchington, Neal, Simmons, Whiting. Total = 15.

Against:  Councillors Baldock, Bonney, S Clark, Darby, Davey, Henderson, Gibson, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Ben J Martin, McCall, Nissanga, Palmer, Perkin, Rowles, Saunders, P Stephen, S Stephen, Tatton, Thomas, Truelove, Valentine, Whelan, Winckless and Woodford. Total = 26.

Abstain:  0.

After discussing the amendments, Members voted on the substantive motion.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

For: Baldock, Bonney, S Clark, Davey, Henderson, Gibson, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Knights, Ben J Martin, McCall, Palmer, Perkin, Rowles, Saunders, P Stephen, S Stephen, Tatton, Thomas, Truelove, Valentine, Whelan, Winckless, Woodford. Total equals 25.

Against: Beart, Darby, Dendor, Eakin, Fowle, A Hampshire, N Hampshire, Horton, Neal, Nissanga, Simmons, Whiting. Total equals 12.

Abstain: Bowen, Hunt, MacDonald, Marchington. Total equals 4.

Resolved:

(1)  That the proposed fees and charges 2022/23 as set out in the report be agreed.

(2)  That delegated authority be given to the Head of Housing and Community Services in consultation with the Director of Resources and the Cabinet Member for Community to amend the fees and charges as a result of the review of the charges in 2021/22.