Your Councillors


Heritage, Culture and Leisure Committee

5 January 2015

Is this the final decision on the recommendations?

Yes

 

Adding omitted decision to decision notice – Parking charges in Mote Park

 

Final Decision-Maker

Heritage, Culture and Leisure Committee

Lead Director or Head of Service

Paul Riley, Head of Finance and Resources

Lead Officer and Report Author

Paul Riley, Head of Finance and Resources

Poppy Collier, Democratic Services Officer

Classification

Non-exempt

Wards affected

None

 

 

This report makes the following recommendations to the final decision-maker:

1.    To note that the decision of the Committee on 13 July 2015 which agreed the second recommendation of the Report of the Head of Commercial and Economic Development  - Parking Charges in Mote Park, had been omitted from the minutes and decision notice; and

 

2.    To instruct the Democratic Services officer to amend the minutes and decision notice to include the omitted decision, wording as follows:

 

That the preferred options at para. 4 are approved to enforce the charges.

Voting: 6 For, 2 Against, 1 Abstention.

 

 

 

 

This report relates to the following corporate priorities:

Keeping Maidstone an attractive place for all – ensuring there are good leisure and cultural attractions.

 

 

Timetable

Meeting

Date

Heritage, Culture and Leisure Committee

5 January 2015



Adding omitted decision to decision notice – Parking charges in Mote Park

 

 

1.         PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

1.1      On 13 July 2015 a decision was made by the Committee to agree a recommendation of the report of the Head of Commercial and Economic Development on Parking Charges in Mote Park, namely that the preferred options at paragraph 4  of that report (listed below at paragraph 2.2) be approved to enforce the charges.

 

1.2      The decision was agreed by a vote of 6 for, 2 against and 1 abstention however this decision was omitted from the published minutes and decision notice.

 

1.3      The minutes were agreed as a correct record and signed and so can only be amended by the Committee ratifying their previous decision.

 

1.4      The Committee are therefore asked to ratify that decision made on the preferred options at paragraph 4 of the report of the Head of Commercial and Economic development, and instruct the Democratic Services Officer to amend the published decision notice to reflect this.

 

 

2.         INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

 

2.1      The report on parking charges in Mote Park was considered by the Committee on 13 July 2015. The second recommendation of the report was that the preferred options at paragraph 4 of the report were approved to enforce the charges.

 

2.2      At paragraph 4 the following was outlined:

 

4.1 Based on the options set out above in section 3, the preferred option is to introduce parking charges in Mote Park with the following conditions:

 

·         The charge will be set at £1 for stays of up to six hours (with no return in 2 hours).

·         Stays of longer than six hours will be charged at twice the rate of the

town centre car parks.

·         A season ticket will be offered to borough residents at an annual cost of

£40. (Maximum stay of six hours with no return in 2 hours)

·         Special interest groups will qualify for concessions. (No maximum stay)

 

4.2 It is proposed that authority is delegated to the Head of Commercial and Economic Development to finalise operational details in conjunction with the Parking Services Manager; spend the budget in support of delivery of the project; to obtain the relevant permissions and licences to implement charges.

 

4.3 If the Committee approves the preferred option then the Council will be required to enforce the scheme by way of a Traffic Regulation Order. It is proposed that the enforcement function is delegated to Parking Services. The cost of enforcement will be part of the operating costs. The council will also monitor and review the impact on parking in the areas around the park and identify measures to mitigate any adverse impact that may arise due to the introduction of charges.

 

2.3      This recommendation of the report - that the preferred options at para. 4 are approved to enforce the charges - was agreed by Committee as follows:

 

For – 6              Against – 2                Abstain - 1

 

2.4      When the minutes were agreed as a correct record and signed, and the decision notice was produced, the above decision was omitted from both. However the decision can be clearly heard on the webcast of the meeting.

 

2.5      The Monitoring Officer has provided procedural advice for the amendment of agreed minutes and published decisions, setting out that a report should be taken to the Committee to explain the inaccuracy that occurred and asking the Committee to ratify the amended decision. It should be noted that the Committee are not being asked to make the decision again, they are being asked to ratify the decision as made in its original state in a previous meeting. The Democratic Services Officer will then be instructed to amend the decision notice by inserting the omitted wording using tracked changes, and adding a foot note to state: ‘As ratified by the Committee on 13 July 2015’.

 

 

3.         PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

3.1      That the Committee ratify the previous decision and instruct the Democratic Services Officer to make the required changes as per the procedural guidance provided by the Monitoring Officer. This action will ensure that the decision making process of the Committee is transparent and publically accessible.

 

 

4.        CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

 

 

Issue

Implications

Sign-off

Impact on Corporate Priorities

None

 

Risk Management

None

 

Financial

None identified.

 

 

 

There are financial implications if not ratified due to the potential that long stay commuters could park in the car park.

Paul Riley, Section 151 Officer

 

Dawn Hudd,

Head of Commercial and Economic Development

Staffing

None

 

Legal

The legal team has advised on the appropriate procedure to correct the error.

Deputy Head of the Legal Partnership.

Equality Impact Needs Assessment

None Identified

Clare Wood. Policy & Information Officer

Environmental/Sustainable Development

None

 

Community Safety

None

 

Human Rights Act

None

 

Procurement

None

 

Asset Management

None

 

 

5.         REPORT APPENDICES

 

None

 

 

6.         BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

None.