Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

 

To consider the budget proposals relating to the Planning Policy & Transport portfolio which were included in the Budget-Setting Report 2016/17 to be considered at the following meetings:

 

·        18 January 2016: Strategy & Resources

·        21 January 2016: The Executive

·        8 February 2016: Strategy & Resources

·        25 February 2016: Meeting of Full Council 

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and 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.        Considered the revenue budget proposals as shown in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.

Capital:

   iii.        Considered the capital budget proposals as shown in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

  iv.        Adjusted capital funding for items 2 (c) of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alterative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant which detailed the budget proposals relating to the Planning Policy & Transport portfolio.

 

In response to the Committee’s comments the Director of Environment responded with the following: 

     i.        Regarding Cambridge University’s offer to pay for a full time planning officer post; this would not be the first time that the City Council had entered into a Planning Performance Agreement with an applicant. 

    ii.        A Planning Performance Agreement was an established practice which allowed the City Council to enter an agreement with the applicant to undertake work within a set time scale and ensure staff resources were in place. This would have no impact upon the decision making process.

   iii.        Planning Performance Agreements were supported by national guidance and further information could be provided to the Committee. This was an accepted practice on major growth sites which required specialist planning officers. Without these agreements this would put additional pressure on staff resources.

  iv.        The existence of a Planning Performance Agreement meant that the statutory time limits for determining the application no longer applied (to the extent that the agreement specified a longer period for the decision, in which case the agreement would count in the same way as an agreed extension of time).

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport stated a minimal increase had been agreed in parking charges for 2015/16 and there had been an over achievement in revenue.  As the cost to the proposed improvements to the Council’s Car Parks could be met without raising charges it was felt unnecessary to do so for 2016/17.

 

The Committee resolved 6 Votes to 1 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor and (and any Dispensations Granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor