Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented a summary of the 2015/16 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Planning Policy and Transport portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2016/17 and future years where relevant were identified.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

Resolved to request that the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 4 July 2016, approves the following:

     i.        Carry forward requests totalling £44.55k revenue funding from 2015/16 to 2016/17, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

    ii.        Carry forward requests of £5,377k capital resources from 2015/16 to 2016/17 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

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 (Services).

The Committee questioned the underspends noted in the report.

The Interim Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        The Considerate Contractor scheme had attracted higher membership than anticipated with participants paying to be part of the scheme.

    ii.        Taxi card take up rates were experiencing a year on year reduction in demand with users suggesting that they did not offer a high enough saving.

The Interim Strategic Director undertook to meet with Councillor Gehring outside the meeting to address his concerns that flood mitigation projects were being delayed causing concern to residents.

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Councillor Blencowe stated that parking charges were part of a wider congestion strategy. However, these resulted in a significant variance. Further dialogue with the County Council was needed.

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.