Issue - meetings

Cabinet received a report which introduced the statutory requirement for Peterborough to have a local flood risk management strategy and presented the resulting Draft Peterborough Flood Risk Management Strategy (FMS). Cabinet was to be consulted on the proposals and its approval was sought for public consultation to take place. The report further requested Cabinet to consider the formal recommendation from the Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee that the City Council’s Constitution be amended to make the FMS a Major Policy item.

Councillor Hiller introduced the item and advised that under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA 2010) Peterborough City Council had been made a lead local flood authority, with responsibility for coordinating the management of surface water flood risk.

Further key points highlighted by Councillor Hiller included the duty of Lead Local Authorities to develop, maintain, apply and monitor a ‘local flood risk management strategy’; the proposal to publically consult on the draft document for a period of six weeks, and with any changes being made prior to the document being presented to Full Council for adoption early in 2015; the agreement by flood risk management authorities in Peterborough that the Strategy would cover all sources of flood risk, not just those managed by the City Council; the excellent relationship that the Council had with all risk management authorities allowing for better coordination of approach and to ensure that projects and schemes were as efficient as possible and that joint funding opportunities were sought for those schemes; and the Strategy being well received by the Scrutiny Committee and its recommendation that the Strategy become part of the Major Policy Framework.

Members congratulated the Flood and Water Management Officer on the production of the Strategy, which was of extremely high quality.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED:

1.    To approve the Draft Peterborough Flood Risk Management Strategy for the purpose of it being publicly consulted on during October and November 2014;

2.    To support the proposal of the Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee to include further explanatory text in the Flood Risk Management Strategy prior to its publication, as set out in paragraph 5.7 of the report; and

3.    To support the recommendation of the Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee to amend the Constitution and thereby place the Flood Risk Management Strategy as a Major Policy Item.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The FMS would:

·         Meet statutory requirements;

·         Make Peterborough more resilient to flooding;

·         Help to co-ordinate and attract investment into Peterborough for both flood risk

management and wider environmental and amenity improvements;

·         Assist with delivering a sustainable city that can embrace growth targets

·         Be a reference guide for City Council officers, Flood Warden, Parish Council and communities who want to more know more about flood and water management.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The Council was required to produce a local flood risk management strategy in accordance with its duties as a Lead Local Flood Authority. It was therefore not an option to not produce  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

The report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Street Scene, Waste Management and Communications and provided the Committee with an update on the performance of the Amey Partnership for 2013/2014.  The Cabinet Member highlighted that there were new Key Performance Indicators in place and thanked Councillor Thulbourn and Councillor Judy Fox for their contribution in helping to set the new KPI’s which were better suited and much more fit for purpose and entirely driven around customer satisfaction.  Members were advised that PCC and Amey had a very good working relationship and Amey has saved the council money continuously since the beginning of the Partnership.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members stated that Amey had an exceptional receptionist who dealt with Members enquiries which reflected extremely well on the organisation.

·         Members stated that some areas of grass which had not been cut due to biodiversity presented a road safety risk as sometimes oncoming traffic could not be seen properly. The Amey Partnership Director stated that staff were instructed specifically what areas to cut and what areas to leave around the biodiversity sites.  Members were advised that these areas would need to be revisited if they were hazardous and requested that Members advise him of which areas they were.

·         Members stated that the communication on biodiversity and grass cutting to members of the public had not been good. The Head of Strategic Commissioning/Transformation agreed that the communication could have been handled better and that this would be looked at in future.

·         Members asked if there were other councillors on the review working group for the green open spaces implementation plan. The Amey Partnership Director stated that Councillor North was the only councillor on the working group.

·         Members referred to page 161, paragraph 5.7, Green Open Space Implementation Plan.  Who are on the review group mentioned?  Members were informed that the group comprised of Councillor North, officers from across the authority and officers from Amey.

·         Member’s referred to page 159 and the removal of flower beds. Why were the flower beds being removed? It used to be possible for local businesses to sponsor them. The Head of Strategic Commissioning/Transformation stated that sponsorship paid for visibility of organisations on the roundabout but they were also expected to provide maintenance costs for flowerbeds but this needed to be looked at again. The Amey Partnership Director added that there would be wildflowers planted in the area where flowerbeds had previously been. 

·         Members stated that there had been many complaints regarding grass cutting and overgrown bushes. There had been a complaint from a resident which was quite damning of Amey’s performance as there had been an attempted abduction committed by someone hiding in some overgrown bushes and that Amey had not responded to complaints about the bush.   The Head of Strategic Commissioning/Transformation stated he was unaware of the attempted abduction and would look into the issue of the bushes and get back to members personally.

·         Members asked what the difference was in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5