Agenda and minutes

It was agreed that the BBC (Look East) and Evening Telegraph be allowed to take photographs and audio visual recordings of the meeting.

To receive any apologies from members unable to attend the meeting

Apologies were received from Councillors Ash, Collins, Todd and Saltmarsh.

Members to declare any personal/personal prejudicial interests in any items on this agenda

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2010.

In relation to the Minutes of the last meeting, Councillor Goldspink raised the following issues:

§         At the beginning of the last meeting, Cllr Goldspink had challenged quite strongly the Neighbourhood Manager over the concerns raised by residents during the open session not appearing on the ‘you said, we did’ boards, and that this comment should be included in the minutes. Cllr Goldspink said that having worked with officers, the ‘you said, we did’ display were much improved.

§         Members of the public felt strongly that it should be clear in the minutes who was representing organisations and who was attending as a member of the public.  An attempt has been made to display this; the last minutes stated that twenty members of the public attended, however by Cllr Goldspink’s count it was only thirteen.  A way forward had been discussed with the Governance Officer prior to the commencement of the meeting, and in order to clarify the situation it was agreed that attendees be asked to raise their hand if they were attending the meeting as a member of the public.

Following discussion, the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2010 were approved, subject to the following amendment proposed by Cllr Goldspink:

§         At Item 3, Minutes of the last meeting, the inclusion of the words “Councillor Goldspink challenged the Neighbourhood Manager quite strongly regarding concerns raised by residents not appearing on the ‘you said, we did’ boards”. 

The Chairman then invited those persons who considered themselves to be attending as a member of the public to raise their hands. Fifteen members of the public were identified as being in attendance at the meeting.

Q&A session following pre-meeting exhibition.

The Transport Planning Team Manager gave a presentation on the development of the third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), which would outline the Council’s strategy, objectives and targets for five years 2011 to 2016. 

During discussion, the following points were noted:

• Cllr Goldspink sought clarification as to whether the proposals to include bus priority corridors through the city were new to Peterborough’s Local Transport Plans (LTP’s) and if they were new, the reasons for their inclusion.  Cllr Goldspink raised concerns that bus priority lanes did not work and resulted in empty bus lanes and traffic queues.  The Transport Planning Team Manager advised that this part of the process was to gather all ideas and proposals and that new possibilities for priority lanes were being investigated.
• Cllr Peach sought clarification as to whether Peterborough was investigating the use of technology which could be used by busses to change traffic signalling, in effect giving busses priority.  Such systems would allow busses priority yet not restrict other road users.  The Transport Planning Team Manager agreed that this technology, which could be used by busses and emergency services, could be useful and many options were being investigated such as bus lanes, no car lanes and HGV lanes, depending on traffic flow and what would work best for the individual area.
• Cllr Peach urged officers not to have a dedicated bus lane as they take up a lot of road space and are of little use.  The Transport Planning Team Manager assured Members that this issue would be looked at very carefully and that such measures would not be introduced where it was unimportant to have bus priority.

• Cllr Goldspink observed that there did not appear to be as many major schemes in this LTP as there were in previous plans, and further, he was not sure that the Council had delivered many schemes from the previous plans either.  Cllr Goldspink sought clarification as to whether this was because of the financial constraints, for example, recognising that money would be short so only putting forward a limited number of schemes, or was it that with the recession the need for roads was likely to be less, or was it a balance of the two?

The Transport Planning Team Manager agreed that there was currently uncertainty regarding funding but that was not the focus in putting the plan together.  Spending was an issue but had not limited the preparation or scope of the plan.  The funding mechanism for these works into the future is still unknown however funding may be sought from developers and even European funders.

• Christine Abbs asked if the practicalities around parking outside the city and park and ride facilities had been investigated.  The Transport Planning Team Manager advised that a feasibility study on the demand for this type of system needed to be undertaken.  Officers were starting to investigate where these types of sites would be, however it had not been looked at as yet in detail.
• Di Newman raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Q&A opportunity to seek formal support on proposed development sites as recommended in the Site Allocations Document.

Background information can be viewed on the Site Allocations Document webpage.

