Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Day and Councillor Peach was in attendance as substitute.

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.

The following declarations of interest were made:

Item 8 – Citizen Power Peterborough - Project Initiation Document

As the report had made reference to the Peterborough Environment City Trust Councillor Sandford declared a personal interest in that he was a member of the Board of the Peterborough Environment City Trust.

The minutes of the Strong and Supportive Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 10 November 2010 were approved as a correct record subject to the correction of the spelling of Paul Phillipson’s last name on page 2.

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.

Cabinet Member for Community Cohesion and Community Safety

Councillor Walsh Cabinet member for Community Cohesion and Community Safety was unable to attend the meeting and had sent her apologies.  In the absence of Councillor Walsh Adrian Chapman, Head of Neighbourhood Services presented the Portfolio Progress Report on her behalf.  The portfolio given to Councillor Walsh was newly creating at the beginning of the municipal year and covered Community Cohesion and Community Safety.

Community Safety crime rates had continued to reduce in the city year on year with an overall reduction of 9%.   The areas that were still of concern was violent crime and domestic violence. The work of the Cohesion team was overseen by the Cohesion Board and a Cohesion Plan for 2010/11 had been agreed along with a set of priorities.  The planning and preparation for the demonstrations that took place in the City in December 2010 had been a particular success for the Cohesion team.  The future in relation to cohesion was about how the agenda could be taken forward within the context of a reducing budget and the team would be looking creatively at how this work would continue.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Violent Crime – the report had stated that there had been a slight increase in violent crime and suggested that it might have been as a direct result of police activity where they were targeting those getting drunk earlier in the evening.  Members wanted to know why this was happening.  Officers advised that the words in the report had not given an accurate explanation.  The reality was that increased police activity had been aimed at tackling crime relating to the night time economy and as a result of that there had been increased reports of violent crime so it had not been a direct result of police intervention but a result of increased police activity which detects violent crime.

·         Financial resources to the Police and Council were being cut so how would this affect dealing with low level Anti social behaviour (ASB).   The cuts on the budget across the public sector had forced officers to look creatively at how they dealt with ASB across the City.  A new approach to ASB was to combine pieces of legislation and resources in terms of the people delivering that legislation e.g. Police, Local Authority, Cross Keys. The economies of scale that came out of that would help to maintain a focus on ASB at low level and above.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services advised that he would provide the Committee with a table showing the amount of ASB related interventions that had been taken through the court system which was the highest it had been for some time.  There was an intention to maintain this level of performance by better engagement with Members to understand where the problems were in their wards. 

·         Members wanted to know if the Cohesion Board could include an additional priority which looked at the exploitation of tenants in rented accommodation.  Officers advised that the current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Karen Kibblewhite, the Safer Peterborough Manager for Cutting Crime introduced the report. The report included the draft Adult Drug Treatment Plan 2011-14 and the draft Adult Drug Needs Assessment 2010/2011.  The plan was based on the Adult Drug Needs Assessment which showed what was happening with drug use in the city and where there was a need to focus treatment services.  A detailed plan would then be submitted to the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) where the majority of funding came from and would be for a period of three years.  There was no draft budget allocation as this had not yet been received from the Department of Health.  The plan had been sent for consultation through local stakeholders, specialist service providers, the service user group -SUGA and the Adult Joint Commissioning Group for Drugs and would also go to the Safer Peterborough Board.  The plan only covered adults over 18 and drug use.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Is there a link to the Citizens Power programme?  There was a link and the two would support each other and be aligned.

·         Can some of the work for drugs treatment be funded partly by this new Social Impact Bond initiative? The prison received a separate pot of money and they had to do a similar piece of work with a needs assessment and treatment plan.  The Social Impact Bond was a national pilot working with adult male offenders released from prison after less than 12 months in custody.  The work would address a range of issues around their offending behaviour and around the resettlement path ways but would not pick up things that would ordinarily be picked up through the drug treatment.  Officers were working very closely with the Social Impact Bond by sharing information and making sure there was no duplicate work.  Officers made sure that people accessing services through the community were able to pick up and continue there treatment in the prison and visa versa when they come out.

