August 2019

Venue: Committee Rooms CDE, Merton Civic Centre, London Road, Morden, SM4 5DX Items No. Item. 1. Apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Joan Henry (substituted by Councillor David Chung) and from the three co-opted members - Helen Forbes, Emma Lemon and Colin Powell. 2. Declarations of pecuniary interest Minutes: There were no declarations of pecuniary interest 3. Call-in of "public health, air quality and sustainable transport - a strategic approach to parking charges" Minutes: The Chair reminded all present that the purpose of the call-in was to determine whether Cabinet’s decision on 15 July was flawed in relation to the council’s principles of decision making and, if so, to demonstrate where it fell short. The Chair also said that as this decision had been the subject of extensive pre-decision scrutiny by the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel, the Commission should focus its attention on new information. He explained that the Commission would take each of the two call-in requests in turn, starting with the one that had been received first. Liberal Democrat Call-In Request The Chair invited Councillor Anthony Fairclough to speak as a signatory to the call-in request. Councillor Fairclough said that he believed that Cabinet’s decision had been flawed in relation to two of the principles of decision making - respect for human rights and equalities ; and clarity of aims and desired outcomes. In relation to human rights and equalities, Councillor Fairclough said that the council had failed to actively engage with organisations representing the affected groups that had been identified on the equality impact assessment, in particular in relation to measures to mitigate any potential negative impact. He said that this was clearly a requirement of the equality analysis process as set out in stage 8 of the equality analysis flowchart. In relation to clarity of aims and desired outcomes, Councillor Fairclough said that the claim that increased parking charges will lead to an improvement in air quality can’t be assessed, that the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel had asked for further evidence and although some has been provided, it does not support the contention increased charges will result in a reduction in car ownership. He said that the proposals lacked information on how such an impact would be assessed and, without this, the proposal looked like a revenue raising measure. In response to questions from members, Councillor Fairclough made some additional points: the Canadian Parking Association study cited in the Cabinet report found that in Amsterdam, residents were prepared to pay a considerable premium for housing with a parking space, implying that a large increase in parking charges would be required in order to have the desired impact. the council should look at a range of alternative measures suggested in the responses to the consultation. the council’s equality assessment process requires officers to consult on proposals, assess potential negative impact, identify mitigation and to review in consultation with stakeholders. Three versions of the equality impact assessment were produced and revisions were made in the absence of input from affected groups. Failure to follow that process is a breach of the decision making principle on human rights and equalities. Cabinet Member response The Chair asked the Cabinet Members and Director to respond to the points made by Councillor Fairclough. The Director of Environment and Regeneration, Chris Lee, assured the Commission that the public sector equality duty to pay due regard to the impact that policy changes might have on people with protected characteristics had been met and that the council’s Equalities and Community Cohesion Officer had been closely involved and was entirely satisfied that the council had complied with this statutory duty and with the council’s guidance. He said that the affected organisations had been written to and had also been invited to attend this meeting but had not responded. Chris Lee said that a positive impact had been identified for all groups and that mitigation had been identified for potential negative impact, including the blue badge scheme and carers parking permits. He said that this would be kept under review, that impact would be monitored and further mitigation taken if required. Chris Lee then addressed the points on the policy approach. He said that as Merton was at the forefront in developing this approach and that although there were no current direct comparative examples, the impact of car parking pricing and congestion charging zones shows that such measures are successful. The intention was to act in the public interest with the limited levers that were at the council’s disposal. He believed this was a reasonable measure to try to nudge behaviour to reduce car ownership over time and thereby improve air quality. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Health and the Environment, added that the purpose was not just to improve air quality but also to promote a more active lifestyle and create healthier places. The air quality action plan contains a range of complementary measures including the introduction of a clean air zone in the borough. He said that these were complex issues and it was difficult to disentangle the impact of multiple policy measures which is why the council is proposing to measure the impact of the parking charges approach through the number of permits issued. In response to questions about the equality analysis process, the Cabinet Members and Director said that the council had gone above and beyond the public sector equality duty. The proposed changes had been the subject of public debate for some time and there has been no response from organisations representing affected groups. The response to the equality impact assessment was proportionate as there is minimal impact on affected groups and the cost increase is marginal in comparison to the cost of owning a car. The Director confirmed that blue badge owners can park in CPZ resident bays and on street parking free of charge. In response to questions about whether the proposals would impact on the level of car ownership, the Director said that he thought there would be a small change over time. In respect of the level of charges proposed, the Director said that a number of factors had been taken into account including inflation and a consideration of what would be a reasonable level to nudge behaviour. Discussion by the Commission Commission members discussed the evidence received in relation to whether the principles of decision making had been followed. Members accepted that it had been difficult to evidence this innovative policy approach and agreed that the core of this call-in request was whether the equality impact assessment process had been properly followed. Some members expressed concern that there hadn’t been more proactive follow up with organisations representing affected groups. Councillor Paul Kohler proposed that the Commission should refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration on the grounds that the published equality impact assessment process had not been followed. Members discussed this proposal and a further proposal to ask Cabinet to actively consult with the affected groups in relation to the mitigation before reconsidering the decision. The Commission then voted on a motion proposed by Councillor Owen Pritchard and seconded by Councillor Sally Kenny, that was carried by 9 members voting in favour. It was RESOLVED: “that the Commission should refer the decision on the strategic approach to parking charges back to Cabinet for reconsideration in relation to the principle of decision making on respect for human rights and equalities. Specifically the Commission requests that Cabinet complete the process of consultation with affected groups prior to reconsideration of its decision.” Conservative Call In Request The Chair invited Councillor Daniel Holden to speak as a signatory to the call-in request. Councillor Holden said that the consultation was flawed as the decision that would be taken had been clear since last November; that the proposals were discriminatory in relation to elderly and disabled people and those with young children; that the PTAL construct was flawed, showing similar levels for Wimbledon, Mitcham and Morden but with higher charges proposed for Wimbledon; and that information was lacking on how much income would be generated and how it would be spent. He said that the decision should be rescinded in favour of more focus on progressive solutions. Councillor Holden and Councillor David Dean made additional points in response to questions: the proposals will result in counter-productive measures such as an increase in the number of people paving over their front gardens to provide parking spaces. the council seems to be more focused on income generation rather than improving air quality. the proposed charges will be higher for people who live in non-Labour voting areas and are therefore discriminatory. the decision is being challenged in relation to the decision making principles of clarity of aims and desired outcomes; and a presumption in favour of openness. The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Commission: Chris Larkman, Chair, Apostles Residents Association Chris Larkman said that the proposed increase in resident parking permits represented a small proportion of the cost of running a car and was therefore unlikely to have an impact on the level of car ownership. He added that he accepted the need for a change in behaviour but that the proposed charges were unfair in that they would only apply to car owners who live in controlled parking zones and those who don’t have a driveway on which to park. He said that the consultation prior to setting up the controlled parking zone had stated that the charge...

Overview and Scrutiny Commission – financial monitoring task group 29 August 2019

Planning Applications Committee 22 August 2019

Call-in Overview and Scrutiny Commission 14 August 2019