Agenda and minutes

Advantages

·         Reflects the majority of representations made during the public consultation.

·         Enables less able-bodied people to continue to exercise dogs off leads on the flat hard surfaces of ‘cycle ways’.

·         More consistent and less confusing enforcement.

·         More rapid, effective and efficient  enforcement using Fixed Penalty Notices, compared to the majority current method of prosecuting through the court system.

·         Supportive of Dogs on Leads under Direction DCO in areas not included in a Dogs on Leads DCO.

·         More consistent and less confusing enforcement.

·         More rapid, effective and efficient  enforcement using Fixed Penalty Notices, compared to the majority current method of prosecuting through the court system.

·         Supportive of Dogs on Leads under Direction DCO in areas not included in a Dogs on Leads DCO.

·         Saving on staff time to implement new Dog Control Orders, and advertising or signage costs.

Disadvantages

·         None identified

·         Unpopularity within local communities of applying Dogs on Leads DCO to cycle ways and roads with a speed limit over 40mph.

·         Reduced availability of off-lead dog exercise areas, particularly in areas where there are few alternatives.

·         Need for additional enforcement compared to Option 1.

·         Continuation of the current enforcement system which is inconsistent and confusing for the public.

·         Unnecessary expense and complications in having to prosecute for offences instead of applying fixed penalty notices available under option 1 or 2, leading to delays and lower efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

·         The extent of land within the district on which regulatory dog controls apply would remain limited.

Risks

·         The decision concerning Dogs on Leads would not reflect the views of a minority of consultees

·         The decision to go against the majority opinion of consultees could lead to some public dissatisfaction.

·         The decision not to introduce available dog-related regulatory measures for public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Option 1:To adopt the set of policies outlines

Option 2: To adopt only parts of the policies outlined

Option 3: Not to adopt the policy outlined

Advantages

Clear guidelines for officers to work to.

Consistent service to householders.

Encourages householders to maximise recycling.

Achieve the success measures set out in the corporate priority Clean, Green & Safe Places.

Continue to deliver the objectives of the Lancashire Waste Strategy 2008-2020

Supports the control measures for monitoring costs of replacing wheeled bins and recycling boxes .

Can be delivered within existing budgets.

Tried and tested and adapted to local needs.

Clear guidelines for officers and consistent service to householders where parts of the draft Policy have been adopted.

Disadvantages

Lack of clarity and consistency, where parts of the draft Policy have not been adopted.

Potential of not  achieving all the objectives of Clean, Green & Safe Places.

May not be possible to deliver within  existing budgets.

Not tried and tested

No clear guidelines for officers to work to.

No consistency in service to householders.

No restraint to grey bin capacity to householders.

Risks

Dissatisfaction of some householders that the quality of the service falls below their  level of expectation

Dissatisfaction of some householders at perceived differences in level of service

The potential to lead to continued budget requests, through the budget process, if requests for replacements continue to rise.

 Advantages

 Disadvantages

Risks

Option 1

A two fold process to include smaller and larger grants with indicative allocations

Flexible approach that allows funds to be steered towards projects of all sizes

Inclusive and accessible for organisations of all sizes and varying capacity

Allows investment in both larger, collaborative initiatives with longer term benefits and also specific initiatives assisting individual organisations and the services they deliver

Likely to promote good value for money by encouraging applications for funding at levels appropriate to the size and scope of the project

Range of proposals likely to be broader making decision making processes more complex

Categories will need to be treated separately to ensure fair consideration of bids

Option 2

All grants limited to £10,000, or agreed alternative ceiling, to support individual bids to support development and sustainability

Easier to access for all eligible organisations

Possible to approve more individual applications

Larger initiatives creating higher, longer term benefits would not be eligible.

No scope to underpin support structures which are required by many organisations

Lost chance to increase sustainability, develop sector wide opportunities and achieve efficiencies in relation to VCF and Arts organisations for the future

Administrative costs likely to increase

None specifically noted

Option 3

All grants limited to £50,000 or agreed alternative ceiling, to support larger collaborative bids to create longer term sustainable benefits across organisations

All funds focused on larger initiatives with wider and longer term benefits

Likely to exclude smaller organisations

Likely to preclude specific, smaller scale but useful initiatives

None specifically noted

Option 4

Carnforth Local Information Centre is funded, at this stage, within Options 1 and 2

This would provide the funding to allow the Information Centre to continue for a further two years

No means of assessing the proposal against scheme criteria

No current arrangements in place to assist other organisations facing immediate difficulty.

No clear business plan has been submitted and assessed so no way to ascertain whether the Information Centre will be able to operate at a sustainable level after funding has ceased

Option 1: Accept the funding

Option 2: Reject the funding

Advantages

The CSP projects can go ahead as planned

None

Disadvantages

None

Another accountable body would need to be found.

