Transcript

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] YouTube stream has started, so I'll begin with me. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to this meeting of the extraordinary overview and recently, always this extraordinary reading. Before we start the meeting, formally, and for the benefit of those public gallery, the fire alarm is a long continuous bell and the exits are via the doors used to enter the room. An officer on site will lead to any evacuation. This evening, we're pleased to welcome the public, supposed to be a large number of public, who are observing the meeting from the public gallery. We will be grateful if you would not interrupt proceedings by making any noises, as you'd be asked to leave. And this is a formal note to say, if any disruption continues, counselors will be asked to leave the chamber, while this is sorted out by security and officers, so that the meeting can continue. Right, so the benefits those watching on our YouTube channel, members of the committee are present in the chamber and these members will be voting on proposals this evening. Other members of the council who are also present in the chamber, or participating via MS teams can take part in any discussions, whether or not the meeting will be conducted by someone, which sets out the guidance on how meetings will be conducted. Before we start with the formal business, we will confirm attendance of voting members by doing a roll call. Thank you, Chair. When I call your name, please, can you call your present? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Present. Present. Present. Present. And to confirm, we have 13 voting members. Thank you. Would the officers start with Sharon like to introduce themselves? Yes, thank you, Chairman. I'm Sharon Shelton. I'm the Director of Finance and Transformation. Thank you, Chair. Andy Edwards, Head of Technical Services. Thank you, Chairman. Robert Styles, Director of Street Scene, Leisure and Technical Service. Good evening, everyone. Jill Fox, Policy, Scrutiny and Communities Manager. You're a dedicated head of legal and democratic services and interim monitoring officer. And Amanda. Thank you, Chair. Amanda Riley, Principal Accountant. Thank you. We've got the cabinet here this evening, all sitting in front of me. I don't know if you'd like to go along the line and introduce yourselves. Thank you very much, Chair. I'm Matt Bawson. I'm Leader of the Council. Thank you, Chair. Martin Koffin, cabinet member for Transformation and Infrastructure. Mike Taylor, cabinet member for Planning. Robin Bess, cabinet member for Climate Change, Property and Regeneration. This is cabinet member for Community Services. And Kim Tanner, cabinet member for Finance and Town. Very much. So we've got apologies which have already been noted, I think. And notification of subsequent members, that has already been noted. Are there any declarations of interest? No. Okay, moving on. Item five minutes. There are no minutes to sign. I'll be signed at the next meeting. So I've gone to actually that's fine. Call in of the executive decision, D240034CAB. Parking proposals and changes to on-street and off-street parking fees and charges. So a valid call in request by five members of the Ofian Excuse National Committee was received on the 8th of April. Grounds for the call in the set house at 1.2.1 of the report on page 13 of the agenda pack, which a lot of you have got in front of you. And I'll start then with the members who pulled in the decision. Thank you very much. I propose the call in not only because I'm concerned as a local member about Martin Square, but as I felt there were several issues arising from the cabinet decision of the 2nd of April, where I'd like to urge the cabinet to reconsider. I also think generally, councils have not had enough information to make a thought out evidence based decision. And insufficient weight has been given to the public views expressed or the effects of these proposals on traders. I do not want at this stage to go through all the details about each proposal, but I would just list a few. Firstly, I do not understand why the first hour is proposed to be free in West Morning, but in Martin Square, half an hour and elsewhere, nothing. And anyway, I think half an hour is too short a period. Seems there is much opposition to extending the upper castle field car barking tumble bridge. And I think cabinet should consider dropping that proposal. Fourthly, I do not feel that the effects of the proposals on West Morning farmers market or the Christmas event in Martin Square have been properly considered. There are also the 2 petitions concerning these matters, which I see are going to cabinet. And I feel sensible that cabinet look at those and look at the decisions that come from this meeting at this evening when they next meet. I'm not against every single thing that's in the resolution. For example, for my personal view is, I don't disagree with the decisions at 1 1 1 3 6 and 7. And that's all I want to stay at this stage and reserve my right to speak on particular items later on. But I would urge this committee and the cabinet to reconsider. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Dawson, you're online. You're next. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Yes. This is statement I've prepared earlier this afternoon. Been elected by a Councillor representing the local residents for 21 years on T.M.B.C. Council. I am deeply concerned about the car parking charges across the whole of T.M.B.C., including my own ward of Hillsford North and North Bounds. I have waited the outcome of the consultation before making any comments, et cetera. I fully support the vast majority of local residents, including our MP, Dame Tracy Crouch, together with the majority of Oursford Parish Council to oppose these charges. So unfortunately, I cannot vote as a member of the overview and scrutiny committee this evening due to the fact that I'm in the USA and attending via teams. However, if I was in the Chamber, I would without doubt, voted to send the complete proposal back to cabinet to reconsider their decision on these car parking charges. I urge all members that can vote to do this just an honorably thing to return to cabinet for reconsideration. May at this point request, Madam Chair, the permission to speak later in the debate on any items concerning and/or affecting my ward of House of North and North Bounds ward. Thank you very much, Roger. Thank you, Councillor Horskine. I couldn't hear beneath the laughter. Yes, I supported this calling wholeheartedly for lots of reasons, but they can be summed up by two basic areas. One, which for me is the most important of all, is the lack of notice that was taken of public opinion. And I remember when we first agreed to go out to consultation, I asked in this Chamber whether it would be a meaningful consultation with the results taken notice of. Or would it be like the usual one we do every year and nobody responds and nobody says anything about it and that's it. And I was assured that it would be a meaningful consultation. And when you get as much as 99.2% of the people who've taken the time to respond to the consultation and then ignore it completely, that can't be right. We're here for our residents and we should listen to what they have to say and they did give some very good, valid reasons to back up what they were saying. It wasn't just that they didn't want to pay more. There were good, solid reasons which we will hear a bit more about, I hope, a bit later on. So that was my main reason. Also, I felt that there was not enough hard evidence in the reports to back up what we were saying. For instance, car parks are full on Sundays. Well, there was no evidence to back that up. And the only evidence there was for one car park was taken on the day in the middle of the Christmas celebrations. And it was only taken at that car park were the spaces in other car parks nearby. We don't know. So if the whole of Tumbridge was full up, that's one thing, but if it was just that car park that was full up and the people walked a little bit further. We don't know. The evidence wasn't there to back it up. I also would like to speak particularly on items five and eight later on, if I may. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilor Hickmott. Thank you. Well, picking up on the point that Franny's just made. If you're going to have a public consultation and not listen to it, there's absolutely no point in having a consultation really. It's just a sham, wasn't it? I've got a few things to say about some of these items. I'm not going to go into detail because we're going to talk again later. All I would say is, for my part, I think we ought to have a look at this again and reconsider some of these decisions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Hood. Thank you very much, Chair. Firstly, I would like to correct some inaccuracies which have been circulated by the leader of the Council in terms of the requests of the green group. We have never ever asked for on street charging to be introduced in this morning. We've never mentioned that. We do, however, support a fair deal for every community in the borough. This is not about managing anybody. It's about having the opportunity for every community to get a deal that works for them. We believe that it is appropriate that every community has a car park that has a car park and benefits it from it should contribute in some way towards its maintenance. If a community doesn't believe that charging is appropriate, then by all means, the parish or town council should be entitled to purchase it to provide that function from its own budget. Community should be empowered to do what is best for them. The principle of building additional car parks purely to increase revenue seems to be contrary to the legislation according to the supplemental paper which we've been provided with. So why is this Council seemingly acting illegally? The car park at Upper Castle Field has been described by the cabinet member as a premium car park. It seems to be on the grounds that the daily charge is the most costly per space rather than as a whole car park. If that is not the case, where is the evidence? The overarching question the committee has to consider is whether profit made from car parking charges can actually be used to fund other services. The supplementary report suggests that the Council has been using these funds by acting outside of the powers. Those are the words of the independent legal advice that I've received. At 1.17 of that supplementary report, it states that surplus income over expenditure for off street parking spaces where we charge for parking are placed into the local general fund. And that is despite the guidance. Rather than encouraging actual travel by providing not. Are you replying to the you telling us the reasons that you've called in the decision. These are these are all part of the reasons that I've called that I've called in this decision. Okay. It seems that rather than encouraging actual travel by providing inadequate infrastructure, we're actually encouraging those attending the events at the castle to drive door to door. They will never need to walk from the car parks in the east of the high street. And that's going to deprive temperature history of football, and that's going to increase car dependency. The decision partly by the cabinet member for climate change, who is also the cabinet member for economic. The generation is old because I felt to see how by voting for a new car park is can he can be fulfilling either of those roles. There's just a huge inconsistencies within the whole thing. We've been told by councilor table Taylor that one of the key aims of the charges changes to parking has been to align rules and charges across the borough. Everybody pays equally for parking local members. He says that made good made a good case about West morning on street parking and in Martin Square, which is why there's a free a short free parking period. Now, this is in complete contrast to what we've been told by council of coffee and who tells us that every car park is being treated differently. And that is the fundamental problem. It is now time to look at every single car park in the in the borough and consider. Because this whole decision is plagued by inconsistencies. Why, for instance, is West morning high street car park exempt from evening charges. Why's bar a green Western road car park only paying a tiny proportion of the charges paid elsewhere. There's been a lot of talk in this chamber about trust. And this could this whole episode and the consultation underlines why in the terms of the upper castle fields, how much residents have lost faith in the borough council, where a process which appears to have been designed to deliver a certain result. And even when the data has failed to support the desired outcome cabinet and officers have promoted an expensive capital project, which is not validated by the actual parking review that we commissioned. Thank you very much. Yeah, I'll now call on the cabinet members to respond and restart with Martin coffee. Thank you, Chairman. I think what I want to do is just go through the decision that we took. And it that is before you. And yes, we did actually treat every car park differently because every car park is different, which was the appropriate thing to be doing. Martin square is different to Tombridge, which again is different to. I also. So if I just set out the decisions that were taken and they are printed, obviously, you see on there. The request of members, we looked at every avenue and we removed the paint, paint display element of that, so that that could be released back to the residents there. The proposals for the on street charging at West morning in the high street and so on street. We're considered and we listened again to the concerns and we decided that an hour's free parking would be good there. What we're trying to achieve there is better regulation and by putting in some form of discipline. Or be it that it's a free hour that discipline is easy then to prevent people parking for four, five, six hours, which we know was happening. And the idea again is to speed up the number of changes on those parking places to the benefit of the. The loading bay in West morning. I think that was fairly straightforward. It did receive a considerable support because of course it's quite a dangerous way that people are parking. I think that just is a logical decision we took. And the changes to the on street fees and charges are also to be implemented according to the charges, which are at a term seven. Again, we looked at Martin Square. Martin Square is unique. In my opinion, it's surrounded by a pop in pop out type shops. It's quite a center to retail trade. And we decided there that we would need to regulate the parking. Again, we listened to the concerns of those there and introduced free charge free of charge parking for off an hour again to encourage people to use the car park efficiently and not to block it by all day parking, which of course is something that does happen. Again, we looked at a else food and also it is different. I think you have to agree that every car parks different. Martin Square is obviously different to a also. And the type of use of a is much more for the residents. The residents need that car park. That car park is essential to being able to live in the high street. And of course, that then brought about the decision to bring in a season ticket to allow people to park residents to park there without having to fight every day with the commuters and the people who work further down in the industrial estate. Again, that was done differently, but for good reason. It was then decided that the Bailey Bridge East car park should be extended that would provide more parking spaces and the pressure that's on that car park on certain days is quite intense. And this we felt would be a good use and indeed received quite a good approval. We looked at the upper Castle Field Park, and actually in consultation, a lot of people were pro the extension of that car park. And we are looking at the castle with the events and things that are happening at the castle. And it seemed like that would be very useful to the events team at the castle. The existing nine gateway parking spaces. I think that was a fairly simple decision just to bring those straight into the same traffic regulation order because of course the gateway is ceasing to operate. The seven is the on street parking tariffs. And again, the report was fairly clear. And we agreed that the revised tariffs be accepted. The final one was the exception of the West Moulding High Street car park which by covenant cannot be charged for after my 30. We decided that the off street parking charges be extended till 8pm on every day and the parking charges be applied on Sunday and bank holidays, but not on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day. So that was the decision that the cabinet took with respect to this item. Thank you very much. Thank you, Kim Turner. Did you want to speak and reply. Thank you chair. As cabinet member for finance and housing it will come as no surprise to everyone that my priority is to balance the books for TMBC. We all know that we need to find 1.7 million at least by 2028 and it's not proving to be really very easy. I've received several emails recently asking me why the proposed increase charge it, why the proposed increase charges and new charges for counts. But for our parks are required and actually that's to provide balance budgets in future years. We have a balance budget at the moment, but in the coming years, we know what's coming down line with regard to expenditure. And we need to protect the sustainability of the counts. So with regard to car parks, we need to cover the increased inflationary costs of maintenance and staffing of the car parks and these are grown significantly. But any surplus can actually legally be utilized for funding environmental improvement. And this can include things like food waste collection, recycling, our active travel initiative and various projects, the climate change initiatives that we are also keen on. So legally, we have looked into this and it is possible to use any surplus for these projects. Now, without additional income from car parking charges, we are going to have to find an alternative and that's either