Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor John Fox. The Panel was informed that Councillor Bella Saltmarsh had resigned as a substitute from the Panel and had been replaced by Councillor Harrington.

At this point Members must declare whether they have an interest, whether personal or prejudicial, in any of the items on the agenda. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2008 were approved as a correct record.

To consider and comment on the arrangements for delivery of Neighbourhood Investment.

The Panel received a report and presentation which detailed the current status of the Neighbourhood Investment Strategy and the outlined proposals for strengthening the future approach

The Neighbourhood Investment Strategy, which was launched in 2007, was developed to ensure that all communities would benefit from growth and regeneration. It was based on three core themes of activity:

·        Community Planning – formal medium and long term planning with local community stakeholders which would ensure investment was secured via growth and regeneration plans.

·        Strategic Alignment – which ensured that all Council Departments and all key partners were signed up to and operating within the principles of Neighbourhood Investment, and that a shared approach to problem solving was adopted.

·        Using data as intelligence – making better use of information and data which helped to make informed decisions about our neighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood Investment had received mixed responses from both local communities and key stakeholders.  Some areas had embraced the concept of long term community planning whilst others had expressed a stronger desire to focus on current issues affecting their neighbourhood.

An initial review meeting involving key partners had been held in November 2008 at which a new model, which built on the existing Neighbourhood Strategy but responded to local, regional and national policy changes, was discussed focussing on delivering a “neighbourhood management” solution for our communities, essentially a multi-partner approach to problem solving, community planning and driving the improvement agenda, which would connect the ‘bottom up’ (i.e. community engagement, local aspirations, local needs) with the ‘top down’ (i.e. legislation, regional policy, data and intelligence).

Whilst a key focus of the new approach would have been to resolve the root causes of issues affecting a neighbourhood, there would need to be an element of medium and long term planning to ensure the original values of the Neighbourhood Investment Strategy were maintained.

Further key points and issues surrounding the development of Peterborough’s approach to neighbourhood working were highlighted to the Panel. These included:

·        Current neighbourhood activity which included:

o       The neighbourhood investment plan which had been set up in order to make sure that everyone would benefit from the growth agenda.

o       Weeks of action which had in the past given good results and had encouraged local resident participation.

o       Street leaders who had responded to community problems such as graffiti, and acted as the eyes and ears of the local community in which they lived.

o       Interaction with Ward Members and the possibility of getting local Councillors to act as links between the community and the public sector.

·        The national and local strategic drivers for change which included:

o       Strong and prosperous communities (2006 white paper) which highlighted the principles of connecting communities better.

o       Communities in control, real people, real power (2008 white paper) this was highlighted as being a powerful statement, as it aimed to pass relevant power to local communities.

o       PCC management restructure and the possibilities of further aligning services and building better responses.

·        Neighbourhood management and what it should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the Executive Decision regarding proposals for the reduction of mercury emissions.

At the request of its Chairman, a report was submitted to the Panel detailing, by way of an update, the decision taken by the Leader of the Council in relation to compliance with new legislation affecting the Crematorium which would come into force on 31 December 2012.

Crematoria had been regulated under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the subsequent Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, since 1991. Cremators were required to be upgraded or replaced by 1998 to ensure that they met the environmental standards laid down in the Process Guidance Notes, PG5/2 (95). Cremators in use at the Peterborough Crematorium had already met this standard.

The UK had an obligation under the OSPAR convention to prevent, or reduce, the disposal into the environment of mercury from human remains. Consequently, DEFRA had stated that 50% of all cremations at existing crematoria must be subject to mercury abatement by 31 December 2012.

DEFRA required all Local Authorities operating crematoria to provide their regulator with the following information by 31 October 2008:

·        Whether it intended to fit equipment to abate mercury emissions from the crematorium by 31 December 2012; and

·        If abatement equipment would be fitted, and to specify how many of the cremators it would be fitted to, and

o       What proportion of cremations at the installation it intended to be subject to abatement measures;

o       What steps had been taken to arrange

-          financing of the purchase and installation of the abatement equipment

-          procurement of the abatement equipment; and

o     The dates when the equipment would be installed and commissioned, at each crematorium, and the evidence showing how those dates would be achieved; or

o   If those dates were not fixed by 31 October, the likely date when they    would be fixed; or

·        If abatement would not be fitted or would be fitted in relation to less than 50% of cremations (based on 2003 figures)

·        Specify what burden sharing arrangements it intended or had put in place to offset the cost of abatement at one or more other crematoria in accordance with statutory guidance note AQ1 (05)2, which included the name of the burden sharing scheme or the name of the crematoria with which arrangements had been made;

·        Provide written evidence of any such arrangements; and

·        Specify what arrangements were put in place; or

·        If the arrangements had not been fixed by 31 October, the likely date when they would be fixed

In response to this requirement and following consideration by the Leader of the Council it had been agreed that:

·        The Council would install appropriate plant and equipment to abate Mercury by 31 December 2012.

·        The project would be self funding using prudential borrowing under a “spend to save” scheme.

·        The Regulator (Environmental Health) would be informed of the detailed arrangements by 31 October 2008 in accordance with the statutory directive.

Further points were highlighted to the Panel regarding the                                                                                                   importance of reducing the quantity of mercury emissions, including:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To note and consider any Executive Decisions taken since the last meeting that are relevant to the remit of this Panel.

The Panel considered the following Executive Decisions made since the last meeting:

·        Peterborough Crematorium Mercury Abatement

·        Corn Exchange, Peterborough

·        Streets, Squares and Spaces Strategy Phase One Cathedral Square works – appointment of contractor using the Midlands Work Framework Contract 3

There were no requests from the Panel for any further information on the items.

ACTION AGREED

The Panel noted the report.

To consider the latest version of the Forward Plan.

The latest version of the Forward Plan was presented to the Panel for consideration.

The Chairman of the Panel requested it to be noted in the minutes that he expressed concerns regarding not being consulted on a key decision affecting his ward. He was advised that his concerns would be conveyed to the relevant parties.

ACTION AGREED

The Panel noted the Forward Plan.

To receive a standard report providing feedback on any issues or questions raised at previous meetings.

The Panel received a report which provided an overview of the recently formed Cultural Services Pricing Review Group.

Members were advised that an update report on the Group would be provided following the conclusion of their work in January 2009.

ACTION AGREED

The Panel noted the report.

To agree the current Work Programme.

The Panel received the latest version of the Work Programme for consideration.

Items to be scheduled into the work plan were discussed and dates were suggested for several of the items.

ACTION AGREED

The Panel noted the latest version of the Work Programme.

Tuesday 20 January 2009 in the Bourges and Viersen Rooms.

Tuesday 20 January 2009 in the Bourges and Viersen Rooms.