Risks

Council resources are required to investigate and put right any issues identified in the running of the planned projects

A delay in agreeing the funding arrangements for these projects could jeopardise their implementation

Option 1: Adopt enforced sales procedure

Option 2: Do not adopt enforced sales procedure

Advantages

Will bring long term empty properties back into use. Help regenerate the area, provide accommodation and recoup outstanding debts. It signals the council’s commitment to addressing the empty property issues.

None. Officer time will be relocated to other projects

Disadvantages

There will be some additional burden on the authority’s legal resources

These properties will continue to deteriorate, be detrimental to the community, may detract from private investment and will be a waste of a valuable asset.

Risks

Risk of bad publicity if the process is not managed correctly.

These dilapidated properties will continue to have an adverse effect on the area they are located in.  

Option 1: To introduce charges for both Householder Questionnaire Advice and Pre-Application Advice

Option 2: To introduce a charge solely for Householder Questionnaire Advice

Option 3: To introduce a charge solely for Pre-Application Advice

Option 4: To not introduce charges for either activity

Advantages

This would allow for a more formal and transparent process to the pre-planning application regimes and would provide added certainty for developers pursuing development projects. It would also provide an income stream based on cost recovery which aims to cover the cost of service demands.

This would allow a fee to be levied for permitted development enquiries which are time-consuming and are not a statutory function, also providing an income stream which could potentially support existing service provision for this element.

This would require a new, formal and transparent process to responding to pre-application enquiries which would assist Officers and would provide added certainty for developers pursuing their development projects.  Again this could provide an income stream which could potentially support existing service provision for this element.

No advantages to the Service.  Although the activities would remain free of charge to the user, this free service would need to continue to be limited and this is unlikely to provide any improvements in service provision.

Disadvantages

The new system could potentially be more resource-intensive than the current informal system, dependent upon developer interest.  The introduction of fees for Householder Development advice may be off-putting to some householders, who may choose to continue with a development project irrespective of whether they require permission or not (although with lenders often demanding evidence of PD rights this is unlikely).

The introduction of fees for Householder Development advice may be off-putting to some householders, who may choose to continue with a development project irrespective of whether they require permission or not. 

Introducing a fee for this service activity alone would not respond to the demand for pre-application advice from developers.

The new system could potentially be more resource-intensive, dependent upon developer interest.

This would not assist in addressing the capacity issues and ongoing modernisation of the Development Management Service.

Risks

The process would require annual review to be certain that staffing capacity and fee levels are commensurate with the service being offered.

This is a service that is currently provided free of charge and so it is anticipated that it would not result in an increase in workload which would create staffing capacity issues.

The process would require annual revision to be certain that staffing capacity and fee levels are commensurate with the service being offered.

Service provision would continue in accordance with current priorities, with little capacity for pre-application discussions.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risks

Option 1: Do nothing

No advantages.

Loss of credibility with business community. 

No contribution to council’s Corporate objectives.

Council may be in breach of statutory duties to support BID proposer as defined in BID legislation. 

Option 2: Endorse the draft BID proposals reserving formal approval decision on Final Proposals to an appropriate delegated authority. 

Gives early indication that the council believes the BID proposal will benefit the business community.

Clear message to the business community that the direction of proposals to date is sound and final document is likely to be compatible with BID regulations and council policy.

Allows for scrutiny of final proposals to ensure clarifications and changes are compatible with BID Regulations and policy framework.

Allows the Steering Group to develop its pre-election canvassing strategy and marketing/publishing activities around the BID proposals with confidence.

Reputational implications for council and other statutory services of “committing” to a baseline service provision over BID lifetime, even though this is not a legal commitment. 

Allocated resource for BID proposer/partnership to move to ‘BID readiness’ will need to be supplemented by council officer resources. 

Relatively long lead in period to ballot to ensure best possible chance of success.

Council officer resources required pre and post ballot.

No guarantee that BID ballot will ultimately be successful.

Option 3: Reject the draft proposals

Avoids wasted effort and expense for the Steering Group if Members are of a mind that based on the content of the draft, a final proposal would be vetoed.

Allows for revised proposals to come forward more compatible with council policy and regulatory requirements

Reputational implications for council if proposals are not endorsed without good reason. 

Ballot date will probably be put back. Assuming an approval is secured at some stage, it may cause the council operational difficulties in trying to develop its systems in time for 2013/14 billing year assuming a vote in favour. 

Risks for the council will mainly be around timing of the ballot and the ability to implement systems the later in the year a ballot takes place. 

The onus would be on the Steering Group to ‘turn around’ any issues in preparing a revised proposal.