Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

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 or whipping declarations.

• 29 August 2012
• 6 September 2012

Councillor Martin noted that his apologies had not been recorded for the meeting held on 29 August 2012 and wished it to be noted that he had sent his apologies and that Councillor Forbes had attended as substitute.  The Senior Governance Officer advised that she would amend the records accordingly.  With the exception of this the minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2012 were then approved as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 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.

The Cabinet Member for Growth, Strategic Planning, Economic Development, Business Engagement and Environment Capital introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the progress of the Growth Agenda for the city.  Areas of particular interest were:

• Station Quarter
• Northminister
• Southbank
• City Centre Plan
• Community Infrastructure Levy
• Great Haddon
• Hospital Site, Thorpe Road
• Opportunity Peterborough

A member of public Olive Leonard, resident of Peterborough representing the Norman Cross Action Group requested to address the Committee.  The Chair agreed to this request.  Olive Leonard made a statement which included the following:

• The City Council had one opportunity to get Great Haddon right and it was a substantially bigger development than the Hamptons.
• The development would change the character of its surrounding areas and its community for ever.
• The employment area would be a gateway to the city but the original proposals were now out of date and no longer fit for purpose.
• There was no evidence for a demand for warehousing.  Outline planning permission was originally given in 2006 for the first warehouses to go on Alwalton Hill but no building had taken place.  Therefore none of the 5000 jobs promised had come to fruition.
• There was an application in place to build two massive cold storage units which were totally out of keeping with the plans for the area and too tall.  If built they would be seen from miles away and would do considerable harm to Peterborough’s strategy to attract employers, entrepreneurs and investors to the city.  The size and height of the cold store would make the site unattractive to anyone else and may sterilise the area. 
• The proposed development was not the right development for the site, surrounding areas or the city.
• A good development would be fewer than 5000 houses making it more of a village and this would then attract more of the types of investors needed in the city.  It would require fewer schools, less health facilities, infrastructure and less transport issues.

The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services responded to the statement.   Great Haddon had been included in the councils Core Strategy and site allocations development plan document which had both been seen by the Committee.  The plans had also been through independent examination by a Government Inspector.   The Employment side of Great Haddon had outline planning consent for 3million square feet of industrial floor space which would be split between offices, general industry, storage and distribution.  There had been significant local investment interest in the area.  The Planning Committee would consider the height of the buildings and the outline consent restricted height.  The scale of the housing development at Great Haddon had already been set.   There had been extensive consultation with the local community including the Norman Cross Action Group over the last two years.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Southbank Phase 3, Fletton Quays.  Had any progress been made with regard to the two parcels of land not owned by the Council?   Members were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report was presented to the Committee as part of the consultation process on the draft Peterborough City Centre Development Plan Document.  The consultation draft version of the City Centre Plan had set out the council’s long-term vision and objectives for the city centre for the next fifteen years.   It set out the policies and proposals that would help direct how new development and regeneration would be achieved and how the council’s vision for the city centre would be met. The plan identified and addressed a number of key themes which affected the strategy for the city centre as a whole, such as:

·                     retail

·                     leisure

·                     office development and employment

·                     housing

·                     historic environment

·                     transport and other infrastructure

·                     green spaces and access to the river Nene

A short DVD was shown to the Committee on the proposed City Centre Development Plan.  This was a new way of presenting the vision for the City Centre and it was hoped that it would capture the interest of a wider range of people including young people.

The City Centre Development Plan formed part of the Statutory Plan for the City and when adopted it would be used to determine any planning applications for the city centre.  

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members were impressed with the DVD presentation and agreed that it was a good way of presenting the plan to a wider range of people.

·         Where would the funding come from for the City Centre Development Plan?  Members were advised that some of the schemes within the plan were already approved planning schemes.  It would be a long term plan and some of the developments e.g. Garden Park had Section 106 money that had been assigned to be spent in the city centre. The plan was embedded in commercial viability.  A number of commercial stakeholders had inputted into the City Centre Development Plan and the work that had already been completed in the city centre had attracted new investment.

·         Members suggested that the area in Fengate called Middle Marsh which was near Fitzwilliam Bridge could be considered for use as a marina.

