Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Allen and Fower.  Councillor Sandford was in attendance as substitute.

Councillor Sandford advised that Councillor Fower had resigned as a member of the Committee and would be replaced by Councillor Sandford.

Councillor Sandford declared a personal interest in item 4 – Planning Policies Development Plan Document - as he was employed by the Woodland Trust.

The report gave an update on the actions taken in relation with the procurement of a suitable external partner for Manor Drive Managed Service.

The Council had a good record in maintaining good performance whilst driving out significant savings through the business transformation programme on the services provided by the Strategic Resources department.  In the autumn 2010 it was decided to seek a suitable external partner to achieve further savings through adding scale to the operation and to serve as a catalyst for change to bring in new work, investment and improved delivery to Manor Drive, along with new job opportunities and business to Peterborough.

The following were the services to be included in the partnership at day 1:

-     Shared transactional services;

-          Business support;

-          Financial systems support;

-          Operational procurement;

-          Business transformation and strategic improvement;

-          Customer Services; and

-          Strategic Property.

This would be a partnership that would evolve over time and there was potential for the Council to add other services during the partnership’s life.

Significant savings of nearly £2m had already been delivered internally on Manor Drive services through service efficiencies, streamlining staff and processes and income generation.  The October 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review had an impact on the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan which equated to a £25m net funding loss to the Council by 2014/15 and with pressures in other service areas such as adult social care, meant that the Council needed to look at alternative ways of providing services.

The Council was using the Competitive Dialogue Procedure under the EU procurement rules to procure a suitable partner for the Manor Drive services.  The Competitive Dialogue Procedure was recognised as being appropriate for this type of procurement because there was a complex range of services which required innovative solutions by the bidders and this process enabled the Council to work with the bidders to assist them in developing their solutions to meet the Council’s requirements and aspirations.  The Competitive Dialogue Procedure was a rigorous process and involved a number of stages.

The Cabinet Member Decision Notice had now been published for its five day consultation period where it was being recommended that Serco be approved as the preferred bidder.  It was expected that the decision would be signed off on 20 October 2011 and would be subject for the three day call-in period.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that the report was to scrutinise the process which had been followed and not the decision on which bidder should be appointed.

Questions and observations were asked around the following areas:

• To fully scrutinise the process all information was needed to be made available, the Cabinet Member Decision Notice had three exempt annexes and those needed to be available to ensure effective scrutiny.
• The Chairman confirmed that he had seen the exempt annexes and it was his view that they contained commercially sensitive information which could compromise future bids if the information was put in the public domain.
• The Compliance Manager  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The report presented the proposed submission version of the Planning Policies Development Plan Document (DPD).

The Planning Policies DPD sets out the detailed development control planning policies which would be used day-to-day by planning officers and the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee when considering the detailed aspects of planning applications.  The Planning Policies DPD sat beneath the Peterborough Core Strategy which had been adopted in February 2011.

The document had been consulted on during February and March 2011 and all of the comments made at that stage had been analysed and taken into consideration when formulating the policies in the Proposed Submissions document.

The document would be considered by Cabinet on 7 November 2011 and Council on 7 December 2011.  Following consultation it would undergo independent examination by a Planning Inspector and Council should adopt the final plan in December 2012.

Comments and observations were made around the following areas:

• Policy PP11 - Parking Standards.  When the Peterborough Regional College was looking to expand they had great difficulty in getting more car parking at the College so a lot of cars were blocking surrounding residential roads and causing problems for local residents.  The standards in relation to residential developments were the minimum that would be expected.  The current government was more relaxed on parking standards and the Council had looked to increase the standards.  With Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) the standard had increased to one parking space for each bedroom.  There were design implications around parking and officers would negotiate if it was know problems would be created.  The standards for educational establishments were the maximum standards however if a clear case could be put forward then allowing more than the maximum could be considered.
• If the Council would consider allowing more than the maximum in some cases then that needed to be made clear within the document, however would it happen in reality?  The wording of the policy at paragraph 2.11.5 did say that it could be occasionally justified when all alternatives had been explored.
• The previous government had stated the maximum levels of parking and this was now being addressed by the current government so that residential areas had minimum requirements.  This requirement did not apply to commercial or educational areas so there was a need to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel particularly in the City Centre.
• Some commercial areas of the city such as Orton Southgate did not have sufficient parking for their employees, should there be some sites where the standard was one parking space per employee?  The Council had an aspiration to be the Home of Environment Capital.  There needed to be sustainable solutions in place and a pragmatic approach using a variety of tools including travel plans.  Some sites would need to be looked at individually for their parking requirements.
• What was the reasoning behind one parking space for each bedroom in HMOs as many of the residents would be students or young people who might not be able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

            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

To note the latest version of the Forward Plan.

Members considered the Committee’s work programme for 2011/12.

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2011/12.

Tuesday 8 November 2011 at 7pm