Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Allen and Fower.  Councillor Sandford was present as substitute for the Liberal Democrat Group.

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.

Councillor Sandford declared a personal interest in item 8 – Planning Policies Development Plan Document - as he was employed by the Woodland Trust.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2011 were approved as a correct record.

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.

Peterborough City Council’s Response to the Draft National Planning Policy Framework

A request for call-in of the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Planning had been received from Councillors Murphy and Sandford.

The request for call-in stated that the decision had not followed the principles of good decision making as set out in Article 12 of the Council’s Constitution, specifically that the Cabinet Member had not realistically considered all alternatives and, where reasonably possible, considered the views of the public.

In support of the request Councillor Sandford made the following points:

• The Cabinet Member did not consult with members of the public or other members of the Council.
• This was not an isolated incident and there needed to be a review of the process in responding to consultation documents so that the views of scrutiny could be put forward.
• Whilst accepting that in some cases there was an urgent need to respond to consultations this consultation had been published for three months.
• He had no major concerns with the comments made in response to the consultation but his issues were around the process.
• The decision should be called in and referred back to the Cabinet Member to ensure that he took in the views of scrutiny.

Councillor Murphy supported the views made by Councillor Sandford however as planning policy was a big issue in Peterborough it should have been expected that there would have been a higher level of consultation however he thought the response had been excellent and challenging. 

In responding to the request for call-in, the Head of Planning, Transport and Environment made the following comments:

• He was pleased that the members were supportive of the comments made in the consultation response.
• Authority to respond to consultation documents was delegated to the Executive Director, however due to its importance wider consultation had been undertaken with the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee. This went above the Constitutional requirements.

Comments and observations were made around the following areas:

• Some members of the Committee shared the concerns that scrutiny had not been asked for their views, however they felt that this was not the appropriate forum to raise those concerns.
• The consultation document was open to public consultation by the Government and anyone could have put their views forward.
• Some members believed that the wrong grounds for call-in had been used and that the correct reason was that the Cabinet Member had not followed procedures correctly and was not fair.
• Councillor Sandford advised that he was not aware that the document had been considered by the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee, however as that committee was responsible for making decisions on planning applications should they have been consulted.  Planning policy should be scrutinised by scrutiny. 
• The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering advised that the consultation document was a material consideration when considering planning applications from the date it was published.  Scrutiny should be responsible for scrutinising local planning policy.

Following the discussion on the merits of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report presented the Draft Peterborough Housing Strategy 2011-15 and incorporated the Peterborough Strategic Tenancy Policy.

The Housing Strategy was the overarching housing-related strategy in Peterborough and was a statutory requirement.  The Strategy defined the key objectives for the housing agenda between 2011 and 2015 and the priorities for action.  It set out the role that the housing agenda would play in helping the Council and its partners to meet its key strategic objectives.  The Strategy had been produced in collaboration with a wide range of partners.  The Strategy had four objectives:

• To support the delivery of substantial yet sustainable Growth
• To secure the regeneration and improvements to Peterborough’s housing stock
• To meet existing and future housing needs
• To create mixed and sustainable communities

The Strategic Tenancy Policy was being developed as part of the Government’s housing reforms in which Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) had been granted a range of additional flexibilities including:

• Being able to offer fixed term tenancies as well as lifetime tenancies
• Determining the length of tenancy offered to each tenant on an individual basis
• Devising criteria that would determine whether to renew a tenancy at the end of a fixed term
• Building new homes and converting existing stock on re-let to the new ‘affordable rent’ tenure

Whilst RSLs would be expected to set out their own policies on the new flexibilities, the Government was keen to ensure that local authorities retained a degree of strategic influence.  The Strategic Tenancy Policy set out the broad objectives to be taken into consideration when RSLs were devising their policies but RSLs would be expected to give due regard to an authority’s Strategic Tenancy Policy.

