Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Report to follow
Minutes:
Matter for
Decision
The
Officer’s report detailed the budget proposals relating to the Planning Policy
& Transport Portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting Report
2015/16 to be considered at the following meetings:
i.
19
January 2015 Strategy & Resources.
ii.
22
January 2015 The Executive.
iii.
13
February 2015 Strategy & Resources.
iv.
26
February 2015 Council.
The
report also included consideration of any recommendations concerning the review
of charges and project appraisals for schemes in the capital plan for this
portfolio.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport
Review of Charges:
i.
Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s
services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.
Revenue:
ii.
Noted the revenue budget proposals as shown in
Appendix B.
Capital:
iii.
Noted the capital budget proposals as shown in
Appendix C.
iv.
Agreed to delete some schemes from the Capital Plan
as shown in Appendix C.
v.
Agreed to adjust capital funding for items (iii)
and (iv) as appropriate.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Car parking costs were high profile press stories.
ii.
Car parks required (substantial) capital and
maintenance funding to keep them in good order. Sufficient capital should be
made available in the Capital Plan for this.
In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and the Head of Specialist Services said the
following:
i.
A group
was being set up to jointly discuss County Council, City Council and
Park&Ride parking charges to influence users to pick the most appropriate
facility for the length of their stay. The intention was to better
co-ordinate/integrate prices.
ii.
Car
parks were of a certain age and needed substantial investment to run them. This
ensured they were secure, maintained to a good standard, with up to date
equipment.
iii.
Major
schemes were coming forward such as the Park Street Car Park refurbishment.
This refurbishment would need a lot of capital investment, and may lead to a
loss of revenue to the Council whilst it was not available for use.
iv.
A
detailed options appraisal for the future of Park Street Car Park would be
presented to councillors in summer 2015 (following on from details put to
Members in October 2014).
v.
Project
planning was undertaken for all projects. Supporting documents identified
resources required, these operating details were not generally included in the
strategic papers reported to scrutiny committees.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. He added that one of the disappointments of the
Joint Area Committee was a lack of coordination around setting parking charges.
This would be followed up in future as it used to occur October/November each
year.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.