"We request that the Proper Officer of the Council calls in the decision of the Cabinet taken on 19 September 2006 under Item 9 of the Cabinet Agenda – Oxford Controlled Parking and Residents’ Parking Zones.

The reasons for our request are that we believe:

Val Smith, Bob Johnston, Patrick Cartledge, Liz Brighouse, John Sanders, Barbara Gatehouse, Surinder Dhesi, Olive McIntosh-Stedman, Terry Joslin, Neville Harris"

Councillor Joslin spoke against the Cabinet’s decision to approve the introduction of charges for parking permits in Oxford. He acknowledged the Council’s right to charge residents for parking permits in controlled zones but stated that it was important how this was done. The Council had chosen to do it at the same time as it took away charges for Park & Ride and charges for City centre parking outside business hours. He believed that this looked as if the Council were compensating the loss of one account with the income from another. Furthermore, he stated that he believed if the Council were selling people a ‘benefit’ (as the report had stated many times), then it should be presented in this way and then the Council should seek the consent of the people being charged. He further stated that the Council had resolutely ignored a majority view with regards to the consultation. He urged the Committee to ask the Cabinet to postpone its decision, await the new legislation and the Lyons Report and start again from there.

Councillor Robertson responded by stating that with regards to methods for monitoring the parking scheme, the feasibility of allocating further powers for parking wardens would be investigated once the scheme was in operation. He confirmed that there was a process already in place by which carers could obtain permits and the report made no suggestion of charging for these. He also stated that the charging regime for small businesses was already incorporated into the traffic regulation order.

Mr Dix responded to the comments made by stating that he felt all of the issues raised were comprehensively addressed though the consultation process and that everything raised in the consultation was noted and responded to in the report. He further stated that Annex 2 gave a comprehensive outline of what consultations had taken place and Annex 3 provided a response to this. Considerable changes had been made to the scheme, which would provide a better service, including stricter enforcement of car boot sales on Sundays. Mr Dix also stated that there was an obligation to consider the consultation responses fully and he felt confident this had been done.

With regards to the provision of permits for carers, Mr Dix responded that the scheme had remained as it was and had not altered at all in this report. With regards to traders, he stated that there were some comments on proposals which were addressed in the report and that there were a number of ways in which traders could carry out their business. Loading and unloading was acceptable, otherwise the use of a visitor permit was advisable.

Councillor Fooks spoke in her capacity as a Member of the City Council responsible for parking in Oxford, stating that residents felt that there was a perceived unfairness with regards to the scheme, considering a scheme for free parking at weekends and evenings was recently introduced in the City centre. She generally welcomed improvements to the monitoring of the scheme, especially the issuing of reminder notices and the flexibility allowed for hire cars. She further stated that elderly, house-bound residents needed more permits, not free permits. With regards to traders, she stated that it was difficult for them to organise their work per area to maximise the use of the permits and suggested shared spaces for traders operating in the proposed area. She asked the Cabinet to examine the issue of permits for tradesmen again more closely.

Councillor Sanders stated that he felt the consultation was flawed and unclear, and therefore should not have been considered. The question of ‘was there a case’ for introducing a scheme brought back a 70% response to the negative. The remaining 30% of respondent appeared confused over what they were being asked regarding the scheme. Councillor Sanders believed the 70% statistic was a gross understatement and pointed out that Conservative representation was minimal in the City region.

Councillor Gatehouse endorsed the views of Councillor Sanders and stated that there was not much point in doing such a large consultation if the results of which were ignored. She stated that the situation with carers had not been resolved and she felt that they were being done a disservice by remaining uninformed regarding their permits. She understood that the previous scheme was taken advantage of by small business but suggested that the scheme take into account the needs of people rather than relying solely on statistics.

Councillor Robertson responded by reiterating Mr Dix’s comments that the permit scheme for carers and tradesmen had already been decided and was not the subject of this report.

Mr Dix responded that the scheme was about being fair to all residents. He stated that although the cost of the scheme was roughly equivalent to the cost of providing free parking in the City centre, any revenue gained from the implementation of this scheme was to cover its running costs only. He further stated that half the people who responded to the consultation regarded the scheme as providing some benefit.

The following points were raised during debate:

Following debate, the Committee AGREED (on a motion by Councillor Lamont, seconded by Councillor Greene and carried by 5 votes to 3) to accept the Cabinet’s decision, subject to asking the Cabinet to providing full and comprehensive publicity on all the aspects of the parking scheme, with particular emphasis on the discretionary availability of extra visitor permits provided by way of a ‘Carer Permit’ for those with a proven medical need.