Agenda and minutes

To receive comments or views from members of the public at the Panel’s discretion.

Mr. Gilman from Stamford asked for permission to record the meeting. Using his discretion, the Chairman said that it would be inappropriate to record the meeting because Panel meetings are informal and produce action notes, rather than minutes.

The Scrutiny Officer read out the relevant paragraphs of the Council’s constitution. Mr. Gilman accepted the ruling of the Chairman.

The Panel to be notified of any substitute members.

None.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Joynson and Mrs. Woods.

Members are asked to declare interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

None declared.

The notes of the meeting held on 20^th September 2005 and 2^nd November 2005 are attached for information.

(Enclosure)

Noted.

There was nothing to report.

Brian Thompson From Lincolnshire County Council Highways Department will attend the meeting to discuss traffic problems in the Brook Street area of Grantham.

The Chairman welcomed Brian Thompson from Lincolnshire County Council’s Highways Department to the meeting and thanked him for his attendance on short notice.

The Vice-Chairman had requested the item because of recent problems caused by the Brook Street/Premier Court gyratory system.

Members of the public and Councillors who were not Members of the DSP were invited to ask questions. Issues considered included the number of simultaneous road works, unnecessary traffic lights controlling the left hand turn onto Brook Street and the lack of advanced warning that the left hand turn would be closed, why the diverted route (via Belton Lane, Great Gonerby), was having work done simultaneously to work affecting Brook Street and consequences of the gyratory system for Barrowby Road.

Theoretically the plans for the gyratory system allowed sufficient room for lorries to manoeuvre, in practice, space was insufficient. Lorries were being forced to cut corners where pedestrians would be waiting to cross the road. Road works for Grantham had been planned until August 2007, mainly as a consequence of development; the magnitude necessitated several sets of works occurring simultaneously. It had been hoped that these works would interact. The County Council have few powers to control work schedules of utility companies. Advanced notice should have been given about the ‘no right turn’ but in the future the County Council would try to ensure the use of the Grantham Journal. There were few short-term solutions for Barrowby Road but Mr. Thompson stated that the County Council would look at signposting and road markings. It was suggested that the County Council should also examine signposting for the gyratory system from the Watergate approach. A Panel Member reported that road markings had not been amended to reflect the new system.

There was concern over the number of sets of traffic lights within Grantham. Mr. Thompson stated that the County Council were embarking on a traffic study of Grantham. Money had been set aside to address anything uncovered by the study over the next three years. A problem was also reported with the Harrowby Road/St. Catherine’s Road/Sandon Road area. The problem was partly caused by inappropriate car parking, particularly outside the police station on St. Catherine’s Road.

Panel Members were interested in County Council powers to regulate utility companies. Notice must be given for non-emergency work; the only regulatory powers they had was suggesting an alternative time frame for works. The Highways Department meet with utilities companies on an eighteen-month basis, consequences are limited because the majority of works are externally contracted. Discussion ensued about the suitability of running works cables along farmland. This is unpopular with companies because it would mean that they would be subject to the landowner; working on the public highway afforded greater freedom. The Traffic Management Act could mean that there would be a charge for working on public highways; Lincolnshire County Council would also be subject to charges.

Some County Council works are done overnight but work undertaken would be more expensive, there would be safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The following decision taken by the Cabinet on Monday 7^th November has been the subject of a request for call-in by Councillors O’Hare, J. Hurst, Wilks, M. Williams and F. Hurst, in accordance with rule 16(c) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules:

DECISION:

That the Cabinet:

1.                    Approves the tariffs proposed in Option 3 in report number DOS294 for implementation as of April 2006;

2.                    That fines for failure to display a valid ticket should be increased to  £60.00 (reduced to £30.00 if paid within 7 days);

3.                    That fines for parking for a longer period than paid for should be increased to £40.00 (reduced to £20.00 if paid within 7 days);

4.                    That the cost of season tickets should be increased in line with those presented in report number DOS294;

5.                    In light of representations received from members of the public, no charge will be introduced for parking on Sundays, bank holidays or evenings at this time;

6.                    Acknowledge the time taken by Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce in putting forward its own proposals for charges. Whilst it could not accept these because they did not comply with the Council’s policy of equalisation, the Cabinet considered that there was some merit in some of their suggestions and requested that the Management Accountant consider these aspects.

The reasons for exercising the call-in are:

1.                  Decision uses car parks as a means of making money for the Council rather than supporting the local economy.

2.                  The complete absence in the report of a survey of views from the public in Stamford.

3.                  That as 92% of the people surveyed in Grantham said cost was the most important factor, to raise costs further may be financially counterproductive.

4.                  That the overall level of increases in charges views car parks not as a service (which should at least break even) but mainly as a means of raising extra money.

5.                  Making best use of assets as a policy means giving enough weight to the fact that car parks are a public asset (service) and not just a financial asset.

This item was accepted as urgent business following the request for call-in of Cabinet Decision CO79 made on 7^th November 2005.

