A MEETING of the COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF GOSPORT was held in the Council Chamber at the TOWN HALL, GOSPORT on WEDNESDAY, the SIXTH day of OCTOBER 2004 at 5.00 PM.
The Mayor (Councillor Edwards) (P) (in the Chair);
The Deputy Mayor (Councillor Burgess) (P);
Councillors Allen (P), Mrs Batterbury, Mrs Binfield (P), Bone (P), Carr (P), Carter (P), Mrs Champion, Chegwyn (P), Clinton (P), Mrs Cully (P), Cully (P), Davis (P), Dickson (P), Edgar (P), Farr (P), Foster (P), Gill (P), Hayward (P), Hook (P), Jacobs (P), Kimber (P), Langdon (P), Philpott (P), Redrup, Rigg (P), Mrs Salter (P), Searle (P), Smith (P), Taylor (P), Train (P), Mrs Wright (P) and Wright (P).
Also in attendance: Honorary Aldermen Mrs Bailey and O’Neill.
_______________
ONE MINUTE’S SILENCE
In order to express their sympathy regarding the death today of County Councillor W H Wheeler, Leader of the County Council’s Labour Group, Members of the Council stood in silent tribute for one minute.
_______________
STANDING ORDER 4.5.1.(j)
The Leader of the Council (Councillor Hook) moved under Standing Order 4.5.1.(j) that item 6 on the agenda (Special Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee resolution on the introduction of Car Parking Charges (27 September 2004)) be considered as the last item on the agenda.
RESOLVED: That in accordance with Standing Order 4.5.1.(j) item 6 be considered as the last item on the agenda.
_______________
APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Batterbury, Mrs Champion and Redrup and Honorary Aldermen Foster and Flory.
_______________
MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 4 August 2004 be confirmed and signed.
_______________
MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS
(A) FUTURE OF OUR HEALTH SERVICES IN FAREHAM AND GOSPORT
The Mayor had agreed to allow Councillor Edgar to make a presentation on the above to the Council meeting. Prior to Councillor Edgar’s presentation the Council agreed to allow Mrs Roast of the Lee-on-the-Solent Residents Association to make her deputation to the Council on the same matter.
Mrs Alison Roast addressed the Council on behalf of the Lee-on-the-Solent Residents Association and the salient points from her Deputation are detailed as follows:
§ The Association had been represented at all four of the statutory consultation meetings but had found that they provided too little opportunity for proper and detailed discussion;
§ The Association remained concerned that Option 1 (the retention of Haslar Cross link) had not been properly and accurately portrayed compared with Option 2;
§ The cost quoted for Haslar had not taken account of the obligation of the MOD to have regard for local needs in disposing of redundant assets. Nor had it taken account of the real value of the cross link building, given the planning restrictions on the development at Haslar;
§ The costs for Option 2 seemed to be based on assumptions which may or may not be valid;
§ On traffic impact serious doubts were expressed on the validity of the Traffic Assessment;
§ The population figures on which the PCT are basing their requirements do not seem to reflect the large new developments at Cherque Farm, Priddy’s Hard, Clarence Yard and St Georges’ Barracks;
§ With regard to access to QA Hospital, the PCT have not demonstrated that access from Gosport or Fareham, either by car or public transport, had been taken into account;
§ We remain concerned about the numbers of beds in the extended QA and the Community Hospitals;
§ We favour Option 1 as the buildings and equipment exist and given determined negotiation by the NHS these should be available at a reasonable cost.
We therefore recommend Option 1 and request the Council to take our views into account.
Councillor Edgar reported that in January 2000 the Borough Council with the Portsmouth and South Hants NHS Trust jointly and in partnership supported and marketed the preferred option for future health services for Gosport and South Fareham when developments at Queen Alexandra Hospital were completed. These were set out clearly on page 20 of the document, a copy of which had been circulated to each Councillor at the meeting.
These proposals were accepted by the public as a way forward during an extensive consultation exercise. The Borough Council’s position had not changed and it was clear that the only way to honour the pledges made to the public at that time was to implement Proposal 1.
It was made clear by local people at that time that they wished as many services as possible to be retained on the Haslar site. It was also made clear by the Trust that these options demonstrated a minimum requirement and that, in the event of any increased demand, other services may be considered for the Haslar site in the future.
It was clear that the preliminary results of this consultation showed that local people were yet again expressing their wish that as many services as possible should be retained on the Haslar site. The Borough Council believed that this could be the most cost effective and efficient way of providing for the health needs of local people in light of the challenges caused by the unforeseen escalating demand for all hospital services.
