Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Arculus and Morley.  Councillor Goodwin, the Conservative Group Substitute had also sent her apologies.

No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2011 were approved as a correct record.

There were no requests for call-in to consider.

The report presented the Draft Local Transport Plan Capital Programme of Works for 2011/12.

Each financial year the Council was awarded an allocation of funding from central Government to spend on transportation schemes and capital maintenance of the road network.  To ensure this money was spent effectively the third Peterborough Local Transport Plan (2011–2016) (LTP) had been developed and was due to be considered by Full Council in April 2011.  The Council had considered a range of transport solutions to best address local problems, meet the growth aspirations of the City and integrate the Governments ‘national transport goals ’ agreed at national level by the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Department for Transport (DfT). 

The LTP3 contained a broad five year capital allocation for each generic transport intervention.  A more detailed capital programme of works had been produced for the first year of the LTP3 period (2011/12). 

The Government, as part of their October 2010 Spending Review, announced a radical simplification of the local transport funding mechanism moving from 26 separate streams to just four as follows:

            1.  A local sustainable transport fund (capital and resource).

            2.  Major Schemes (capital).

            3.  Block funding for highways maintenance (capital).

            4.  Block funding for small integrated transport improvement schemes (capital).

The local sustainable transport fund and Major Scheme grant were subject to a bidding process, whereby local authorities would have to submit robust applications to obtain funding.  The block allocation for highways maintenance for each local authority was calculated through a needs based formula.  This was based on several factors including: total road length by classification and condition; the number of bridge structures and whether they required significant maintenance or strengthening and the number of street lighting columns over 40 years old.  The block funding for small integrated transport improvement schemes was also calculated through a needs based formula.  This was based on the following factors:  supporting development in less prosperous areas; road safety statistics; public transport patronage; traffic congestion; accessibility and tackling pollution.        

The Council had been awarded a total of £4,762K transport settlement for 2011/12 and as with previous years the allocation was not ring fenced.  The Council has continued to support the road network by allocating £716K of corporate capital funding, which had been added to the unringfenced transport settlement and allocated to prioritised schemes.  The Council had also allocated some corporate resources into specific schemes as outlined in the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

The Committee was asked to consider the draft Programme of Works and to make any appropriate recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Planning.

Questions and observations were raised around the following areas:

·         The current terms of reference for Neighbourhood Councils stated that they would agree the schedule of works however the Programme had already been agreed.  When would this be considered by the Councils?  Officers would be attending the upcoming round of Neighbourhood Councils meetings.  Going forward this would be an area of work to be delegated out to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report provided information on the Christmas Park and Ride Service for 2010/11.

Peterborough had operated a Christmas park and ride service since 1999.  Whilst relatively successful, the service had always operated at a cost to the Council. The table below gave a comparison of usage for the service from its commencement in 1999.

* £2.50 family ticket available (2 adults and up to 3 children)

The average number of passengers using the service per day each year fluctuated and this was due to a number of reasons:

- The number of passengers using the service on Sundays was less than on Saturdays.  The split of operational days had varied year on year.

- The Town Bridge repair work impacted on ease of access for car users into the city.

However, it was noticeable that charging for the service, whether per person or per car, reduced passenger numbers.

For 2011 there was a net budget of £29k (£35k expenditure, £6k income) to fund a Christmas park and ride service for 2011. The estimated cost in 2010 was £35k, with a contribution of just £3k income received from customers.

There was a need to provide some consistency to the operational days of the service as changing from year to year could be confusing to the users of the service.  In addition, the figures demonstrated that charging for the service had a negative impact.  Therefore it was proposed to operate the service in 2011 as follows:

Saturdays: 29 October to 24 December - 9 days.

Sundays: 13 November to 18 December - 6 days.

This was consistent with the number of operational days for 2010 and would be the operational period going forward, available funding permitting.  It was also proposed that the service operate free of charge, however this would mean a loss of income, which could only be partly offset by a reduction in printing/advertising costs.  The remaining shortfall would need to be met from within the Operations Directorate overall cash limit budget.

The provision of a Christmas park and ride service met with the Council’s aspirations to become the UK’s Environment Capital.  The service contributed to the sustainable transport agenda by reducing congestion and ensuring the accessibility of the city centre, therefore reducing CO2 emissions.  However, there was a need to further develop the park and ride service within the city.  Officers would investigate external funding sources to expand the existing park and ride service.  Consideration would be given to an all year weekend operational  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report provided an update on progress against the Council’s carbon reduction agenda from the perspective of our legal obligations under the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme and our Carbon Management Action Plan.

