Meeting documents

There were no declarations of interest. Concern was raised by a Member who had called-in the decision that some of the Members who were on the Scrutiny Committee should declare an interest as Members of the Planning Committee that considered the planning application relating to this proposed development. A similar concern was raised in the case of one of the Scrutiny Committee Members who had previously been a Portfolio Holder responsible for the project. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services clarified that under the code of conduct Members of the Planning Committee did not have an interest to declare as only the decision made by the Cabinet on 17 October 2018 was being considered by the Committee, not the Planning Committee’s decision. The Member who had previously been the Portfolio Holder for Resources did not have an interest to declare as he was not a member of Cabinet at the time of making the decision under consideration by the Committee.

The Chairman will explain how this Special Meeting will be conducted

The Chairman and the Director of Resources outlined the procedure for the call-in process. First, those Members who had called-in the decision would be invited to address the Committee and Committee Members would be invited to question those Members. Secondly, the Leader, on behalf of the Resources Portfolio Holder would present the response to the call-in questions. The Scrutiny Committee Members would then be invited to question the Leader on his responses.

The Director of Resources informed the Committee that they then would be invited to consider which of these recommendations they wished to agree, either to:-

a.      Over-rule the call-in and  allow the Cabinet’s decision relating to Station Road Car Park in Gerrards Cross to stand and for implementation to proceed; or

b.     remit the matter back to Cabinet for reconsideration at the next appropriate meeting with an explanation of the Committee’s concerns and any specific considerations that need to be taken into account on re-consideration.

A valid call in request was received from six Members on 25 October 2018 under Part B, Section D4 of the Constitution. The reasons for the call-in request are outlined in the attached report

The Committee will consider the submission from the District Councillors who called in the decision, followed by an opportunity for the Committee to ask any questions and clarify any issues with District Councillors requesting the call-in.

Members received a report with the agenda for the meeting containing details of the call-in to the Committee of the Cabinet’s decision on 17 October 2018 in respect of Station Road Car Park together with the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny procedure rules.

The Committee considered the submission from the District Councillors who called in the decision. The following Members were invited to explain the grounds for the call-in request; Councillors Chhokar, Dhillon, Harding, Hollis, Reed and Sandy.

Point One

Concerns regarding the business case which were discussed recently at the Resources Policy Advisory Group on 25 September 2018. Two Members at this meeting expressed concern over the assumptions of usage of the expanded car park, and consequently whether this scheme was a good use of taxpayer’s money.

Members who requested the call-in made the following additional comments:-

·       The business case was flawed and there would be a significant deficit from the implementation of the car park, which would be a large risk to the Council.

·       Future technology, such as driverless cars and a reduction in car ownership should be taken into account.

·       The Council did not have a car park strategy and reference was made to past discussions at the Resources PAG (June 2017) and the Environment PAG in November 2017.

·       The payback period for the project was too long and would not be acceptable to a commercial developer. Concern was expressed about the figures used for the business case and the assumptions that have been made about car park occupancy so that the surplus over 40 years would be very small and very sensitive to the assumptions being used. Increments in car park charges of 4% per annum were above inflation forecasts and it could not be assumed that motorists would be prepared to pay this. A more detailed sensitivity analysis was required to see the impact of lower occupancy rates and lower income increases.

·       Concern was expressed regarding a conflict of interest with the planning consultants who undertook the work on the business case as they were under the same commissioning framework as the construction company.

·       A photograph of the car park was tabled showing car park usage on a week day, but it did not specify the date or time on the photograph.

Point Two – Communication and consultation with local residents

Members who requested the call-in made the following additional comment:-

·       Concern was expressed about the process of consultation with local residents, which had just been information sharing and that the Portfolio Holder for Resources had not taken into account their concerns.

Point Three

Concerns regarding the amount of money being borrowed for the Project and the risks associated with this, should be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, particularly bearing in mind the possibility of Local Government re-organisation.

Members who requested the call-in made the following additional comments:-

·       This project was high cost/high risk with a low return and its size and location had not been considered properly, as there was no overall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

The Leader of the Cabinet, Cllr Naylor will attend the meeting to explain the reasons behind the Cabinet’s decision as set out in the Cabinet Decision Notice dated 18 October 2018 and to respond to the call-in request in relation to Station Road Car Park, Gerrards Cross. Following this there will be an opportunity for the Committee to ask questions and clarify any issues.

