Corporate Plan Annual Review
(See report at agenda item 7 (pages 38 to 40) of the Cabinet agenda of 7 February 2017 and pages 81 to 95 of the first supplement to the agenda)
RECOMMENDED BY THE CABINET
That it is agreed that the Corporate Plan which was approved in December 2015 shall remain unchanged for the year 2017-2018.
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council), seconded by Mrs Lintill, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet.
Mr Dignum introduced the report, saying that the Cabinet on 7 February 2017 had approved a number of Initial Project Proposal Documents and £50,000 funding from Council reserves to undertake appropriate appraisals and feasibility work. No amendment had been required to the Corporate Plan for the year 2017-18.
On the recommendation being put to the vote, it was declared carried.
That the Corporate Plan, which was approved in December 2015, shall remain unchanged for the year 2017-2018.
The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its six appendices (the last of which is a Part II exempt document*) and to make the following two resolutions and the recommendation to the Council:
That the Cabinet approves:
(1) The Initial Project Proposals for 2017-2018 attached in the appendices and
(2) £50,000 funding from Council reserves to undertake appraisals/feasibility work as indicated in para 5.2 of the agenda report.
That the Council agrees that the Corporate Plan approved in December 2015 remains unchanged for the year 2017-2018.
[*Paragraph 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.]
(1) That the Initial Projects Proposals for 2017-2018 in the appendices to the agenda report be approved.
(2) That £50,000 funding from Council reserves to undertake appraisals/feasibility work as indicated in para 5.2 of the agenda report be approved.
RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL
That it be agreed that the Corporate Plan which was approved in December 2015 shall remain unchanged for the year 2017-2018.
The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its six appendices in the main agenda supplement, the last of which was a Part II exempt item and which was considered after agenda item 19 (see minute 336 below) (copies of the report and appendices 1 to 5 only attached to the official minutes).
Mr Dignum began by emphasising the initial nature of these project proposals. He pointed out that the cost of each proposal had been included within the budget spending plans (agenda item 5) but that this was subject to the recommendations made by the Cabinet at the end of this item and the decision to be made subsequently by the Council meeting.
Mr Mildred, Mrs Hotchkiss, Mrs Dodsworth, Mrs Rudziak and Mr Kenny were in attendance for the Part I aspects of this item.
The Cabinet considered each of the initial project proposals (IPP) in turn. There was a brief officer summary and members’ questions on points of detail were answered by the aforesaid officers.
The main points to arise were as follows:
Priory Park – Phase One Option Appraisal
There was a clear consensus that Priory Park was a very valuable asset and that the best possible use should be made of it without, however, permitting any fundamental change to its character.
The Cabinet agreed with Mr Dignum’s proposal that the following text should be added to this IPP document (pages 81 to 82 of the main agenda supplement): ‘The study should not affect the essential character of the park which is largely laid to grass and enclosed with the gates locked after dark (except when, as in the past, there is an approved evening use).’
Mr R E Plowman, the chairman of the Friends of Priory Park (FPP), addressed the Cabinet at the invitation of Mr Dignum. He said that there had been a very useful meeting between the FPP and two CDC officers: Mr A Howard (Green Spaces and Street Scene Manager) and Mr D Hyland (Communities and Partnerships Manager). The FPP were supportive of the need to upgrade Priory Park and the recent/prospective archaeological work. There was concern about the IPP being expressed in very broad terms including timescales and who would be consulted. The FPP were reassured by the clarification provided by the aforesaid extra text as to ensuring that the fundamental character of Priory Park should be preserved. There was a perceived loss of trust in the consultation process. He asked questions about the first and third bullet points in section 4 (page 82): the feasibility of deriving significant income from the wedding venue market and how to measure improved satisfaction from Priory Park users. With reference to section 8 (identify risks) he queried the prudence of spending up to £30,000 on engaging a consultant to undertake an options appraisal/design work.
Mrs Taylor asked about the project’s timescale.
Mr Dignum and Mrs Hotchkiss each said that there would be appropriate consultation including with the FPP. As to the level of detail ... view the full minutes text for item 323