Meeting documents

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 car park strategy. With the recent announcement relating to the formation of a new Unitary District Council projects such as this with a long payback period should be stopped.

·       The costs of the project increasing from £9.375m to £13.931m.

·       This project would be a burden on the taxpayer and should not be taken forward with a new unitary being set up.

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.

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

·       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 around driverless cars.

·       Cabinet had not considered alternative design schemes for the car park in enough depth.