Decisions

During 2023/24 several reports were presented to the Finance & Resources OSC and Cabinet in relation to proposals for parking tariff increases and changes to existing charging policies. With the last increase in parking tariffs being agreed in 2019, the objective was to obtain agreement on a set of proposals that could be included in a statutory consultation process.

 

This culminated in a report being presented to Cabinet in December 2023 which clearly set out a full breakdown of the proposed changes and agreement was reached with a decision made to progress to statutory consultation.

 

Following the publication of the Cabinet paper in December 2023, the Administration received representations from opposition parties and also from residents and local businesses who expressed concern at the proposed changes. Consequently, the Administration reviewed the proposals again and have proposed a final updated set of changes that were presented back to the Finance & Resources OSC and Cabinet in February 2024.

 

A summary of the updated proposals are set out below.

 

-        Increases to both on-street and off-street parking tariff.

-        Consolidating on-street parking sessions to introduce a new minimum stay of 2 hours.

-        Keep Limited Wait Bays (LWBs) on the peripheries of the high streets in Berkhamsted and Kings Langley as being free to use.

-        Keep all LWBs free in Apsley and Hemel Hempstead Old Town

-        Introduce charges for LWBs in the centre of Tring and Kings Langley

-        All chargeable LWBs (on-street parking) in the centre of Berkhamsted, Kings Langley, Tring plus Waterhouse Street and Marlowes to have maximum 1 hour stay with 2 tariffs: 30 mins for £0.80 or 1 hour for £1.50.

-        Hemel Hempstead on-street parking to reduce from the proposed 4 hours to 2 hours in:

§    Alexandra Road;

§    Cemetery Hill;

§    St John’s Road;

§    Cotterells

§    London Road

-        Addition of an ‘Up to 10 hours’ parking option in off-street parking

-        Tariffs in on-street and off-street locations to apply from 8am – 6pm Monday to Sunday

-        All evening charging (post 6pm) to be removed.

-        Kings Langley off-street car parks to remain free but stay limited to a maximum of 4 hours between 8am – 6pm (no time restriction after 6pm)

-        Canal Fields, Berkhamsted, to remain free but stay limited to a maximum of 4 hours between 8am – 6pm (no time restriction after 6pm)

-        The introduction of a change in the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to enable customers to extend a parking session by using the Pay By Phone app or the pay machines, but only where this allowed under the parking restrictions (e.g. you cannot extend a parking session past the maximum stay)

 

 

These proposals have been developed through extensive consultation by the Administration with the key aims of

-        Starting to introduce consistency with parking across the borough

-        Recognising the value of Council assets and maximising income, whilst also recognising the desire to:

§    Support Town/Village centre shops,

§    Support the nighttime economy across the borough,

§    Provide freedom and flexibilities to shoppers.

 

At the Cabinet meeting in February it was agreed to progress to statutory consultation with these proposals, and to delegate authority to the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder Corporate & Commercial to make any final decision on the implementation of the parking tariff increases and changes to charging policy.

 

Work commenced on drafting the statutory consultation documentation and the proposals were submitted to the Highways Department at Hertfordshire County Council, the emergency services, and the Road Haulage Association for agreement on the proposals before the statutory consultation with residents and businesses could commence.

 

Responses were received from all of the above organisations in the early summer with no objections being raised, however, before the statutory consultation could commence, the Government called a Parliamentary election and due to the pre-election period (purdah), the statutory consultation was delayed until after the election.

 

The statutory consultation commenced on 10 July 2024 and concluded on 31 July 2024 and was available on the Council’s corporate consultation platform with hard copies of the consultation and survey also being available at The Forum, Victoria Hall in Tring, and Berkhamsted Civic Centre.

The statutory consultation included 3 separate Traffic Regulation Orders:

 

-        Off-street

-        On-street

-        Controlled Parking Zones

 

Consultees where asked to provide any objections to the proposals with clear reasons for these objections.

 

The Council’s consultation platform showed that over 3,000 people visited the consultation during the period and the following 538 objections were received:

 

-        Off-street                             (146 responses)

-        On-street                             (372 responses)

-        Controlled Parking Zones   (20 responses)

 

Whilst this cannot be considered as part of the statutory consultation process, it is worth noting that a petition with 3,840 signatures has been delivered to the Council relating to objections to the parking proposals in Kings Langley. The Petition was considered in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, but was not reported to full Council because this matter was already subject to an open public consultation.  It was therefore agreed that the petition would be referred to the final decision makers so that it could be considered as part of the overall consultation responses.

 

 

 

 

DECISION NOTICE

TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION

Date of determination           12^th September 2024

Subject Member

Councillor Ron Tindall

Complainants

Two anonymous complainants – known as “Complainant 1” and “Complainant 2” in the proceedings. They were not dated but they were received on 28^th and 29^th April 2024.

Hearing Sub-Committee Membership

Councillor Jonathan Gale (Chair).

Councillor Catherine McArevey (Vice-Chair)

Councillor Rick Freeman

Councillor Alan Anderson

Apologies for Absence Councillor Graeme Elliot

Mr Mike Browne – Independent Person

Monitoring Officer

Mr Mark Brookes, Assistant Director, Legal and Democratic Services

Investigating Officer

Mrs Olwen Brown, Consultant Solicitor with Anthony Collins Solicitor

Complaint

The Standards Sub- Committee met to consider an investigation report in respect of two anonymous complaints that Councillor Ron Tindall had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct for Councillors adopted by Dacorum Borough Council.

