Agenda and minutes

An apology was received from Councillor Lee.

There were no declarations.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2009 were agreed as an accurate record and signed by the Leader.

Cabinet received a report which provided an overview of the council’s performance between April 2008 and March against the targets and indicators in the Local Area Agreement. In summary:

·                For a small number of indicators there is still no way to measure progress

·                At the end of the year there were 8 indicators where performance could not be measured

·                Strong and improving performance was better at the end of the year than the beginning

·                There were more amber indicators at the end of the year, but this has improved from a peak during Quarter 2

·                The number of red indicators has remained the same as at the start of the year

During 2008/2009 there has been significant improvement in the way the organisation and its partners measure, monitor and manage performance. The performance management process now provides a framework to identify progress and delivery risks and supports improvements by providing extra help to solve problem areas.

Members expressed concern at those indicators against which progress could not be measured. Officers shared their frustration and advised that government had not yet provided metrices and that they were awaiting guidance.

There were a number of areas that were classed as “at risk” and members suggested that the scrutiny process should be employed to look further into these areas of concern.

CABINET RESOLVED TO:

Note the 2008/9 performance against the Local Area Agreement priorities and ask that the relevant Scrutiny Committees consider reviewing those areas whose performance was classed “at risk”.

REASONS

          Failure to monitor performance would mean that Cabinet would not be able to ensure that the council achieves its intended outcomes.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

          None required; the report was presented for monitoring purposes.

Cabinet considered the Budget Monitoring Report – Final Outturn 2008/2009 which summarised the financial results for revenue and capital to the end of March 2009 and contained performance information on the treasury management activities, payment of creditors in services and collection performance for debtors, local taxation and benefit overpayments.

         Cabinet was advised that the report, which had been incorporated into the Audit Committee report relating to the Statement of Accounts 2008/2009, had been considered by the Audit Committee at its meeting of 29 June 2009.

CABINET RESOLVED TO:

1.        Note the final outturn position for 2008/09 on the Council’s revenue and capital budget.

2.    Note the performance on treasury management activities, payment of creditors in services and collection performance for debtors, local taxation and benefit overpayments.         

REASONS

          The monitoring report for the 2008/09 financial year is part of the process for    producing the Statement of Accounts.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

          None required; the report was presented for monitoring purposes.

CABINET RESOLVED to note the action taken in respect of the following petitions presented to full Council:

          PETITION – REMOVAL OF ISLANDS ON WATERLOO ROAD

This petition was presented to Council on 8 October 2008 by Councillor Kreling and expressed concerns about the installation of traffic islands on Waterloo Road which it was claimed had been done without public consultation or the support of the community. The petitioners requested the removal of the islands.

The Council’s Head of Environment, Transport and Engineering has responded as follows:

   “I refer to the above and can only apologise for the lack of a formal response to the petition submitted in October 2008.  I am responding as an officer of the Council duly delegated to respond on the matter and trust that you will convey the contents of this reply to the petitioners.

The build outs within Waterloo Road are developer lead rather than any schemes PCC have required or implemented.  Planning permission was granted, I believe in 2003, for the residential development now named Century Square. During that application, it was evident that the existing vehicle to vehicle visibility splays at the point of the new access on to Waterloo Road were unacceptable to the Local highway Authority (LHA). As such, the applicant put forward a proposal to provide a build out at the entrance to the development off Waterloo Road, to enable adequate vehicle to vehicle visibility to be achieved. This was unacceptable to the LHA, as a stand alone build out was considered fundamentally unsafe. The applicant was advised that a scheme of build outs (formalising the existing parking and creating a form of traffic calming by the narrowing of the available carriageway width) would be required, including a Stage 1 Safety Audit. This was presented as part of the application and after some revisions, was found acceptable to the LHA, subject to detailed design and a Stage 2 Safety Audit (to be submitted under the Section 278 application).

During that planning application, residents of Waterloo Road would have been consulted and would have been given the opportunity to make comments to the Planning Department.

Once the Section 278 application was received and being dealt with, the developer’s construction company (SDC) and agent/consultant were both informed that it would be in their best interest to consult with the residents of Waterloo Road, or at minimum, keep them up to date. I understand from SDC that they have posted regular newsletters to the residents of Waterloo Road, although it should be noted that this is not a statutory requirement upon PCC or the developer. PCC do recommend this in order that good      relationships are gained and maintained throughout the development.

Whilst I sympathise with residents, the design of the scheme did take into account those that have off-street parking and those that do not. As mentioned above, the time to raise concerns would have been at the planning stage and if the resident had purchased the property post  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.