MOTION: That the Council supports Proposal 1 as set out in the Consultation Document “Future of our health services in Fareham and Gosport”.
The Motion was accordingly put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.
(B) DAEDALUS JOINT MEMBERS PANEL
The Mayor advised that a request had been received from Fareham Borough Council to re-establish the Joint Members Panel of Fareham, Hampshire and Gosport members, consisting of three members each from Gosport and Fareham.
MOTION: That the Council supports the re-establishment of the Daedalus Joint Members Panel with a 1:1:1 representation on the Panel.
The Motion was accordingly put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED with Councillors Mrs Binfield, Burgess and Gill being nominated to represent the Council on the Panel.
_______________
QUESTIONS PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.4.
(A) Question No 1 standing in the name of Councillor Wright on the edging of grass verges was answered by the Chairman of the Community and Environment Board.
(B) Question No 2 standing in the name of Councillor Allen on alleged plans to extend the Town Hall at an estimated £1m as outlined in the recent “Link” leaflet distributed in the Rowner area and bearing the imprint determining the source to be the Leader of the Labour Group, was answered by the Leader of the Council.
A MEETING OF THE POLICY AND ORGANISATION BOARD WAS HELD ON 21 SEPTEMBER 2004 PART I and PART II
A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD WAS HELD ON 6 SEPTEMBER 2004
A MEETING OF THE HOUSING BOARD WAS HELD ON 8 SEPTEMBER 2004
STANDING ORDER 4.15.1
The Mayor reported that notice had been received requesting that Standing Order 4.15.1. be moved to enable the Chief Executive to present his report on the Council joining a Fourth Option Special Interest Group within the Local Government Association.
RESOLVED: That Standing Order 4.15.1. be moved to enable the Chief Executive to present his report on the Council joining a Fourth Option Special Interest Group within the Local Government Association.
_______________
FOURTH OPTION SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (SIG)
Members of the Council had before them a report of the Chief Executive (a copy of which is attached hereto as “Appendix “C1”) in connection with the above.
It was reported that there was recognition amongst “Fourth Option” District Councils that there were issues and concerns which were a by-product of the “Fourth Option” approach. These had not necessarily been recognised or discussed within the Local Government Association and were not always reflected in Government Guidance and Legislation.
Appended to the report was a letter with supporting information from Selby District Council which set out a process that would lead to the formation of a SIG for Fourth Option Authorities. The letter was self explanatory and the suggested resolution was reflected in the recommendations to the report.
The Chief Executive recommended in his report that –
(i) the Council consider the appropriateness of supporting and joining a Special Interest Group for “Fourth Option” District Councils within the Local Government Association;
(ii) if support is agreed, then the following resolution be passed:
“That the Chief Executive write to the Chief Executive of Wear Valley District Council asking them to prepare a written proposal to the Local Government Association”; and
(iii) the Council also considers and agrees an appropriate Member representative on this body, if it is formed.
MOTION: That the recommendations contained in the Chief Executive’s report be approved and adopted.
The Motion was accordingly put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED with Councillor Hook being nominated to attend the Special Interest Group if it is formed.
COMMUNITY GOVERNOR – ROWNER JUNIOR SCHOOL
The Mayor advised that the Borough Solicitor had made contact, as requested at the last Council meeting, with the Head Teacher, Rowner Junior School. The School Governing Body’s Constitution had been amended from September 2004 and there was now no requirement for the Minor Authority to supply a nominee. However, the Head Teacher had asked if the Council could still consider supplying a “Community Governor” for the school.
There was no nomination forthcoming from the Council for a Community Governor at the Rowner Junior School.
_______________
SPECIAL POLICY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEETING RESOLUTION ON THE INTRODUCTION OF CAR PARKING CHARGES APPROVED ON MONDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 2004
The Mayor moved that the Council do now move into “Committee” for this item.
The Motion was accordingly put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.
The Borough Solicitor read out the resolution of the Special Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee as follows:
“RESOLVED: The Committee agrees to refer to full Council for them to carry out a review and scrutiny of the decisions of the Policy and Organisation Board of 26 July 2004 – “Introduction of Car Parking Charges” and 21 September 2004 – “Introduction of Car Parking Charges – consideration of objections” and for full Council to decide whether or not to ask the Policy and Organisation Board to reconsider their decisions”.
The Borough Solicitor advised Members that they would be discussing Scrutiny matters therefore any member including substitute members who had attended and had the right to vote at either of the Policy and Organisation Board meetings could not take part in the debate and should leave the Council Chamber when discussion of the item commenced.
Accordingly the following Members left the meeting:
Councillors Mrs Binfield, Burgess, Davis, Farr, Gill, Hayward, Hook, Langdon, Taylor, Wright and Mrs Wright.