going to be additional income, which, you know, we all know the options are very limited. Or we need to make cuts to the things we do for residents off the top of my head. I'm thinking that will be things like the digital inclusion financing that we currently provide, bringing everybody online in our borough, which is so important to everyone. The community grants team that we're looking to roll out that's questionable, if we don't bring in any other income, our safeguarding initiatives that are so valued in the borough will probably have to come to an end. Or we may have to even go as far as tightening the criteria for temporary accommodation eligibility, which we all think are too tight already but it's a fact that we will have to tighten our belts and fairly, fairly strictly. But mainly, I think the additional income will have to come from adding a climate change initiatives we've got huge aspirations in that respect, but it won't be possible to carry them through if we can't balance the books. And, sadly, all of these things that I've mentioned to you are measures that will affect those that are most in need in our borough. It doesn't seem fair to me for those residents to lose their services, because those of us with cars, fighting against car parking We as members and our families are also residents and we will be paying like anyone else. But surely paper use is fairer than reducing the help we give out, probably to some who aren't even fortunate enough to own a car. I would also mention that our charges even at the proposed levels will be far lower than all of our neighbouring boroughs. We are still very good money for money in this respect. So, I would ask the committee to consider what's the fairest option, and I will finish with a reminder that whatever happens here, we have to balance the books. If my important leader is Council. Chair, thank you very much. I won't add too much to what Martin and Kim have said about specific proposals, but I will just go back to the principles about why we considered these in the first place. This is not the first meeting. These have been discussed, and in fact, it was September last year when we first started looking at some car parking proposals. There were three reasons that I think we're broadly accepted to work. First and Kim's reference, this is the increase in costs of operating car parks. So, just to sort of put some figures on the table for public who are here and watching online. Business rates are around 294,000. The CTV provision around about 188,000. Because the £71,500 a year went to the ticket machines. Now, you could say we should just all go to Ringo and of the majority of transactions are on Ringo. But I like to think that that £71,000 is well spent, given that we know that there are a lot of people lying on cash in the community at the moment. And don't have arcing apps all over the phone. And obviously, the pressure on the parking service has increased as well through local parking plans. We're going through on things, Hill, Hadlow and Hill at a minute, lots of Nodland to come as well. And there's a phased programme of more individual improvements. So, we're spending a lot of money on the car park. Now, given that, I'm given the fact that these costs have increased significantly above what the council has been able to raise because the limits on the council. The greater proportion of our budgets is being used are parking measures. And so therefore it's right that we look to address the costs of parks. We haven't raised car parking fees in over two years, it's 2021. The last time the paper came to members for implementation in 2020. That's the first principle. The second principle was evidence that some car parks are frequently full of cars parked for long periods and that makes it harder for shoppers. There are some car parks that aren't full at certain times, there are some car parks that are frequent, particularly at the times when you want to park there. And as Martin said, it's important that we look at local solutions. And the third was an argument that I've heard many times, particularly for the Green Councillors, and that is the inconsistencies in charging in some cars. And why is it fair that Tumbridge Westmoreland are agreeing? Is this a for parking, but not those in some of the other as well. And that was a principle that we all agreed on at this that we needed to debate, and that's what's happened. It was made clear during the consultation that was held and the council legally has to hold a consultation in order to invite any objections through the road traffic. Regulations and that it wasn't an open that the quantity of respondents and what they said was very important, but so was the arguments that were articulated as well. And obviously on some proposals, they'd come back very heavily weighted one way. And in some cases, they'd come back with a much more marginal results. It's actually interesting to note that there are a number of proposals that I believe local members are supportive, because they're actually contrary to the wishes of that consultation. So, for example, at the Avery Avenue proposals, which were promoted by Mark Good and George Hines, the local board members to solve a particular local problem. We got more responses against that change than we did in favour. But obviously, local members of wish to proceed with that as well. We got more responses against making the change in to load in that. I street, but that's procedures procedures with. As I said earlier, the costs need to be balanced and the income has come from somewhere and obviously getting some of that income for our parking service from car parking charges. It also only helps the council's bottom line, so we could spend more money on services that came outlined, but also enables us to deal with some of the problems. Finally, I just wanted to address some of the specific points that were raised in the introduction by members. And we've got two petitions that are due at the cabinet meeting next week, one in respect to buckle castle fields and another in respect of the extended parking hours in the evening and on Sundays. And obviously, in the cabinet's perspective, we want to hear those petitions and hear what those traditional organisers have got to say about them. That's quite important. And obviously, in some ways, it's a shame that we can't hear them before tonight's meeting, but obviously we will bear in mind not just the feedback from tonight's meeting, but also the feedback that comes from those petitions next week. As Martin said, in respect to buckle castle fields, we've got a very close consultation results and there's about 13 votes in it. And there were some good arguments made on what side of the other in the cabinet at the time decided to go down on the side of the principle of extending that car park. And I think the reason for that was quite simply because we know that we've got a growth in events of the castle, which is great and to be welcomed. And we also know that members have agreed to probably in the long term remove some of the car parking on the east of high streets. In fact, it was on the same agenda for the cabinet meeting when this was discussed in that we agreed that the general approach to parking as part of the Tambridge town center regeneration scheme was to provide an allocator parking spaces between the current level of 970. And the anticipated future peak demand, which was 534. This was a relatively modest proposal. However, I've obviously heard what's been said since the meeting I've heard about the position will hear more from them next week and most critically. I've had long conversations with Dennis King, Adam Mimett, Pete Tunstall, Mark Rhodes as well. And if members do wish to abandon the proposals, then ultimately, that is, that is fine. That is members recommendation to us. We will obviously a great weight to that as well. And we will, we will have to look for alternative parking provision in the town, because of course what we're trying to do is plan for the long term here, as well as for what's happening right now. Whether the car parks are full now at the moment is interesting, but obviously I'm looking to five, 10 years in the future and what Tambridge is going to look like there. The other thing I wanted to mention was, obviously, we've got concern about some days and Evelyn's in particular. Now, and one of the major concerns that certainly been articulated again down in the Tambridge area is the impact that would have on residents, I'm sorry, on visitors to Tambridge wind pool, Angel. And, although it wasn't articulated that the cabinet meeting, Martin Gison will speak later so I don't steal his thunder, but we met with Martin a few weeks ago, we discussed some of the concerns of leisure trust and I'm pleased to the reports of it. It's a committee that we think we've got an agreement that will help, help residents, sorry, help visitors to those facilities and perhaps let Martin will probably cover that in his, in his remarks later, but that comes with our blessing as well. Finally, I just wanted to stress Martin Square, if you don't mind, because obviously that came up in there as well. The question was why is that 30 minutes and why is that an awesome hour, as was articulated by some members, the decision to have 30 minutes. Three was taken after listening to some of the feedback that came in the consultation. If members wish to go for an hour, then again, that's something that we will look at very, very carefully and be happy to look at that very carefully as well. But obviously we need to consider the wider implications as well. Thank you, Chair. Thank you Matt. Um, really to seek guidance. In the supplementary report, Mark would refer to paragraph one one seven. There's purpose income over the expenditure from our off street parking spaces, where we charge for parking are placed in the local general fund. And he suggested. In effect, what we're doing is illegal. And I think we have said that on stage, someone needs to answer that, because if we were sitting at a meeting and we've been told that we shouldn't be passing resolutions. Which is that's right, are illegal. Thank you for pointing that out. I've got joy coming after. She's just well on it. Um, Mike Taylor, did you want to come back briefly? Not so much come back to make the couple of points that I make. I haven't always been a friend of this council. But one thing I have always known is that this council is financially proven, which is why we're not in the dire straits that many other local authorities are today as the savings aspect of this is really important. The fundamental principle I applied when this was just a cabinet is that the cost of parking, a vision, enforcement, pensions should be met by motorists, not by the general public. I'm happy to listen to tweaks and that members suggest tweaks and go along with them. But that fundamental will remain. Thank you. Or brevity. Um, right. So I'd like to ask joy to come back to clarify the legal position following councilhood's earlier reference. Thank you chair. So I put in that 1.17 section, just to clarify 1.15. So with regards to section 55, the requirements are that the income received from. On street, on street parking, and income, and expenditure received from enforcement activities were on street. On street enforcement activities that are accounted for. So that's an a special parking. Um, fund, the money is received from charges for off street parking. Um, are not required to be placed in that same special fund. So it's the general fund, but 1.18 clarifies how, you know, gives guidance on how that money is spent. I haven't put in my report. What we spend that money on, I've just basically explained to you where it goes to and explains that, you know, we can, we're at, we are allowed to some extent, some to have some surplus account and money in any account. Just basically, in case if we need for unforeseen circumstances, expenses, as I said previously, but we cannot use that money for anything that's outside the 1984 act. Um, so I can't see where any legal spendings that you refer to. Um, I've been stated in report. Briefly. Thank you very much. Yeah. Yeah. I just, I'm, I'm seeking clarification on this because we have that we've had the advice previously. This is something that I've been, we've been in correspondence about for quite, quite a while. It just seems to me that this funding, the money that we're getting from this instead of going into the general fund, it seems more sensible that it would be in a separate reserve. If it can only be spent on, on. If it's ring fenced as it were for certain uses that it wouldn't be in the general reserve. The general fund presumably finance could be able to confirm that will probably be a parking account. But as I said, it's not in, is not required to be placed in the, in a special fund that, you know, which 1.15 clarifies. Thank you. As I said, I haven't said in my report where exactly we spend those money for on. I've just said it's placed in the general fund. So finance can clarify that. Thank you, Sean. Can I ask you start for finance to come back to you. Okay. So the general fund is essentially a fund that pays for everything. So it's a bit like your current account in your own circumstances. You pay for everything goes through your current account. So the general fund is like that. So the council gets its money from lots and lots of different sources. So, for example, we get money from government, we get government grants. We get money from council tax. We get money from investment income. We get money from business rates. We get money from fees and charges. So we get money from all sorts of different places and everything is collected through the general fund. And the general fund effectively pays for everything well. But the general fund is if you have to have different accounts within the gen. So how you've. And reconciled different types of expenditure. So, for example, building control. As to what we spend and what we get in pretty much that's a requirement. That's just one example family land charges. With parking as Joy has put in her paper. There is the ability to use purposes of parking to pay for other areas of activity as specified in that. Road traffic regulations act if I've got the at name correct. And one of the big things for me is a meanity cleansing. That's sweeping the roads. Even whatever it contract. We spend over a million pounds on that at every single year. Those costs are increasing well. And that is a legitimate use of any parking service funds. So within the general fund the jet we have a compartmentalized. Parking and if you look on our website by the way you will see there is an account for that. We're at last year we actually generated a surplus. On parking of about 1.1 million. I've just said the meanity cleansing contract by itself, which is just one of the legitimate things that can be used for is an exit. So for me it's all very lawful in how that money is being spent. Thank you. Thank you. That's a thorny while has that answered your question. I fear not. My understanding is always being that you could spend money from. There's a difference between parking on the road and parking in Carpar. Parking on the road that is at the roads belong to Kent County Council. We're acting as their aid. And you can only spend the money on the thing specified in this legislation, which is how please set out in your report. I always thought you could spend money. From Austrian parking spaces, or whatever you like, like, I don't know, give it to the letter trust. And I'm now not sure whether I'm being told that. The case in one, one, eight is interesting, but without reading it, not very helpful because it was a case, quote, challenging an increase on on street parking permit charges. The court doesn't appear to have considered off street parking. I don't expect you to dream up an answer here, but perhaps this is something we can look at down the, down the line. Can I come back? Do I come back on that? So the case law, most times with case law, it clarifies, you know, statutory, it explains statutory purposes. So this case law has, even though it had to do with on street parking, it has clarified that the 1984 act applies to, you know, money, any income are raised basically on the section 32 under section 45. You know, has to be applied in accordance with section 1 to 2, which is in 1.12. So it imposes a duty on local authorities to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement or vehicle and other traffic. And to provide the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the high street. The only thing that applies really to on and off the high street, you know, we can use the income for in accordance with the 1984 act. The income that's restricted with under 1.15 specifically in section 55 for explains what you can use those monies for. But specifically, when you look at the other, the other income, that needs to be spent in accordance with 1 to 2, which clarifies that it relates to section 32, which is for off street parking. And section 45, which has to do with designated parking, which is, which I have clarified in 1.1.5. So 1.15. Move that fair enough. Thank you. No, thank you. I think, I think I'm going to close this down now. And we'll move on to. My invited speakers. To have very kindly come along this evening to speak about the effects of the car parking charges. On their areas, even if it's business or otherwise. So, I don't have James Gardner is here from West morning. Chamber of Commerce. I suspect he's not actually. So, sorry about that. We'll go on to the next speaker. Chairman of Martin Square traders Barry Smith. Thank you. If you'd like to speak for three minutes. Okay. Thank you. Councillors, your residents are angry. Your residents feel ignored. You went to consultation. You have ignored the local opinion. The leader of the council speaks about the cost of bringing in parking charges. We do not want you to spend our money increasing the infrastructure to bring. Parking charges to other areas that have always been free. My interest is Martin Square. Martin Square is not a town centre. The car park serves local shops, local residents, the doctors surgery, the library. Your decision will affect the well being and the fragile structure of our community. A community I've been part of the 25 years. Martin Square is next to an area of deprivation. And yet your charges is