Future of Town Centres and High Streets

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a Labour council is driving forward parking charging proposals against the wishes of local people and the community, to the detriment of the economy in the town of Yarm, which I am proud to represent.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

In that case, will the hon. Gentleman have a word in the ear of his fellow Conservatives on Gloucestershire county council, since they held a public consultation on imposing parking charges in the Montpellier shopping district of my constituency and, despite the fact that nobody supported the idea, imposed them anyway?

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend is very lucky, because his council has held a consultation. We have had promises of consultation from Stockton-on-Tees borough council, but what have we had in reality? An independent survey was commissioned, the results of which are clearly and demonstrably flawed. For example, it overestimated the value of the economy of the town by a factor of three. The flawed survey was then presented to the town council, which sat and listened to the findings and made its observations. It was told, “Thank you very much, but the report has already been written and this counts as consultation in our book.” Consultation for Stockton borough council, it seems, means deciding what to do and then telling people about it, not seeking their opinions and input to develop a policy that has local support.

Sadly, the proposals and the report went through Stockton borough council’s cabinet in December, just before Christmas. What is happening now? Good hard-working local councillors in Yarm and surrounding communities have signed the necessary forms to have that decision scrutinised. Andrew Sherris, Mark Chatburn and Ben Houchen, who are the borough councillors in Yarm, and Phil Dennis, a borough councillor for the neighbouring town of Eaglescliffe, joined forces to call in that decision so that Stockton borough council would have the chance to look at it again, to think again and to make a decision that better reflects the needs of the community that the council is supposed to serve.

In addition, a row has been running in the local paper; I am sure that everyone will be greatly surprised at the thought that the introduction of parking charges would excite a bit of a row in the local newspaper. Specifically, one of the borough councillors, Mark Chatburn, raised his concern at the lack of consultation before the proposals were pushed forward and Mike Smith, a cabinet member, came forward and attacked that idea, saying that there had been lots of consultation and that the council had consulted over an extended period of time. All I can say to that cabinet member, as someone who has followed this case closely and has talked to Yarm’s borough and town councillors, to traders and to residents, is that they do not feel that any meaningful consultation has taken place at all. Had it done so, I can guarantee that Councillor Smith would be getting the message loud and clear that the council’s proposals are not the right step for the future of that town.

Last Thursday, there was a public meeting in Yarm to discuss the proposed changes. About 250 members of the public came along on that cold night to attend the meeting, to make their concerns known and to discuss the proposals. I attended, and so did Yarm’s town councillors and borough councillors. Borough councillors from neighbouring communities also came along on a cross-party basis—well, on a coalition basis, I suppose, as the Liberal Democrats turned up, as did the Conservatives, but the Labour party did not send a representative—[Interruption.] And the same is the case in the Chamber right now. More significantly, despite a request from town and borough councillors and from me personally to the chief executive, Stockton borough council refused to send a representative to that public meeting. It refused to listen to the concerns of the people it is supposed to serve and represent.

You will have gathered, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is a matter of great concern to my constituents, particularly those in Yarm and the surrounding communities, to which much traffic could be displaced if parking charges were introduced. It is a matter of concern not just because of the plans being proposed but because of the way in which this is being done, because of the high-handed and arrogant manner in which Stockton borough council is driving forward proposals without any consultation, against the will of local people, and because of the way in which officers on the council, such as Richard McGuckin, who heads the highways department, are listening solely to the cabinet members who control what they do and implementing those decisions against the will of local people. People in Yarm, a successful and vibrant market town in my constituency, are losing confidence in their borough council. They feel that they have not been listened to and that their views have not been properly taken into account and they are worried that the decisions being taken now by others who are not representing their views will have a long-term detrimental impact on the communities in which they live.

We have an opportunity, when the proposals go back to scrutiny on Thursday and are then, we hope, referred back to Stockton’s cabinet for the decision to be reconsidered, to change the situation and to put things right. In the light of Mary Portas’s report and of parking’s importance in securing the long-term success of our high streets and town centres, I want to take this opportunity to ask Stockton borough council to think again and to warn the cabinet members that if they do not, the people and traders of Yarm will not forgive them.