The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme was an obligatory emissions trading scheme which covered non-energy intensive users in both the public and private sectors. It was a central part of the UK’s strategy to achieve carbon emission reductions and applied to all organisations who consumed energy over a set threshold in 2008. The Council’s registration as a full participant for the first phase of the scheme was completed in September 2010. The scheme required participants to purchase allowances for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted at a fixed price of £12 per tonne during phase one, the price would be subject to market variability thereafter. This equated to a requirement for the Council to purchase allowances amounting to approximately £308k p.a during the first phase.   Following the comprehensive spending review, the scheme no longer recycled payments to participants depending upon performance. All allowances the Council were required to purchase effectively became a straight forward tax, therefore more than ever the emphasis moving forward should focus upon achieving reductions in carbon emissions.

The Carbon Management Action Plan (CMAP) detailed the mechanisms the Council would adopt to achieve carbon emission reductions arising from energy and fuel consumption and was developed in partnership with the Carbon Trust.  The CMAP formally committed the Council to achieving a CO2 reduction of 35% of 2008/09 levels by 2014 which would reduce the Council’s financial exposure to risk.  Several projects had now been completed and further projects were in various stages of development with just over a quarter of the target still to be quantified.  In addition, several other aspects of the CMAP which did not have directly attributable carbon savings had progressed including:

• There was now a clause in all contracts of employments which emphasised the responsibility placed upon all employees to minimise their environmental impact.
• City schools had all agreed to fund a new ‘Schools Carbon Reduction Officer’ post to support them through the process of developing individual carbon management plans.
• Agreement to develop and launch a compulsory environmental e-learning programme for all employees had been secured alongside the production of a short film starring the Chief Executive to open the training.
• A network of 25 Green Champions had been established across the organisation.
• Environmental awareness was now a key component in the corporate induction delivered by HR.
• A process for ensuring the environmental impact of a project was considered in all Cabinet Member Decision Notices had now been introduced.
• External funding had been secured to establish a £500k ring fenced fund for investing in energy efficient technology.

Over the next 12 months progress would be made against further sources of carbon emissions including waste, water and commuter travel. This had not been possible until now due to other commitments.

In October each year the Environment Agency  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report provided an overview of the regulatory service delivery framework within neighbourhoods, as well as proposals for future service delivery.

The Committee had previously considered a report in July 2009 on environmental enforcement and education. That report described a landscape that had since changed quite significantly: neighbourhood delivery was in its early stages; low level littering crimes were enforced through an external contract by a company called Xfor; and resources were higher than they were today prior to the economic downturn.  The Committee had debated whether the work undertaken by Xfor should be expanded, however that model had now ceased to become an option as it had became unviable for Xfor, and they withdrew from the agreement to undertake littering enforcement work for the Council. 

The economic downturn had been the driver for greater internal challenge within the Neighbourhoods Division with regards to how services were both structured and delivered. The need to find efficiencies had opened up new opportunities as previous delivery models became unsustainable. Following a formal consultation process in the third quarter of this financial year a consolidation of services fulfilling statutory regulatory duties took place resulting in a new team being formed referred to as ‘Regulatory Services’. This team comprised of the following functions:

·         Trading Standards

·         Environmental Health

·         Licensing

·         Parking Enforcement

·         Environmental Enforcement

·         Housing Enforcement

·         Internal Health and Safety

Sustainability had been created by removing historical boundaries which had in the past seen officers largely remain within the professional disciplines in which they had always worked. For example trading standards staff would rarely cross over into the field of Environmental Health. Though it had some disadvantages this model was suitable when there had been adequate resources to support largely autonomous functions but continuation of such a model in the current climate would lead to bigger gaps in service delivery and less resilience. By identifying opportunities where staff could become multi-skilled and by investing in their development the service would create a staffing resource that delivered value for money, gave greater resilience, was more flexible, offered increased capacity, and provided increased career development opportunities for staff.  Removing boundaries also helped facilitate consistency, and the development of fewer, leaner processes and procedures. Areas currently being developed were the roles of Civil Enforcement Officers (Parking Officers), Neighbourhood Enforcement Officers, Pollution Control and Housing Officers.

A further opportunity to increase both resilience and capacity was the development of the street leader’s scheme whereby volunteers work with officers to tackled community problems, and improved communities in general. This accompanied by our strategic approach to work with other partners and Councils such as the East of England Trading Standards Authorities Group, the Six Counties Regulatory Forum, and the proposed joint service arrangement with Rutland County Council to deliver regulatory services also strengthened our position.

By ensuring officers were equipped to utilise the range of regulatory sanctions available to them, as well as possessing the skills to negotiate, persuade and problem solve, they would be able to apply the appropriate measures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The latest version of the Forward Plan, showing details of the key decisions that the Leader of the Council believed the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would be making over the next four months, was received.

The Committee asked for clarification as to what a voluntary partnership agreement for local bus services was.  The Team Manager for Passenger Transport Contracts and Planning advised that it was about small value services which supplemented the commercial services and was about getting value for money by bringing better services, vehicles and punctuality.

ACTION AGREED

To note the latest version of the Forward Plan.