Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nawaz and Shaheed.

At this point Members must declare whether they have an interest, whether personal or prejudicial, in any of the items on the agenda. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

Item 5 - Update on New Planning issues and Item 6 -  Community Action Plans

Councillor Murphy declared a personal interest in his work with community involvement.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2012, were approved as a true and accurate record.

The Commission received a presentation from the Assistant Director for Education and Resources regarding attainment for schools in rural areas.  Members were also advised that the report contained a wider overview of comparisons for all schools in Peterborough.

Key points within the presentation included:

• Birth rates in rural area;
• Education standards within rural areas had met Governments expectations;
• Any areas of concerns in schools performance would involve intervention from Peterborough City Council;
• Progress of success to ensure a child leaves school with the Government education standards;
• Overall education standards in rural primary schools within the Ofsted inspections had scored high;
• Secondary Education standards had achieved a high attainment level;
• Early years and Childcare provision in rural areas had also scored a good offset grading;
• Concentration over providing education for Eye, where the population was increasing;
• Rebuild at Newborough, John Clare; and
• Tracking development of schools.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members raised a question regarding what the maximum capacity for pupil intake for Arthur Mellows was and whether is was at a critical level?  The Assistant Director Education & Resources advised that the capacity level for schools was varied.  Members were also advised that places for children moving into the area from the City would not be reserved.

·         Members raised concerns over the extra housing provision identified for Eye village within the City Council’s Housing Strategy, and sought clarification over why the Council had not increased the capacity levels at Arthur Mellows Village College in order to meet the education needs of children in rural areas?  The Assistant Director  Education & Resources advised Members that the Education department were aware of the development plans for Eye and would continue to communicate the Council’s position for education needs in rural areas.  Members were also advised that the use of S106 money was being utilised in rural areas in order to expand existing schools.  In addition Members were advised that school places would be allocated to rural children in City schools, if the rural schools capacity was at the maximum limit.

·         Members commented that school places needed to be maintained for the rural areas.  Members were informed that currently the Council were fortunate to provide spaces so far and was mindful about development pressures.  Members were also advised that, rural schools in Norfolk had recently been forced to close due to the lack of student intake.

·         Members raised a question regarding free school meals for vulnerable children from deprived areas and what impact the pupil premium had on school funding?  Members were advised that there had been a number of pupil premium funding applications and each premium allocated was for £600 per child identified as vulnerable.  Members were also advised that the funding was not ring fenced and that schools would decide how to spend it.  Members were also advised that there was a pupil premium allocation of £250 per child, for forces children moving into the area.

·         The Head of Barnack Primary School advised Members that Ipads had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

1.             Update on New Planning issues

Councillor Sanders left the meeting at this point.

The Commission received a presentation from the Planning Policy Manager, which included information regarding the Draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Key points within the presentation included:

• Reasons for updating the SCI, which was due to new legislation being introduced through the Localism Act;
• Contents of the updated SCI;
• Pre-application consultation;
• Neighbourhood Planning – Allowing communities to formulate their own views about what new houses, businesses and shops should look like and where they should go for the future;
• New planning process that was expected to be introduced from 6 April 2012;
• Process was to be initiated by Parish Councils or Neighbourhood Forums;
• A body to be in place to produce a Neighbourhood Plan, which would not be initiated by the Local Authority;
• Council’s role was to ensure that there was no conflict;
• A Neighbourhood Plan would have to be agreed by at least 50% of the people voting in a referendum;
• The Council’s responsibility to monitor and ensure that all legislation was being met;
• Statement of Community Involvement was to be considered at a Cabinet meeting due to be held on 26 March 2012;
• Following consideration and consultation, the final version of the Statement of Community Involvement   would be presented to Cabinet for adoption in Autumn 2012;
• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was intended to replace all planning policy.
• The NPPF final version was expected to be published around the time of the Governments budget announcements; and
• The Council’s recent adoption of the Housing Strategy was intended to aid the process.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members sought clarification over whether the changes would be introduced for the planning of a development of over two hundred houses?  The Planning Policy Manager advised Members that the Council was awaiting information from the Government on what the levels would be. 

·         Members were advised that it was up to Neighbourhood Planning to decide what should be included in the Community Plans?

·         Members commented that in terms of development for rural areas, two hundred houses were thought to be a considerable number and whether the amount of consultation should be taken into account when considering a planning application?  Members were advised that the Council would encourage consultation, which was advisory.  Members were also advised that the more consultation conducted by developers, the higher their chance was of being granted planning permission, provided they revised their scheme in response to public comments.

·         Members sought clarification over what support would be provided to Community Groups for the process of Neighbourhood Planning and whether there would be a Scrutiny function?  Members were advised that Parish Councils were in a better position to start the new process.  Members were also advised that further guidance was awaited from the Government; however, there was an understanding on how the planning process was going to work for all communities. 

·         Members sought clarification over whether verbal comments would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

1.             Community Action Plans

The Commission received a presentation from the Community Safety Strategic Manager, which included information regarding the Community Action Plan (CAPs) and outlined the purpose of the plans. 

Key points within the presentation included:

• Neighbourhood profile and the make up of what community demographics included;
• Comparisons across wards;
• What Committees and Panels were being conducted currently in ward areas;
• What community priorities were;
• Instruction sheets on developing the structure of a plan;
• Acknowledgement of all Groups, Members and Community Groups that had become involved in developing the CAPs;
• Activities that had been carried out to produce the CAPs; and
• Using the Strategic Delivery Plan to develop CAPs;

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members sought clarification on how each of the villages’ individual needs would be included in the CAPs and what the process would be?  The Neighbourhood Manager for North and West advised Members that every Parish Council would be engaged and that each Local Plan or Vision Statement would feed into the CAPs.  Members were also advised that the Strategic Priorities would be captured for each rural area.

·         Members commented that profiling and statistics was referred to within the report; however, there was no mention of an action plan on how these would be achieved.  Members also commented that it would be beneficial to include some targets or standards into the CAPs and that they should be more strategic with a higher level of input from a lead Member.  The Neighbourhood Manger for North and West advised Members that the Single Delivery Plan provided guidance for the Neighbourhood Committees in order for them to agree the targets and baselines to be set.  Members were also advised that the report included a spine diagram which outlined what social factors existed for communities, which would also build a base for developing targets.

·         Members also commented that plans should be made to brief new members on the CAPs process at their induction following the Local Elections.

·         Members commented on the involvement of Neighbourhood Committees and the allocation of S106 money.  Members were advised that one of the key roles of the Neighbourhood Management Team was to ensure that S106 money was used in the wider City area that had a strategic link.  Members were also advised that priorities identified within the CAPs should drive the allocation of S106 money.

ACTION AGREED

It was agreed that the Neighbourhood Manager for North and West would send an email to Parish Council’s and Parish Chairs outlining what the main priorities should be within Community Action Plans in order to direct the allocation of S106 money.

The latest version of the Forward Plan, showing details of the key decisions that the Leader of the Council believed the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would be making over the next four months, was received.

No items were identified to be brought back to the next meeting