Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Elsey and Councillor Scott.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2014 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

Cabinet received a report which sought its approval for the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule Update 2014, and to recommend the Peterborough Community Infrastructure (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule to Council for approval.

Councillor Hiller introduced the item, explaining that continued growth and development in Peterborough required continued infrastructure to support it. The Peterborough Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS) identified infrastructure needs and, as a live document, would be updated each year. The CIL was be a new, simpler and non-negotiable scheme introduced by the Government. It was further advised that the rate charges for new business within the scheme would be nil.

Comments from Members and responses to questions included:

·         The increased allocation of funding going to education was appreciated;

·         CIL was applicable to the land. As such, all charges were passed on if the land was sold; and

·         The scheme had to go live on 1 April 2015, as the Peterborough Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD (POIS) would become illegal on this date.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED to:

1.    Recommend the Peterborough Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule to Council for approval for the purposes of public consultation and Submission of Draft Charging Schedule and associated material to Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public; and

2.    Approve the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule Update 2014.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Government had introduced changes to the way developer contributions could be collected and spent. Charging Authorities had the option of adopting a CIL. From April 2015, the use of our existing methodology for collecting and pooling developer contributions (POIS) would become unlawful and so unless a CIL is adopted, the collection and use of developer contributions would be severely limited from that date. Adopting a CIL would introduce a recognised system that was used by other authorities; provide a fairer system for ensuring developer contributions were made by small and large developments alike in a proportionate manner; and a simpler more direct way of directly passing back contributions to the communities within which the development had taken place.

          .

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The option to not adopt a CIL had been considered and rejected. This option may have been acceptable if, for example, Peterborough was only expecting very minimal growth over the plan period and the majority of that growth could be dealt with through the limited pooling of contributions for strategic infrastructure. This would have made the adoption of a CIL superfluous. Since Peterborough would continue to deliver a significant number of homes and jobs over the plan period this option was rejected.

The option of alternative Levy rates had been rejected, as the ones proposed were based on robust evidence.

Cabinet received a report which sought approval for the Strategy for People with Dementia and their Carers.

Councillor Fitzgerald introduced the item and detailed the multi-agency approach proposed within the report. He explained that a range of visual aids and reading materials would be provided within the strategy and that £250,000 had been invested. The Councillor further advised that a Dementia Centre was due to open next month.

The Head of Commissioning for Older People, Physical Disability and Sensory Impairment highlighted a number of points including:

·         There were two keys area of development. One was the development of the Resources Centre, the other was raising awareness and providing people with the skills to spot the signs of dementia; and

·         The project was being recognised on a national level.

Comments from Members and responses to questions included:

·         The level of involvement with carers and appropriate users was impressive and training and capabilities of staff;

·         New services were being introduced regarding psychiatric care as part of a system wide approach; and

·         Promotion would be undertaken with Dementia Action Alliance alongside community engagement and a Community Engagement Strategy.

The Executive Director for Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing advised that awareness for the strategy was growing. The challenge with the strategy resulted from the disease often existing parallel to other conditions. It was important that all staff in care services were training and an Improvement and Audit was to be set up to monitor this.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED:

To approve the Strategy for People with Dementia and their Carers for adoption.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The adoption and implementation of the Strategy would clarify how Peterborough City Council would work with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group to improve outcomes for people living with dementia and their carers through a strategic commissioning approach.

In turn this would support the development of a wider range of community support, improved support, more integrated approaches to support and to more effective management of the local market for dementia support.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Not adopting the Strategy would mean that the Council’s approach with the Clinical Commissioning Group to improving support for people with dementia and to developing Peterborough as a Dementia Friendly City would not be clearly stated.  This would have a negative impact on service development and on effective market management.

Cabinet received a report which sought its approval for a Concordat of joint working between Peterborough City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and all Health Organisations across Peterborough and Cambridgeshire.

The Executive Director for Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing introduced the item and highlighted a number of points including:

·         Elective Care and Urgent Care were considered to be the two most important areas to focus on;

·         At the current time work was being duplicated and was overlapping between organisations; and

·         The Concordat focused on initial plans, outcomes would be established over the year.

Councillor Fitzgerald introduced the item and advised that the Council should work with the Clinical Commissioning Group, as is the case with numerous other Local Authorities.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED:

1.    To endorse the Concordat for joint working across Peterborough & Cambridgeshire Health & Social Care Economy; and

2.    To note the external assistance being offered to Peterborough and Cambridgeshire as one of the 11 Challenged Health Economies.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

To ensure in the proposed transformation that due consideration was given to the health and social care needs of the population in Peterborough.

The particular demographics and health inequalities in Peterborough were often masked in the wider health profiles across Cambridgeshire. Participation in this work was essential to ensure new ways of working to address local need and requirements for delivery.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The option not to participate in this work would disadvantage the opportunity for the population of Peterborough to ensure main health and social care needs are being addressed.

Cabinet received a report updating it on the final financial position for the revenue budget, capital programme and final reserves position for 2013/14. The report also contained performance information on treasury management activities, payment of creditors and collection performance for debtors, local taxation and benefit overpayments.

Councillor Seaton introduced the item and detailed that last year the Council made £17million savings with minimal service impact. Pressures had been faced regarding the support of vulnerable people and savings had to be made elsewhere. The Council had underspent by £300,000, as well as having received a grant received from the Government at the end of the financial year, making the total underspend for 2013-14 approximately £600,000.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED:

1.    To note the final outturn position of £622k under spend on the Council’s revenue budget 2013/14 and that this is an improvement since the probable outturn position, of which £291k was a government grant received on the 28 March 2014 to return ‘held back’ local government funding;

2.    To note the final outturn position of £90.9m on the Council’s capital budget 2013/14;

3.    To note the reserves position for the Council;

4.    To note the performance against the prudential indicators; and

5.    To note the performance on treasury management activities, payment of creditors, collection performance for debtors, local taxation and benefit overpayments.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

This monitoring report for the 2013/14 financial year formed part of the closure of accounts and decision making framework culminating in the production of the Statement of Accounts and informs Cabinet of the final position.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

None required at the current stage.

Cabinet received a report updating it on the progress being made in response to petitions submitted at Full Council on 16 April 2014.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED:

To note the action taken in respect of petitions presented to Full Council.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

As the petitions presented in the report had been dealt with by Cabinet Members or officers, is was appropriate that the action taken was reported to Cabinet, prior to it being included within the Executive’s report to full Council.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

No alternative options were considered.