Agenda, decisions and minutes

Minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2009 were not available when this agenda was published.  They will be published on the Council’s website as soon as possible and attached to the agenda for the Planning and New Communities Portfolio Holders' meeting to be held on 1 September 2009.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2009 had not yet been finalised, and would be published by 17 July 2009. 

There were no declarations of interest.

The Planning Portfolio Holder was minded to agree to the levying of a fixed charge as follows, subject to any comments from agents and further consideration, by him, of those comments:

The scheme would be subject to review after six months and one year, after which time the charging structure might be revised to reflect the complexity of the service.

The Planning Portfolio Holder considered a report seeking his agreement to a system of charges for pre-application planning advice.

The report had not been in the public domain for five clear working days, but the Planning Portfolio Holder agreed to accept it onto the agenda as a late item because of the need to consult agents before the next Portfolio Holder meeting.

The Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) and Development Control Manager outlined the steps taken in an effort to identify an acceptable level of fee.  The Planning Portfolio Holder considered such a fee to be reasonable in principle, and suggested that one option was to levy it at the outset and collect it once a subsequent planning application had been submitted.  The Development Control Manager urged caution at this approach because of the situation where no pre-application advice was either sought or given.  Imposing a charge where no service was given could well be challenged.  The Planning Portfolio Holder agreed that officers should seek legal advice as to the manner and circumstances in which a charge could be levied.

The Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) emphasised that pre-application advice should be offered to all applicants.  If an applicant declined to take such advice and subsequently submitted a planning application deemed to be defective (where that defect would have been identified at a pre-application stage), then officers should act quickly to refuse planning consent.  The Development Control Manager added that, should the offer of pre-application advice be rejected, no subsequent advice would be offered to an applicant. 

The Planning Portfolio Holder instructed officers to develop the finer details of the scheme, including the nature, degree and consistency of advice to be given.  The overriding concern should be to help applicants to better understand the planning process and, as a result, to enhance customer service.

The Planning Portfolio Holder and New Communities Portfolio Holder noted the potential difficulties in implementing pre-application charging for developments along the Cambridge fringes.  A consistent and coherent approach would be essential.  A review after 6-12 months would be valuable.

Councillor Mrs Bear suggested deferring the adoption of pre-application charging in view of the current economic pressures on developers.  In reply, the Development Control Manager referred to paragraph 24 of the report, which clarified that householder developments, small businesses, and works to listed buildings and trees would initially be exempt from pre-application charging, subject to review after six months.

The Planning Portfolio Holder was minded to agree to the levying of a fixed charge as follows, subject to any comments from agents and further consideration, by him, of those comments:

Draft response to the Government consultation on possible changes to the administration of concessionary travel

The Department of Transport has issued a consultation paper on possible changes to the administration of concessionary travel. The two key matters for the consultation are which bodies should administer the scheme locally and the issue of local discretionary travel concessions. The consultation will inform Government decision making on how the concessionary travel should be administered, thereby enabling certainty to be provided at the earliest opportunity on who will be responsible for concessionary travel in the long term. Communities and Local Government (CLG) will consult separately on the funding implications of any proposed change, & this will be undertaken as part of the formal consultation on the next 3 year local government finance settlement.  Views of the relevant officers across the Authority are being sought and will be reported verbally at the Portfolio Holder meeting.

The Planning Portfolio Holder endorsed the proposed response to consultation attached to the report as Appendix 1. 

The Planning Portfolio Holder considered a report suggesting what the Council’s response might be to a Department for Transport consultation on options for change to the administration of concessionary bus passes, introduced on 1 April 2008.

The report had not been in the public domain for five clear working days, but the Planning Portfolio Holder agreed to accept it onto the agenda as a late item because of the need for the Council to respond to consultation before 21 July 2009 (before the next Portfolio Holder meeting on 1 September 2009).

