Background

News from the Working Party – 13 September

Our campaign to object to these proposals is accelerating, with all residents and businesses aghast at the proposals and disgusted at the way in which they are being pushed through.  Many still do not understand what is being proposed and when it is explained, are quite shocked.  We believe that these proposals not only prejudice the health of our village centre but are indicative of both Local and National governments’ lack of support and active disregard for viable and vibrant rural communities.  Our Working Party have:

• Displayed posters throughout the village in pubs and business premises, distributed several thousand leaflets and cards for residents and customers to use for their objections.
• A web site www.saveourvillage.org.uk – up and running and campaign news and related details are published there.  (Make sure you use saveourvillage (no spaces) and the “dot org” as there are a number of similar-named sites around.)
• Well over 1500 signatures on the petition, many by patients at the surgery opposite the High Street car park.
• Local people writing their own detailed objections: teachers, professional people, parish councillors, business and shop owners, youth groups, residents associations as well as individual residents.

What is the Parish Council doing?

The Parish Council are examining ways to delay the consultation process and enable a longer period to examine alternative approaches that will solve the relatively small issues over competition for popular parking spaces, without driving away business.

Where this might lead

We are alerting other parish councils within the Borough to the implications – the Borough Council intend Welwyn should be a template for the rest of their domain and we suspect that this stealth approach may be happening far wider.

A report on car parking in the village which the Borough Council commissioned from the business services group, Mouchel (part funded by the Parish Council) does not make any case for a parking problem within the village and this is endorsed by our own parish plan.  But this report goes wider and looks at streets over 500 metres away from the High Street – it clearly highlights areas for consideration for further parking restrictions – why ?  Could it be for possible future on-street parking charges or charging for residents parking permits, in order to raise more revenue by a stealth tax ?

What has Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council been doing ?

There are many inconsistencies in the dates of this story:  when the Parish Council asked the Borough Council for a moratorium, having been told the consultation would be concluded in September, not October, the negative response received from the Chief Executive of the Borough Council on 1 September (by e-mail) included a statement that the clear intention of the Council had been agreed more than 6 months ago in relation to implementing parking changes and had been agreed by the full Council in February 2011.   This is strange since this date is before the Mouchel report was finally approved on 30 March 2011.  It was also before the Housing and Planning Panel of the Cabinet discussed the proposals on 18 August, and that discussion itself was only after the press release from CP Plus about charging equipment being installed in the High Street car park before then end of the year.

But the Borough Council are inviting consultation. aren’t they ?

When the Borough Council Chief Executive responded on 1 September to the Parish Council, refusing to extend the consultation period beyond 23rd September, this was followed by the sending out of letters to residents and businesses for the formal consultation process which were dated 5 September.  These were not received by anyone before 7 September, which clearly invalidates the 21-day consultation period and the closing date of 23rd September.

Earlier this year some businesses and immediate residents received letters from the Borough Council about the intention to extend on-street parking times form 60 to 90 minutes.  The majority of the public have only been made aware of the wider intention involving charging for car parks as part of the full formal consultation activities, since early September.  The Parish Council (who part-funded the Mouchel report) did not see that report of the formal proposals until 22 August.

But this all arose very recently, didn’t it ?

There is every indication that the decision to charge for these car parks was taken by the Borough Council Cabinet – an inner core of councillors, many months ago.  The detailed information that is required to evaluate the situation has not been published, probably on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. So too the anticipated profit level that CP Plus (the Council’s outsourcing partner) will derive from these car parks; whether there will be any controls or safeguards as to increases in charging in future years.  The strategy to charge for the car parks extends back at least to early 2010; it was never discussed fully or frankly with the local community and the consultation process now in train is a shabby attempt to steamroller this through without full disclosure of the current intentions or exposure of the future implications. We have been told that  no contract has been completed with CP-Plus, but are asking for confirmation of that, together with confirmation that no binding pre-agreement has been entered into which would trigger a contract at a later date.  We have also asked if the Council intend competitively tender for the parking contract rather than merely top-up the current contracts with CP-Plus, which are for large urban car parks with high cost technology like ANPR.  These are a far cry from village car parks with fewer than 50 spaces, for which it should be possible to use a simpler system with less investment and lower management costs which would deliver an increased revenue through a lower management charge than the 44.4% apparently being quoted by CP-Plus; or is this simply part of a wholesale system roll-out plan by CP-Plus across the whole of their domain, for which we have to pay ?

But surely the Borough Council have evaluated all the issues ?

The report of Borough Council Director of Finance and Operations, dated 1 August, given to the Council’s Cabinet Housing Panel and Planning Committee on 18 August states in a Risk Assessment that:  “a risk assessment has not been prepared in relation to the proposals … as there are no significant risks inherent in the proposals.”  It goes on to state that: “There will be risk of adverse publicity due to the introduction of charges into free car parks”.  It also states that no “Equality Impact assessment has yet been carried out.”

The report makes absolutely no mention of the consequences to the village and the inevitable social, cultural and economic impact, particularly to the disabled and the elderly and those for whom walking to the village is not an option.

But we all have to tighten our belts, don’t we ?

The Borough Council are fond of stating that their proposals are intended to save Budget, but they do not disclose that budget saving does not equate to tax savings for individuals.  Perhaps the Council should look a little closer to home at their expenses – over the two years from April 2009 to April 2011, expenses paid to councillors in the Borough Council totalled almost £700,000, nearly £350,000 per year; if the same rate continues over the next 3 years (and there is no move to prevent that) then a further £1 million will have .  The members of the Welwyn Parish Council take no expenses and believe that public service should not require such.

So is it all about the Village High Street ?

Although there has been much local concern focussed on the High Street car park and the inevitable impact on shops, doctors’ surgery and dental practices, we should not forget the other car parks involved in this proposal:

Lockley’s Drive:  the biggest of the car parks, used by allotment holders to access their plots, animal owners attending the adjacent veterinary practice, those visiting the Parish Council offices, staff for some of the shops and businesses.  Those residents nearby with no off-street parking may well have to pay for permits.

Titmus Yard:  used for parking by residents of Mimram Place and those within the conservation area at the heart of the village where the small cottages have no room for garages and even if there was, planning constraints are unlikely to permit garage construction.  The intention to charge for resident parking permits when residents bought a house in that area on the presumption of the status quo regarding free parking is cynical and callous.

Broomfield Road:   with only a few spaces this is hardly a car park of great use – except possibly as a precedent for issuing parking tickets for overstaying the proposed 3 hours, or if there is an intention to add more yellow lines in that area and so gain additional revenue from fines?  We should note that CP Plus has an history of pursuing fines for alleged parking transgressions – the questions we need answers to are:  Who enforces ?  Is it to be local council parking wardens or thinly-disguised CP-Plus employees.  To whom will the money from parking penalties go ?  To Borough Council coffers to aid local services or to top-up CP Plus profits, and in what proportion ?