·         How would recent announcements about closures of some of the GP surgeries affect the action plan regarding shared care arrangements with GPs?   The piece of work around shared care arrangements was being led by the Primary Care Trust (PCT).  The Council would work very closely with the PCT over the next 12 to 18 months as they also had to consider the move towards GP commissioning as well as the GP closures, The money which currently comes down for drug treatment would be ring fenced. 

·         Members requested that in future reports there should be a glossary for all the abbreviations?

The Chair thanked Karen Kibblewhite for the excellent piece of work completed by officers on producing the draft Adult Drug Treatment Plan 2011-14 and the draft Adult Drug Needs Assessment 2010/2011.

ACTION AGREED

To note the progress and work completed on the Adult Drug Treatment Plan and Adult Drug Needs Assessment 2010/2011.

The Chair requested on behalf of the Committee that item  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services introduced the officers from the Royal Society of Arts who were in attendance to help present the report. Graeme Clark introduced the report and gave a brief overview of the Citizens Power Programme. The report informed the Committee of two strands which were Civic Health and Peterborough Curriculum.  The Civic Health Strand was about a new way of building community spirit and the Peterborough Curriculum Strand was about connecting what we learn with where we live.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Members wanted to know if the Peterborough Curriculum strand was duplicating what was already being done across the City.  Officers advised that this strand provided added value to what was already being done and was the key to improving educational standards in Peterborough.  The first added value was that the project focused on the curriculum; the guided learning that took place in schools on a day to day basis.  The government was freeing up to 60% of the curriculum in schools to enable more flexibllity on how it could be delivered.  The project was focusing on five pilot schools by going really deep and finding out what children in these schools really needed. The second added value was a mapping exercise to identify all the excellent work that was going on in all of the schools across Peterborough.  The map of all of the activities would then highlight any gaps or overlaps in areas of work that would need to be focused on.  The third added value was providing the capacity to ensure schools lined with other schools, local businesses, heritage centres and other places to enrich the lives of the children.

·         How would the work carry on when the project finished given that we did not have the resources?  Louise Thomas from the RSA advised Members that the difference with an Area based Curriculum approach was that it was about local people from the local community sitting down with schools to design the local curriculum and it was about working with local businesses to help deliver the curriculum.   Sustainability was about the way of doing things not about funding. One example that is being worked on at the moment was with the Cathedral on a project where the Cathedral facades could be used to teach maths and geometry. The Peterborough Football Club had worked with students on literacy.

·         Members felt that the curriculum outcomes were vague and had no supporting data.  Officers advised that they were currently gathering information which would form the baseline data and once this was gathered they would be able to put figures to the outcomes.  Mel Collins advised that the examination data would be used as baseline data and that she would be looking at the end of years one and two at the impact of this project on children’s literacy and numeracy outcomes.

·         Members felt that the funding for the project would be better spent on improving standards. 

·         Can we have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Graeme Clark introduced the report and reminded the Committee that the Project Initiation Document (PID) had been requested by the Committee at its last meeting and that Councillor Goldspink had agreed to work with him on the production of the PID as a critical friend.

Councillor Goldspink had submitted a list of questions prior to the meeting to obtain further information and a written response to these had been provided prior to the meeting. 

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         What is the history of ownership and sponsorship of this project?  Councillor Goldspink had checked the Councils project management record system and it had listed Paul Phillipson as the Project Sponsor and Adrian Chapman as the Project Owner however the draft PID had not listed a project sponsor and Adrian Chapman was listed as the Project Owner with Graeme Clark as the Project Manager.  The latest version of the PID stated Adrian Chapman as Project Sponsor and Julie Rivet as Project Owner.  Adrian Chapman advised Members that Kevin Tighe was the original Project Sponsor but there had been several reorganisations since then and that he was now confirmed as Project Sponsor.

·         Why had you not followed the Councils project methodology and produced a PID? Adrian Chapman informed Members that Officers had worked very closely with the Corporate Project Management team and had been advised that the PID was an optional document.  

·         Members requested that the Council Project Team be challenged as to why the PID which was a crucial document was optional as no project should ever be started without a PID. Adrian Chapman advised that he would go back to the project team and report back to the Committee in between meetings.

