Agenda item

(Operational Planning & Transport Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached additional report (C-019-2010/11).

(1)        That the consideration of alternative advertising arrangements by Essex County Council to significantly reduce the costs of compliance with their statutory obligations to advertise be noted;

(2)        That, to avoid unnecessary delays, the following Portfolio Holders in association be authorised to recommence the parking Reviews:

(a)        the Leader of Council;

(b)        the Portfolio Holder for Operational Planning and Transport; and

(c)        the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development;

(3)        That, to keep the schemes within existing budget allocation, the Parking Reviews be recommenced subject to the following:

(a)        confirmation from Essex County Council that the revised advertising arrangements complied with statutory requirements; and

(b)        the revised advertising costs were acceptable and could be accommodated within the existing Parking Review budgets; and

(4)        That, in the event of the budget being exceeded, the extent of the schemes be scaled back following consultation with the relevant Ward Members.

The Portfolio Holder for Operational Planning & Transport introduced a report on Parking Reviews within the District.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that it had previously considered the issues surrounding the high costs of implementation of the three parking reviews at its last meeting. The Cabinet had resolved that the County Council Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transportation be asked questions on the costs of the reviews. A special meeting had been held with the County Portfolio Holder and regular discussions had also been taking place with Senior Highways Officers. Although the Council was committed to undertaking parking reviews in Epping, Buckhurst Hill and Loughton Broadway, there remained significant costs risks to the Council as the existing budget allocation was not enough to complete all three reviews.

The Portfolio Holder added that a significant element of the cost arose from the need to place public notices in the local press. The County Council was seeking legal advice on this matter and it might be possible to reduce these costs. The Portfolio Holder was hoping for a response within the next ten days. If the outcome of these discussions were satisfactory then it would be beneficial, subject to budget considerations, to resume the schemes instead of waiting for the next scheduled Cabinet meeting in September. It was proposed that the decision to proceed be delegated to the Leader of Council in association with the Portfolio Holders for Finance & Economic Development and Operational Planning & Transport.

The Portfolio Holder added that if the scope of any of the schemes had to be reduced due to budgetary considerations, then there would be consultation with the relevant Ward Members. The Cabinet was reassured that no decisions had yet been made about any possible reductions in the scope of the schemes as the budget for each scheme had to be finalised first. The Leader of the Council added that any decisions made by the three Portfolio Holders could be either advertised via the Council Bulletin or published as a Operational Planning & Transport Portfolio Holder decision and subject to call-in.

Decision:

(1)        That the consideration of alternative advertising arrangements by Essex County Council to significantly reduce the costs of compliance with their statutory obligations to advertise be noted;

(2)        That, to avoid unnecessary delays, the following Portfolio Holders in association be authorised to recommence the parking Reviews:

(a)        the Leader of Council;

(b)        the Portfolio Holder for Operational Planning and Transport; and

(c)        the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Development;

(3)        That, to keep the schemes within existing budget allocation, the Parking Reviews be recommenced subject to the following:

(a)        confirmation from Essex County Council that the revised advertising arrangements complied with statutory requirements; and

(b)        the revised advertising costs were acceptable and could be accommodated within the existing Parking Review budgets; and

(4)        That, in the event of the budget being exceeded, the extent of the schemes be scaled back following consultation with the relevant Ward Members.

Reasons for Decision:

To avoid unnecessary delays associated with seeking a new Cabinet decision on recommencement of work for the three parking reviews, if the revised costs from Essex County Council were within budget, or through reducing the scope of the schemes.

Other Options for Action:

To accept the delays associated with a deferral of a Cabinet decision until September 2010.