(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Eileen Blamire)
The Head of Planning Services submitted a report upon the securement of an agreement for the expenditure of the 2007/8 Planning Delivery Grant allocation.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:
Option 1: To agree the distribution of Planning Delivery Grant as suggested in the report. This option supports the Service Management Team’s objectives in making investments which maintain the improvements already undertaken in recent years and ensure that the Service is ready to respond to the significant planning challenges facing the Council in the future.
Option 2: To treat this year’s Planning Delivery Grant as a significant revenue income and use it to subsidise current Service delivery and ease pressure on the Revenue budget generally. This option would have the benefit of easing this year’s budget position, but would either result in new growth items having to be generated to deliver the essential Service infrastructure improvements which Government performance targets demand, or an abandonment of programmed improvements. The later scenario would result in the Council’s performance position slipping back and affect the potential for receiving future grant applications. It would also increase the risk of the City Council being listed again as a Best Value Planning Authority and affect future CPA assessments.
Option 3: To agree to some of the expenditure headings but retain a proportion of the grant to cover costs incurred in planning appeal. This option would involve using £78,000 of the grant to cover the costs awarded against the Council in the Mayfield Chicks planning appeal, as was considered in the corporate performance review team (PRT) report. The use of this amount of the funds would require some of the items identified in the report being dropped. Although all the items identified for investment are important, those less crucial to maintaining business performance, which would need to be forgone to release funds to pay the costs, are item b) Revised Conservation Area Appraisals and item i) part time Section 106 Contributions officer. Dropping these two items would release £80,000 to cover the costs. This would obviously mean delaying business development in the area of Conservation Area Appraisals and income generation through Section 106 contributions. However, this is a matter for Members to decide and the option is a viable alternative.
The preferred Officer option was option 1. Planning Delivery Grant is awarded to help Local Planning Authorities invest in improving their services and giving them the capacity to operate effectively in place shaping and delivering the sustainable communities agenda. Just as importantly it is a grant rewarding the performance of the Council’s Officers and they are highly motivated by seeing significant investment returns for their efforts. This Council is aiming to improve its CPA rating; continuing improvement in Planning, one of its most high profile Services, is important to achieve this.
It was moved by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor John Gilbert:-
“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”
Resolved Unanimously:
(1) That the spending proposals set out in the body of the report under Option 1 be agreed.
(2) That the general fund revenue budget and general fund capital programme be updated to take account of these proposals, subject to there being a nil impact on the Council’s resources and the outcome of the 2008/09 Budget Process.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Chief Executive.
Head of Planning Services.
Reason for making the decision:
The decision supports the Council’s objectives in making investments which maintain the improvements already undertaken in recent years and ensure that the Council is ready to respond to the significant planning challenges in the future.
Previous years’ significant investment in Planning has already resulted in a step change in service provision. This puts the City Council in a good position to demonstrate that it has mainstreamed planning as a corporate function and has a commitment to performance management. Failure to capitalise on this position could lead to the situation where performance reduces and the initiative is lost. Further investments as proposed will maintain the momentum of modernisation, and the recognition this Council deserves as one of the most improved authorities in the region.