full, the full charge of the top cost that you are putting on to that community. We're in a cost of living crisis. Parking charges will deter people from getting outdoors. You're encouraging them to shop online. You are encouraging them to travel to out of town facilities where it is free. This is your proposal is an active barrier to health and wellbeing. You went to consultation. The local public rejected that proposal. There's lots of different schemes. Every car parks different now. It was fairness originally. Now it's every car parks different. How does this meet the council's objective to be fair? Martin Square car park was designed to serve the council on shops and the mess nets above. There are limited alternatives for parking. Empty shops does not bring you income into your council. Within Martin Square, the trade is a very concerned. We're in concerned about the impact on our trade. We're concerned about the impact on staff recruitment as staff need to park somewhere. Our proposal to our request for consideration is that you should put this back to full consultation. Because what you are proposing now, there's no resemblance to what was originally proposed. Our second point, 30 minutes is totally insufficient for Martin Square. West morning has one hour. Why are you giving this division amongst the council? The only people who voted for your proposal is from the other side of the council having to pop at Martin Square. Why produce division? Half an hour is not sufficient. Thank you. Your three minutes is up. We're joking. That's what our clock says. I'll continue just for a minute more please. I'll be very quick. Okay, I'll be quick. The pharmacy's got queues, forced office has queues, a haircut or appointment with the doctor needs one hour. A legitimate user of the car park may wish to visit more than one shop, perhaps to visit the butcher or to the cafe or friends with breakfast with friends. One hour could just be sufficient for a parent to go to the library with their child to return and choose the book. Very much Barry. I'm going to carry on with these speakers if that's okay and I'll take any councillors after. Thank you. All right, our next speaker is Dr Robert Gilmore from Thornhill's Medical Practice at Martin Square. Thank you for, thank you to the council for letting us come to talk to you. Just a bit of context, Thornhill's moved from an adapted residential home on the A20 about 20 years ago into Martin Square and that was, that was with the understanding that there was freely available parking in the square. We have 15,000 patients, we have 50 staff, because we share the premises, we have 32 parking spaces for our use. So it's clear that these parking charges will affect most of our staff and all of our patients. If we're looking at trying to help or minimise impacts on vulnerable groups, this is not a good way of doing it. We're very concerned about the impacts on our patients. There are many patients who come two or three times a week for procedures, investigations and all of those will be subject to these charges. It would help if it was an hour. I mean, with best way in the world, we don't generally get people in and out in 30 minutes. So we've got vulnerable patients being charged extra. The concern we have is that we'll put patients off attending. You may have patients attending late, which is not good for them. It's not good for local health. And there will also be increased demand for home visits, which are very labour-intensive for us as a practice. The next issue is about our staff. We have many staff who are on the minimum wage. They're already under pressure. Our last three receptionists that we hired, none of them lasted more than two weeks. So there's a huge amount of pressure. Once you start adding on extra costs like this, why would you want to come and work at Thorn Hills? So staff recruitment and retention will be affected. The third thing is about our viability as a business. We've also been squeezed. It may not sound like it from the media, but for the last five years, we've been subject to fairly tight increases in the next year. We are being offered 2%. So we've had a squeeze on profits. If we try and help our patients out, that is further threatening our bottom line. We're about to try and negotiate a new 20-year lease. Our young partners are going to have to sign a 20-year lease. And these sort of pressures on both patient demands and practice finances are big disincentive. So I would say that for us as a practice and for our patient population, this is a terrible, terrible decision. So I would also, I wouldn't wish to be naive or disrespectful to the council, but I would urge you to look at us as a practice and to make a truly a local decision with regard to park parking in Martin Square. Not all practices are the same. We do not have the luxury of a big car park that we can put most of our patients into. A German point of order, please. Very much. Point of order, please. David. I'm in a rather embarrassing position because I've told all my residents who've emailed me that we do not do public speaking. Members of public speaking at these meetings. I've clearly made a big mistake, but I wasn't aware and haven't been able to invite anybody here tonight. I do have one resident who is very badly affected or sorry. He's not bad. He's on a also parish council. I feel it would be right for him to be able to speak tonight. If other people have been in spite, I wasn't warned that we could invite anybody. I think this is a problem with the constitution, but I would like for one of my residents and one of my counselors to speak tonight. And he do that. The people I've invited actually will notice that mostly. Members representing the business communities. And it's the business communities that I'm most concerned about this evening. I think the consultation went out to and was answered by the residents. And I think that was relevant. I haven't invited any other parish councils to speak any any parish councils speak. I've got some. Mostly business people and there's. Jackie Jackie Wyatt, who's I think the chairman of the Slade area of residence association. So she represents a lot of people. And I think that's more direct. I'd rather that it was left like that, really. And that some. Perhaps in future, it will be allowed, but some. I'm. It was my prerogative, I think, to invite some guest speakers. So that's what I did. I'm going to move on now. Welcome back. Yes. In your case, it's your. And you are quite rightfully zeroing in on the residents that are primary or the people are primarily expected by your Martin Square problem. In my case, we have a unique. The other thing with a also for our car parks in that the vast majority of the. You saw that the essential use of it is by residents. It is those residents I have said no to. And it just strikes me that a resident who's here tonight, who is a member of the parish council can talk about the particular problems that exists with this particular car park. Thank you for that input. Can I call on the rep from ours for Nicola Elwell off from the beauty bank. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Nicola and I own beauty banking elsewhere. I have been running my business for 13 years. Alongside my business in the village is a hairdressers, osteopath, a agents and a news agent. We also have a few pubs and a restaurant. These are all service industries. We are not a retail high street. Therefore, the clients we attract come to us for a service. These appointments could overrun as ours often do. This will make a massive impact on us as our clients who decide to stay with us will reduce the type of treatments they have and also reduce the number of treatments they have to fit in with parking time. Some of our clients come to the salon and have a treatment, which on average is between one to two hours. They then go next door to the hairdressers, which can also be a minimum of an hour. They might even go for lunch in one of the pubs. As a small village business community, we promote one another. When COVID here, our industry was hit really hard. Lots of people set up beauty and hair salons in their homes under cuttiness because they have no overheads. Then just as we began to see the light at the end of the tunnel, the cost of living hit and hit us again. Our clients started to reduce the number of visits they could make with us. The car park charges, I feel, will put the final nail in our coffin. My staff, who are all self employed, cannot afford to pay the annual fee you are proposing. And I do not have the funds to pay for their permit. So therefore, I'm likely to lose them. It is a benefit for a free car park for Ellsford. It promotes our small service business community. And therefore, I'm against the Ellsford. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Right. Next speaker was Teresa Seema, who was due to join us from Gorgeous George. She sent her notes in and she'll read it for you. Thank you, Chair. I would like to voice three main concerns, each directly impacting living, working and visitors to our town. As a business, Gorgeous George have invested 12 years in Tumbridge and recently committed to a further five. We have done this because we strongly believe in our local community and the importance of community for people's health and well-being. It is important Tumbridge has a strong sense of community. However, in recent years, this has been pushed to the point of no return. Our High Street has never before been more vulnerable and in particular, small independence are being hit overwhelmingly hard. Businesses at the very heart of our town, businesses that genuinely care about and interact with our community. We have lost our banks. We no longer have a High Street post office and as a result, the need to come to Tumbridge has been severely diminished. High parking charges are the main deterrent voiced by the public on a daily basis. It is directly responsible for people spending less time in the town and is directly responsible for reducing the football in retail hospitality businesses, putting them as under threat. Parking charges are driving people to shop out of town or worse on the internet and our community is being decimated. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to use cars, but it's a total absurdity to believe that we are in anywhere near that point where we can ditch our cars. Cars are a necessity, they are not a lifestyle choice and drivers are constantly being penalised. I'd like to address the implementation of Sunday and Bank Holiday Parking Charges. Sunday, it's an amazing day in Tumbridge and for us as a business, it has taken over as the best trading day of the week. The whole atmosphere within the town is completely different. It's relaxed, people can take their time enjoying the area, they can have a coffee, they can shop at their leisure, enjoy the parks, the castle grounds, once a month the farmer's market. This is all as a direct result of free parking. It is a privilege that people chose to spend their leisure time in our town. Tumbridge is beautiful and we need to encourage visitors. Sunday parking charges are a direct obstacle and will devastate the town's vibrant Sunday economy. I would also like to address the proposal to implementing evening charging. This would again affect so many people in a negative way. Hospitality businesses would be hit hard. We have a growing population living in flats without parking provision, many of whom use the car parks after 6pm. It is almost turning into a form of taxation. Shop workers are being hard-hit, hard-working people who are generally on minimum wage have to pay a high percentage of their wages in parking charges. Art time workers in particular are hard-hit, in the current cost of living crisis, it is just unsustainable. I despair at the thought of these charges and truly believe they will be the final straw that kills our high street and our community. Money generation is obviously at the forefront of these proposals and I am aware how difficult these decisions are, but I really do urge you to reconsider. That's from Theresa Seema or just you. I will now ask Jackie Wyatt of the Slade Area Restants Association for three minutes please. Hello, thank you for allowing me to voice just a few of the concerns of the Slade residents and the 3,000 plus people who have already signed the petition against the decision to extend the Upper Castle Fields car park. They are asking why did TMBC conclude Alther's parking report was in favour of more capacity when it actually states in summary there appears to be no need to provide additional parking capacity for users up to, including and for some time beyond 2039. What about the bias in the timing of the surveys? So sovereign ways surveys ended on December the 3rd. Upper Castle Fields two surveys were both during castle mass, one on the day of a sold out concert and then on December the 17th, which just happens to be the last Saturday before Christmas Eve. To quote Alther again, this could highlight that a fair annual projection may not have been detected in this study. Yet this unfair projection must have underpin the decision and any cost benefit analysis. Local residents have done their own parking survey. You'll find plenty of photographic evidence on the Save Upper Castle Fields Facebook page of the more usual spare capacity. Please overlook the sarcasm. Yet this unfair projection. Sorry, what of TMBC's aim to promote sustainable policies to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions across the borough? Instead, this concreteing will increase air pollution and traffic hazards in the middle of the town cut across the main pedestrian routes has laid primary school right next to the senior citizens living in the castle fields apartments. And I wonder, has the centre for children with hearing impairment at the school even being considered? Finally, I'd like to share you with you the response that I've just had from historic England. In this case, it could be seen that the car park extension impacts the significance of the setting of Tumbridge Castle, which is a scheduled monument, the highest level of statutory designation. It will be the responsibility for Tumbridge and Moreling Borough Council to determine the level of impact on the setting significance and whether any potential harm is justified. And they're asking me how seriously has that responsibility been taken, and all for the sake of just 28 unnecessary parking spaces. Thank you. Can I call on? Yeah, Martin Geithand, managing director of Tumbridge and Moreling, Lesher Trust. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'll start again. The Trust delivers critical health and wellbeing services to residents of the borough in an enduring transparent and strong partnership with the Council. 86% of our 4000 DD and annual payment customers at the Angel and Tumbridge Pool are Borough residents, and our services enhance the physical and mental health of these people, reducing demand on stretched NHS services, delivering a range of other social value indicators, which have been valued by the Sport England Moving Communities Tool at £4.5 million per annum. The Trust is very keen to work with the Council to provide a solution for our members that allows them to pursue their leisure activities at both sites without further cost at a time where many people are feeling the impact of the current economic pressures. Further to a statement published by the Trust, I've seen and heard as many members of the Committee will have also for many of our customers citing the cost impact of the decision to extend chargeable hours. At the Angel Centre, our Group Exercise Program is designed largely to fall outside the current chargeable hours, and this also represents peak usage of the gym and sports hall. My summary of the average cost is based upon actual data from our systems that demonstrates the average user of the gym and group exercise classes at the Angel Centre visits 2.75 times per week. Without boring you with the calculation, this could result in an additional monthly cost of around £27, which is between 60 and 70% on top of the monthly costs depending on your member category. At Hamridge Pool you'll be aware customers currently receive a rebate of the first hour of car parking at all the chargeable hours. This is an historic agreement on which again I won't dwell, but an extension of the current hours will impact peak time users, swim club and families on a Sunday and at bank holidays. I mentioned before the strong partnership between the Council and the Trust, a partnership that is included mutually beneficial financial support from the Council during COVID and the ongoing energy crisis. I describe this as mutually beneficial because the extraordinary costs of these global events would have arisen regardless of the business model used to provide public leisure services. And we worked effectively together to minimise the impact and ensure that the services, important services were able to be sustained and recover strongly post COVID. The Trust does recognise the financially challenging times the Council is facing, and at the time when the post COVID business recovery for the Trust is complete, believes it should demonstrate the mutuality of that partnership whilst protecting our customers for now and hopefully the future. As a consequence, the Trust is proposing a recurring annual payment to the Council of £45,000 to provide a free parking concession to angel customers after 6pm on weekdays and sat down Sunday bank holidays. This is based on a careful assessment by the Trust of the likely income raised by users of the facilities. I have delegated authority from the Trust Board to extend this offer with the following caveats that Cabinet do retain that proposal for extended hours in the event the extended hours were not in place. We wouldn't expect to make a payment. The one hour refund currently in place at Tumbish Pool is extended, yes, is extended during all additional charge blowers. The agreement is for £45,000 pranham, i.e. if new proposals commenced later this year, the Trust would make a pro write payment, and the agreement remains in force only whilst the current angel centre remains open. In the event of a replacement facility, we would want to look again. To conclude, I hope this offer made in the absolute spirit of partnership will command consideration by this committee and subsequently cabinet. At the same time, we'll protect members of both angel and Tumbish Pool from additional cost in their pursuit of a healthy lifestyle. The decision notice the 24 0034 CAB in front of you, and it will be up on the screen so that we're in no doubt about what we're talking about. So, I'll take the first recommendation of the joint transport board of the 4th of March, 2024, number one. I've already got one speaker, Dennis King, is that we wanted to speak on. Thank you, Chair, are you taking them in that order? I'm going to take them individually and throughout and one at a time. Okay, well, I have some general points to make, but specifically I will get to issues around Tumbish, which relate to the angel centre and the pool and the upper council car park, so you want me to make them now or to wait until you get to that point in the agenda. Shall we wait until you get and then put your hand up again? Thank you. Well, if you could just make a note that I want to speak at that point. