Members are asked to consider whether they have any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or any other relevant interest in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state the nature of the interest. Members are reminded that they should also declare whether they are subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangements

The Chair welcomed attendees and viewers to the meeting and reminded everyone that the meeting was webcast and retained on the Council’s website.

There were no declarations of interest, and the Chair emphasised that there was no party whip applied to this meeting.

Chair’s opening remarks (5 minutes)

The Chair will open the Committee meeting convened to review the decision referred and set out the procedure as follows:

Explanation of the call in by the lead signatory Cllr Simon Mountney (5 minutes)

The Chair will invite the lead signatory to set out the reasons for the decision review.

Members of the Committee will be invited to ask the lead signatory questions.

Explanation of the call in by the lead signatory Cllr Phil Gilchrist (5 minutes)

The Chair will invite the lead signatory to set out the reasons for the decision review.

Members of the Committee will be invited to ask the lead signatory questions.

Overview and explanation of the decision taken by the relevant Member(s) (10 minutes)

The Chair will invite the decision-making officer or Committee Chair (or nominee) to explain the reasons for the decision. This would normally be most likely the mover and/or seconder of the motion decided upon, but may also be the chair or other committee member

Members of the Committee will be invited to ask the decision-maker questions.

Evidence from Cllr Mountney’s witnesses

The Chair will invite the agreed witnesses to come forward. Witnesses may read out a written statement (not to exceed 5 minutes) if they wish, prior to questions from Members of the Committee.

Evidence from Cllr Gilchrist’s witnesses

The Chair will invite the agreed witnesses to come forward. Witnesses may read out a written statement (not to exceed 5 minutes) if they wish, prior to questions from Members of the Committee.

Evidence from decision-maker’s witnesses

The Chair will invite the agreed witnesses to come forward. Witnesses may read out a written statement if they wish (not to exceed 5 minutes), prior to questions from Members of the Committee.

Summary of the lead signatory Cllr Mountney (5 minutes)

The Chair will invite the lead signatory to summarise the key points of evidence given in support of their case.

Summary of the lead signatory Cllr Gilchrist (5 minutes)

The Chair will invite the lead signatory to summarise the key points of evidence given in support of their case.

Summary of the decision-taker (10 minutes)

The Chair will invite the decision-taker to summarise the key points of evidence given in support of the initial decision.

Committee Discussion

The Chair will invite comments, observations and discussion from members of the Committee. The Chair and Spokespersons can also elect to call witnesses, this is usually for officers.

Committee Decision

The Chair will invite a proposal to be moved that falls under one of the five possible outcomes, together with their reasoning. This may include a short adjournment for the mover and seconder to clarify wording with officers or other committee members. This may then be amended and debated in the normal way.

The Chair talked through the procedure to be followed.

Councillor Simon Mountney introduced the reviewed decision notice on which he was lead signatory. He stated that the Environment, Climate Emergency and Transport Committee had failed to carry out a car parking review and this had led to a poor and wasteful decision. He asked the Committee to look at:

1)  Information on car parking usage which had been lacking and therefore had not been used to come to the decision, and could cause a 30% reduction in footfall.

2)  Displaced parking which was not considered as some areas would be affected more than others.

3)  Lack of discussion on town centre development plans which would heavily influence car parking in some areas, including the fact that some car parks could be removed as part of developments. 

He explained that businesses were in a difficult financial position because of the pandemic and that introducing car parking charges would have a detrimental effect on them.

Councillor Simon Mountney answered Members questions which established:

·  Over 8,500 residents had indicated opposition to the charges, and their views would be presented to a future Council meeting

·  There had been no discussion about carbon footprints of setting up the infrastructure required to implement the decision, and there had been only limited discussion about the cost

·  The budget savings which the Committee were called to find should be achieved both through charges and the review of car parking charges

·  The budget saving was for the 2021/22 budget and the review of car parking was not scheduled to be complete until Autumn 2021

·  The 30% reduction in business footfall was mentioned in the report

·  The Council was in a dire situation but businesses had not changed since the last review in 2017 and their situation had deteriorated since 2017

·  There were ways to achieve more sustainable travel such as electric vehicle use

Councillor Phil Gilchrist then introduced the reviewed decision notice in which he was a lead signatory and presented a slide show focussed on Bromborough village showing how it had changed, the effects on the high street of parking restrictions and nearby free parking. His conclusion was that parking charges would kill the village and would dissuade people from using shops and other services.

Councillor Phil Gilchrist answered Members questions which established:

·  there were approximately 70 staff using car parking places who may choose to park elsewhere in the community.

Councillor Chris Cooke then spoke as a decision maker and stated that the decision to increase chares was to be set in the context of the parking review and the budget emergency. All groups came together to support the budget which included £10.7 million borrowed from central Government if the Council could prove competent to make savings. The Environment, Climate Emergency and Transport Committee was tasked to find £1 million savings from car parking, with any excess income paying for road management, safety and maintenance. He believed that the least well off, through their Council Tax, had been subsiding the better off who had free car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.