The Scrutiny Officer advised the Panel that a request for call-in of Cabinet Decision CO79 had been received. The call-in request form had been signed by five members of the Council but the power to actually call-in a decision rested with the DSP. Upon hearing the reasons the request had been made, the Panel would be asked to consider whether to proceed. The Panel were reminded that they had previously considered the issue of car parking charges in Grantham and Stamford at a special meeting on 2^nd November 2005. The Resources DSP’s Budget Working Group had also considered the issue on 26^th October 2005.

Those Members who had requested call-in stated why they had done this:

• Concern over the consequences for in-town trade and that the consultation quoted in the report did not stipulate whether traders had been involved. The Cabinet decision had placed no emphasis on the potential effects for the local economy;
• While safe, secure, suitable parking spaces were deemed essential; they should be run on a non-profit basis;
• The debate on car parking charges should cover the whole of the District, including Bourne and the Deepings;
• No specific reason had been given to justify the need for increased income from car parking; previous justifications had included the cost of CCTV provision;
• The greatest percentage of increased income would come from Stamford.

Having listened to the arguments put forward, Members of the Panel agreed to accept the call-in request. Members of the public and Councillors who were not members of the Panel were given the opportunity to make comments on this item. Points raised included the recent increase in charges for Newark and the intention to increase them further within a year. A representative from the Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce represented their suggestion of off-peak and peak charges according to days of the week: charges should be lower from Monday to Thursday and higher on a Friday and Saturday, inline with the demand for spaces. This could potentially increase the number of visitors and maximise the use of parking spaces.

The Economic Portfolio Holder stated that the Cabinet’s decision was within the parameters of the Council’s agreed policy. Within the Midterm Financial Strategy, the Council proposed to maximise its assets. The intention of the amended charging regime was to maximise the use of parking spaces. The Cabinet Members present stated that a major review of car parking across the District was being undertaken, which would lead to a District-wide review of car parking charges.

Discussion ensued as to whether an increase in charges would be borne by local residents. It was felt that generally those affected by charging would be visitors to the towns. The majority of Panel members agreed that increased charges would not put tourists off visiting towns within the District.

The Chairman of the Resources DSP’s Budget Working Group  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

The Corporate Director of Community Services to provide a report on Welham Street Multi-storey Car Park.

The Corporate Director of Community Services updated the Panel on the progress of the Welham Street multi-storey car park project. A traffic impact study had been carried out to ascertain whether any highway adaptations would be necessary; requirements were found to be minimal. The site would have to be checked for archaeological remains, the most appropriate time for this was deemed to be after outline planning permission had been granted. The request for outline planning permission had been submitted and would be heard by members of the Development Control Committee on Tuesday 6^th December 2005. Tender specifications were being prepared and would be despatched on December 8^th 2005 for return by January 9^th 2006. It was hoped that sign-off and commencement would be achieved by the beginning/middle of April 2006. Christmas 2006 had been set as the target for completion.

The Panel were also advised that a tender, within budget had been received for the demolition of the former Kwik Save site and attached car park. Work would begin on-site on January 9^th 2006 until 17^th March 2006. The site would be demolished and then laid out flat to act as an open car park during development of Welham Street. While Welham Street multi-storey was being built, attempts would be made to sell East Street for future development in co-ordination with opening of Welham Street car park.

The Development Control Committee would consider any constraints on the aesthetics and elevation of the building; these would ensure that the construction is suitable for the area.

The Senior Planning Officer (Policy) to update the Panel on the Local Development Framework.

(Enclosure)

The Head of Planning Policy and Economic Regeneration summarised report PLA539 to the Economic DSP, which detailed all the work being undertaken.

Statement of Community Involvement

This document would demonstrate the ways that the Council would communicate in all future Local Development Framework (LDF) matters. The final Statement of Community Involvement had been advertised and submitted to the Secretary of State, which initiated a six-week consultation period. At the close of the consultation period, the Statement would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, who would decide whether investigation would be necessary.

Issues and Options

The issues and options consultation would constitute the first stage in the development of core principles. A document had been published and widely circulated. Consultation ended on 11^th November 2005. Results would be compiled and preferred options would be brought forward in early 2006.

Annual Monitoring Report

This document would require annual production and would become increasingly relevant after the adoption of the LDF. It was intended that the Annual Monitoring Report would be presented for a Non-Key Decision within a fortnight, as a form of validation.

Members commended the work that had been done by the Planning Department on such a large-scale project.

Public Information Pillars Working Group.

To feedback final recommendation for information. Action notes from this meeting had been circulated and considered at the meeting of the Healthy Environment DSP on 8^th November 2005.

Small Business Units Working Group

Notes from the meeting held on Friday 4^th November.

(To Follow)

Public Information Pillars Working Group

The report from the PIPs Working Group had been circulated. Members were informed that the Healthy Environment DSP had endorsed its recommendations at their meeting on Tuesday 8^th November 2005.

Small Business Units Working Group

Notes had been circulated from the meeting of the Small Business Units Working Group held on Friday 4^th November 2005.

(Enclosure)

Noted. The Panel were advised that the ‘red’ figure was an estimate based on a number published annually.

(Enclosure)

Noted. It had been suggested that the Panel should receive a presentation about Social Enterprise. A review of the outcomes of the Markets Working Group would be organised in the New Year. A copy of the Economic and Community Development Strategy was circulated at the meeting for Members’ information.

None.

The meeting was closed at 17:17.