The Mayor advised that notice of a second Deputation had been received from Mr John Bowles on Car Parking Charges. The Council agreed to let Mr Bowles undertake his presentation to the Council prior to the debate on the above resolution.
Mr John Bowles addressed the Council on Car Parking Charges. He referred to a report he had circulated to Councillors which was entitled “A report into the implications and impact that Car Parking Charges would have upon Business and staff located within the Town Centre”.
§ the survey had been sent to 135 businesses and a total of 51 responses had been received;
§ the total number of staff currently employed within the responding units was 451. This, however, did not include the two largest employers in the town, viz Gosport Borough Council and Safeways;
§ of all those respondents who stated they would drive to work, only 20% would consider using alternative means of transport, the other 80% were either dependent upon their vehicles for their work or that public transport was neither not cost effective or reliable;
§ 58% of workers who reside in Gosport would support a Parking Permit Scheme - £35 (74% support);
§ 63.5% of workers who reside in the Borough supported a permit scheme for town workers currently residing outside of the Borough - £150 (71% support);
§ non residents working within the Borough expressing support for a permit scheme was 96%, of which 56% supported a fee of £150;
§ traders were concerned at the possible drop off in passing trade;
§ compensating staff for parking charges would increase prices;
§ 10% of staff felt they may have to seek employment elsewhere. However, most would be willing to pay an annual parking fee of under £100;
§ it was felt that if the Council implemented a maximum stay between certain hours of the day, with a severe penalty for infringement, this would alleviate the long stay parking problem.
Mr Bowles felt that the proposed charges would lead to customers shopping in Fareham and Portsmouth and he quoted examples of part time staff who would have difficulty in paying the proposed charges. No-one was in favour of the proposed car parking charges being introduced.
Councillors then proceeded to question Mr Bowles in more detail on his survey’s findings.
At the conclusion of the questioning of Mr Bowles, the Borough Solicitor advised that there were two decisions for the Council to make:
§ how to undertake the review or scrutiny; and
§ at the end of the review or scrutiny whether to ask Policy and Organisation Board to reconsider their decisions.
If the Council decided to review or scrutinise tonight then Members needed to consider if they wanted to hear from Officers or Members (other than Members of the Council not on Scrutiny). At the end of the discussion a decision needed to be made whether or not to ask the Policy and Organisation Board to reconsider its decisions.
Members debated the above issues and two Motions were received. In accordance with Standing Order 4.12.4. it was requisitioned that the voting on each of the Motions be recorded.
MOTION: Believing that the proposed introduction of Car Parking Charges should be subject to proper scrutiny, it is resolved to:
(i) Call a Special Scrutiny Meeting during the week commencing Monday 18 October or not more than one month thereafter;
(ii) To call Councillor Hook as a witness at that meeting;
(iii) To also invite any member of the public, Town Centre traders, businessmen and women and public transport operators including the Ferry Company, Bus Company and Taxi Firms to give evidence if they wish;
(iv) Ask that requests to give evidence be submitted to the Town Hall by 12 Noon on the day before the Special Meeting.
A recorded vote was thereupon taken on the Motion and the names of the Members voting for and against the Motion and those abstaining from voting were read to the Council as follows:-
FOR MOTION: Councillors Bone, Carr, Chegwyn, Mrs Cully, Cully, Mrs Salter, Searle, Smith and Train (9)
AGAINST MOTION: Councillors Allen, Carter, Clinton, Dickson, Edgar, Foster, Jacobs, Kimber, Philpott and Rigg (10)
ABSTENTION: The Mayor
The Motion was accordingly declared LOST.
SECOND MOTION: The current Scrutiny Process be concluded forthwith and that the Policy and Organisation Board not be asked to reconsider its decisions of 26 July 2004 and 21 September 2004.
A recorded vote was thereupon taken on the Second Motion and the names of the Members voting for and against the Second Motion and those abstaining from voting were read to the Council as follows:-
FOR SECOND MOTION: Councillors Allen, Carter, Clinton, Dickson, Edgar, Foster, Jacobs, Kimber, Philpott and Rigg (10)
AGAINST SECOND MOTION: Councillors Bone, Carr, Chegwyn, Mrs Cully, Cully, Mrs Salter, Searle, Smith and Train (9)
ABSTENTION: The Mayor
The Second Motion was accordingly declared CARRIED.
The Second Motion was accordingly put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.
The Borough Solicitor confirmed that this was the end of the review and scrutiny of the Policy and Organisation Board’s decisions and that the decisions could now be implemented.
The Council rose at 9.19pm
|
|
