Report to follow

The Committee considered a report of the Members of the Scrutiny Review Panel. Members were requested to consider the contents of the report alongside the outcome of the Future Council Public Consultation and were asked to refer any comments or recommendations to Cabinet. An appendix to the report contained the scoping document.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Panel was Councillor Mike Sullivan. Scrutiny Panel Members were: Councillor John Hale (for scoping meeting only), Councillor Dave Mitchell (for scoping meeting and session 1 covering school crossing patrols and public conveniences), Councillor Alan Brighouse (for session 2 covering car parking, preventative maintenance and roadside grit bins). Lead officers for the service areas were invited to each of the sessions to allow Members to question each of the proposals, including the impacts and mitigation.

At the scoping meeting for this review, six budget options out of the eleven that fell under the remit of the committee were prioritised for further scrutiny, including:

1.  Preventative Maintenance ( Parks and Highways)

2.  School Crossing Patrols

3.  Car Parking- Countryside Parks

4.  Car Parking – Fort Perch Rock

5.  Public Conveniences

6.  Roadside Grit Bins.

The above options were selected in recognition of the level of savings proposed, the public interest they would generate and initial consideration of their impact if implemented. The remaining five budget options not examined in detail as part of this review were:

1.  Commemorations, Registrations and Memorials

2.  Charging for Allotments, Bowling Greens and Football Pitches

3.  Cold Calling Zones

4.  Pest Control

5.  Litter and Dog Fouling Enforcement.

The Chair invited the Committee to ask any questions, make any comments or suggest any further recommendations to Cabinet. Members noted that the value of the budget options was in excess of the savings required.

It was agreed that in light of the officers’ comments upon the following Regeneration and Environment budget options, the individual views expressed by Members should be referred to the Cabinet for consideration.

Public Conveniences

Members raised some concerns regarding the strong feeling against the ratification of this option with regards to: the impact on local business and inconvenience for members of the public, specifically in coastal areas where there are no alternative provisions available.

Members enquired about alternative arrangements and the possibility of external providers servicing the public conveniences as a means to mitigate the impact of this option. It was reported that some discussions had been had, but a full investigation had not been undertaken at this stage. 

It was then proposed, on a motion by Councillor Ellis and seconded by Councillor Hale:

“That the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee ask Cabinet to delay the decision on the closing of 10 public conveniences until Officers have reported upon what alternative arrangements can be identified for each of the 10 locations.”

Councillor Leech then moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Hodson

‘”That where alternative providers have been identified the Committee will proceed and endorse the recommendations made by the Review Panel .Where other options have not been sought, Councillors will still require a report on alternative options.”

Resolved (14:0) : That the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee ask Cabinet to delay the decision on the closing of 10 public conveniences until Officers have reported upon what alternative arrangements can be made in each of the 10 locations. Where alternative providers have been identified the Committee will proceed and endorse the recommendations made by the Review Panel. Where other options have not been sought, Councillors will still require a report on alternative options.

School Crossing Patrols

No comments were made.

Car Parking Country Parks

A Member enquired as to whether a displacement traffic study had been undertaken to asses impact in the wider area. Members heard that at this time no such study had been undertaken.

On a motion by Councillor Carubia and seconded by Councillor Hodson it was proposed that

“The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the adoption of the Car Parking Country Parks option be deferred until a traffic displacement study around the affected areas has been completed.”

The motion was put and lost (6:8)

Car Parking – Fort Perch Rock

Concerns were raised by members regarding the impact on the local area if this option were to be agreed by Cabinet. Particular concerns were regarding: residents parking, potential flooding to the area and cost of maintenance.

On a motion by Councillor Jerry Williams and seconded by Councillor Gregson it was proposed that:

“The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the budget option to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock Car Park, New Brighton is not adopted.”

Resolved (12:2) That:

The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the budget option to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock Car Park, New Brighton is not adopted.”

Preventative Maintenance (Parks and Highways)

No comments were made.

Roadside Grit Bins

No comments were made.

Resolved –

(1)  That the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee ask Cabinet to delay the decision on the closing of 10 public conveniences until Officers have reported upon what alternative arrangements can be made in each of the 10 locations. Where alternative providers have been identified the Committee will proceed and endorse the recommendations made by the Review Panel. Where other options have not been sought, Councillors will still require a report on alternative options.

(2)  The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the budget option to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock Car Park, New Brighton is not adopted.

(3)  That the Scrutiny Review be referred to the Cabinet for consideration of the recommendations alongside the views expressed by Members to each of the Budget Options.