·         Members were concerned that the programme had not been treated as a key decision and published in the Forward Plan and wanted to know if it had been the subject of a Cabinet decision.  Paul Phillipson informed Members that the figure of £125K a year for two years, which was the Council’s contribution, was set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy which is what is being currently worked to this year.  It was therefore part of the budget setting process and ratified at Council.  There were several Cabinet members that this comes under and they are kept informed.

·         Members asked the Legal Officer present to confirm that if a project had a value of over £500,000 or affected a significant area of the city it would become a key decision and therefore had to be published in the Forward Plan.  If this was the case then the procedure had not been followed.  The Legal Officer informed Members that this was correct but there were several items which went through the Medium Term Financial Strategy and were consulted on and then ratified at Council.

·         Sam McLean advised Members that the programme was not a PCC project but it was a partnership project with the RSA and the Arts Council and therefore needed to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Scrutiny Officer presented the report which informed the Committee of the establishment of a Scrutiny Task and Finish Group to conduct an in-depth review of Neighbourhood Councils.  The Task and Finish Group had been formed at the request of the Committee at its meeting on the 10 November 2010.  The report listed the members of the Task and Finish Group and the Terms of Reference of the Review for approval.  

ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee agreed:

1.      The establishment of a Task and Finish Group to conduct an in-depth review of Neighbourhood Councils

2.      The Terms of Reference of the Task and Finish Group

3.      The Membership of the Task and Finish Group

Councillor Burton lead member of the Neighbourhood Council Scrutiny Task and Finish Group presented the report and thanked officers, Members and key witnesses who had taken part in the first part of the review.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         Councillor Goldspink requested that the text in the report which referred to survey results from the Neighbourhood Council meetings be amended.  It had not been made clear that the responses were made up of a mix of people and not just members of the public.  It needed to be made clear that the 36% who had responded were a mix of residents and representatives of other bodies.  Adrian Chapman advised that most of the surveys were completed anonymously but Neighbourhood Managers had informed him that the surveys had been completed predominantly by members of the public.  He would recheck the results and change the wording accordingly in the report before being presented to Cabinet.

·         Councillor Sandford commented that he approved of all the recommendations within the report and that he particularly approved of recommendation 5:

That mainstream revenue budgets are disaggregated, wherever possible, feasible and legal, and delegated to Neighbourhood Councils to prioritise and control in order to best meet local needs.  To facilitate this as early as possible, a pilot programme should be implemented focussing on a specific part of Council activity before a more expansive roll-out programme.

He had been impressed when the group had interviewed Councillor Cereste and Councillor Seaton and felt that they had expressed a genuine commitment to make Neighbourhood Councils work. Adrian Chapman advised that he had already had a conversation with the Cabinet Member for Resources and the Head of Corporate Finances about the concept of disaggregating budgets.  The Cabinet member for Resources was very keen to see this recommendation taken forward.  The recommendation would need to go through Cabinet first but if approved Adrian Chapman would like to start the Pilot at the beginning of the next financial year.

• Councillor Peach commented that the report had highlighted areas of duplication and in particular with regard to Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Councils.  He asked if the group had considered removing Neighbourhood Councils in areas where there were Parish Councils.  He also referred to recommendation 7 (That the Community Leadership Fund is maintained at £10,000 per ward, but that 25% of that budget is allocated by Councillors to meet needs identified through the Neighbourhood Council Neighbourhood Planning process).  He suggested that the Community Leadership Fund should remain the same in that it be left up to the Ward Councils to decide how this fund should be spent and not have 25% given over to the Neighbourhood Councils.  Councillor Burton responded by clarifying that recommendation 7 did not say that 25% of the Community Leadership Fund would be spent by the Neighbourhood Councils.  It meant that Ward Councillors be guided by what they learn at the Neighbourhood Councils and consider using up to 25% of their budget on projects suggested by Neighbourhood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the Forward Plan and agreed that there were no items for further consideration.

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme for 2010/11 and discussed possible items for inclusion.

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2010/11 and the Scrutiny Officer to make any amendments as discussed during the meeting.

·         Citizens Power Programme – response to recommendation made by Committee at tonight’s meeting

·         Neighbourhood Council Review – Stage 2 Report

9 March 2011

Wednesday 9 March 2011