Agenda item

·         Utilities supplier update

·         Car parking update including financial modelling

·         Repairs and maintenance budget

·         Meres leisure centre – variance explanation

·         Pre-application advice service – development management

Council owned/leased properties

A councillor who had attended Governance and Audit Committee on 25 September 2012 advised members that internal audit had identified a red category risk in respect of council owned/leased buildings. He particularly highlighted a recommendation stating that a register should be kept of all the council’s leases and their end dates.

Street cleaning in Stamford

At its meeting on 2 August 2012 the PDG asked for further information on an additional income stream identified for street cleaning in Stamford. An electronic update was provided to members of the PDG after the meeting.

Budget monitoring information and outturn summary

Issues regarding the presentation of information in the financial update report were incorporated in the report for consideration at agenda item 10 (minute 27).

Utilities supplier

The Head of Community Assets had made initial enquiries with Procurement Lincolnshire about the possibility of identifying a single supplier for gas and electricity in council properties. A small number of authorities, including Peterborough and Cheshire had pursued this. It would not be possible to impose a supplier on existing tenants but it could be included in new tenancy agreements. Any single provider could be advertised to existing tenants with a package that might be attractive to them. Councillors recognised that a larger contract that secured good rates for tenants could help reduce fuel poverty.

PDG members also discussed the potential of using a single supplier for other council-owned buildings. Councillors noted that businesses were often tied into contracts for two or three years, but suggested that a package offered by a common supplier could be advertised to them for consideration when they looked to renew their arrangements.

Action point

1.    The Head of Community Assets to continue to investigate opportunities for identifying a single utilities supplier.

2.    The Head of Community Assets to speak to the Property Development Manager to identify opportunities of using a single utilities supplier for other council-owned buildings.

Car parking update including financial modelling

Modelling work had been undertaken on the provision of two-hours free parking based on a scheme by North Kesteven District Council. The PDG received a summary of this work and agreed that the scheme would not work in the district because of the differences in the car parking offer.

The PDG agreed to defer further consideration of car parking charges until an additional meeting on 2 November 2012, when they would receive a report from the Communities PDG’s strategic car parking review. Members noted the approval of funding from the Communities PDG support fund for on-the-ground work in Stamford to prepare for the introduction of civil parking enforcement and any residents’ parking schemes.

Action Point

The Property Development Manager to present the outcome of the Communities PDG strategic car parking review to the Resources PDG on 2 November 2012.

Repairs and maintenance budget

The PDG asked for details of the variance in the repairs and maintenance budget. This had been clarified and incorporated in the budget monitoring report (HOF208).

Meres leisure centre – variance

The 102% variance reported in the outturn summary in respect of the Meres Leisure Centre. This was a result of a downward revaluation by the district valuer and the lengthening of the life of the asset.

Pre-application advice service – development management

The Development Management Service Manager circulated a paper which summarised proposals for the introduction of a charge for pre-planning advice service. The paper listed scales of charges and charging methodologies used by other authorities.

Some of the risks of charging for pre-application advice were highlighted for members’ attention: income might not meet budgeted levels if developers chose to bypass the service. There was also a possibility that the quality of applications could deteriorate if the charge deterred applicants from seeking advice; this could result in officers spending more time going back to applicants to get the quality of their submissions to an acceptable level. Councillors recognised that any pre-application advice charges would need buy-in from the development management team. PDG members also felt that when an application was not of suitable quality, the planning team should advise them to resubmit instead of chasing them for additional information.

The consensus was that any charge that was introduced should apply to commercial developments. Discussion ensued over whether residents should be charged for pre-application advice. Some authorities charged a £50 fee for advice to residents, with a £25 rebate if the application was submitted incorporating all the advice given. To assist the PDG in its consideration of possible scales of charging and charging methodologies, the Development Management Service Manager was tasked to carry out further work and report back at the PDG’s next meeting.

Councillors also considered whether a charge should be made for listed building applications. There was general support for this principle.

Action Point:

For the PDG meeting on 2 November 2012:

1.    The Development Management Service Manager should model the amount that would have been made from charging for pre-application advice based on planning history.

2.    The Development Management Service Manager should model and consider potential incentives to householders seeking pre-application advice if a charge was to be made.