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Right. Mark Hood. Yeah, thank you very much, Chair. Yes, I sort of obviously would support this. This is something that most of myself and Councillor Hines requested the feedback. The responses from the consultation were somewhat flawed because it was a little bit of confusion because there was a huge amount of interest from Larkfield. I think there was some responding to something that they didn't realise. That goes the other way, actually, usually. I think it happened. If you look at the postcodes, but I won't comment on that. Right, so that's some little one. Does everyone agree with that? So that's taken by general affirmation. Thank you. We're going to little to proposals for the introduction of on street charges in with small et cetera. Trudy Dean. Thank you, Chairman. Can I begin by saying that we welcome the adoption earlier of the one hour additional at one hour free parking in these on the street spaces. Which is different from the original proposal, so we welcome that. However, even with that concession and members of the Council will understand having looked at the consultation that 94% of people who responded to this consultation were opposed. The Council announced that the reason behind these imposition of charges was for tackling the abuse of the base. But no data has been provided to us on that abuse. We're also told that charging proposals will increase turnover and therefore, footfall. But again, we're given no evidence of that. Mr coffee and suggested that the change in charging hours would speed up turnover by increased and sorry speed up turnover. Chairman, I have to say that I haven't found anybody yet to can explain to me how increasing the time of a stay from one hour. Increasing it to four hours will actually increase turnover. Logic will say that it will decrease turnover, whose people can stay for four hours, not just one. And you will know from the consultation responses that people think that the one hour stay is what is required for West morning for people who make limited purchases and are able to move on quickly. And Mr bracy has confirmed that sorry the officer who's in charge of the proposal report has confirmed to me that 50,000 pounds additional income will be achieved from the on street car parking provision without the change of any hours. In other words, we don't need the extension from one to four hours in order to raise the amount of income, which the leader suggested was needed from West morning. The proposal for that was put for consultation was said to be for the benefit of traders and customers. And I've asked the question several times, if that is the case, how then is it that the majority of traders and the vast maturity of customers don't think that will work. The report in front of you suggest that for rural communities, in a sense it doesn't matter if people, if the charges are imposed because local people have got to use all of these facilities they've got to go to pharmacies they've got to go to shops and so on. And therefore, it really doesn't matter because they have to go to the services. Chairman, if that was true, then perhaps there might be some support for your proposals, however, it isn't true. If people are in their car, they can go anywhere. They can go to supermarkets around Westmoreling and this applies to Martin Square and to Ellsford too. And within 12 minutes of Westmoreling and of all these other communities, we have a stage breeze a little and as the Morrisons, Tesco and two waitros, all of them are free. So the independent traders are fighting every day against the attraction of those alternative free provisions. And again, if you read the consultation responses, many, many people say that's it or go elsewhere. The recommendation. Sorry. Where are you going to have a recommendation. Do I want to suggest, I want to recommend that the, that the Barakat that the Barakat Council's cabinet revisits this decision and does not impose these charges until it has got the information that has been requested time after time. I want to recommend that the Barakat Council's constitution says that whichever body or individual is responsible for taking a decision, all the decisions of the council will be made in accordance with the following principles. The alternatives should be evaluated prior to decisions being taken during the consultation chairman and number of alternative options were put forward. One was for two hours free parking. One was for all street parking on street parking to remain free and for the cost to be recouped instead by higher charges in the car park. The third was for all on the street remaining free with better enforcement. And a fourth was a fourth was to ask why there were no season tickets offered in West morning high street. Sorry, in West morning. Car park, whereas there were season tickets offered elsewhere. None of those alternative options which have been put forward during the consultation have been explored. We have no financial information whatsoever about the cost of any of these proposals or of the final effect of them in terms of hard data. My third concern chairman is that through the provision for on the street car parking requires to keep machines. These are very large machines and the signage attached to them is even larger. A whole of the area affected by these 93 proposed 93 on the street spaces, a whole of this area is within the consultation area of West morning and almost every building is a grade two listed building. One of them is some areas, which is also an ancient schedule monument, which has the same protection as Stonehenge. Parish Council has for many years had an agreement with the power council on in terms of what goes on the pavement, West morning parish council has been for many years, wanting to increase the amount of alfresco. Eating and drinking in the town, and we've wanted to clear the light, the pavements of all street furniture in order to enable space for that, in order to enhance the conservation areas openness. Now, the parish council has spent a large amount of money removing all streetlights from the pavement and putting them onto the buildings, attachments, wall mounted, and we've also removed the vast majority of the waste bins and put them onto walls as well. Gaining the support of the residents for that. Yet here, our council wants to completely reverse that by pushing in six or more of these very large machines and even larger signage. Chairman, I think if the, the power council goes ahead, this would be nothing short of an act of vandalism on what is accepted as one of the finest high streets in Kent, not my view chairman, but that of the consolation status conservation area and study. So for all of those reasons, chairman, I want to propose that the cabinet revise its decision really looks back at all of these proposals and reconsiders its position. And considers and evaluates provides us with the information about how they arrived at these proposals, what the data is behind them, where people are parking at the moment and how much they are paying at the moment, and also one of the proposals was for increased enforcement. One of the things that he said in the consultation documents we've sponsored time after time is that this problem could be sorted out if there were sufficient traffic wardens and forcing the existing situation. Again, that has not been considered in your report. So my belief chairman is that the council has set aside the part of the constitution that I read to you, and has not provided members with sufficient information to justify any of the changes, which should therefore not be preceded with until that information has been provided. And a real justice occasion can be put forward. Thank you, Chairman. You, you're admitted to say that you weren't a member of this committee, but I don't give them. That's all right. Sarah Hudson. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, at the JTB on the 4th of March, we did debate West morning high street quite extensively. And after a lot of good-natured communication between us all, Trudy Dean actually said she was very happy to support the proposal of one free hour. And actually she and her fellow colleagues from the Libden party, all voted in favour of it. One of the reasons why you can't have season tickets in short stay car parts is because it's a short stay car park. You're supposed to be there for a very short period of time. I'm a regular user of West morning high street, or rather my son is, I just chauffeur him. And I sit there in Costa coffee or the hungry guest or whatever it is, and watch the world go by whilst waiting for him to have his haircut. And it's never only half an hour. It's always over an hour. And I'm mindful of just how few vehicles move in that time that I'm sitting there. I could be there for sort of over two hours. I pay to park behind Tesco's because I can never find an on-street parking space. I'm there most Monday evenings, obviously not tonight, but the bull has their quiz night on a Monday night. And me and my older children go along each week to support them. There is, there might not be the data in the sense that Ansler Dean is looking for, but there is definite anecdotal data that people abuse those on-street parking spaces. The fact that the season tickets at Ryosh car park, there are more season tickets issued than parking spaces in that car park, yet that car park is never full. So there is a lot of evidence to suggest that people paying for long-stay parking spaces are not using those spaces and they are parking nearer to their work premises. So I would refute some of the suggestions that have been made. Thank you. Do you, David, saw on your wall? As Councillor Dean is not a member of this committee, I move what she said, and just just add that, of course, the Council has a duty to follow its constitution. And in my view, if it fails to do so, at the very least, it would be a problem of Mad Administration. Councillor interjecting. The Cabinet review of the decision. I've got a proposal and a seconder for that. And yes, it's specifically, I've been pointing out specifically for one and little to. So the proposals for the introduction of one street charging, et cetera. And I've got a proposal in a second. I'm going to have a face of hands, go of hands for that. Yeah, in favour. Against. The motions lost. Thank you. Right. Sally will tell us what the vote was. Sorry, you haven't asked for abstentions. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And just to confirm, we have five members voted in favour, nine members voted against and three members abstained. So the vote is lost. I'm Michelle Tatton. Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to pick up on something, Councillor Hudson said, because when I go to West Morning High Street, which I do quite frequently. My experience is quite different. And I can't remember the last time I had to park in the car park. Because I can get a place on the high street. So my feeling is that, that there is a turnover of sorts at the moment and it works with the one hour. So just to emphasise Trudy's point, that if it's changed to four hours, and I said this at a previous meeting, then that seems counterintuitive and you're encouraging people to stay for four hours, perhaps going to the restaurant that they parked outside to have their lunch and being there for that length of time. When actually you want to keep the visitors coming, you want to keep them that turning over. So I absolutely agree that it shouldn't be four hours on the street. That's what I wanted to mention. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right, we'll move on to one little three, the proposal for the loading bay and West Morning High Street be introduced as drawn. Future level enforcement and the size of science be reviewed, and the on streets traffic regulation order order be altered, reflect the changes. Is everyone happy with that? Thank you. Right, we've now moved on to one. The changes to the on street fees and charges be implemented as advertised, and that the on street traffic regulation order be altered to reflect the changes. My God, it's beefers on that. Robert can. Is this regarding Martin Square? Oh, sorry, but forgive. Trying hard right. No, we're on four. So the changes to it's the bottom one, the bottom recommendation. So, I think everyone agreed to general information. Everyone agreed. Thank you. The next one is number two, Martin Square. Have I got any speakers for it? Thank you, Chair. Although I'm not not the board member for Martin Square. Many of my residents in Disson use Martin Square regularly. I notes Councilor Taylor made a good point earlier that uses as a car of cars. Should pay and not the residents of as much more in general. Equally, it's unfair. Some communities pay towards the cost of their car parks, while others don't. And, of course, maintaining Martin Square appears to be about £5,000 per annum, and there's a problem of all day parking. However, I would like to. Why support the recommendation? I would like to make one post one amendment, please. Morrison's next to Martin Square have a two hour free parking. We heard from the. The doctor surgery earlier. And there's also an adverse effect on the traders. The parents parking use that facility to park as well. So therefore, I'd like to propose that we increase the free period of parking from half now to one hour. And thank you. Do you have a second of that proposal on him Williams? I have to take a base on that. So, We recommend it to cabinet, shall we? Yes, my understanding. Yeah, that's what we're doing with. So everyone agree that. Yes, I just want to talk on Martin Square, and I think that's an improvement, but I want to be up front. Position here. Can I apologize for not calling you first? No, that's right. Okay, thank you. You beat me. So that's fine. These shops were built as an entity by the Mooling Road district council. As were the ones in Twist and Road East Mooling, there are no other car parks whatsoever. As far as I'm aware, well, aren't any in the Mooling area, and I don't think there are any in the Tumbridge area, which were built on that basis. They were built pursuant to the then powers under the housing act. The other car parks were different legislation. So, in the case of Martin Square, this council inherited the shops and the car park. And in my view, it therefore needs to take into account what the effect of car parking charges would be on the. The rentals, the likely letting of the shops and the capital values. And I'm really disappointed that the council does not do this. The risk assessment in this report is very. Because it's the councils got this idea wants to just talk about car parking, but it is the owners of these. And if car parking charges had a detrimental effect on the jobs, then it would have a detrimental effect on the on the letting policy of this council. I understand, for example, that the butcher recently. On there would have had second thoughts if he had been told that we were considering car parking charges. And I understand we did not have him this. The other thing I want to say is, because the bar council and its predecessors own the car. They have taken its existence into account when looking at other things. For example, references been made to the doctor's surgery that came there, the medical from thorn is on the main road. And if you read the area three reports, the fact of the existence of the car park was taken into account. Because otherwise, the car parking was insufficient. And I've looked back and there are other examples of where the car park was taken into account in doing changes and extension to existing properties. It was taken into account when the leisure trust moved there. It was the bar of council wanting the leisure trust to move there. It was in its interest. And the reports refer to car parking spaces being available in the square. I'm sorry to raise these legalistic thing, but I do think the risk assessments are defective. And of course, I think that you need to look at the whole square as an entity. Not yank out the car park and put it with other car parks, because the car park is part of the asset owned by the bar of council. Now, I agree that an hour is an improvement on on half an hour. If the cabinet as I suspect they are 110% determined to force these charges through. I will go along with it. But if I find some legal reason to prevent you. I will, whatever you've decided. And of course, you must take into account. I won't pay these charges. I shall go and park in Morrison's and walk through. And other customers that there go to Tesco's. Why would you go and fiddle about with parking charges when you can go to Tesco's which is free and get your prescription there, for example. Why won't I go down to Lidl's park where it's free? It's been walking distance to the car park. And also, of course, Sainsbury's at Bory Wood. And Poody James, quite right. None of this has been taken into account. It's not been thought about. It's not mentioned in any of the of the reports. And that's why I think they're deficient. So why won't stand in the way of what you what you say. And he's quite right. People from didn't use Martin Square to and he's smalling and all round about. I'm not at all happy making any charges. I always resisted when I was the leader of this council making any charges. I haven't changed my mind. I'm consistent. And I haven't changed my mind since this council came into being that there should be no charges in Martin Square. