Agenda and minutes

The Panel to be notified of any substitute members.

The Panel were notified that Councillor Exton would be substituting for Councillor Mrs. Smith, Councillor Mrs. Gaffigan would be substituting for Councillor Joynson and Councillor Mrs. Radley would be substituting for Councillor Stokes for this meeting only.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Pease.

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

No declarations were made.

The notes of the meeting held on 20^th June 2006 and 25^th October 2006 are attached for information.                                                                                                               (Enclosure)

Noted.

Update report on Grantham Canal basin – for noting.                     (Enclosure)

An update report on the Grantham canal basin project was circulated with the agenda and noted.

The DSP will respond to the request of the Grantham Local Forum to set up a working group to look into residents’ parking.

The Grantham Local Forum requested that the DSP set up a working group to look into a residents’ parking scheme. The Chairman advised the committee that a scheme would only be possible if Lincolnshire County Council decriminalised parking. This could only be done after consultation and with consent from all district councils. Decriminalisation was not expected for a minimum of two years. Members felt that this was a long time and suggested that a representative from the County Council should be invited to the next meeting on 30^th January 2007 to discuss the issue, the Panel would then decide on any further action. They agreed that a response should be sent back to the Grantham Local Forum explaining what they intended to do.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.                  A representative from the County Council should be invited to attend the DSP meeting on 30^th January 2007 to discuss the decriminalisation of parking.

2.                  A response should be sent to the Grantham Local Forum explaining that following a visit by a representative from the County Council the DSP will decide what action to take.

Stamford car parking working group – 9^th August 2006                 (Enclosure)

The report from the Stamford Car Parking Working Group was noted. The DSP considered the working group’s recommendations. Panel members agreed that the group should be disbanded until the findings of other working groups had been published. The Chairman thanked members of the working group.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.                  The Stamford Car Parking Working Group should be disbanded until reports of other working groups examining car parking in Stamford are completed;

2.                  To request an update from the Economic Development Portfolio Holder on the status of other working groups looking at car parking in Stamford;

3.                  When reports are available from other working groups, the Stamford Car Parking Working Group should be reconvened to scrutinise any recommendations that have been made.

To recommend to Cabinet that:

1.                  Subject to a favourable report from the County Council, onsideration should be given to making appropriate budgetary provision in advance of the expected decriminalisation of parking by the County Council;

2.                  Subject to a favourable report from the County Council on the decriminalisation of on-street parking, the District Council should undertake consultation and feasibility work on a district-wide residents’ parking scheme.

Following a recommendation from the Resources Development and Scrutiny Panel, the DSP will decide how to address an “audit” of public conveniences across the District, particularly in larger villages.        

                                                                                                               (Enclosure)

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Gerald Taylor to the meeting. The Resources DSP recommended that a “public convenience audit” should be carried out in villages across the District and Councillor Taylor was present to represent that view. The Council had satisfied its toilet provision policy for towns and members of the Resources DSP felt that it would be appropriate to address toilet provision in villages. The operation of a scheme in conjunction with Parish Councils was suggested. Queries were made about access to external funding sources.

Members of the DSP supported the idea of rural toilet provision. Discussion ensued on how this could be achieved. Suggestions included: joint working with Parish Councils; use of facilities within village halls and investment from private business. A list of local service centres or sustainable villages was circulated with the agenda. Further to those listed, Members requested that the Witham Valley villages, Castle Bytham and South Witham be added.

Members also considered whether the District Council should subsidise toilet provision or whether they should pay for one element of it, such as planning costs.

The Scrutiny Officer reminded Members that the District Council was hosting a Parish Council Conference on 7^th December 2006. One of the items for consideration was the provision of shared services. Members asked the Scrutiny Officer to prepare a paper for circulation at the meeting to find out the level of interest and commitment from Parish Councils’

CONCLUSIONS:

1.                  To request the Scrutiny Officer prepare a paper on public conveniences in rural areas for circulation at the Parish Council Conference on 7^th December 2006.

2.                  Investigations should be made to identify any external funding sources for the provision of public conveniences in rural areas.

                                                                                                               (Enclosure)

Noted.

·                    Indicator SK51 (the number of businesses assisted/ supported) was red because it was a yearly target and the figure was taken from a half-yearly review.

·                    Indicator SK33 (number of residents satisfied with the choice of shopping in the district) was red. This was based on people’s perceptions.

·                    BVPI 106, BVPI 109a, BVPI 109b and BVPI 109c were all red. No report had been received from the Business Manager, Development and Building Control.

CONCLUSION:

The Panel requests that the Business Manager, Development and Building Control provide a report explaining why BVPI 106, BVPI 109a, BVPI 109b and BVPI 109c are below target.

                                                                                                               (Enclosure)

Noted.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

In accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, it was resolved that the public be excluded because of the likelihood in view of the nature of the business to be transacted that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1-4 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.

The Panel will undertake the second gateway review of the following service plans:

·        Development and Building Control

·        Planning Policy

·        Economic Development and Town Centre Management

Background papers have been circulated to DSP members only.

The Service Manager, Economic Development and Town Centre Management presented his draft service plan for 2007/07. He explained how the service related to corporate priorities and provided information for comparison with neighbouring authorities. The presentation included information on performance indicators and new areas of responsibility for the service.

Panel Members discussed the impact of work absorbed from the former leisure and cultural services and diversity across the district. Areas where savings could be made were considered.

The Panel went through the Gateway 2 Checklist.

ACTION POINTS:

1.                  Costings work on equalities should be undertaken.

2.                  The breakdown of figures in section 6 of the service plan should be completed fully. A copy of the summary across all budget heads should be circulated to members of the Economic DSP.

3.                  Major procurement proposals should be identified prior to Gateway Review 3.

4.                  Outstanding capital projects for the next 3-5 years should be identified and project appraisal forms completed.

5.                  To include areas for potential savings, as identified by the Economic DSP.

The Development and Building Control Service Plan was presented. The service was underperforming and actions for mitigation were identified. The service was statutory and the key driver was service users. The service priority would be implementing recommendations made by the planning peer review.

Budget sheets were available. These needed to be supplied to all DSP members.

Panel Members went through the Gateway 2 Checklist.

ACTION POINTS:

1.                  To circulate budget sheets for Development and Building Control to all members of the Economic DSP.

2.                  To identify potential Gershon savings.

3.                  To circulate a copy of the proposed structure to all members of the Economic DSP.

4.                  To circulate a copy of the PESTLE analysis to all members of the Economic DSP.

5.                  To complete the financial summary looking particularly at the cost centres for employee growth and supplies and services.

6.                  To identify areas for potential savings.

Members considered the Planning Policy service plan in conjunction with the Gateway Review 2 checklist.

ACTION POINTS:

1.                  To identify any equality costings for the service.

2.                  To complete a PESTLE analysis and circulate to members of the Economic DSP.

The meeting was closed at 17:25.