I am not a voting member of Community Services. So I was allowed to speak
but could not propose or second a motion or vote.

After making a power point presentation, I asked the Committee to refer the Officers'
Report on the Wentworth Street Car Park Trial to Scrutiny Committee, because
of the wide difference of interpretation of the facts stated in the report
between me and the officers, and because Scrutiny has the power to interview
members of the public and discuss matters in far greater depth than can ever
be done at a meeting of any of the main committees of the Council.

My request was supported by a letter from Malton Town Council which was
tabled at the meeting.

Councillor Brian Maude (Ind) proposed that the report be referred to
Scrutiny and this was seconded by Councillor Tony Hemesley (Ind). The motion
was supported by Councillors Clark (L), Mrs De Wend Fenton (LD) and Mrs.
Hodgson (LD)

The motion was opposed by Councillors Mrs. Keal (LD), Mrs. Arnold (C),
Bailey (C), Mrs. Cowling (C) and Mrs. Frank (C).

As the voting was equal (five for and five against), Mrs. Cowling (C), the
chairman, exercised her casting vote, so that the motion was lost.

The officers’ recommendations (leaving the current extortionate tariff in force) were then agreed.

Comment: Although the motion to refer to Scrutiny was lost, the close vote suggests there is member support for taking this matter further. I have therefore exercised the right which I have under the Council’s constitution to raise the matter at the next meeting of Scrutiny Committee on 21st February.

If requested, I can email a copy  of the Power point Presentation.

See excel chart below, based on the figures providedby the Council (also below). These clearly show an UPWARD TREND in INCOME throughtou the trial period. There was NO analysis of TRENDS in the officers' report.



Community Services Committee of  31st Jan. considered a report on the above.


The recommendations basically boil down to make arrangements with NYCC in regard to traffic orders concerning residents' parking, and, subject to that, to impose charges which would be identical in regard to Long Stay as the Council's charges in other car parks, but there would be a lower tarriff for short stay (lower than in other Council short stay car parks).


Community Leisure users would have their fees refunded.


Councillor Mrs. Keal took exception to the fact that I could speak, but she could not (because she is a resident of St. Nicholas Street). I said I spoke for the Car Park Fees Action Group and   the mayor of Norton had agreed the Action Group's views.


I called attention to the officers' views that car park fees did not detrimentally affect trade from shops, but that, when it came to the Council's own facilities, they thought they did - in the case of Community Leisure.


There were cries of: "But community Leisure is a charity: shops are not". I said this made no difference in this context. There were cries of "Ah but it does!"


I said the Action Group was in principle opposed to the imposition of any charges on St. Nicholas Street. However, it had appeared that a lot of people were using it in a way that was not beneficial to the town - eg. long stay car parkers from the station and Morrisons staff.


I said we might accept the imposition of long stay charges to resolve this problem.


I then went on to say that short stay charges should not only be low, but they should be nominal - 10P or 20P for up to 3 hours - not just 2 hours.


I said the reason for this was that it would be necessary for cars to have tickets, in order to identify which cars were parked short stay, and the tickets could not be issued free of charge, as this would probably result in vandals emptying the machines - a small nominal charge would deter them.


The officers' recommendations were agreed.

Comment:The Action Group is opposed to imposing charges, in principle. However, if the objective is to discourage all day use by Morrisons staff and train travellers etc.,, the officers' recommendations are not very different from the Action Group's views, as set out in our written representations. However, we have yet to see the detail, and I suspect the "lower" short term fee will be more than 10P or 20P for a three hour period, and I suspect the officers will recommend that the lower rate will apply only for a two hour period.


The whole exercise is subject to NYCC being satisfied that the imposition of charges will not cause problems on their road network. 



Privacy Policy