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you back to the last cabinet meeting, how I pushed hard to try and get 30 minutes to an hour. And my goodness, it was hard work. And I got nowhere. I was being asked how I was going to fund the extra half hour. It was really hard work. And today I went into Martin Square to pick up some medication for my wife. I thought it would be a nice simple job, but more than half an hour. So it is absolutely imperative that basically we actually changed this to at least an hour. There's the least that we can do on this, I think, rather poor way of actually taxing people through car parking. And whilst I was waiting in the chemist that had a chat, and to my surprise, how many people are on minimum wage, who are shop workers. This basically, this proposal is anti business, because I think the whole thing is that the people who work in those shops on minimum wages are going to, in many cases, have to buy some kind of parking permit, which is going to put up business expenses, which is actually going to make business harder. And it's interesting from the point of view, you think why these shops are supported by people who drive there by car, because in this particular area, we're not in the centre of a town. There's no bus service, no cars, transport customers to businesses. If they didn't, there wouldn't be businesses for the people who don't have cars, or would walk in that area. So yes, I support the one hour, but I think it's pretty poor. The whole thing. Thank you. Mark Hood. Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, I completely agree. I think we're now, I think we're now a parking artist where he's a sensible compromise. I'm more than happy to agree with that. Thank you. Just a reminder, the last meeting I attended of this committee, we were told about a massive over has been 220,000 plus another 70 or 1,000 on the new planning system. Because this came as a rather shock to us as we hadn't been informed about this, and we were not very pleased. Now, this is relevant because we are now being told, we've got to have these charges because we need the money. Well, we had some money and we spent a lot of it, didn't we, without asking anybody. Normally, I'm against both marketing square and else for the marketing square is pretty unique because the council owned the units. And I'm pretty sure, and if I'm a typical user, if I want to go for a breakfast in the cafe, mine square, I'll be going. I won't be going because you can't guarantee. I can get in there, get breakfast and get back out again, moving it out. I'm not going to pay to go have a breakfast. This is going to harm the councils units, and I think you're going to end up with voids in there. I think we really do need to think about this very carefully, because you're harming your own your own properties. So, this could be thrown out and go back to be reconsidered. Thank you. Thank you, Paul Boxall online. Thank you very much, Chair, for allowing to speak, although I'm not a member of your committee. I just want to echo everything my wall colleague Bill Banks said, but I also want to touch on the fact that it feels like extending some marketing square to an hour. It's like we're just throwing the dog a bone. It feels like it's just, I know what we're appeasing everyone and throw half an hour on. But an hour isn't enough. I get prescriptions from the pharmacy down there quite a lot. And actually, it's there's often long queues and you have to wait. And for some time, the butcher that opened up, I think as Councillor Thorny well said, wouldn't have opened. If he known they were parking charges to be put there, all this, all these charges, all these. A little proposed charges, if you like, will have an effect on those businesses, everyone said. But the thing that worries me the most is we've the cabinet have made a decision based on what conclusive data. Council husband was referring to anecdotal data. Well, if we made decisions based on anecdotal data, we'll probably get a lot of things wrong. I want to see the actual data that says that these are the rights or not the right decisions. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think I can remember we had a closed room second day for one hour. But we'll just send it back to cabinet. Is everyone agreed? You shouldn't speak. If you have what I said, I wanted to be recorded that I voted against. You can't have record. But I can. I wish to be recorded against. I won't be with you today. Double deal in them. Do you want to have a recorded folks route or. Okay, it's a request. Yes, that's fine. Anyone else. Sorry, I'm sorry. So now members are going to vote on the proposal from console. Charge to be expected from half an hour to one hour. And when I call your name, please communicate what you are for against or abstaining this. I'm not saying. I saw a cannon. Oh, that's a bridge against. I saw a brown. Oh, that's a cope. Oh, that's a memet. Oh, that's a Davis. Oh, that's a Williams. Oh, that's a hit mode. Against. That's a craze. Oh, that's a whole skin against. That's a Hudson. Oh, that's a king. Oh, that's a lark. Oh. Who? So to confirm we have 12 members voted in favor for members voted against one member abstent. The motion is carried and they just want to clarify and console phone. Would like his vote to be recorded in the minutes. All right. Thank you, everyone. Right. On to number three. Which is up on the. Up on the screen. Parking charges for Ailesford Bailey bridge. Right. Colin Williams. Thank you, chair. This is just for clarification regarding anything that gets spoken in more from. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And a meeting with Alan Sullivan, who's the chairman of Irish parish council. And he category stated that Roger Dalton doesn't speak on behalf of the parish council. I just want that noted. Thank you. Davis. Thank you, Chairman. I've been in my 20 years as a counselor. There is considerable public interest and that is mostly against. There is an awful lot of stuff which we need to cover. The first thing I'm going to do is to run through the emails, not the points raised in emails by my by my residents. And I will do those which are basically against the proposal. And why? The first one is that it's an undemocratic. The constant rotation was absolutely clear. No. We are the second one is we are piecing town, a Tumbridge town residents who who pay for their parking. There are a number of transport things that come into this. This is always by people who emailed me. That in Ailesford, there is now no bus service and villages totally dependent on the car as the only source of transport. There is a train station a mile away, but it's very limited as to where it goes. The cycle routes are limited and our rural roads are not safe for cycling. The car is a luxury in. Ailesford not a necessity is a necessity, not a luxury. I normally read my notes. In many households, two cars are essential for the two income earners. The removal of buses by KCC means that better way workers that commute in have to do so by car. They need to park somewhere and use forced all road and now at present the free car parks in Ailesford. There is a unique thing about Ailesford car parks in that a vast number, a very significant number of the users are residents. Many houses in Ailesford are part of the beautiful old medieval village. Whilst there is parking requirement for businesses as you heard so well from the beauty team from Ailesford High Street, the major uses are the residents for whom the car is an essential of life. This makes it very different from TMBC's other car parks. The interim guidance note three that modern states are constructed to in the last 25 years have all suffered from the central government dictates to restrict parking. A policy that may be sensible in urban settings but is wrong in rural ones. Residents say that if there is charging in the car parks, residents need parking permits and parking spaces reserved for them. There is no guarantee of that if you have the numbers using it but that is a thing from the residents. They suggest that the west side car park is for residents only. There is very restricted road parking in the area because the road on either the car parks straddle is on either side of the main road from the A229 to the A20 across the one bridge between Ellington and Peter's bridge. And that road is very heavily restricted and also has a level crossing which closes for about 10 to 15 minutes in the hour. And residents visitors will have to pay to come to see them. You heard a very, very good statement from Nicola from the beauty team on the problems facing businesses in a also an ice street. They are mainly service bridge businesses or indeed hospitality businesses. There's one suggestion was to save money don't extend the car park. And there's a principle in taxation that you pay whether you've used the facility or not. A key one which many residents raised was the suddenness of the charging. These are large charges coming at short notice and households need time to adapt to them by selling unwanted cars, creating parking spaces on their own land if they can, or even deciding to move out of the village. A few residents actually supported the car parking charges. In the main they were concerned in the local consultation, but so the civil residents highlighted the misuse of the car park, taking up a significant parts of parking, a number of parking places that can't then be used by residents. The feeling is more spaces will be available for residents coming home late. If uninsured and untaxed cars are removed, commuter car parking where commuters club together to go to London and are looking for a free car park to park in. And they use illsford car park. And then we have a garage apparently on the a 20 parking cars that are awaiting sale. There is certainly these people certainly felt that there's charging for other car parks in the district, and that their car park is being maintained by those car parking fees charged elsewhere that they ought to bear the cost of that. Whether that's from actual residents living close in the village or not, I'm not certain. But the one that many people do support is that a better provision would be if we did do the extension to the car park. And we could only really do that if we actually charged for the car parks. And I'll move on from those issues raised by the residents. That's what my residents were saying to me. I go to the financial crash of 2008, and the UK has been living beyond its financial being since then. We've had a major pandemic which hasn't helped. And we've got a war in Ukraine that has caused a 10% inflation within this country to almost solely to that. And the rise in fuel and fertilizers amongst other things caused solely by that. We're a very heavily taxed country with expensive services such as a very generous welfare state and the NHS. Now we also have for defense a completely hollowed out armed forces. Thanks to Westminster cuts. And the Westminster cut have savagely cut everywhere in the public services. And especially with local authorities such as us, where a significant part of our income stream has been removed. That is what is different now from 2008. They add insult to injury in Westminster by saying that we can't raise council tax by more than 3%. Inflation is running at 10%, and a major part of our costs are star. And the accountants in Westminster say you've got to make the assets sweat. And so our principal asset is a course, our wonderful, wonderful staff. I've been fortunate to be at a pivotal point in that, where we had problems in our planning department, which was heavily supported by agency staff. And we didn't have people with the same sort of commitment that long term employees have. And so we have changed that it has cost us a lot of money to do it, but it's right and proper that we've done it. We need that money to do these sort of things. And this is the income. This is the revenue budget. We're looking at not the capital budget for the creation of the on car park that we do need. Thirdly, the only asset that we have, which is not working financially in the West Westminster White Hall, making the asset sweat, the ones which aren't sweating are the car parks. And regrettably, we've reached the stage now, when we have to reconsider that. So we then reach the final Westminster insult to us. Legally, we have to go out with a consultation. They say, that's Westminster, that is a useful exercise so that the council can get a full understanding of the local issues and feelings of the residents. I say it's a useless exercise to find out what I could have told them for free, but people do not want to pay for a service that they've had free for a very long time. And I have to say that one of the two of us in this council that do feel that it's time now it's appropriate that the motorist is. I feel that central government is holding a pistol to our heads, and Senately requiring us to hold a consultation to emphasize the decision is ours, when in large measure, it is their dictate that we're following. However, they do give us, they do say that it is not a binding resident referendum for the council, and it's a decision that we must consider what is best for everybody, not just the residents who are very, very badly affected. If the council fails financially, what is referred as a section 114 notice is served by government that effectively says we're bankrupt. Birmingham and Woking loom large and several cuts central government went in and put huge council tax rises on and then blamed it on the local council. This is closer to home than you might think. Excuse me, David, are you nearly done. I am nearly finished. This is closer to home you might think, KCC and Medway are not free from this threat. Do not get me wrong, temperature morning is a model of good local government financially. By taking timely difficult decisions such as this, we have maintained a sound financial position that is largely debt free. But we have identified a whole in our future ongoing income that cannot be plugged from council tax, or the unpredictable Westminster grants. We're therefore having to do what government forced us to do, which is to make our assets work for us. And the only one we have is our car parks. I cannot see how we can avoid it. Was the car parks have been free to users. They've cost 10 BC council tax payer money in their construction maintenance and the CCTV that goes with them. This could be a fair charge to users. Now, in guidance of this decision, management leaders say that you've got to be clear about this decision. And they are more ruthless than that. They say you've got to use that word ruthless about the decision. Excuse me. I'm sorry, I've been very nearly finished, but I other people have been very late, and it's been because of other things in my statement. And I will go on as a ruthless. We live in a ruthless that we had to be ruthless with the decision. I think it is now that we must have a point where we do pay or counter for charging in our car parks. That is the ruthless decision that has to be made. Those leaders then go on to say that we must become passionate in the execution of that decision. And I want to you to bear in mind on the points I've raised already of the uniqueness of this car park. That is mainly for residents not passes by that many houses have no parking whatsoever. The public transport is not just bad. It is non-existent effectively. The cars are essential, not a luxury. The residents have no choice but to use these car parks. And we also have a little school, which is right on station road, where the use of the car parks is absolutely essential at car at school opening closing times, the school run. So with that I propose that we accept the cabinet decision with the following amendments. Firstly, that the annual season ticket costs be bought down further from 100 from 200 pounds to 120 pounds, I 10 pounds a week. Remember that this is going from nothing. Right. 