The Planning Portfolio Holder said that it was sometimes necessary to alter the application of concessionary fares where, for example, local rural timetables would otherwise mean that bus users were prevented from receiving maximum benefit from the scheme.  He feared that this type of flexibility, which South Cambridgeshire District Council was able to provide at a district level, might be lost if administration was transferred to Cambridgeshire County Council.  Any variation to the concessionary fares scheme should only be made once problems had been identified, and it was still too soon to determine what changes were necessary, or whether they were practical.

The Planning Policy Manager informed the Portfolio Holder that the current proposed response related only to administration of the scheme.  Options for change in its funding would be considered later in the year.  The County Council had indicated that changes in administration were undesirable unless and until the funding review suggested otherwise. 

The Planning Portfolio Holder endorsed the proposed response to consultation attached to the report as Appendix 1. 

The Planning Portfolio Holder received a report comparing the final actual revenue and capital expenditure for the Planning Services Portfolio with the working budget for the year ending 31 March 2009.

The Accountant referred to the overspend of £54,718 detailed in Appendix A, attributing it to the greater than expected cost of appeals and inquiries, and a reduction in the level of planning application income. 

The Planning Portfolio Holder

1. endorsed the final actual revenue and capital expenditure for the Planning Services Portfolio compared with the working budget for the year ending 31 March 2009, regretting the overspend, but understanding and accepting the reasons for it; and

2. instructed officers to report to him,  in due course, on the current financial status of the ‘traveller budget’.

The New Communities Portfolio Holder approved the Arts Delivery Framework 2009-2012 and Action Plan 2009-2010

The New Communities Portfolio Holder considered a report seeking his approval for the arts delivery framework 2009-2012 and action plan 2009-2010.

The Portfolio Holder was urged to give the residents of emerging communities the opportunity to express their aspirations as to public arts provision locally, rather than simply to rely on ‘top-down’ decisions.

The New Communities Portfolio Holder approved the Arts Delivery Framework 2009-2012 and Action Plan 2009-2010

The New Communities Portfolio Holder approved the grant eligibility, application process, award levels and grant conditions in relation to launching the Elite Athlete Award scheme on 21^st July 2009. 

The New Communities Portfolio Holder considered a report on grant eligibility, application process, level of grant award, and grant conditions for the Elite Athlete Award Scheme.

Those present discussed the process for selecting those eligible for grant support and the residency criteria applied.

The New Communities Portfolio Holder approved the grant eligibility, application process, award levels and grant conditions in relation to launching the Elite Athlete Award scheme on 21July 2009. 

The New Communities Portfolio Holder received a report comparing the final actual revenue and capital expenditure for the New Communities Portfolio with the working budget for the year ending 31 March 2009.

The Principal Accountant (General Fund and Costing) referred to the underspend of £36,899 (before recharges) detailed in Appendix A.  The authorisation of Rollovers for unspent one-off expenditure caused by delays on the Community Facilities Audit, Growth Area initiatives at Cambourne and Orchard Park, and sustainability projects, amounting to £32,000 in total, was being sought from the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder.

The New Communities Portfolio Holder endorsed the final actual revenue and capital expenditure for the New Communities Portfolio compared with the working budget for the year ending 31 March 2009.

Each Portfolio Holder will maintain, for agreement at each meeting, a Forward Plan identifying all matters relevant to the Portfolio which it is believed are likely to be the subject of consideration and / or decision by the Portfolio Holder, Cabinet, Council, or any other constituent part of the Council.   The plan will be updated as necessary and published on the Council’s website following each meeting. Portfolio Holders will be responsible for the content and accuracy of their forward plans.

The Planning Portfolio Holder and New Communities Portfolio Holder received their respective forward plans, agreeing that they should be updated to incorporate the following:

Meetings have been scheduled for 10.00am as follows:

Planning and New Communities Portfolio Holders' meetings had been scheduled for 10.00am as follows:

An additional meeting, to consider the next stage of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document process would be arranged in due course, probably to take place in December 2009 or January 2010.