Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor JR Fox and Councillor Goldspink.

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 Strong and Supportive Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 19 January 2011 were approved as a correct record subject to the correction of the job title of David O’Connor Long which should have read Lawyer.

The decision notice for each decision will bear the date on which it is published and will specify that the decision may then be implemented on the expiry of 3 working days after the publication of the decision (not including the date of publication), unless a request for call-in of the decision is received from any two Members of a Scrutiny Committee or Scrutiny Commissions.  If a request for call-in of a decision is received, implementation of the decision remains suspended for consideration by the relevant Scrutiny Committee or Commission.

There were no requests for Call-in to consider.

Kevin Tighe, Chief Executive for Vivacity accompanied by Shelagh Smith, Chair of Vivacity and Pam Whitbread, Head of Finance introduced the report and gave a short presentation on the progress that had been made during the first 18 months of operation.  Members were updated on the progress of priorities from the original business plan. Those priorities had been to:

• Deliver a single “Passport to Culture”, one card, many opportunities in      

sport, libraries, heritage and the arts.  This was reported as on target and to be delivered before Christmas 2011.

• Seek to reopen and revitalise Flag Fen as a quality visitor attraction.  This was reported as on target.
• Refresh the Regional Pool with a new gym and changing facilities.  This was reported as completed on time and on budget and was opened to the public on 22 December 2010.
• Double the number of opportunities for volunteers.  Progress had been reported as good and 80% of the target had been reached.
• Generate sponsorship of £100,000.  There had been problems generating the targeted sponsorship due to difficult economic times.
• Start work on a £3,000,000 redevelopment of the Museum. This was reported as on time and due to be concluded December 2011 / January 2012.
• Secure improved sports and library facilities at the Bushfield Academy and 

OrtonLongueville School.  Reported as on hold due to a change in Government priorities.

• Deliver two micro-libraries.  The first micro library had opened at Perkins Engines and the second was to be opened at the pharmacy in Newborough in a week’s time.
• Expand the Festival to include a greater variety of arts events.  An extra investment of £50,000 from the Arts Council had been confirmed for this year’s festival.
• Deliver more holiday activities for young people.  A range of extra holiday activities had been delivered.

Kevin Tighe went through the business plan and highlighted the objectives for the next five years:

• Increase the number and range of people who enjoy Vivacity’s services
• Deliver services of greater quality
• Improve the value for money for all customers and for Peterborough City Council as the primary funder
• Bring new financial resources and skills to the city through providing new and improved services supported by regional, national, European and international bodies
• Support and encourage other organisations and charities working in Peterborough who contribute to the sport, arts and heritage life of the city
• Transform the style of working

Members were advised that a single “passport to Culture” card would capture information on the type of customers using Vivacity’s services. There would be an investment of £150,000 on software to capture this information. The management information would enable Vivacity to provide proper marketing and business analysis which would be delivered before Christmas 2011.

Members were advised that customer care was very important and a customer care training programme was being designed for Vivacity staff.

The Head of Finance went through the financial aspects of the business plan.  The forecast in January had predicted a year end deficit of £102K.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Sharon Malia, Housing Programmes Manager introduced the report which gave an update on work being undertaken by the Strategic Housing Service in preventing homelessness in Peterborough.  The report updated members on the activity around homelessness, rough sleeping, the mortgage repossession scheme and rent deposit scheme.  The report focused on the key challenges to housing that the city faced which included:

·         Changes to the local housing allowance and general welfare benefit reforms

·         The end of the transitional arrangements for the A8 nationals as of the first of May

·         The potential demand of university places and the impact on accommodation in the city

·         General social housing reforms proposed by central government

.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         How many homes are vacant in the City and what is the churn.  Do you think there should be more done to improve the situation?  There were approximately 2000 empty properties across the city with approximately 700 long term (vacant for more than six months). A key focus of the new housing reforms would be to bring empty homes back into use. 

·         Can you give examples of why properties are empty and for so long?  There were many reasons. An example that was being dealt with at the moment was a home where the owner has died, there was no will, and it was currently going through probate.  The solicitors had found a beneficiary but he was a fugitive in America. Some cases could take a long time to resolve.