The Leader was then asked to respond to the four call-in points put forward by Members.

Point 1

Concerns regarding the business case which were discussed recently at the Resources Policy Advisory Group on 25 September 2018. Two Members at this meeting expressed concern over the assumptions of usage and consequently whether this scheme was a good use of taxpayer’s money.

The Leader responded as follows:-

When the Resources PAG considered the Gerrards Cross Car Park Business Case report on 25 September 2018 concern was raised that the car park take up assumptions were too optimistic i.e. building up to 85% occupancy by year 3.

He referred to the financial business case which was at Appendix 2B of the agenda.  The key point was that the predicted demand from the parking studies for Gerrards Cross was greater than what this car park would deliver; therefore it was not unreasonable to assume it would have a high level of usage within a reasonable short time frame as there would still be an element of unmet demand.

Questions were asked by the Committee to the Leader of the Council and the following points were noted from his responses:-

·       The initial costs went up once the final design in the planning application had been agreed, and also the revised timetable for the project which included a year’s delay in construction, which led to cost increases.

·       The return on the investment of £1.2 million would be realised over a 40 year period and at the end of this period the Council would still own the asset and the land.

·       There were other examples of business cases for similar, publicly led projects over a 40 year timeframe for this type of project.

Following questions by Councillors Bastiman and Bezzant it was agreed that a written response would be sent out to Members with regard to the following question:-

What will happen with the asset after 40 years and what is the benchmark for Government borrowing for that term?

Point Two - Communications and consultation with local residents.

The Leader responded as follows:-

Two information events were held 31st October 2016 and 21 May 2018.  Both were well represented by the Project team and also well attended by members of the local community. A representative from the Architects Broadway Maylan and Planning consultants Peter Brett associates attended; this included the Client Project Manager and Balfour Beatty who were all there to answer questions for visitors.  Officers and Members also attended.  The public were notified by leaflets to commercial and residential occupiers in Station Road and posters were positioned around the car park and via information on social media and the Council’s website.  Local businesses were contacted and meetings were held with BP Collins, Tesco stores and Waitrose and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Having considered the valid call-in request and written and verbal submissions heard during the meeting the Committee will consider the recommendations set out in the report.

Having considered the call in request and response Members were then asked to consider the recommendations set out in the report and were asked to vote on each point of the call-in request in turn, whether they wished the call-in point to be overruled or to refer the matter back to Cabinet.

Point One

Concerns regarding the business case which were discussed recently at the Resources Policy Advisory Group on 25 September 2018. Two Members at this meeting expressed concern over the assumptions of usage and consequently whether this scheme was a good use of taxpayer’s money.

Committee Members made the following comments:-

·       Councils provided a public service and needed to charge reasonable prices for car parking, not to make excessive profits.

·       The new car park was being proposed because a demand for additional parking had been established by a number of surveys. Future building in Gerrards Cross would create additional demand for parking and parking was important for a thriving local economy.

·       This project was a good use of taxpayers money.

Councillor Kelly proposed that the call-in be overruled on this point which was seconded by Councillor Egleton and following a vote it was resolved that the call-in be overruled for point one.

Point Two - Communications and consultation with local residents

Committee Members commented as well as the statutory consultation as part of the planning application process, communication and consultation had been undertaken on two occasions, involving the Town Council. Whilst Members appreciated that some residents had not felt involved in the process there were no rules which set out how the consultation should be conducted.

Councillor Bezzant proposed that the call-in be overruled on this point which was seconded by Councillor Kelly and following a vote it was resolved that the call-in be overruled for point two.

Point Three

Concerns regarding the amount of money being borrowed for the Project and the risks associated with this, should be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, particularly bearing in mind the possibility of Local Government reorganisation.

Committee Members were satisfied that the business case and risks had been fully considered by Cabinet, including the sensitivity analysis.

Councillor Bezzant proposed that the call-in be overruled on this point which was seconded by Councillor Kelly and following a vote it was resolved that the call-in be overruled for point three.

Point Four

Concerns that the full details of alternative schemes and options have not been fully considered by Members and the reasons for rejecting them e.g. a mixed use scheme would be more appropriate for the locality and proportionate to the actual likely demand for car parking, which could reduce in the future due to new technology.

Committee Members considered that a number of alternative options had been discussed and the consultant’s report had demonstrated a need for additional car parking, however the other options presented would not meet that need as well as the proposed solution and therefore this proposal should be taken forward as the preferred option.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.