After the Chairman of Babergh Strategy Committee, Nick Ridley, had finished introducing the paper with the deceptively low key name ‘Interim Report on the 2009/2010 Strategic and Financial Planning Process’, his words were greeted with a stunned silence and for a moment it seemed that no comment would be forthcoming.
The Committee's response was not entirely surprising because it is clear that, in common with many other Councils, Babergh finds itself in a very tricky financial position at the present time. Areas such as Land Charges and Building Control, from which the organisation derives an income have fallen away due to the recession while demand for services remains the same or have increased. Many contracts are long term and cannot be altered, there is little left in reserves and the prospect for raking in much in council tax in a low inflation environment look rather limited. Additionally Babergh has limited scope for manoeuvre since it already runs on a comparatively lean cost base (as a recent benchmarking exercise proves) and has not milked Council Tax payers in the past.
Given the Council’s financial problems it is unsurprising that the hot potato topic, parking charges, has once again found its way onto the agenda. It is the one remaining area that Babergh could legally exploit to increase its income, and increase it quite substantially. The inflammatory nature of this issue was however clearly reflected in the headline of today’s Sudbury Free Press!
The Report (which can be read on Babergh’s website under Council and Committee Papers) purported to set out ‘approaches and specific actions to seek to meet the savings and efficiency targets in order to achieve a balanced 2010/11 Budget’. The Strategy Committee was being asked to endorse these ‘approaches’ ahead of similar endorsement by Full Council on 20 October.
I should make it clear that at this stage all measures are in theory simply being ‘discussed’ and the final spending decisions will be made in February when the Budget for the year is approved. However, re-opening the budget calculations at that late stage in any significant way may not be really practical. Allowing an issue to go forward for 'discussion' therefore could be seen as tantamount to approving it.
I have two problems with the process, one relating to the way that the Report itself has been presented, and the other with regard to the practicalities related to the rapid introduction of parking charges.
As far as the Report is concerned, inevitably perhaps, because work on the budget has barely begun, the Committee was being asked to focus on a few specific measures (car parking charges and staff redundancies), while others such as the reduction of non-statutory services were only sketchily mentioned. It was like looking a half finished picture and being asked to judge those few bits that have been completed without knowing what the rest is going to look like. This seems a strange, and not very acceptable, way of setting financial priorities. Unless there are some changes in the paper’s presentation by October 20 the Full Council will be in the same position.
Then one has to confront the Car Parking charges issue itself. It seems that what is proposed is the imposition of long term charges. Short term parking will remain free. In principle, unlike a number of other Members, I am not totally opposed to this idea but I am very concerned that an over-rapid implementation of such a scheme would lead to the sort of unintended consequences that we saw when the ticket machines were installed in the short term car parks earlier this year. The requirements of Sudbury residents and also of those who work in Sudbury need to be carefully thought out. Should there be season tickets for example? And isn’t four hours a more appropriate period for short term parking than the current three?
I am not yet sure how I will be voting on 20 October, and at present have an open mind, but, for the reasons set out above, I do not feel particularly comfortable with endorsing the Interim Report as it stands.
