Issue - meetings

Cabinet received a report which detailed the findings and recommendations arising from the Solar and Wind Energy Working Group, and the subsequent meeting of the Review Group as chaired by Councillor Thulbourn, to enable a final decision to be made on the projects in question.

Councillor Hiller introduced the item and provided an overview of the background to the issue, advising that following the decision made at the February 2014 meeting of Cabinet to progress the America Farm site through to planning stage, the decision had been called-in and recommendations arising from the subsequent Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee call-in meeting had been, in essence, for Cabinet not to progress the scheme until consideration had been given to the findings of a cross party working group.

Further key points were highlighted by Councillor Hiller including the remit of the Working Group, which had primarily been to review the viability of the proposals, to concurrently look into the likelihood of a profit and finally to make any suggestions as to alternative schemes; the number of times that the Group had met and the information which had been provided to it for review; the majority decision of the Group which had been that the scheme should not progress, concluding that the financial returns were not viable and the risks were too high, this viewpoint having not been held by Councillor Hiller owing to the independently produced expert advice which had determined the opposite and that the scheme should proceed; the view of the Scrutiny Committee that the decision of the Working Group was not considered acceptable due to the lack of evidence provided in support of its majority viewpoint; the further meeting which had been held and chaired by Councillor Thulbourn to review the decision rationale of the Group and the conclusion being that the original Working Group had provided no evidence of the disparity of evidence submitted by the Council’s Resource Department and the Group’s majority conclusion and the lack of supporting scenarios or outcomes and an overview of the recommendations to Cabinet, in summary being for Cabinet to exercise caution in its methodology of progressing with the scheme and to consider further the potential for a financial shortfall on the original projections due to the delay in timescale.

Councillor Seaton addressed Cabinet, thanking both the Scrutiny Committee for its work and Councillor Thulbourn for his involvement and comments. It was acknowledged that the issue in question was an extremely emotive one, however it was important that progression be made on the basis of doing what was right for the residents of the city, and this progression must be evidence based. The original Working Group had not submitted any evidence in order to support its conclusions, as had been specified within its terms of reference.

Councillor Seaton further requested that at a future Group Leader’s meeting, the issue of reports being submitted to meetings which only expressed a viewpoint and did not contain any supporting conclusions or arguments, be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

The report was introduced by Councillor Fletcher who was the Chair of the Working Group.  Members were informed that the Working Group had reviewed all the evidence and particularly the financial elements of the Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (Pv) Panels (Solar Farms) and Wind Turbine Project.  The report provided the Committee with their findings and recommendations as requested by the Committee at the Call-In meeting held on 12 March 2014.  The Working Group by majority recommended that the scheme should not go ahead as they concluded that the financial returns were not viable and the risks unacceptably high.  The report advised that Councillor Hiller had however dissented on the grounds that the viability of the schemes had been evidenced by independent experts and reports and that the risks were evaluated sensibly and the schemes should proceed.  Councillor Sandford advised that whilst part of the Group he had not been in attendance at the meeting when the recommendations had been agreed.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members stated that they had not been given any figures and it was therefore difficult to understand how the conclusion was reached. Councillor Fletcher responded that the working group had received and studied the financial figures but the group had not felt it necessary to provide the figures submitted as the brief was merely to come to the Committee with a recommendation.

·         Members asked how a working group could come to the Committee with a recommendation without any evidence to support the recommendation. Councillor Fletcher responded that the working group was poorly attended but the figures which had been put forward had been available for a while.  The Group had drafted the report with the help of the Interim Head of Legal Services.

·         Members stated that the report did not detail the work undertaken and asked what experts had been consulted in the process. Councillor Fletcher stated that there had been no opportunity to bring in experts to inform the Group.  However there had been other opportunities to hear from experts on the subject at other meetings.  However it was his opinion upon listening to the experts that it was not viable.

·         The Group Leader of the Peterborough Independent Forum responded that having the figures within the report would make no difference as they would be the same ones that had been presented to the Working Group and to Scrutiny previously.  The Working Group had been tasked with making a recommendation from their findings.

·         Members commented that the terms of reference of the working group were not answered in the report submitted to the Committee.

·         The Group Leader of the Peterborough Independent Forum informed the Committee that the grading of the land had not been done under correct procedures.

·         Members stated that the report was unhelpful and contained no useful information and needed to be revised and suggested that the Working Group do further work on the report and resubmit it with detailed information and justification for the recommendation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5