·         What action is being taken with regard to registration of Private Landlords and ensuring the accommodation is not sub standard.  There was no statutory requirement for landlords to register.  A lot of work had been done around the city with regard to identifying houses of multiple occupation and measures had been introduced to identify the landlords of these properties.  It was hoped that the landlord accreditation scheme would be relaunched and this would help to engage with landlords and identify good landlords.  In the Housing Options service there was a tenant’s relations officer who worked on behalf of the council where landlords were harassing or exploiting their tenants.

·         Councillor Todd congratulated Sarah Hebblethwaite on the excellent work completed with Boarder Control and the homeless.

·         From May 2011 the A8 nationals will have the same rights as the rest of the European Union nationals. Have you made any estimates on the impact this will have.  People would still be dealt with on an individual basis and it would be weather they pass the habitual residency test as to weather they are passported through to welfare benefits.  Those who had worked continuously for a year while registered on the welfare workers registration scheme would probably be eligible.

Members congratulated officers on presenting a comprehensive and informative report.

ACTION AGREED

That a further progress report be brought back to Scrutiny in March 2012.

Karen Kibblewhite introduced the report and advised members that the report was in response to a request from the Committee for more detail about the Section 75 arrangements. Members were advised that a Cabinet Member Decision Notice had been published to extend the existing agreement for 12 months which had been in place for three years.  The money encapsulated in the agreement was drug specific funding from the Department of Health and came through the PCT to the Local Authority. This funding would be moved next financial year into public health within the PCT and public health would then be moved into the Local Authority therefore in twelve months time there would not be a need for a Section 75.  By pooling the funding it allowed joint commissioning and much better value for money.

The Committee were satisfied with the officer’s update on the Section 75 arrangements and extension of the agreement for a further twelve months.

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the report.

CRIME AND DISORDER SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ITEM 8 ONLY

Gary Goose, Community Safety Strategic Manager introduced the report and went through the details of the Safer Peterborough Partnership Plan for 2011 – 2014.  He advised Members that the plan set out the direction of travel for making Peterborough Safer over the next three years.  The plan would be flexible and adaptive to the changing political landscape.  The most significant change to the plan would be the introduction of the new Policing and Crime Commissioners who would be elected next year and would bring about changes to funding arrangements.  The removal of central reporting via the Local Area Agreement and National Indicator set would free the partnership to determine what was important locally and decide on local priorities.

In 2010 there had been a 9% overall reduction in crime and the priority area of serious acquisitive crime had fallen by 26% which had equated to more than 280 fewer offences.  This had equated to savings of £5.2M.  The three priorities for the coming year would be:

·         Reducing Crime which would be delivered by reducing re-offending by the development of Integrated Offender Management.

·         Tackling Anti-Social behaviour and Hate Crime which would be delivered by the creation of a single city-wide anti-social behaviour system.

·         Building Stronger and more supportive communities which would be delivered by embedding the neighbourhood management process into core Safer Peterborough Partnership work.

Work would take place to embed the ‘broken window theory’ enabling people to feel confident in reporting problems when they happen and know that action would be taken.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Members felt that most people did not feel that crime was being reduced.  It was a difficult social issue and this might be because people saw more of the minor crime like graffiti, damage and anti social behaviour.  Therefore a focus that tackled those issues would help people to understand that crime was being reduced.

·         What have been your key successes and have you done any research on what impact the possible reduction in police officers on the front line would have. Successes had been a reduction of 26% in crime which in real terms had meant 343 fewer house burglaries. This had equated to nearly £900,000 in economic costs.  There had also been a reduction in serious violence and fewer victims of serious violence.  The integrated offender management programme had made a positive effect on the reduction in crime.  The reductions in police numbers would be mitigated by the restructuring of police forces but would not affect front line policing in Peterborough.

·         How up to date is the data in the report on vulnerable neighbourhoods.  The data shows East Ward as a very vulnerable area but it is not.  The data in the report was still relevant but the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment was still being completed and once complete may change the data.