In particular, it was alleged that Councillor Tindall:

(a)        failed to treat the complainants with respect contrary to paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct;

(b)       constituted harassment in respect of the allegation in Complaint 2  contrary to paragraph 2.2 of the Code of Conduct;

(c)         failed to promote equalities as required by paragraph 2.3 of the Code of Conduct;

and that Councillor Tindall’s actions and behaviours:

(d)       had the potential to bring the Council into disrepute

contrary to paragraph 5.1 of the Code of Conduct.

Hearing process

The Chairman asked all parties present to introduce themselves and explained the process for the hearing.  The Chairman explained that at the end of the presentation of the complainants’ cases there would be an opportunity for the Committee to ask the complainants any points of clarification resulting from the presented evidence.  If this was required, the complainants would be given an opportunity to answer any questions in writing as they were present in the Forum.

The Chairman also announced that the complainants would be watching the proceedings from a Teams link in the Forum.

The Chairman asked if there were any declarations of interest.

The following declarations were made:

Councillor Gale: I have a declaration of interest, Councillor Tindall was the Leader of the Council and the leader of my group as a councillor.

Councillor Freedman: Councillor Tindall is known to me, we worked together for several years, similarly the anonymous complainants are also known to me as well.

Councillor Anderson: I have known Councillor Tindall since he first joined the council, at all times in this case I have maintained an open mind in respect to both parties

Councillor McArevey: I have also known Councillor Tindall for approximately 16 years  both professionally and in a personal capacity, we have worked together for a number of domestic abuse organisations in that time, he has reported to me professionally and I have reported to him professionally in the various roles we have had. I also know the two complainants and there has been several occasions where the complainants have contacted me in relation to these incidents, which I have shared with Mark Brookes, however despite these relationships I keep an open mind for this hearing.

The Committee agreed to move into Part II for the reasons set out in the agenda report.

The Hearing

The Committee followed the Standards Sub-Committee Hearing Procedureas set out in Appendix 3 of the Complaints Procedure.

The allegations contained in the Investigation Report were particularised as complaint 1 and complaint 2 and considered separately by the Committee.

Councillor Tindall provided a brief outline of his position.   

 The Investigation Officer presented the Investigation Report.  No witnesses were called. Councillor Tindall and Committee members asked questions of the Investigating Officer and responses were given.

The Committee did not have any points of clarification that they wished to ask the complainants directly.

Councillor Tindall presented his response.  The Investigating Officer and Committee members asked questions of Councillor Tindall and responses were given.

There was a short adjournment in the proceedings.

 The Investigating Officer made a concluding statement to sum up the complaint and her investigation.

Councillor Tindall made a concluding statement to sum up the complaint and his  response.

Committee Decision

Reasons

1. These are abridged reasons for the decision. Full reasons for the decision will be supplied to the parties.

                                                                                 

2. The complaints were considered separately. The pronoun “they” is used when referring to each of the anonymous complainants.

 

3. The Committee is not a court of law but is bound by the same principles of natural justice as any court – the right to be heard, including the right of an accused to know the case made against them, and the rule against bias.

 

4. Regarding the right to be heard, a person accused must know the case made against them. They must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting them and must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. It follows that anyone who has to adjudicate must not receive evidence or argument from one side behind the back of the other. (paraphrased, per Lord Denning in Kanda v Malaya [1962] AC 322 (1962).)

 

5. With regard to the rule against bias, the Committee was aware of the inevitable connection that existed between its voting members and Councillor Tindall, as former leader, and leader of the Liberal Democrat Group in the Council, and also aware of any potential conflict which could arise to the extent that they knew the anonymous complainants. As the Committee is carrying out an internal function it is inevitable that the parties will be known to the Committee. The Committee ensured that it weighed the evidence fairly and the voting members were assisted by the independent member Mike Browne, whose help and advice was considered carefully during the course of the Committee’s deliberations.

 

6. The Committee considered the report prepared by Mark Brookes, which introduced the report by the independent Investigating Officer, Olwen Brown, for which the Committee is grateful. The Committee was not bound by the conclusions therein.

 

7. Mrs Brown’s single report deals with both complaints together. Mrs Brown prepared her report by interviewing the complainants and Councillor Tindall each in separate zoom meetings at the end of May 2024. Mrs Brown said that she went through the complaints with Councillor Tindall on 31 May 2024, after having interviewed the complainants each individually. The transcripts of those meetings were not provided, even in redacted form, because of the difficulty in redacting them such that the anonymity of the complainants could be preserved. Mrs Brown helped the Committee by referring to her notes, and communications by text and email which she had received from the complainants. The Committee is grateful to Mrs Brown for her assistance.

 

8. The Complainants did not attend, in order to preserve their anonymity, and the Committee considered the evidence of Mrs Brown as a hearsay record of the complainants’ evidence.

 

9. The Committee was aware that the burden of proof was on the complainants to satisfy the Committee, on the balance of probabilities, that the complaints were made out.

Complaint 1

10. This was undated but received on 28^th April 2024.

 

 

11. In relation to Complaint 1, the Committee does not find that that there has been any breach of the Code of Conduct. The Complaint is insufficiently particularised or evidenced for either:

 

Councillor Tindall fairly to be able to respond to the Complaint, or

 

The Committee to adjudicate as to whether what has been alleged is a breach of the Code.

 

12. Complaint 1 is dismissed

 

Complaint 2

13. The Complaint (again undated) was received on 29^th April 2024.

 

14. The Committee is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the alleged factual allegations occurred. Full reasons for the finding have been supplied to the Parties.

 

15. With regard to the specific allegation set out at paragraph 5.6.6 of the confidential report of the Investigating Officer, as modified to reflect the facts agreed at the hearing, the Committee was not satisfied that the facts amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

16. Accordingly, Complaint 2 was dismissed.

 

For and on behalf of the Standards Sub-Committee

Councillor Jonathan Gale (Chair)

18^th September 2024