The Policy had four themes:

• Ensuring Affordability
• Tenancy Flexibilities
• Appropriate Move-on
• Protecting Tenant Mobility

The Policy advocated:

• Social rented tenants should be allowed to retain their existing security of tenure if they chose to transfer
• RSLs taking a responsible view when determining the type, size and location of the stock that they converted to the affordable rent tenure
• Housing providers were mindful of the impact of the conversions upon the tenure profile and overall sustainability of the communities in which they operate

The draft Strategy would be considered by Cabinet in November 2011 and would then undergo four weeks of consultation.  The final Strategy would be considered again by Cabinet in February 2012.

Comments and observations were made around the following areas:

• The draft Strategy needed to be proof read properly before it was considered by the Cabinet.
• Policy HS34 made reference to ensuring effective integration of affordable housing provision in developments through a ‘pepper potting approach’.  What was meant by ‘pepper potting’?  It was about taking the wider needs of an area into account and avoiding a whole area being identified as an affordable housing site.
• What was the validity of Policy HS34 being in the document?  The Council’s policy was to look for a step up in the quality of developments and in some developments clusters of housing association homes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Chairman welcomed Dave Martin, Regional Managing Director and Richard Oldfield, Transformation Director of Enterprise to the meeting.

The Enterprise Peterborough partnership had been launched just over six months ago and generally the partnership had worked well and there had been progress in a number of service areas and successes.  Due to the nature of the partnership, there had been a few challenges and where such challenges had emerged, the Council had worked hard with Enterprise to understand the issues, resolve them, learn from them and move forward.

The following were an example of some of the key service delivery and improvements that had taken place in during the first six months:

• There were some 102 key performance indicators for Enterprise to meet under the partnership and no defaults had been recorded for failure to perform;
• Recycling levels averaged 44.25% per month against a 46% target for 2011/12;
• An average of 64.59 tonnes of fly-tipped waste had been collected each month;
• Enterprise had worked closely with the Council’s enforcement team to gather evidence to assist in enforcement action against unlawful fly tipping;
• Action had to be taken to remove 36 unauthorised travellers’ encampments within the Council’s boundaries.  Enterprise had also responded to a number of media enquiries on travellers in anticipation of the eviction of the travellers in Essex;
• Central Park and Itter Park had been awarded Green Flags for the ninth and fifth times respectively, recognising the high standards being maintained at those Parks.  A media event had been held with Friends of the Parks and Enterprise;
• New ‘Street Care’ initiative was introduced which involved:-
  • multi-skilled integrated teams in five areas of the city to mirror the neighbourhood areas to provide a more localised and responsive service;
  • teams were able to tackle more maintenance and cleansing operations in one pass through; and
  • increased use of mechanised equipment.
• Deep cleanses of the Cathedral Square which involved:-
  • longer cleaning presence (6am to 6pm) in the city centre;
  • re-introducing the mechanical street washer;
  • increased use of mechanical sweepers; and
  • additional cleanses on top of the regular daily bin emptying, litter picking and street sweeping.
• Enterprise highlighted the need to change people’s behaviour on dropping gum through the media and a multi-agency approach was now planned;
• Immediate action by Enterprise and its supply chain to make trees safe and keep roads clear when there were two heavy storms in September which caused damage with Enterprise pro-actively reminding people of the importance of being aware of tree damage during and following high winds.

Monitoring of complaints was part of the day to day management of the partnership and the following table indicated the number of service complaints received by Enterprise Peterborough in the first seven months since the partnership began.  These had been compared to a similar period last year when the services were carried out by Peterborough City Services.  It needed to be remembered that front-line services such as those provided by Enterprise were more likely to attract complaints because of the visibility  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Due to the time it was proposed to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday 18 October 2011 at 7pm.

Before agreeing to adjourn Members asked whether there was a deadline for consideration of the item on Manor Drive.

The Executive Director of Strategic Resources advised that he had now made a recommendation on the preferred bidder and the proposed Cabinet Member Decision Notice had now been published for its five day consideration period.  The decision had not yet been made and was expected to be taken on 20 October 2011.  Once the decision had been made it would then be subject to the call in process.

On being put to the vote it was agreed 4 votes for, 0 against and 2 not voting to adjourn the meeting until 7pm on Tuesday 18 October 2011.