10 pounds a month. Yes. Sorry, 10 pounds a week. 10 pounds a month. Yes, you're right. The second one, the second proposal is that one hour to be given free as we seem to be doing in Martin Square that applies equally to our local businesses in the high street, which are those small are very, very important to us. There are a number of spaces be made available exclusively for use by residents only. And that charges are not introduced until the extension of the car park is completed and opened, which is an essential part of this proposal and also making those car parks work. Thank you very much. Do you have a seconder. Colin Williams. Okay. Seconding it. Did you want to speak on it? Thanks. Just that I totally agree, but not not the whole statement. I do have another speaker. And Roger Dawson online. Thank you for allowing me to come back, Madam Chair. First of all, I would say that one of my colleagues, Colin Williams mentioned I do not speak for the current parish council. The last parish council meeting in echoes where Colin Williams was not in attendance. Dave Davis was sitting beside me, and there is a council sitting in this chamber at this point that heard me ask the parish council. Do you or do you not support these charges and the overwhelming response was no, they did not. So I just want to counteract what Colin Williams have said, because he's practically wrong. Now, also on the car park charges extension, we were reaching about the extension to the car park. A question I would like to ask, in the consultation paperwork, were the residents advised of the estimated cost of £160,000 to do that. Question two, five to six years ago, our parish council, and I've got this from the ex chairman of our parish council, did have a look at the overflow car park. There were serious concerns with health and safety issues, there was concerns that case, KCC would raise objections, because there are two footpaths running through that car park. And also, it's estimated in the paperwork, you would get 30 spaces there. I've been an engineer, not a road engineer or civil engineer. Have raised this, there is no way practical, you could get an additional 30 spaces in that car park. But to that end, when I get back to the UK, a meeting has been arranged for the three members to attend a meeting with, I think it's Andy Bracy at the car park. So getting back to what David suggested that this car park is, sorry, the extending of the car park is essential to make these sons and figures work. How can we, at this point in time, accept a proposal, but realistically, we do not know for a fact that we can utilize the said land for car park. David his statement said, a little bit of sort of maybe wrong, he said, we have a small school in station road. We announced that do not have a school in station road. Even further behind the arms houses off a watch the road. With regard to keep people, teachers or staff using that car park to service that school. Why is it the residents will be asked if this goes through to spend £120 per annum. And that was down from 290 originally, which dropped to 200. And I did raise the 200 in my conversation, and I quoted a figure of £150. And I was asked, where did I get that from? I didn't reply as to the source. And now it's dropped to £120 from originally £290. Quite clearly, the consultation had been flawed. I did raise a subject with members of my group. When I was called in to say it suggests about the residents parking, maybe in the car park opposite the allotments there as opposed to the other one, which is slightly bigger. And we would need three, if the extension went ahead, three ticket machines, which I've been told, we may have in stock. That was discontinued from Tundbridge. But normally those machines would be approximately £10,000 each. So that's another £15,000. Another question need to ask is, is there electricity required to those machines? Yes or no. And also getting back to other businesses within the village. A 150% please to have found a small pulp called the little gem. And it's an absolute delight to go down there for a couple of beers once every couple of months. But if I was having to pay car parks until eight o'clock at night, I wouldn't be using the little gem. So the church is a beautiful church within a outstanding stunning village setting. Where would be if there was a wedding, for example, where would those people park their cars? If you give a permit to residents, there's no guarantee whatsoever that they will be guaranteed a space. If the car parks pool, which I say with wedding and or the football that takes place after a huge amount of money has been spent by sport seemed and on the right ground. They would have to the villages with their policies would have to park on the high street anywhere. A clatter the village further and also Midway court, which is suffering now as we speak from parking, including parking from residents within the four or five houses opposite the entrance to Midway court by using that. So if that's the case that the car park is for, for whatever reason, where are those people going to go in Midway court, they're going to displace elsewhere. And I would like to be provided with data, because it's been mentioned about a garage along the road, and one on the London road. Yes, the one on the London road. I think they're off of or something like that. Big motoring world used to park their cars there. I haven't seen any cars from big motoring world or the like. Since snodlin branch opened on that car park. And I would like to have data. If the industrial units along the road from on forced road are using that car park, we need to address that situation. So, as I said, if they're using their car to park there, then walk along. Well, hang on, we serve for every isle on there needs to provide car parks for their staff. So I say I'm really disappointed. If I was in the chamber, I would be making a proposal, but I'm not, but it does not have my support. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Roger. We can go to the vote for sending it back to cabinet with one three hour, 120 pounds annual ticket, residence only. I think I've actually put. And the extension between before the charges. No charges until the extension is complete. Yes. Okay. So, and I have your agreement. Thank you. I'm going to declare a five minute natural break. Sorry, because I think we will need it. Thank you, bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to restart the meeting after a short break. Yes, Chairman, we covered the points. This part is essential, I think, in taking on getting as much parking as we can. I very much take what Councillor Vodger, my whole colleague, says there may well be problems with that, and we work our way through that. We've got a meeting with Andrew Young on the 10th of May to begin to look at these and we'll understand it better then. But I think this is a good idea. It's certainly well supported by the residents. There's a majority of people who want it. And I think that's one of the few things in the consultation where it was a majority. That's a legacy hand, Roger. You might be on mute. I regard it as a legacy hand, and I think, shall we take it as general affirmation item four? Thank you. Item five, the Upper Castle Field car park be extended. Gary. Thank you, Chair. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot. The words of Jamie Mitchell's big yellow taxi been going around my head all day. The area of green space. Next that they want to extend the car park onto may not be paradise, but it is valued by residents. I've seen children playing games there. I've seen thousands and thousands kicking footballs. I've seen parents after picking up their children from school, gathering to chat and speak to their friends. And on Saturday, I saw a group of young girls practicing dance routines there. So it is valued. The car park extension would also encroach on the retirement flats next to it and further detract from the setting of the castle. I have to ask, is the extension really required? I told in the report that occupancy is high and the car park is often full, but no evidence of data has been supplied to back that up. We already have, we've been told an over-provision of car parks in Tumbridge Town Centre and there's a cost of the extensions, 180,000 pounds. I would like to know how long it would take us to recover that cost. It would require the 28 extra spaces to be fully occupied for some time, I would have thought. I walked past this car park several times a week on different days at different times. And when I walked past it, there are usually plenty of spaces available and I've only ever seen it fall on rare occasions. I think we need more information to justify this. If we're going to lose some green space, then we need to know more about it. I don't think it's justified. I can't support this. And I think Cabinet should think again. Thank you. Dennis King. Thank you, Chair. I will try to be brief and speak quickly. Just to summarize from my point of view, beyond reviewing parking charges for the fun of it, it isn't out of a wish to punish residents or to, for some perverse pleasure, to stockpile money just for the hell of it. If we were in actual fact to set a petition to people to say whether all car parks should be free, I don't think it takes a genius to work out that there will be a magnificent majority in favor. But that would create the problem of who's going to maintain it, who's going to provide them and who's going to provide the staffing to make sure they operate properly. If we were to set up a multi-choice survey, asking people to select which services the Council would no longer provide because they can't fund them. It's a broader sense of King's talking about different issues. Is the upper castle feel a car park, not the extension of ours? I guess that's a reasonable point, except there's only one opportunity to talk. And so, you're going to get to the point, and I will be a lot quicker than some of my colleagues I can assure you. We are coming to item eight eventually. We are what? We're actually on item five. I know I can read. You're talking about item eight. I will get to the point and upper castle field. But, um, continue. Okay. But the Council has a medium for term financial strategy. It has to bear in mind that it has experts which have identified the short form and its funding. So, in looking at the choices that we have to make, what I'm saying is that we're doing that in a responsible fashion. And I won't then talk about the charges which are significantly higher in other authorities such as Brighton, where they are about 10, probably 15 or 20 times higher. And even though that was until recently a green run authority. But coming back to my concerns about Tumbridge in general, I will come to Castlefield, but I'd like to say thank you to the leisure trust for making the proposal that they have because my residents have said that I'm hugely concerned about people that regularly use the leisure facilities. And we don't wish to incentivize people from being fit. Right. Coming back to the upper castle fields. Well, I tell you what, I must be a fraction of what people have said. But coming back to Tumbridge and upper castle field. I have talked about it with colleagues because we have been had concerns about this proposal from the outset. It isn't a clear choice. And I do disagree with Councilor bridge. I quite often go to use that car park and can't find a space. And it's heavily used, but that's just personal experience. Even though there was a majority response in favour of extending it. I feel that encroaching on the existing green space isn't a good idea. And the proximity to the school does weigh in my thinking. But yes, probably we do need an enlarged car park closed to the castle. We're certainly not overburdened with parking space at that end of the high street. But on the whole, I'm concerned about the green area, the proximity to the swings. And the play area. And I want on that basis to support any recommendation that we should think again and remove this proposal from the suggestion of the extension of this particular car park. So that's my recommendation that we should not go ahead with this. Thank you. Sorry if it was too long. Do you have a second? Adam, next. Thank you chair. Yes, I'm very happy to second. Councillor King's proposal. This idea is dropped. I have been uncomfortable with this idea. My primary focus was always looking at the planning issues, including the setting of the castles as a grade one listed building and also a scheduled ancient monument. Yes, the initial consultation came back with an apparent majority in favour. But I think in hindsight, it's clear that it was not significant enough to make such an important decision on probably in future. We need to be a bit slower about taking decisions which reduce public open space within our town. It's a limited and valuable resource for our residents. Since the original decision was taken, there's been a lot of new evidence submitted from local residents, including on the sort of general weekly use of the car park and admittedly it doesn't seem particularly high and how valued the space really is for recreation and leisure. I recognise that it probably would be useful for events at the castle, but I'm not sure that on its own is sufficient grounds to erode this green space forever. So in these circumstances, I think it's right that the decision is reviewed and in light of the strength of local feeling on this particular matter, it really has strength and my initial apprehension. I think it's time to drop this proposal. In my view, it's not worth a permanent loss of green space in the setting of the castle. It's one of our most valuable assets as a town. I have raised my concerns with Councillor Bawton last week and I appreciate we've had quite a lot of open conversations about it and he has listened to me. And I think it's also good to see so many residents engaging tonight with council processes. And obviously, scrutiny and debate of these issues is a key part of what we're here to do. So it's been good to see. So, Chairman, in summary, I will support the motion to drop the extension of upper fields car park. And I think in the long term, perhaps we should also think about allocating it as a local green space and that would perhaps provide comfort to residents that it will be protected forever. Thank you very much. I've got five speakers. So Anna, Coke, next. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to say that your green Councillors have already done the work to get this designated as a local green area. I want to build on Jackie Wyatt's amazing points. The increase in upper castle fields car parking spaces will increase air pollution in an air quality management area and Tumbridge High Street by encouraging more vehicle movements in an area bordered by primary school and the senior citizens housing complex, which is in contravention of our air quality action plan that states that the priorities from the adoption of this action plan are to aid a behavioral shift within the population to promote more sustainable and less polluting methods of transport. Priority one of the air quality action plan relates to transport. The main sources of air pollution that's caused the declaration of the air quality management areas across Tumbridge and Moreling is associated with road transport emissions. Therefore, if we reduce transport emissions through measures contained within the air quality action plan, they're key priority. This approach has taken focuses on areas where the Tumbridge and Moreling borough has direct control, so things like planning and procurement of outsourced functions. And this is such a case. The Council has direct control over this proposal, which will increase more traffic through the air quality management area. Priority four is public health and wellbeing. The impact of air pollution on public health is detrimental. So therefore, improving air quality within the borough is a key priority. The main sources of air pollution in areas of public exposure within Tumbridge are again are from vehicle emissions. So aside from restricting vehicle uses through measures such as clean air zones or low emission zones, the most effective way to achieve a reduction in vehicle numbers is to change attitudes and behaviours through education and awareness, as well as through schemes which incentivise change. Improving air pollution to ensure the health of the public is a wide reaching perspective and therefore will not be specific. But I do think having more parking in an area that already suffers from low quality air is hugely problematic. So the Cabinet's decision here is deliberately encouraging more cars to drive into a constricted urban area, actually through an air quality management area, when there is ample parking on the east side of the high street, knowing that it would have a detrimental effect on the health of the residents surrounding Castle Fields and the children attending Slade School. The Council has bizarrely set up monitoring and a campaign to produce air pollution at three schools, yet content to worsen air quality by its own actions in the heart of Tumbridge. The proposal is in contravention of the Council's climate change strategy as well, I believe. The core themes of that climate change action plan are adapting to climate change, but this proposal will result in the loss of a carbon sink and increase flood risk by creating another impermanable surface. Transport by ignoring public transport or active travel alternatives. We are encouraging a business as usual approach to driving and parking. Air quality, which I've mentioned and habitats and biodiversity. So the biodiversity of an area is rarely improved by creating a car park. I also wanted to mention that recently the Council was awarded a government grant of nearly £37,000 to run a campaign for anti idling road signs. As well as that, they were having air quality sensors fitted outside five schools. The school sensors record the level of exhaust fumes caused by idling engines, which are known to cause microscopic pollutants that cause a range of health problems from heart and lung disease, strokes and cancer. Councillor Robin Betz, the cabinet member for Environment and Climate Change said at the time, this scheme will make an important contribution towards improving air quality. We want to educate both children and parents on the damaging effects of air pollution by demonstrating positive outcomes achieved by small changes made on the school commute. The health of future generations is paramount and on clean air day, there is no better time to take action. I just don't see the plan for increasing air pollution next to a primary school really fits in with that. But aside from pollution, parks and green spaces play an important role in developing strong and inclusive communities. They provide opportunities for different groups of people to come together, which we saw on Friday at the playdate. People forge bonds in places with healthy social infrastructure because, and I'm quoting Eric Kleinenberg's 2018 work, page five, when people engage in sustained recurrent interaction, particularly while doing things they enjoy, relationships inevitably grow. We are in the midst of a mental health crisis with loneliness mentioned by many who are struggling. We should not be building car parks on spaces that foster these connections. The social and mental well-being value of parks is recognised in the government's loneliness strategy. Her Majesty's government 2018, if anyone wants to look it up. A chapter in the strategy is devoted to community infrastructure, the places, spaces and activities that bring people together where they live. Those of you who have used or seen upper castle fields will know that that is that sort of space. The 25 year environment plan, again, her Majesty's government calls for investment in urban green infrastructure to meet the challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change. It promises to draw up a national framework of green infrastructure standards, ensuring that new developments include accessible green spaces and that any area with little. Anna, can I just hurry you along a bit? It's caused past. Oh, sorry, am I the only person who's spoken at length? Sorry. No, but because the other people have spoken at length, be quiet, please. OK, I will read the last bit there. OK, thank you. I would like this to be referred back to Cabinet because I think this is a harmful and tone deaf decision. I think the things we've heard this evening that it seemed like it would be very useful for the team at the castle is not a good enough reason to put a car park here. In summary, the decision to build an additional car park alongside the existing one is fundamentally flawed on numerous grounds. Thank you. Very much. I would urge all the next four speakers to be quite brief and bring up new points. If possible. Thank you, Mark Hood. