Issue - decisions

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.