·         Members noted in the plan under the section City Core Policy Area, Policy CC3 that it made reference to the proposal of the development of 100 flats above shops and 200 other residential developments in Northminster.  Where would these be located?  Members were advised that the council wanted to bring more residential development into the city centre and encourage the use of vacant premises in the town centre to be converted into flats.  There were vacant units in Cowgate above the shops.  Exactly where in the City Centre could not be determined yet but it was estimated that 100 residential units could be achieved above shops and that 200 residential units could be achieved in the Northminster area.  Increasing the residential offer in the city centre would help to drive the night time economy and prosperity of the city.

·         The plan referred to the Railway Station Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The draft Flood and Water Management SPD was presented to the Committee in order to seek their comments before being presented to Cabinet for adoption. The SPD provided detailed guidance to developers and decision makers to deliver schemes that took into account flood and water management issues from main rivers and surface water.  The SPD formed part of a package of work arising from the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) 2010, which made Peterborough City Council a ‘Lead Local Flood Authority’. The Council was now responsible for co-ordinating surface water management.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Councillor Sandford had noted that the SPD had mentioned “One of Peterborough City Council’s aims is to sustainably maintain, improve and expand the quality of the existing tree and woodland cover”.    The Peterborough Trees and Woodlands Strategy (2012) talked about maintaining the current tree cover but also expanding it.  The Environment Agency were currently running a project called ‘Woodlands for Water’ which looked at expanding the amount of tree and woodland cover to act as a means of alleviating floods.  Why did the SPD only talk about maintaining existing woodland cover and not increasing it.   The Officer responded that the intention was to maintain and expand the quality and quantity of the existing tree and woodland cover and would look at rewording the paragraph to provide more clarity.

·         Members welcomed the Flood and Water Management SPD and felt it would help developers to make better decisions.

The Chair congratulated the Flood and Water Management Officer on an excellent piece of work and an informative presentation.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommend that:

1.      Cabinet adopt the Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document; and that;

2.      The Flood and Water Management Officer reword section 6.11.8 to clarify that the tree and woodland cover would also be expanded in quantity as well as quality.

The report informed the Committee on the proposed Council Tax Support Scheme that would replace Council Tax Benefit on 1 April 2013.  The Head of Corporate Services introduced the report highlighting the following:

• Current position and legislative changes
• Financial impact for Peterborough
• Options available to the Council
• Impact of the proposed new scheme and mitigating actions
• Consultation approach and feedback
• Survey results

The scheme would need to be approved by Full Council by the end of January 2013.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members sought clarification on the following statement in the report “Consultation has also taken place with the Community Cohesion Manager, although the Equalities Impact Assessment did not identify that black or minority ethnic groups would be adversely affected by these changes”. The Project Manager informed Members that when the Equalities Impact Assessment took place different groups had been looked at that might be affected by the 35% reduction in benefits.  This was an across the board reduction for anyone that was of working age excluding anyone of pensionable age and it was identified that the black and minority ethnic groups would not be adversely affected.  It was however felt that engagement with the Community Cohesion Manager should take place to go through the proposals in detail.  As a result officers were signposted to the Peterborough Council for Voluntary Service (PCVS) as a point of contact to disseminate information across various groups.

·         Members noted that only 93 people had completed the survey and wanted to know if all avenues of communication had been exhausted to ensure the message regarding the changes had reached everyone who might be affected.  Members were advised that in addition to the groups that had been engaged with an additional notification letter had been sent out to approximately 6000 people who claimed benefit and had a change of circumstance during the consultation period.  Officers felt confident that a large range of groups had been contacted about the change.  Liaison with other authorities had indicated that the overall volume of responses in other Councils had been low.  Drop in sessions at the library and Bayard place had been successful.

·         Members were concerned at the low number of responses and wanted to know how much credence was being put on the results of the consultation.   Members were informed that every effort had been made to engage with as many people as possible. Any communication that the benefit team had with people in receipt of benefits  had included information on  the changes.  Even though the response was low the results of the consultation were inconclusive with a fairly equal split between people on benefits who were not in favour of the changes and those paying full council tax and not on benefits who were in favour.  It would be the responsibility of Cabinet and Council to make a decision based on their judgement and the limited feedback received.

·         The report mentions Fuel Poverty and a range of initiatives on offer to help people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the latest version of the Council’s Notice of Intention to take key Decisions. 

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme for 2012/13 and discussed possible items for inclusion. 

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2012/13 and the Senior Governance Officer to include any additional items as requested during the meeting.

Members requested that the Corporate Complaints Annual Monitoring Report 2011/12 being presented in March to the Committee provide clarification on how complaints on planning issues were handled.

Monday, 28 January 2013