Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from:

Councillor Joe Dobson, Helpston Parish Council

Councillor Olive Leanard, Hampton Parish Council

Councillor Dennis Batty, Glinton Parish Council

Councillor John Bartlett, Thorney Parish Council

Sarah Rodger, Castor Parish Council

Kate Day, Hampton Parish Council

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2014 were approved as an accurate record.

Rob Henchy, Interim Commissioning Manager for Adult Social Care at Peterborough City Council provided an update on the Dementia Resource Centre. The key points raised were:

• Funding had increased. In the case of Community Support, it had been quadrupled.
• The development of the Dementia Resources Centre included the Hub at 441 Lincoln Road.
• 70% of the support provided will be within communities. He was keen to hear from rural communities and develop a community spokes system.
• The July newsletter had been recently published, indicating how the public could get in contact if dementia was effecting their area.

The following questions were put to Rob Henchy:

How was it feasible to provide dementia care support in rural communities?

The Council was currently focussing on making Peterborough a ‘Dementia Friendly’ city. This programme would help to spread the message about dementia support. If there was demand, support would be provided. There was no information on dementia ‘hotspots’ across the area, as such residents needed to let them know about dementia issues in there locality.

How would you support someone in your community that may have dementia?

It was a sensitive issue, a simple enquiry as to how that person was copy may be enough. A sense of community was to be encouraged.

What was being done to look after carers?

Carers were just as affected by dementia as those who suffer from the disease and were just as important. Specific carer support services had been commissioned and training was available. A carer support group meeting was taking place that evening. These services were at 441 Lincoln Road and in the community.

Were proactive steps being taken to engage with people?

The motivation behind bringing the Alzheimer’s Society and the Memory Clinic together was to ensure that a full complement of support was provided and that data sharing was used to ensure we are as proactive as we can be.

Were GP’s being encouraged to direct patients to dementia services?

Is was important to have GP’s on board. Events are held for GP’s, one took place last week, to provide information on services. It was the role of a specific officer, the Information Officer to liaise with hospitals and GP’s to get the message out.

The Clinical Commissioning Group had developed a system with Health for Older People. They held Patient Participation Groups as well. Could Dementia Resources be put on the agenda for one of these Group meetings?

We are aware of Health for Older People. I will asked the Information Officer to liaise with them and add and item on their agenda.

Councillor Henry Clarke, Peakirk Parish Council provided a presentation on the Ward Boundary Review, from A Rural Parish Perspective. The key points raised were:

• The aim to have three Councillors per Ward did not make sense in rural wards which had lower population density.
• Following these guidelines, there would be two ‘super wards’ of 20 by 15 miles.
• The Peterborough City Council proposal was to have two Wards (Newborough and Eye & Thorney, and Northborough and Glinton & Wittering) with three Members and to leave Barnack as a one Member Ward.
• Councillors should know their Ward communities and be able to travel around the Ward easily.
• An alternative would be to combine Newborough and Northborough to make a new two Member Ward.
• Make sure you feedback on the draft recommendations before 6 October 2014.

Mike Rowan, Interim Head of Legal Services at Peterborough City Council advised that, while the Boundary Commission would have the final say, it was important that Parish Councils formed their own opinions on the proposals. Consultation responses could be made directly or through the Council or Ward Councillors. It was key that those with suggestions submitted responses to the consultation.

The following questions were put to Councillor Henry Clarke and Mike Rowan:

If a previous representation had been submitted in the last round of consultation, would this have been taken into consideration and would a further representation need to be submitted for the second round of consultation?

All previous representations received should be referred to in the Commission’s report. As the process had several stages, further submissions could be made at each stage.

Having three Ward Members in rural Wards presented geographical problems as it would be difficult to cover the whole Ward area.

 This was a situation faced by numerous Local Authority Councillors and Members of Parliament. The alternative was to have a higher number of Councillors in the Ward, which would result in a disproportionally heavier weighting for that Ward.

Where did the notion of three Ward Councillors come from? Was this just for electoral reasons?

A three Member Ward was necessary for a cyclical election process, where one Councillor was elected in each year for three years, with a one year break. It was also identified in the statute for review.

Councillor Marion Brown, Ufford Parish Council, explained that Barnack Ward was geographically self-contained and the Parishes had worked together to establish a sense of cohesion in the Ward. If Barnack were to have its number of Ward Members increased, it would lose this sense of unity and a submission from the Ward as a whole had set out as such.

Was the review more focused on getting the correct number of residents in Wards than what would be best for the communities involved? What numbers were being used for the review?

The Commission were using projected numbers for 10 years’ time, to take into account the expect growth in the area. The Commission were trying to achieve 2,400 residents per Ward Councillor, however geography  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Ian Dewar, CAPALC provided an update on the changes resulting from the Audit and Accountability Act. The key points raised were:

• Some changes were simply, including the introduction of electronic money transfer. This would still require the authorisation of at two Councillors. ‘Unity Bank’ have a good system for Parish Councils to use.
• Agendas would be able to be circulated via email, which is not allowed at the moment.
• There were three new documents to consider, these included new governance regulations, new standing orders and new financial regulations
• These would need to be checked against Parish Council’s own documents and, if Parish Council’s had altered previous version, would need to be checked against these to make sure they’re in compliance.
• The documents were hefty but it was important that someone in each Parish Council read through them.
• The Good Councillor Guide and Good Employer Guide had both also been updated.
• An event was being held on Friday 11 July to explain the upcoming changes, this would cost between £25 / £50.

In response to questions raised, Ian Dewar clarified that the event on Friday for Parish Clerks was only being held on one day and that the new standing orders could be reproduced with purchase, although previously this had not been the case.

The following items were identified for inclusion on future agendas:

• Connecting Cambridgeshire- PCC / BT
• Trunk Road Upgrades – PCC Highways / Highways Agency
• 2014 Peterborough Parish Conference Update

The Chairman advised that the ‘My Peterborough’ app was now available to use on Smartphones, to report incidents in the Council area.

24 September 2014