The Policy and Strategy Manager gave a presentation on the Site Allocations Document and made the following points:

• No decision would be made on the Site Allocations Document at the meeting, as the document would be considered by Council later in the year.
• The Site Allocations Document was essentially a map which allocated new land for housing, retail or employment development.  Once finalised, the document would encourage developers to come forward with proposals which accord with the detail on the map.
• There were a number of policies behind items for new development.  The Site Allocations were not about planning permission as developers would need to seek permission for each proposal in its own right.  The document was about setting principles about appropriate sites for different kinds of development.
• The preparation of the document was very regulated by the government, and had already been through two consultation stages. In 2009 all the possible sites known to the Council were put out for consultation.  In March and April 2010, the Council put forward preferred sites.
• The next part of the consultation sought to finalise the map, which would then go to an independent inspector who gives final approval.

The Policy and Strategy Manager then talked through some of the site allocations particular to the Neighbourhood Council area:

• The John Mansfield School and a remote playing field to the north would be promoted for housing development, with an anticipated 250-300 houses across the two sites.
• The bus depot on Lincoln Road was proposed as a small housing site if the business relocated.
• Part of the Community College was also earmarked for housing development for approximately 40 houses.
• Former Perkins workers’ sports field was proposed for housing.
• Two smaller sites marked for employment development were included in the current local plan, but had not yet come forward for development.
• A large area marked for employment development was known as Red Brick Farm and would provide a large extension of the east employment area.  This large area would not be developed overnight, but formed part of a 20 year programme of development.

The Policy and Strategy Manager advised that the comments received at the meeting would be reported to formal Council for a final decision in November 2010.  Following this, a further period of formal public consultation in January and February 2011 would take place, with responses being forwarded to the independent inspector.

During consideration the following points were noted:

• Wayne Stimpson sought clarification as to whether there were plans for green spaces or allotments amongst the site allocations identified.  The Policy and Strategy Manager advised that whilst there were no specific sites allocated for green spaces or allotments, Council policy would ensure that for larger housing sites, developers must provide a certain amount of open space. This would occur at the detailed planning development stage.
• The Policy and Strategy Manager advised that due to some flood risk and archaeological issues, the creation of one massive employment area was unlikely.  It was possible that part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

A presentation by local residents to promote the ‘Time Banking’ and ‘Skills Exchange’  activities in your neighbourhood.

Wayne Stimpson, resident, briefly addressed the meeting on volunteering to support the community with a focus on ‘time banking’, and made the following points:

• Time banking operated on the basis that for every hour you put into your community, you received a time credit which you could use to ‘buy’ other services from people in the time banking scheme.
• The system would help you to make new friends, it was free, run by local people and completely recession proof.  Its only limits were the skills of the people involved.
• A successful scheme was already operating in Parnwell and Cross Keys Homes had set up a similar scheme.  It was acknowledged that for the best outcome, a paid broker would be required to manage the scheme and to ensure it’s success.
• Time banking encourages a sustainable environment, and makes communities stronger and more self sufficient.
• There was not an optimum number of homes or residents to be involved and the scheme could grow as far as residents wanted it to, however the danger with it getting too big would be that it might lose that sense of neighbourhood and community.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer agreed to provide residents with Mr Stimpson’s details upon request.

In response to questions regarding the Street Leader’s Scheme, the Neighbourhood Development Worker advised that other street leaders had come forward and the matter would be put forward as an agenda item for the next meeting.  A review of the scheme would be undertaken in the near future to ensure volunteers were getting the guidance and support that they required.

A presentation on the 2011 Census.

The Census Project Manager gave a presentation on the importance of the upcoming 2011 census and how residents could get involved, and made the following comments:

• Hard to contact communities are of interest to officers as the results of the census would help to determine the level of funding the council would receive.
• The council’s target was to improve on its previous 95% response rate.
• Anyone wishing to work on the Census could visit www.censusjobs.co.uk .
• The key contact for Peterborough was Jeff Grace, Census Liaison Manager.

The following questions were raised and answers given:

• Councillor Goldspink asked that given the census was meant to be predictive, but that the 2001 census had clearly failed to predict what was going to happen in Peterborough in the ensuing years, which was a result of political policies and economic factors, wasn’t the census a waste of money and how much was it going to cost? The Project Manager advised that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) had not yet devised the budget but it would be known by the end of October.  It was envisaged that the 2011 census would be the last one.
• Di Newman raised the issue of security of the information provided during the census.  The Project Manager advised that as in previous years, data had been secure and safe and could only assume that the same procedures would be adhered to for this census.
• Nigel Bingham asked what the legal position would be if the Census revealed that more people were living in a house than there should be.  If there was any action, this would be a deterrent to filling in the forms correctly, despite the importance of having accurate information.  The Project Manager advised that the data was not used by the Council and that there would be no action taken.

