Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Holdich and Councillor Fitzgerald.

         There were no declarations of interest.

         The minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2014 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

Cabinet received a report which requested it to consider the conclusions and recommendations made by the task and finish review group with regards to the implementation of 20mph signed speed limits.

At its meeting on 17 April 2013, Council had called upon the Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee to investigate the benefits of extending 20mph signed speed limits throughout all residential areas in the Peterborough District and to present proposals to the Cabinet for consideration.

A cross party task and finish group was convened, its remit being to investigate the impact of 20mph speed limits in residential areas and to report its findings to the Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee, which it did on 20 January 2014.

After gathering all evidence, the group had considered, discussed and debated the relevant merits of what had been learnt, applying the evidence and learning to the city of Peterborough, and as a result, four recommendations had been reached, these being:

Recommendation 1

Due to current available levels of evidence of the impact of 20mph ‘signed only’ schemes across the country the group recommends that the council await the publication of further evaluation of schemes introduced in other similar size authorities prior to a recommendation on the roll-out of an authority-wide scheme. Officers to be charged with a further report in 12 months.

Recommendation 2

Whilst being cognisant of the caveat in Recommendation 1 the group is satisfied that the council should progress with implementing 20mph ‘signed only’ limits in all its constituent villages, subject to consultation. 

The implementation of reduced speed limits within villages should be used as a pilot. Implementation will be evaluated by officers to include speed, casualty reduction and a public perception survey as to improved quality of life (including levels of active travel).

Recommendation 3

Undertake a public consultation to gain views of such a scheme in Peterborough, as information presented made it clear such limits need to be self-enforcing and something the public buy into.

Recommendation 4

To agree that budget is made available to undertake the pilot in the villages.  Budget will need to cover implementation of the limits as well as speed monitoring and public consultations. 

Councillor North introduced the report and advised of the difference between a 20mph zone and a 20mph speed limit, this being that zones utilised calming measures to reduce the adverse impact of motor vehicles in built up areas and 20mph limits reduced the limit, but without utilising physical measures.

Further key points highlighted by Councillor North included the lack of data which was available to clearly demonstrate the impact of 20mph signed only speed limits on speed and casualty reduction; the inconclusiveness of long term casualty reduction due to 20mph speed limits; the preferred recommendation being recommendation 1; support for Parish Council’s if any wished to introduce and pay for the scheme in their own areas; and the costs to revert back to 30mph should 20mph speed limits be unsuccessful.

In summary it was advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Cabinet received a report which sought its approval for the proposed changes to the way developer contributions (S106 Agreements) would be negotiated in the future.

The proposed changes responded to statutory and regulatory changes by Government and were also set in the context of the anticipated adoption of the Peterborough Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). 

Councillor Hiller introduced the report and provided an overview of the CIL draft charging schedule stating that it had been approved for public consultation by Full Council.  It was further highlighted that although CIL would be the main mechanism for funding future infrastructure, S106 planning obligations would still be used to fund any necessary on site related infrastructure i.e. open space provision. The provision of affordable housing was also outside of the CIL process and could therefore only be delivered via the use of S106 agreements.

The draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document had therefore been produced in order to sit alongside the CIL and to set out the relationship between planning conditions, S106 agreements and CIL in order to make it clear what infrastructure would be funded by those different mechanisms. The SPD document did not set new policy, but provided a framework for the implementation of existing policies.

An overview of the main aspects of the CIL was provided and it was advised that should the SPD document be approved, it would be subject to a four week consultation alongside the CIL document. It was assumed that the SPD would be adopted at the same time as the CIL with a new developer contributions system being in place from April 2015.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED to:

Approve the Peterborough Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the purposes of public consultation to take place in August and September 2014.

          REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Government had introduced changes to the way developer contributions could be collected and spent. From April 2015, the use of existing methodology for collecting and pooling developer contributions (POIS) would become unlawful and so unless a CIL was adopted, the collection and use of developer contributions would be severely limited from that date.

To support CIL and to secure the provision of on-site infrastructure there was a need for a Developer Contributions SPD to clearly set out the difference between CIL and S106 agreements.

Cabinet was recommended to approve the Developer Contribution SPD for public consultation in August and September 2014.

          ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

From April 2015 the Council would not be able to secure developer contributions through the POIS system and therefore the Council was proposing to introduce CIL. However, CIL did not cover affordable housing and would not be used to secure site specific infrastructure, particularly on strategic sites. Therefore there was the need for an additional document which supplemented the CIL process and set out how affordable housing contributions and other on-site infrastructure would be secured.

Without a Developer Contributions SPD in place to set out clearly how this process would work, there could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Cabinet received a report following the adoption of the revised Standing Orders by Council and the withdrawal of the Authority’s former petition scheme.

The Constitution Review Group, a Member Working Group, had been undergoing a process of updating the Council’s Constitution. Following the Group’s first tranche of work to assess the standing orders applying to meetings of the Council and its Committees and Sub-Committees, it had looked into the adoption of revised petition provisions, resulting in the recommendations contained within the report to Cabinet.

The Legal Officer introduced the report and advised that the implementation of the Localism Act had abolished the statutory petitions scheme and therefore the Council was entitled to replace this with a local scheme. Work had been undertaken by the Constitution Review Group and a scheme was appended to the Cabinet report.

Following unanimous agreement of the vast majority of the scheme, there had been two specific areas upon which the Constitution Review Group had been unable to settle, those being the levels at which a petition should prompt a debate at Full Council and the level at which a petitioner ought to be allowed to address the Cabinet or Scrutiny Committees on their petition.

The report provided an overview of how other Council’s had dealt with the implementation of their petition schemes and trigger values had been explored in relation to population. These stood at, on average, around 1% of the population in relation to triggering debate at Full Council and it was therefore suggested that the level for Peterborough be set at 2000 signatures. With regards to the levels for debate at Cabinet or Scrutiny, it was advised that this did not generally appear within other authorities’ schemes, however it was felt that an appropriate level was around 25% of the level which would prompt a Council debate, this therefore being 500 signatures. It had also been agreed by the Constitution Review Group that petitioners be permitted a four minute address to Cabinet or Scrutiny Committee.

Cabinet was advised that should the proposals be approved, the report would be taken to Full Council where there would be a right to debate the scheme. 

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED to adopt and recommend to Council:

1. The draft petition scheme as attached to the report;

2. The levels of valid signatures, required in a petition to trigger the varying procedural responses within the Scheme, these being 2000 signatures to trigger a debate at Council and 500 signatures to trigger a debate at Cabinet and Scrutiny (with petitioners to receive 4 minutes speaking time at Cabinet and Scrutiny); and

3. To authorise the Director of Governance to make such minor, technical and procedural changes as she considers it necessary to ensure the Scheme meets standards of best practice in public administration.

          REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Petitions are recognised by the Council, through its Standing Orders and current practice, as a valid and helpful means of communicating the concerns of those who live or work within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.