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for calling the local members first, as you said, you would do. The alpha report uses single non-typical days such as days when customers was in full flow, and that data has been used to create a projected usage for the next 16 years. That study is fundamentally flawed on that basis. And it is obvious that knowing that the demand has increased disproportionately for a limited period in December, other dates should have been selected to provide a truly representative sample. Now, this detail hasn't been presented to the Council. This detail, this is part of the parking study, which I've asked for, and it's been shared. The parking study concedes that, and I quote, The forecast includes only car parks provided by the Council, meaning that not all available capacity is known. So, the three station car parks aren't included. Therefore, not all of the opportunities for vehicles to be displaced to other car parks in the area of interest can be accounted for. What we have here is a fundamental mistake with the data that we've relied on, it's been drawn up. It's simply incorrect to interpret the data to state that upper castle fields is, and I quote, fully occupied at 1pm on weekdays. We know for well, that isn't the case, because the Save Upper Castle Fields page has been sharing images of that mostly empty car park for the last few weeks. We know that it was occupied on that single occasion in a pre-Christmas period, and many of the other car parks were not assessed on exactly the same day or time. Only lower castle fields, the castle itself and Kinning's Road were done at the same time as upper castle fields. On the 12th of March, the temperature morning, finance, regeneration, and property scrutiny select committee considered the Tumbris Town Centre asset review, and the recommendation three was that. On the grounds that the proposal from St. Louis, the potential provision of a hotel and medical practice were likely to attract greater numbers to the town. The lower council's general approach to parking should be to provide unallocated parking spaces between the current 970 spaces and an anticipated future peak demand. Unquote. This completely undermines the case that there will be significantly reduced capacity following the regeneration. Nevertheless, it is entirely premature to waste funds, increasing capacity elsewhere until we are sure of the eventual demand all places elsewhere. Now, Tumbris residents have seen a multitude of regeneration schemes being proposed over the last four decades, which have not come to fruition, but we certainly hope that is the case here, but this is just this is just premature. The parking study at sections 6.19 states, in summary, there appears to be no need to provide additional parking capacity for weekday users up to and including and for some time beyond 2039. So, despite the report being commissioned to support, it seems a certain outcome. There is no case to be made. So, how have the counts have come to a different conclusion? Why doesn't there were 866 objections to the extension of upper castle fields, which concentrated on the climate change heritage site arguments against it. Now, bizarrely, the leader of the council and the cabinet have chosen to cite the marginal support in the consultation for extending the car party, pushing this through, despite ignoring the avalanche of opposition in all the other proposals for increasing charges. So, I'd like to ask why the double standards. I have a number of questions. I want to know who made the decision to carry out the parking survey at precisely the time that it would return a skewed sample by carrying it out during the castle miss event in 2022. I would like to know how long it will take to recover the cost of the construction of the 28 space car park, which is estimated to cost 180,000 pounds. I'd like to know if the council makes a planning application to build a car park in the shadow of a historic monument in a conservation area and adjacent to a later living complex and next to a school and is shocked that it's rejected. Will it actually appeal against its own planning committee. Why doesn't this report include the client terms of reference so we can understand the context of the instructions that alpha were given by the council. Now, what we've got here is various committees have been considering the proposal, but they have not been presented with sufficient financial information or the data in the form of that parking study that I mentioned. Section 9.7 states overall with caveats regarding the forecasting ahead COVID effects and the survey timing. There is more than adequate capacity in temperature car parks up to and including and beyond 2039. And I'm just going to finish you'll be pleased here with the key sentence. Section 6.16 weekday usage and I quote by 2039 the only car parks to exceed 100% occupancy are Angel West upper castle fields and Waterloo Road. But this is only by 14 vehicles, which can be easily transferred to another car park. This will probably occur naturally, but if the local disruption is considered unacceptable, it could be achieved by regulations. In quote. So where is the justification for an additional car park, because it's not included in the council's own report. How much did that report cost. And why are we commission commissioning consultants, just going to ignore the experts, unless we're collectively. Michael go. I think I'll suggest that the relevant officers come back with smarts is at a later date. That's right. I don't think they can answer this evening and James cookie. Thank you. I am not on the committee. I'll stop by echoing the comments about protecting green space. I also wanted to raise the question of the data we have on this traffic surveys that seem to be disputed. Additional ad hoc ones anecdotal references, etc. This may be a question that officers can answer now or not, but fundamentally, it's a charge for car park. It's got a ticket machine and a Ringo system that exists to basically create timestamp transactions. Could we not pull the data from that and generate a complete map of how occupied the car park is throughout the year just using the information from that rather than going and counting. I think the difference between the survey that Alpha did the first one is follow up survey. The relation to down center itself is that they didn't just account. They also surveys of people. They would do. It was more than just announcing. Is. No, I mean, just about camp. If I can ask you very quickly, is it possible to pull the data from the ticket machines and Ringo to get to get better numbers throughout the year. We, we, we can certainly have a look at that on the inside some of the question answer. If perhaps it. Please those can do me. Or were with the parking. Thank you very much. Mark Rhodes and then we'll go to the recommendation. Dennis cans Adam. Thank you. Madam chairman. Thank you. I am not a member of your committee. I would like to support my two colleagues in front of me. I also was uncomfortable when the notion was first put about car park on the nice green space. I think Council bridge sees that area personally through rose tinted specs, but I do concede it is an important green space. And as a slight anecdote chairman in 1967 slash 68, probably 67. I was a pupil at Slade school. Yeah. And I can remember going up to the grass area before the car park that is there now was built. And I've been thinking about it over a few days and I reckon we were taken up there and allowed to play on that grass area. Because the right now urban Council wanted to build a car park. Thank you very much, Jen. Thank you. Can we now go back to Dennis King and. As a member some proposal to refer it back to cabinet. Right on to item six. And does anyone disagree with this? No, right. Grieves, our general affirmation item seven off street parking tariffs be revised as stated in the report and number eight. Should we take those two together or separately separately right. Okay. Seven. Oh, you've agreed. Seven. Right. Okay. Everyone agreed seven. Thank you. We're gone to number eight. With the exception of West Morning High Street, the Council's off street parking charges be extended until eight p.m. And that the parking charges also be applied on Sundays and bank holiday is excluding Christmas day boxing day and New Year's Day. Right. Very interestingly enough is currently a survey going round. In sent out by Conservative party headquarters. And it's asking people what their views are for future policy, the Conservative party. Now, this is probably the only time in your lives that you will hear me say this. I agree with Rishi. I will never say it again. Let me tell you why on this survey, there's a question that says we're backing small businesses. People are asked for their top three priorities or top priorities rather. And option three says, parking for town centers to encourage. Sorry. Free parking for town centers to encourage shoppers. Rishi soon act believes that you can support local businesses by having free parking. There was the converse true. You affect businesses badly if you charge the parking, especially on Sundays when we heard from Theresa Seema, how most of her business comes on a Sunday. Bouncer Borton said something about consultation was illegal obligation. Well, my view is it may be a legal obligation, but we have a moral obligation. Our moral obligation to our residents to listen to what they say. Councillor Mike Taylor said we want the motorists to pay. Yeah, but it's not the moat. Well, it may be the motorists paying, but the businesses are suffering. Do we want the businesses to suffer? I don't. The hospitality business has been having really difficult time since COVID. People come into townbridge on a Sunday, they wonder about and they go and have lunch and then they have a drink and they enjoy walking through the park. And they benefit our town. And now we're saying, sorry, mate, can't do that anymore. At least not for free. So a lot of them won't because they can't afford it. Okay, we've sounded like we've got some help for the users of the leisure facilities. But there are masses of other clubs who meet in the evenings deliberately choosing to meet at seven or eight, because that's the time it's free. My own association of the U3A, we have quiz nights every so often, and we start them at our past seven. And we're all retired people. The group that I heard of that upset me the most are a group of support group for people who are suffering with mental health issues. And this is the one thing they go to on a Monday night. And they won't be able to afford to pay for the parking. I just think it's absolutely wicked. And we talk about, sorry, Councilor Tanner talks about the money we need, or we don't need it yet for a start. It's been predicted since I was first on the council in 1986 that we would need it in four years time. I remember when we actually took over the council, and there was no money left at all because we'd spent it all on average swimming pool, do you remember? And things happen that you can't predict. Okay, it's really bad at the moment. The Labour Party have said they're not going to help at the moment. But in one year or two years, it may be different. And if it's not different, well, then we look at it again. If we have to, but we don't have to now. And one possible way of saving money, might I add, would be give Tumbridge its own town council, and then you won't, we, sorry, as a borough, won't have to pay that. Thank you. I've got seven speakers and Anna Coke. Thank you, Chair. So obviously one of the functions of this committee is to discuss, see whether we can find some consensus. Firstly, I'd like to say there were many, many pages of information before this meeting, but it wasn't always providing the analysis and clarity that I felt we need. I can't see the information on what assessment was done about when to end the evening parking charges, where there was a projection done on the difference of ending charges at 7pm or 730 instead of 8pm. And if so, was this weighed against the cost of CEOs being used, and what income is being projected for the evening charges versus the outlay or ongoing costs. I'm completely aware of how desperately the council's financial situation is, and for the time I've spent on council, there has been few innovative waves to plug the gaps. And I understand that the income from car parking charges will assist with this. But I do want the views of local people who have expressed concerns to me about the impact of their chart of these charges about what we've dealt with the swimming pool, but attending community groups. The church goes, those attending vital support groups for addiction with alcohol and drugs, which take place in the evening, might be impacted and whether these risks have been properly explored. I've been contacted by many local residents who fear the impact on local businesses, and I want to acknowledge these fears and for us to speak about them in this committee. I was also concerned that with such widespread public disapproval of the charges, and these being views being seemingly ignored by the cabinet, whether it was really even worth undertaking the consultation in the first place. And I think people's confidence in the democratic process is being damaged by their views being sought, and then seemingly just dismissed. I'm also keen that we have more consistency across the borough, particularly with the parking charges in Tumbroge, and we've been looking, obviously, at Westmore link, but it seems disproportionate compared with other places across TMBC. And I just wondered whether there is a clear business case with evidence based research to support the approach. Finally, I'd like us to come to a solution that is that acknowledges all of this, and is informed both by the survey and public opinion while trying to raise revenue for TMBC. I wonder whether we have considered an hours free parking period on Sunday in Tumbroge, trying to find some sort of compromise. Thank you. You carry bridge. Thank you, Chair. I share Councillor Cose's concern about the damage to the democratic process. I mean, the results of the consultation on these extensions of charges are very, very clear. I mean, we're talking about the sentages of Vladimir Putin would be proud of. Objections to this, charging on Sundays 92.62% and holidays 96.19% evening 99.25%. I accept that we as Councillors need to use our judgment to make the right decision, but we also have to take people with us. Views of residents are very clear, and we cannot simply just dismiss them as if they don't matter. The consultation was clear just a box-sticking exercise because the government requires it. But this is why people are increasingly disillusioned with politics and politicians. I've heard people say, well, what's the point? They never listen to us. I also question whether we've actually been given enough information, right, Councillor Cope? I have the same concerns about whether we've got enough information to make a proper reason to consider decision here. I tried to work out the sort of the financial aspects of this, but the numbers are scattered throughout all the different reports, rather than in one place. And we're told the extended hours will bring an additional income of 319,670 pounds, but there's no sort of explanation of how that's calculated. And I would like to see that broken down between new additional income for Sundays, bank holidays and evening extensions. Any assessment of the costs and benefits must also consider the effects on residents and businesses, and there's been no proper assessment of that that I can see. For example, what about the impact on churches on Sundays? I know that one of the consultation responses came from the Hillsong Church. They have concerns about it. My colleague, Councillor Hoskins, has referred to the impact on community organisations that meet in the early evening, and also the impact on hospitality. We hear every week of bars and restaurants around the country closing because they're finding it economically challenging. And now we want to put more obstacles in the way of local businesses. And what about the impact on farmers market in Tumbridge and event days as well? Those who occur on Sundays, will the charges put people off? We're told that the change to the hours is needed to reflect changing shopping habits. We're told that many shops open later. But if I walk down Tumbridge High Street after six o'clock in the evening, there aren't many shops open, if any at all. St. Petersburg's closes at 10, but why do we stop charging at 8? 