To note the report explaining the Early Adoption of Fees and Charges decision, the reasons for it and why the decision was treated as matter of urgency.

The meeting considered the report explaining the Early Adoption of Fees and Charges decision, the reasons for it and why the decision was treated as matter of urgency.

Councillor Jones explained that the fees and charges report was originally proposed to be part of the draft Budget report to be considered by Cabinet in November 2023. She explained that when that report was delayed to December the fees and charges element of the report was taken as a separate report to enable it to be implemented according to the planned timetable. The subsequent separation of the two reports meant that the fees and charges report as an individual report was entered onto the forward plan with less than the required 28-day notice period. The report was considered as an urgent item and was agreed by Cabinet on 29 November 2023. To ensure full governance and transparency this report was being brought to the meeting to be noted. This was in accordance with the Constitution in Part Three, Section 15 paragraph 4B which states that the decision taker will provide a full report to the next available Council meeting explaining the decision, the reasons for it and why the decision was treated as a matter of urgency.

Councillor Jones proposed the report be noted and this was seconded by Councillor Werner.

In response to Councillor Price’s query it was confirmed that this was the next available Council meeting because the January meeting had been rescheduled and the February meeting was reserved to budget discussions.

Councillor Sharpe was hesitant about the use of urgency for a decision taken in November, that it was not taken through Overview and Scrutiny and did not accept the reasons provided as it did not feel right for a well organised and well-managed Council.

Councillor Reynolds explained that the urgency was due to the state to the Council’s finances that had been inherited and the need for the changes to fees and charges to be implemented. He stated that was very clear at the Council meeting on 27 September that an action plan was being put together which included maximising income from fees and charges. He continued that the Chair of Corporate Overview and Scrutiny was consulted about the proposal and a full discussion was held at the time. He did not recall anybody approaching or speaking to us at the time or coming to speak at Cabinet when the item was presented at Cabinet or asking any of these questions at the time of the decision. He concluded that it felt as though the opposition was trying to make a political point out of something that was very clearly constitutional.

Council Bermange commented that considering this report actually showed an example of good governance as they had identified there was a technical issue with the separation of the fees and charges item from the wider budget paper which was advertised correctly on the Forward Plan. He described the full process undertaken, as set out in the report, to separate the two items. He stated that it demonstrated the administration were committed to good and clear governance.   

In response to Councillor C Da Costa’s question it was clarified that the original decision was not being revisited but the report included details of the original decisions’ implementation timetable at paragraph nine to explain the need for urgency in November.

Councillor W Da Costa queried whether elements of the fees and charges could be discussed.

It was reiterated again by the Monitoring Officer that the constitution required that whenever urgent decision decisions were taken this should be reported to the next available Council meeting explaining the original decision, the reasons for it and why the decision was treated as a matter of urgency. The report was not an opportunity to revisit the original decision but the reasons for it to be taken under urgency was to be noted by the Council. 

Councillor Reeves stated that the report had to be taken as a separate item at Cabinet to allow the public consultation to be undertaken and allow the implementation timetable to be met. He stated that the purpose of the report was really clear.

Councillor Carpenter commented that she did not believe that the Council did listen to what the residents wanted in relation to parking fees as part of the consultation.

Councillor Werner considered the report to be an example of the partnership Cabinet of delivering good simple governance but there was still some misunderstanding. He noted that the Constitutional Working Group could look at constitutional issues and if there were suggestions for changes in the Constitution with regard to urgency items then he was happy to work with colleagues to improve the Constitution.

Councillor Jones summed up by reiterating the technical process that had been followed and the constitutional reason why the report had been brought to Council’s attention for noting.

As per Council agenda rule C17.3.4 the following Councillors requested that how they voted be recorded in the minutes. Councillors Gosling, Hunt, Luxton, Majeed, Sharpe, Story and Walters abstained from the vote to note to the report and accept the reasons provided.

On the proposition of Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet member for Finance and seconded by Councillor Werner it was

RESOLVED that the report and reasons provided for the Cabinet decision on early adoption of fees and charges being taken as an urgency item be noted.