Open debate to address local concerns on closure threat for this medical practice.

Councillor Peach briefly addressed the meeting, outlining the detail of the proposed closure of the Alma Road Walk in Centre by the PCT and made the following points:

• Local residents had formed an action group and public meetings would be held on the 21^st September and 23^rd September.  Residents were urged to attend to put the case to the PCT as to why this surgery should remain open.
• The Scrutiny Commission for Health Issues had met on 3 occasions to consider the matter and highlighted that the facts in the PCT consultation document were incorrect, and that the PCT should look at the combination of provision of services throughout this area of the city and not just this service in isolation.

A resident explained that the service, which was open from 7am to 10pm every day was a vital service for the community, especially with it being GP lead, and was able to reach members of the community who may not keep scheduled appointments.

Another resident stated that it was easier to go to the walk in centre than to make an appointment and have to wait to see her own GP.  The centre was used by all different kinds of people, and was important for non English speaking residents because friends would tell them where to go to get the help they need.

Following discussion, it was:

RESOLVED:

That the Dogsthorpe, East and Park Neighbourhood Council is against the closure of the Alma Road Primary Care Centre and it asks the PCT to stop its consultation and look thoroughly at the whole of the medical provision and its accommodation facilities in this area of the city before recommencing any consultation.

The resolution was proposed by Councillor Peach and seconded by Councillor Goldspink, and was agreed unanimously.

Overview of spending plans and how neighbourhoods can influence spending priorities.

The Neighbourhood Manager gave a brief update on the status of the Community Action Plan and advised that elected members would soon look at the issues raised and work at prioritising items for funding.  A list of items would be brought forward to the next meeting to seek the views of residents.

An opportunity for any member of the public, elected and co-opted members of the Neighbourhood Council to raise anything that affects your area and to suggest items for future meetings and the annual work programme. 

Student Accommodation

Concerns were raised regarding the recent letterbox drop by the University seeking student accommodation, and it was felt by residents that the Council should be aware of this given the area’s problems with HMOs and that the behaviour of students should be monitored.

The Chairman advised that the Council was aware of the situation and assured residents that the Council would inspect all accommodation to ensure it was up to standard.

Antisocial Behaviour

Concerns were raised regarding drug taking and dealing along Garton Street.  The Police Inspector, Dominic Glazebrook, asked residents to provide him with the relevant details for investigation.

Residents also raised concerns relating to antisocial behaviour from 14-17 year olds in Parnwell.  The Police Inspector advised that the police were aware of the problems and had been working with the Spar shop to ensure there was no sale of alcohol to underage people or those who may be purchasing to pass on to underage people. 

Concerns were raised regarding antisocial behaviour by adults in the Broadway Cemetery, namely open drug taking, drug dealing and drunkenness.  The Police Inspector agreed to discuss the matter with residents following the meeting.

The Police Inspector encouraged residents to report all antisocial behaviour to the police.

Bus Stops

Concerns were raised regarding cars parking in the unmarked bus stop on Saxon Road, which prevented the bus from parking to the curb and making it difficult for people with prams to disembark.

ACTION:

The Neighbourhood Development Officer agreed to investigate the matter and feed back to a future meeting of the Neighbourhood Council.

Parking on footpaths

Complaints were raised over parking on footpaths on Nasebury Road near the shops. 

ACTION:

The Neighbourhood Manager agreed to investigate the matter and respond directly to residents.

Cllr Goldspink informed the meeting that a similar situation in Eastfield Road was resolved with bollards and railings.

Fly Tipping

Concerns were raised over the general state of the Eastgate area – the amount of graffiti, fly tipping and general rubbish.  Education was required for HMO landlords and tenants on how to properly use waste bins.

ACTION:

The Neighbourhood Manager agreed to refer this matter to the council’s dedicated HMO officer for investigation.

Format of Future Meetings

Cllr Goldspink sought to improve the format of future meetings by limiting the number of presentations from officers and by bringing forward the Open Session to the start of the meeting. It was:

RESOLVED:

1.      That the open session will be the first main item on every agenda so that the concerns of residents are dealt with as a priority.

2.      That Officer presentations on the agenda be limited to 4 presentations, time limited, and that meetings are to finish at 8.45pm.

The Chairman welcomed Cllr Goldspink’s suggestions and assured residents that the December meeting would reflect these changes.

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, 14 December 2010.

The Chairman advised that the next meeting of the Dogsthorpe, East and Park Neighbourhood Council was scheduled to be held on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 at a venue to be confirmed.