Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Goodwin.

No declarations of interest were received.

The minutes of the meeting held 7 November 2011 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

Supporting Documents

Cabinet received a report seeking approval, for the purpose of public consultation, of a draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that would provide guidance to developers on flood and water management in Peterborough. It would expand on overarching headline policy contained in the council’s adopted Core Strategy.  Officers proposed to consult with the public and stakeholders on the draft SPD in early 2012.  Councillor Hiller introduced the report and moved the recommendations, thanking officers for their good work in the preparation of the report.  Councilor Holdich seconded the recommendations.

Cabinet briefly debated the report and accompanying document and RESOLVED to:

Approve the Draft Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document for public consultation.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

There was no statutory duty to prepare this SPD. However, without it, developers could be confused or misinformed as to how they could deliver fit-for-purpose development schemes in Peterborough that met flood and water management requirements. This could have an impact on development coming forward as additional time would need to be spent on negotiating applications where flood or water management issues occur.

The existence of policy and guidance that all of Peterborough’s water management partners support would improve current and future service delivery through the more efficient processing of planning applications and future drainage approval applications.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Option 1 – The council could decide not to produce an SPD on this topic even after Schedule 3 (Sustainable Drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act is enacted. However, forthcoming national guidance on drainage is expected to leave large elements (such as local policy and guidance) to local consideration. Therefore, without this SPD, it is likely to be difficult for officers and developers to know what flood and water related measures are acceptable in Peterborough and how local considerations (e.g. soil type, watercourse capacity) can be taken into account in meeting national flood and drainage legislation.

Option 2 - The council could decide to delay consultation on this draft until the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs enacts Schedule 3 (Sustainable Drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. However, this would mean that developers in this interim period could continue to struggle to understand what is expected of them by the council. Officers hope that Schedule 3 will be enacted at a similar time to the consultation period on this SPD, which will mean the final version of the SPD can be amended, prior to adoption, to ensure its compatibility with Schedule 3.

Supporting Documents

Cabinet received a report requesting it adopts the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide SPD (adoption version), hereafter referred to as the ‘SPD’.  The RECAP Waste Management Design Guide SPD had been jointly prepared with Cambridgeshire County Council and would support policies in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD, which was adopted by the two Councils on 19^th July 2011.  Cllr Hiller introduced the report and moved the recommendations, highlighting policies CS15 ‘Household Recycling Centres’ and CS28 ‘Waste Minimisation, Re-Use and Resource Recovery’ for attention.  Councillor Seaton seconded the recommendations.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED to:

Adopt the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to form part of the local development framework, with adoption taking effect on 22^nd February 2012.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The SPD would help developers and designers to ensure effective segregation, storage and collection of waste materials for the occupants of their developments. It would also be used day-to-day by planning officers when considering the detailed aspects of planning proposals, to ensure that waste management needs were adequately addressed.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Whilst not a statutory requirement to produce the SPD, the alternative option of not producing this document was rejected because:

·         There is support for the production of the document across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, especially from the Waste Collection Authorities and Waste Disposal Authorities;

·         The document will greatly assist planning officers and Members in determining planning applications, including enabling a consistent and transparent decision making process to be undertaken; and 

·         The document is entirely in line with the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD and the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 2008-2022, and will contribute towards meeting objectives in the National Waste Management Plan.

Supporting Documents

Cabinet received a report informing it of the publication of the Inspectors Report and its conclusion which finds the Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals DPD ‘sound’ and seeking Cabinet approval to recommend that Council adopts the DPD at its meeting on 22 February 2012.  Councillor Hiller introduced the report and moved t eh recommendations.  This was seconded by Councillor Holdich.

Following a brief debate on the report and supporting documents, Cabinet RESOLVED to:

1.      Note the conclusions of the Inspector’s Report on the Examination into the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document; and

2.      Recommend to Full Council that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document, incorporating the recommendations made by the Inspector, is adopted.

         REASONS

         As outlined in this report, Council only has two options available to it; either approve the Site Specific Proposals DPD for adoption, or not approve it for adoption. The former is recommended, and in adopting it, Peterborough will have a clear and robust policy document to support the implementation and delivery of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy’s vision, objectives and key planning policies.

         ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

         The option of not approving the plan for adoption is not recommended, because in so doing the Council:

·         would have no specific site location guidance for future mineral extraction to support the delivery Peterborough’s growth agenda;

·         would have no specific site location guidance for the provision of a range of sustainable waste management infrastructure (for municipal, commercial / industrial, agricultural and waste water waste streams) to support Peterborough’s existing and future communities; and

·         will be at considerable risk of having to determine minerals and waste planning proposals using outdated strategies and policies; which in turn could lead to poorly planned growth, and insufficient provision of infrastructure due to uncoordinated planning.

Cabinet considered a report, as part of the preparation for setting the council’s budget, so that figures for the tax base and the Collection Fund could be used in setting the Council Tax and notify other affected authorities.  Councillor Seaton introduced the report and moved the recommendations.  This was seconded by Councillor Lee.

CABINET RESOLVED TO:

1.                  Endorse the calculation of the Council Tax Base for 2012/13 at a level of 56,651 Band D equivalent properties; and

2.                  Note the estimated position of the Collection Fund and authorise the Executive Director – Strategic Resources to calculate the final figure by 15 January 2012 and notify the Cambridgeshire Police Authority and the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Authority.

REASONS

The Council Tax Base could be set at a higher or lower level. However, this could have the effect or either inflating unnecessarily the amount of Council Tax to be set or setting the tax at a level insufficient to meet the Council’s budget requirements. A similar position could arise if the surplus or deficit were set at a higher or lower level.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

None required at this stage.

Before Cabinet considered the update report on Children’s Services, the Youth MP, Kamal Hyman, and Deputy Youth MP, Niamh Kingsley, addressed Cabinet and asked the following question:

“Peterborough Youth Council and the UK Youth Parliament is funded from the 8-19 Service and are very instrumental in gathering young people’s views and representing those views in meetings and actions with Peterborough City Council leaders.  In the future both organisations want to be more involved in achieving real outcomes for 11-19 year olds in the city, including addressing issues of:

o                    sexual health

o                    alcohol and drug abuse

o                    anti-social behaviour, knife crime, and community cohesion

o                    education and training participation and reducing youth unemployment through better careers advice

o                    and protecting youth services.

In light of the restructure of Children’s Services, what is the Cabinet’s view of the medium and long term funding for these two organisations, and their role in meeting the needs of local young people?”

Councillor Scott agreed with the sentiments of the question and suggested that Teenage Pregnancy was also added to the list of issues.  The interim Director of Children’s Services, Malcolm Newsam, advised Cabinet that views of young people would be taken on board when considering the best way to provide services.

Youth representatives were further invited to work with Cabinet Members to discuss services and also budgets available, including the council budget for future years.  Youth representatives were encouraged to attend Neighbourhood Committee meetings to input into their areas and contribute ideas to the funding available there. 

Councillor Cereste advised that should the issues listed above be tackled successfully, the savings made would justify any funding put into projects.

Cabinet received a report updating it with details of improvement actions undertaken since the 26^th September meeting in response to the findings of the Ofsted Inspection of Safeguarding carried out in August 2011.  Councillor Scott introduced the report and moved the recommendations giving thanks to Cambridgeshire County Council for allowing Adrian Loades to assist the council over the previous few months.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED to:

Note the developments within Children’s Services and the planned improvement activity.

REASONS

The Council needs to secure immediate improvements to safeguard children and in the longer term put in place a sustainable high quality Children’s Service in Peterborough.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not applicable. The Improvement Plan reflects a considerable amount of activity for all of Children’s Services. The diagnostic work has informed the approach taken to improvement and identified the need to focus on improving social care practice.

Cabinet considered a report recommending it notes the action taken in respect of petitions presented to full Council.

CABINET RESOLVED TO:

Note the action taken in respect of petitions presented to full Council.

REASONS

Standing Orders require that Council receive a report about the action taken on petitions.  As the petitions presented in this report have been dealt with by Cabinet Members or officers it is appropriate that the action taken is reported to Cabinet, prior to it being included within the Executive’s report to full Council.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Any alternative options would require an amendment to the Council’s Constitution to remove the requirement to report to Council.