Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Simons.  Apologies were also received from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Culture, Recreation and Strategic Commissioning.

At this point in the meeting the Chair advised that an additional item had been added to the agenda as a matter of urgency and would be considered after item 8.  The item was a report of Recommendations relating to Changes to Central & East Neighbourhood Committees.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services then advised the Committee that following recent information received he requested that the item be withdrawn for further consideration before presenting to the Committee.

The Committee agreed to the withdrawal of the report.

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.

           Item 5 – Vivacity – Progress Report and Proposed Business Plan

            Councillor Casey declared a personal interest in that his daughters worked as life guards for Vivacity.

The minutes of the Strong and Supportive Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 18 January 2012 were approved as an accurate record.

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

This report was presented to the Committee to enable the current performance and future targets for Vivacity to be considered as part of the delivery of its contract with the council.

A presentation was delivered and the following key points were highlighted:

• Vivacity’s performance so far and delivery of the following projects:

• The business plan structure
• Future finance
• Sources of funding
• The business plan surplus/ (deficit)

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Members congratulated vivacity on the work they had done with the Werrington sports centre and skate park.

·         Members were concerned about the reduced opening hours at Werrington library and felt that this may be affecting attendance figures. Members asked if there were any plans to reduce the library open hours further or increase the hours with the use of volunteers.  Was Vivacity still liaising with Friends of Werrington Library? The Chief Executive confirmed that Vivacity was still in contact with Friends of Werrington Library and the plans were to extend the library opening hours using volunteers. He informed the committee that a pilot project had been started in Bretton in March.

·         Members queried as to whether libraries were involving the University of the Third Age (U3A) as this would be helpful towards learning and also a source of volunteers. The Chief Executive advised the committee that this was already happening although he felt they could do more together.

·         Members wanted to know if the application for a grant had been successful for the Music Hub. The Chief Executive informed Members that he believed it had been unsuccessful but he would need to check. He informed members that Vivacity would still like to move forward with the Music Hub.

·         Members complimented Vivacity on the work they had done so far although they were concerned that there had been no mention of Cricket. Members asked the Chief Executive to comment on the loss of Cricket facilities in Peterborough and what was going to be done about Woodlands as this could be a potential facility for the sport. The Chief Executive informed Members that Vivacity did not manage many green spaces as these were generally managed by Enterprise. He advised them that Vivacity wanted to open Woodlands as a sports facility but it was not part of their portfolio.

·         Members asked the Head of Finance how she envisaged the £50,000 Partnership Funding would be spent. The Head of Finance advised Members that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report presented to the committee the 2012 draft version of the Safer Peterborough Partnership Plan (2011 – 14) ahead of its presentation to cabinet.

The key issues were highlighted as follows:

• The Crime and disorder Act 1998 was revised by the Police and Justice Act 2006 requiring that the Community Safety Partnership published an annual Partnership Plan.
• The priorities within the Partnership Plan were agreed following a Strategic Assessment which considered the performance in the past twelve months and took in to account the concerns of the public.
• The Peterborough Partnership had agreed one single target for the three year plan  which was to reduce victim based crime by the end of March 2014
• The priorities set out in the plan were
  • Reducing crime
  • Tackling antisocial behaviour
  • Building stronger and more supportive communities

Members were asked to approve the 2012 draft version of the Safer Peterborough Partnership Plan and recommend it to Cabinet for approval.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Members wanted to know how many Community Crime Fighters the city had and how they were getting on. The Superintendant was unable to give exact figures. He commented that Community Crime Fighters had not been replaced but there were also other voluntary organisations in place that supported the police like Street Pastors and Street Champions.   They all did very good work in supporting the vulnerable, the police and the partnership. The superintendant advised the Committee that the number of Special Constables was also rising.

·         Members were concerned that the accident statistics with regard to David’s Lane and Staniland Way shown on page 93 of the report did not seem accurate.  There were actually somewhere between 100 to 150 accidents at those locations each year. The Community Safety Strategic Manager responded that the statistics in the report were from 2010 and the difficulty was that they could only report on accidents recorded and reported   to the police. He would raise the matter with the road safety team who were available to undertake surveys in certain areas.  Awareness could also be raised at Neighbourhood Committee and Panel Meetings.

·         A member of the Youth Council advised the Committee that the Youth Council were starting some work on looking at reducing antisocial behaviour in young people.   He asked if he could be provided with figures on antisocial behaviour by young people. The Community Safety Strategic Manager requested a meeting with the youth council to discuss their interest further. He informed the Committee that young people only represented a small portion of the community involved in antisocial behaviour.

·         Members commented that fly tipping had risen 13% and they suggested that the only way this would stop was if the council stopped charging for collecting bulky waste.

·         Members quoted incidents of neighbourhood disputes where the police had been called in the early hours of the morning to an incident but on arrival had advised the caller to contact the council.   Members queried as to what could be done about Police Officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report was presented to the Committee for them to scrutinise the impact of the implementation of the Community Cohesion Strategy and make any recommendations.

