Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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.

No declarations of interest were made.

• 16 March 2011
• 23 March 2011

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2011 were approved as a correct record with the exception of the following amendment under item 8; Progress on the Development of the City Centre Area Action Plan.  The word ‘arguably’ to be included in the following sentence:

“Including the PDH site was arguably sensible but the Railworld site was not as you could not access it without leaving the city centre.”

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2011 were approved as a correct record with the exception of the following amendments:

·         Bullet point 18 under questions and observations.  To correct the spelling of the word ‘to’ and replace it with the word ‘too’.  The sentence would therefore read:

“The number of consultancy firms used for contracts over £50,000 was lower than those worth under £50,000, was £50,000 too high.”

·         Bullet point 30 under questions and observations. After the sentence:

 “If we did not have details of sub-contractors how did we ensure that our policies were being complied with?”

Add the following sentence: It was indicated that there was no effective enforcement measure in place.

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.

The report informed the Committee about the Peterborough Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA).  The Group Manager Strategic Planning and Enabling provided context around the development of the PFRA stating that in 2007 there were a lot of floods across the UK and Europe.  A European Floods Directive was put in place and from this the UK Government issued the Flood Risk Regulations (2009) in order to implement the European Floods Directive.    To meet the requirements of the EU Directive and to tackle other national water and flood related issues, the UK Government had also put in place the Flood and Water management Act (FWM Act) in 2010.  Peterborough City Council had been made a ‘Lead Local Flood Authority’ (LLFA) responsible for the management of surface water flood risk.    The PFRA was a mix of policy and facts and it was about surface water flooding not flooding from main rivers and assessed what may happen in the future.  The high level document had been prepared from readily available information not from new research.  A PFRA would be prepared every six years.  The Peterborough PFRA had concluded that Peterborough did not have a ‘flood risk area’ of national significance.. However, the risk of localised flooding from main river, other watercourses and from heavy rain still existed and the future Peterborough Local Flood Risk Management Strategy would need to present the approach of the Council and other water and flood risk management authorities to this risk. The Peterborough Flood Risk Partnership (PFRP) chaired by the Executive Director of Operations and consisting of council officers, the Environment Agency, Anglian Water and Peterborough’s Internal Drainage Boards had approved the PFRA.

Members were informed that the PFRA was not a local strategy and that a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy was still to be prepared and would be brought to Scrutiny at a later date. The Committee were asked to comment on the draft PFRA presented before them and those comments would then be submitted to Cabinet.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         How well were Peterborough City Council working with partners.   The Flood Partnership has been working together for approximately twelve months and has worked very well  with good attendance at all meetings.

·         How long has it taken to prepare the PFRA and have there been any costs associated with the preparation?  The final guidance on how to prepare the PFRA was issued in December 2010 and work had started following this. There had been no additional costs associated with the preparation.

·         Had any consideration been given to going down the exemption route that would allow Local Authorities not to prepare a PFRA?  This had been considered but as the PFRA guidance included specific things that needed to be delivered in the report, it would have been hard to demonstrate not needing to produce a PFRA. Information had also been readily available so it had been easy to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report provided information on the work undertaken by the Committee during 2010/2011 and recommendations made.  The Committee were asked to identify items for monitoring during 2011/2012 and any new items for the work programme.

Items identified for inclusion into the work programme were:

·         Enterprise Contract

·         Use of Consultants – Monitoring of Recommendations from the review

·         Draft Housing Strategy

·         Prestige Homes in Peterborough – quarterly update

·         Opportunity Peterborough – update

·         Vawser Lodge – Sale of Land and Buildings

There being no items of business on the work programme for the July meeting the Chair proposed that the meeting scheduled to be held on 12 July 2011 be cancelled. The Chair asked the members of the committee if they were in agreement, following a brief debate it was agreed to cancel the next meeting.

ACTIONS

With the agreement of the Chairman and in consultation with the Committee Members it was decided that due to lack of business the meeting of the Sustainable Growth Scrutiny Committee scheduled for Tuesday 12 July 2011 would be cancelled.

           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.

Questions and observations were raised around the following areas:

• Councillor Arculus raised concerns about the proposed decision around Vawser Lodge.  This had been on the Forward Plan for a number of months and kept being slipped back. 
• Councillor Murphy expressed concern regarding major decisions that were being made without being scrutinised first.
• Councillor Arculus requested more information on the Local Authority Mortgage Scheme.

ACTION AGREED

To note the latest version of the Forward Plan.

Tuesday 12 July 2011

6 September 2011