Adrian Chapman advised the Committee that a workshop would be held for Community Safety Partnership members to update them on the significant changes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Adrian Chapman, the Head of Neighbourhood Services introduced the report and advised members that the report was in response to the recommendation made by the Committee at its meeting on 19^th January.  The recommendation was:

That following consideration by the Committee of the Citizen’s Power Programme it is recommended to the Project Sponsor, Adrian Chapman that the Citizens Power Programme, which is a joint venture between the Royal Society of Arts, Peterborough City Council and the Arts Council, be immediately disbanded. 

In preparing the response to the recommendation Adrian Chapman had concluded that an in depth review of the Citizens Power Programme would be required and therefore requested that time be allowed to complete the review. The conclusions of the review would be brought back to the Committee early in the new Municipal Year.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

Members were in agreement with the course of action being taken and agreed that a report containing the findings of the review be brought back to the committee in the new Municipal Year.

ACTIONS AGREED

That the Head of Neighbourhood Services carry out an in-depth review of the Citizens Power Programme in response to the recommendation made at its meeting on 19 January 2011 to disband the Citizens Power Programme.  The report to be presented early in the new Municipal year when the review has been completed.

The purpose of the report was to inform the Committee of the response from Cabinet to the recommendations made by the Committee at their meeting on 19 January 2011 on Part One of the Neighbourhood Council review.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

Members advised that they would continue to monitor the outcomes of the recommendations made from the Neighbourhood Council review over the next Municipal Year.

ACTION AGREED

That the Committee continue to monitor the progress of the recommendations made from the Neighbourhood Council Review.

Councillor Burton Chair of the review group introduced the report and thanked the Officers Paulina Ford and Adrian Chapman who had supported the review group for their help in achieving the final report.  He also thanked the people who had taken part in various interviews and those people who had contributed to the review with their comments and suggestions.  Adrian Chapman advised Members that an in-depth review had been conducted and that the report was the second stage of the review which had covered attendance, delegated powers, logistical arrangements and decision making powers.  Extensive consultation had been carried out with approximately 100 key groups and key individuals across the city.  Every city councillor had been contacted for their comments and there had been specifically targeted consultation with rural Members.  The group had also interviewed senior officers in the authority and there had been a visit from a colleague at Luton Borough Council who had extensive knowledge regarding Area Committees.  The recommendations were set out in the report.  There would be an overall implementation plan to include all of the recommendations from part one and part two of the review and the review group would continue to monitor these. 

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Councillor Sandford highlighted recommendation 17 which was to provide free transport to vulnerable residents.  He felt that it should be expanded to include all residents who were unable to attend the meetings.  Paul Phillipson acknowledged what was trying to be achieved and felt that it would be better to put the wording in a different way.  Suggested wording was:

Officers should explore transport initiatives as and where appropriate for each of the Area Committee meetings to support attendance from residents.

Members agreed to the change in wording.

·         Members discussed the lack of attendance at neighbourhood council meetings and felt that this was an ongoing issue which needed to be resolved.

·         The Chair of Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch came forward from the public gallery to make a statement about his concerns regarding the proposed joint meetings of the Neighbourhood Police Panels and Neighbourhood Councils and felt that the Neighbourhood Watch should have been consulted.  The Chair of the Review Group informed him that a Senior Police Officer had been consulted on the proposal and he had supported the recommendation.

ACTION AGREED    

To endorse the recommendations made in the Review of Neighbourhood Councils – Part Two report from the Strong and Supportive Communities Scrutiny Task and Finish Group and refer them to Cabinet with the exception of recommendation 17 where the wording would be changed to the following:

Recommendation

Officers should explore transport initiatives as and where appropriate for each of the Area Committee meetings to support attendance from residents.

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet consider the following recommendations for approval at their meeting on 21 March 2011.

Recommendation 1:

Change the name of Neighbourhood Councils to Area Committees

Recommendation 2:

Adopt the following as the vision statement for Area Committees:

“Area Committees will deliver improvements for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Committee received the latest version of the Council’s Forward Plan, containing key decisions that the Leader of the Council anticipated the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would make during the course of the following four months.  Members were invited to comment on the Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Committee’s work programme. 

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the Forward Plan and agreed that there were no items for further consideration.