The key issues were highlighted as follows:

• The 2011/12 action plan and the identified broad themes
  • Improving educational attainment and parental engagement through an innovation programme of ESOL delivery
  • Targeted work to reduce hate crime
  • Supporting the work of the Disability Forum to give disabled people a voice in the city
  • Providing opportunities for communities to discuss community hot topics in an open and safe environment
  • Providing one to one support and group sessions for deprived community members

• Key projects from the action plan were highlighted as follows:

o        Building better mutual understanding between communities through ESOL and family learning

o        Strengthening voices of the disabled community and their interface with all partners

o        Improving mutual understanding among community groups and enhance pride in Peterborough through cultural services

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Members asked the Cohesion Manager if he was a member of the Safer Peterborough Partnership. The Cohesion Manager advised members that he was one of the advisors for the Safer Peterborough Partnership.

·         Members commented that they had attended Neighbourhood Panel meetings and felt that only certain sections of diverse communities attend which seemed quite segregated. They were also concerned that they did not see young children from diverse communities mixing together much as a lot of the activities in the city were segregated. The Cohesion Manager advised members that cohesion was difficult to measure as it was usually only demonstrated when it did not take place. He advised that he felt the only way forward would be to concentrate on integration. He informed the committee that their aim was to make sure people from different communities attended their Neighbourhood Panel and Committee meetings and took part in influencing decisions.

·         The Head of Neighbourhood Services commented that the best example of cohesion he had seen was through the ‘Can Do’ project where a group of residents were brought together to discuss and tackle a set of issues within a community.

·         Members commented that there was evidence that segregation within communities made situations worse, encouraging people to come together and learn about each others cultures and interests was the way to have a harmonious society.  The Cohesion Manager advised the committee that neighbourhoods and schools were the best places to work on this issue as there were children from diverse backgrounds that came together on a daily basis. He explained to the committee that they were doing work with ESOL (English Speaking for Other Languages) throughout schools and there were plans in place to bring this work in to the bigger Academies. The second part of the cohesion grant would be launched shortly and although it would only be a small sum of money for each community group this would give them the opportunity to organise events and demonstrate how they would bring people together from diverse backgrounds.

·         Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report identified a key recommendation from the work of the Task and Finish group that, if adopted, would have constitutional implications, therefore it was being brought to the Committee ahead of Annual Council to enable full discussion and debate through the appropriate democratic process.

The Recommendations were as follows:

• That there are seven Neighbourhood Committee chairman, one for each Neighbourhood Committee
• The Chairman of each Neighbourhood Committee represents a ward from within the area covered by that Neighbourhood Committee.
• The total Special Responsibility Allowance budget for chairmen of Neighbourhood Committees remains at its current value, but is divided equally amongst all seven chairmen.
• These changes to take effect from the start of the new Municipal year 2012.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

• Members were pleased with the progress that had been made with the Neighbourhood Committees and agreed with all of the recommendations.  However they did feel that the Chair of each Neighbourhood Committee should be someone who was familiar with the area of that committee and suggested it would be a good idea for the committee to choose its own chairman. The Senior Governance Officer explained to the Committee that the recommendation around the appointment of the chairs for the Neighbourhood Committees remained with Full Council as stated in the constitution under Part 2, Article 4, Section 4 – Functions of the Full Council.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee endorse the recommendations as listed and recommend that they go to Full Council for adoption.  The recommendations being that:

• There are seven Neighbourhood Committee chairman, one for each Neighbourhood Committee
• The Chairman of each Neighbourhood Committee represents a ward from within the area covered by that Neighbourhood Committee.
• The total Special Responsibility Allowance budget for chairmen of Neighbourhood Committees remains at its current value, but is divided equally amongst all seven chairmen.
• These changes to take effect from the start of the new Municipal year 2012

This report was presented to the Committee at the request of Councillor Sandford who had made a referral to the committee in accordance with Part 4, Section 9, Paragraph 8.1 of the constitution – Scrutiny committee and Scrutiny Commission Procedure Rules.

8.1              Any member may require the Proper Officer to place an item relevant to the functions of the committee or Commission on the agenda for the next meeting. On receipt of such a request the Proper Officer will ensure that the item is included on the next agenda. The item will be discussed by the committee or Commission and it will only be pursued if the Committee or Commission agree to do so.

The referral was in regard to the consultation which had recently taken place in respect of the trees in Bridge Street and Long Causeway.  Councillor Sandford requested that the Committee consider and seek an explanation for the way in which the Cabinet and officers had carried out the consultation process.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Members agreed with the objective of having the item come back to the Committee but felt that revisiting the specific consultation of the trees in Bridge Street and Long Causeway was not appropriate.  Members felt that it would be much more relevant to look at the council’s consultation and engagement strategy.

·         The Head of Neighbourhoods confirmed that Peterborough City Council had now employed an officer to deal with the consultation process and he was in the process of drafting a new strategy.  Members requested that the consultation and engagement strategy be put on to the work programme for the next municipal year.

ACTION

The Committee request that the Consultation and Engagement Strategy be brought to the Committee for scrutiny at a future meeting.

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.

The Chair thanked the Governance Officers and Lead Officers for the support given to the Committee over the past year.