8 seems a very arbitrary point. Chair, Councillor Cople question there about what data is that based on? And we've had Sunday shopping for over 30 years, so it's not as if that's changed. That's not new. And I think the biggest change to the way shopping is carried out these days is this and more and more going online. And here we are potentially going to put another obstacle in the way of small businesses, shops, independent shops trying to make a living, facing the challenge of online shopping. But I'm not clear why these changes are needed. I mean, we're now being told that we need the additional money to balance the books. But that isn't actually the case that was made in the first place, and I can't see that being made very clearly in any of these reports. The report to communities and environments on September 23, when this process started, stated that these proposals intend to assist us in meeting the stated aims of the parking service and generate income to the Council to meet the rising costs of delivering the service. As we've heard tonight, we currently make an annual surplus and parking charges of approximately 1 million. I think it was 1.1 million Sharon said. Yes, total cost of risen 10% in the last two years, and existing charges of just people are going to be increased accordingly. So it seems to me that the cost of maintaining the car parks and the parking service is covered by raising the existing charges as they stand. For that purpose, we don't need the extension of the charges as proposed here. I don't think this administration has made a clear case for these changes is ignoring the will and the views of residents. And I think this is a bad decision. I'm not a motorist, so I'm not going to have to pay these charges. I don't own a car. But as a resident of Tombridge, I'm concerned about having a vibrant community vibrant town center. And I don't think we should be making it more difficult for people to enjoy the town center. Thank you. Dennis King, please. Sorry, the appeal of three charging and low charging low parking charges is obvious, but we still do have to grasp the reality. And I disagree with Councillor Hoskins that you don't plan to deal with deficits because they're around the corner. You just hope and wait, we think they might go away. That's not sensible accounting. It's not sensible management. And it's not realistic or fair. What we have heard, though, is that in comparison to our surrounding Council surrounding us, we're an island of low charges. So let's get things back into perspective. We currently raise, I think it's 1.141 million, but it's a fairly low relatively amount of money. And I will go back to the fact that if you look at Brighton, which until recently was a Green Run Council, they've raised, or levy, £33 million a year in annual charges. And the median charge, and I'm trying not to be unfair here, currently, it's £3.95 for an hour's parking, £7.90 for two hours. And if you sort of wander around a 24-hour stay in a car park, there could be anything between £20 and £50. Charges there are already levied to an APM at night and on Sundays. So we would not be unique. We're not draconian. And we would still be amongst the relatively low-charging councils. So I think we do have to get things in a wee bit in perspective. And what we are trying to do with these strategies as a whole is to even out disparities, but still take into account the surroundings in which car parks are located. And the parking habits of the drivers will regard to the local retail environment. And I think we've spent a lot of time talking about that tonight. And the charging structure should be encouraged better usage of the car parks throughout the year. And yes, let's be fair. It is one of the few ways of value-added charges that we can look at as a council independently. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much, Chair. I think the consultation is fundamentally flawed because there was no binary choice because I think there is, I think some members are living in a fantasy world. They think that this council has got a bucket full of money that are going to get us to the end of this decade because we've seen the projections from the actual director. And that money is running out. Those reserves that the council has been increasing charges for everything, imagine, including the cemetery charges went up, I think, 90%. The residents that I represent could be faced with. That's the services. We don't reach revenues. This is really, this is very, very difficult. This matter for me. And I think all that talk earlier about moral decisions, it's a moral decision to actually make sure that this council is on the financial fitting putting that's going to be sustainable because if that doesn't happen, there's a 1-1-4 notice. And then the commissions are in and we're all in trouble finding the funds to make sure that we've got a future is really important because, yes, at the moment, the wolf's not at the door because we've got a certain amount of money that's been set aside for transformation. And this council needs transformation so badly. And I was very grateful for the confirmation I heard earlier, the additional funding that is going to be coming through any of these these revenue making measures, parking are going to be available for that transformation product of projects. I find this really difficult. I think, I think that when we have been told by our external auditors that we have to that we have to carry up benchmarking, and we carry out the benchmarking and it's very rare that I agree with council looking. But when you look at the councils around us. It's clear, it's clear that we aren't charging on the Sundays. The points that have been made about residents are going to go elsewhere, people are going to shop elsewhere in Maidstone, in terms of seven looks, they charge more than us. So I'm not sure I'm not sure that this argument's been well made. I'm not, however, convinced by evening charges. But there's some excellent points have been made in terms of the perhaps having dispensations or reconsidering actually, completely those evening, evening charges, because you've got. The organisation self help groups like alcoholics anonymous, who meet in the evenings and I think they do deserve our support. And if cabinet is minded to go through with this, in that certain groups should be given it exemption permits. I'd like to know, really, what's so different about Sundays. I think, he actually disadvantaged independent trainers, who generally aren't open on Sunday, with that the street, who charge people are boring client we're actually incentivising people to come in. So I understand that this consultation was has gone out, and everybody has responded to it and nobody wants charging who wants charging I don't want, I'd love to have a car parking for everybody. So what do you think that, and I was free charging would be sensible, Sunday, Sunday, we've read a lot, there is a decision. Different different parts of the, the, and I think, and I was, if the cabinet is minded to continue with this, then, and I was free parking on Sunday, would be sensible. Notching off. Right. Chris Brown. Sorry. No, Chris Brown. I've got another four speakers to go. Oh, good morning, Chairman. I will be brief. I don't disagree. I mean, it's been quite an interesting debate so far this evening and we've been very flexible as a committee and really cabinet will say that anti iteration, but in relation to the one hour proposal. I think, I think perhaps the cabinet could look at it, but I want to make sure that we are aware of the full financial impact that we have. Obviously, we have a number of car parks in the town center already refund that money, the big supermarket, so you can go there, spend a bit of money or money, but what sort of impact that would have on the wider car parks in the town center. So if those could be taken into account, I'd appreciate it. And I've just been as brief as I can. I'm looking at a survey that was done by a major national newspaper and temperature morning, as we've heard, we have around 1,141,000 pounds in parking charges. And that puts us in 97th position in this leak table. And as we work our way up a leak table, I'm going to have to go quite a long way up. We get to Tombridge Wells at 3 million. So Tombridge Wells, 3 times the amount of parking charges that we we charge. And I'm trying to find seven oaks, seven oaks is above us as well. But Brighton and Hove 4th position at 30 million pounds and Westminster, a new labour authority at 71 million pounds. So I think we are pretty good value, actually, looking at that. So, and I think I'll leave it there. So, as long as my points are taken into account, sort of the impact on the supermarket refund scheme, the overall impact on the longstanding short take state car parking. And let's have a full financial sort of look at how that will affect us. And I'm happy with that then. Thank you. Chris, James, Chloe. Thank you. Still not on the committee. Obviously, we do need to be. Basically prudent, but equally obviously. Staying parking charges does have an impact both on local businesses and, as people said, on other groups. And what I don't think I saw in the papers was a good assessment of what that impact is, which is going to be relevant, if only because if there's a significant impact on business and say a number of restaurants close, then the amount of traffic to the car park will go down and the amount of revenue we make will decrease. So, I mean, I would say that we should recommend cabinet that they retake the decision after having performed or possibly dug out some modeling on that so that we can understand how they've made the trade off between money for the council versus impact on town, which, you know, we do have an objective of making it a vibrant, good place to be so it's a balance, but it's hard to tell how that decision has been made off the back of the information we have. And just on a quick second point, I would echo the point that it is unhelpful to the general view of the council by residents if we run consultations and appear dismissive of the results. Now, I know consultation is not a vote, even if the leader did refer to it as such some time ago. It's making a strange face at me where, fortunately, we're recorded on YouTube so we can get, we can call on VAR to confirm if I'm right or not. But my question would be, if we get such an overwhelming response from people and we're running a genuine consultation in which we do not have a fixed preconceived idea. What would it have taken in terms of consultation response to have come to a different decision? That's all, thanks. There's a moment. Thank you, Chair. Very briefly, I still haven't heard any other suggestions tonight as to where these savings can come from. So, you know, it's very easy to oppose these, but, you know, as it has been said, the end result is going to be cuts the services from elsewhere. I'm not keen on that. I feel that High Street can succeed with or without parking charges. I think our neighbouring authorities are kind of evidence of that. And it comes back to our longer-term plans to bring in new investment into Tamarish Town Centre with the, you know, the new town square, the new leisure and community hub and, obviously, Sainsbury store expansion. So, if we can make Tamarish High Street a more desirable place, I think people won't mind paying a little bit of parking on these extended periods. And I don't think the charges we're sort of talking about are particularly unreasonable. So, in that context, I think it's difficult to kind of oppose it, I'm afraid, because I think, you know, fundamentally, residents expect us to make robust financial decisions. And they won't thank us for not making these difficult decisions that are necessary. So, I think that's kind of the most important thing. And then just finally, Chair, obviously, on the consultation, you know, we have had regard to the responses received. But I think when you look at the numbers of people who responded as a percentage of the overall number of coverage residents, not everyone in there will be capable of kind of responding. But it is still quite a small percentage, even when you kind of take allowances for kind of, you know, people who wouldn't respond to consultation. So, you know, the difficult job we have as Councillors is to look at the bigger picture and look at the long term. And, you know, really, if you ask people if they want to pay more for parking, they're not going to say yes. But if you ask them if they're going to either pay more for parking or cut services, you know, it's a different story. So, that's my point. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I was in Canterbury the other week. It's £3.70 per hour. It's a minimum fee of one hour, except Saturdays when it's a minimum fee of two hours. And that's between 7.30am and 9pm. So, what we're discussing here is negligible in the grand scheme of things compared to poor old Canterbury. One of the comments or been several comments made on the various forums with regard to where the consultation responses have come from. And I just wanted to obviously make the point that Council tax is paid by everyone in Tumbridge and Morning. Irrespective of where they live, which is why, irrespective of where they live, they're entitled to have a say. And therefore, those residents who may live in the east of the borough, you know, they, their opinion of whether a car parking Tumbridge be chargeable or not is actually as valid because it's their money that has thus far. If the car part was free, in keeping it going. And I think that's something that we need to sort of be mindful of that everyone's opinion is as valid as anyone else is. There have been various comments in the past. We had at my committee, the communities and environments, Greeti select committee last September, when we were discussing car parking charges. And my colleagues over here were actually very much in favour of charging on Sundays and said that Sunday charging was actually something that we should be doing, because it's total sense to generate the income that we need to provide the other services. And where we have services such as the bin contract, which will no doubt come up for renewal soon, and will be hugely more. We only have to watch our neighbours in Maystone to understand all the issues that they're going through at the moment. You know, we have got some real challenges on our hands coming up in the next few years and we need to be prepared for them. And if we don't start making the difficult decisions now, we're going to be in a real load of trouble down the line. So I would just like my fellow Councillors to be realistic of what we're up against, and to accept that this is the least worst option of all the different things that we can either not charge or cut or charge. Thank you. Thank you Anna Kope and then Matt Borne. Hi, thank you chair. I would just like to propose that we refer it back to the cabinet with the proviso of one hours free parking on Sundays for Tambridge residents. Thank you. I'll sort of second of that. Yeah, thank you chair here. So I'd second that. I'd also just just point of personal explanation almost. Elsewhere where you've got those massive massively charging local authorities, they actually put a lot of that money goes into sustainable transport. And that is the one thing that has been a recurring thing here today that in order to use the cars more, we need to have alternatives. Unless we invest in that, it isn't going to happen. We need to find if we're going to do this, we need to channel some of that funding into those kind of projects. I wanted to ask, we have a major petition coming up next week to cabinet or other cabinets have a major petition coming up about this very issue next week. So presumably, they will have to review their decision in the light of the petition. Probably, but we'll talk about it. I know we can't talk about the petition but I'm talking about the referral back. So just on the last question from Franny Hoskins, now that the decision notice has been altered as it has been by earlier proposals, the whole decision will be referred back to cabinets. In some ways, that's quite helpful because obviously we have two petitions relating to the recommendations tonight to be heard a cabinet were the committee not to have agreed the proposals, decision motions, which is consequence, our government structure that we've got. But obviously, now the decision notice on many of these can't be issued till after the cabinet meeting. So the petition will have the opportunity to put their case before any final decisions. There was two points I was going to raise the first is, obviously, as Martin, Martin Geisten explained earlier, the letter trust users will not have to pay under the arrangement that is proposed at the angel center. And some of the swimming pool during the evening and Sundays, I think that's that's welcome. I think the financial contribution from the Trust to the Council is welcome. Thank you. You and your, your board for that as well. And I think it's a good reasonable way through this particular issue, just as the Council does with many other businesses up and down the borough. It's welcome to, and we always welcome any contributions and thoughts that come in terms of parking permits and that sort of thing. And there are a number of businesses in temperature by parking permits from us on day to Saturday anyway. So obviously we can, we can talk to any business affected about that as well. But in relation to what Anna Copas put forward, it's very difficult, I think, now particularly in Tumbridge for three reasons to state right now whether that's workable or not. So I might might I suggest to the committee that instead of sort of going along with with that proposal you simply ask us to do a bit more further or you ask for a paper to come with a bit more further research to cover off these three issues. In Tumbridge, we have a number of long say car parks and the number of short stay car parks. So obviously the tariff band is separate. In each of them I have my boards down here to, and I was just looking at that earlier and that obviously is, is the case and well, the second issue that we've got is the complicated refund arrangement with weight shows and with Sainsbury's. But obviously needs looking through this different where has historically been different refund arrangements from the supermarkets as well. And thirdly I think it is important to understand the financial context of that proposal. And I would be uncomfortable in saying whether I would agree with that. I think that's not enough to remove me but I think it's uncomfortable for us to say whether that's a good idea right now without looking at looking at all of those three things and in fact I'd probably say that to any similar proposal that came forward as well just just on Tumbridge specifically So, my sort of my ask of the committee would be point taken point noted. I'm not, I'm not trying to stop this in any way at all. But because of the uniqueness of Tumbridge I just think it's, it would be quite helpful work cabinet to have thought that that that that information and I think half of cabinet colleagues will appreciate that in the in the week or so before. Or the cap on me and see Kim not in as well, as I can imagine numbers go through ahead. Thank you. Thank you. It's all you got no other speakers. So, Matt. I don't propose what you just proposed so can I propose that from the chair and say that some, you know, perhaps we can have a. Some papers on these other proposals, and that this goes back to cabinet. Is everyone in agreement with that. Right. Right, hold on somewhere. She tells me that them. I don't think there's any further business I don't think we need to go into part two. I think I'm going to declare the meeting closed, but some. 11 o'clock. And thank you very much for the brilliant discussion. I'm very helpful. Meeting closed.