Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

There were no declarations of interest or whipping declarations.

There were no requests for call-in to consider.

          The Cabinet Member for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Planning introduced the report which provided the Committee with information on progress on the consolidation of the existing four highways contracts into one contract with a single partner.

The Committee were recommended to note and endorse the actions taken, and to be taken in connection with this procurement.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members commented that taking on apprentices and graduates was a good idea and queried whether the Committee would have any further involvement in the decision of the preferred bidder. The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering advised the Committee that it would only come back to Committee if the decision was called in.

·         Members suggested that the Committee should have access to Service Level Agreements and Key Performance Indicators to enable them to scrutinise and advise constituents of future work. Members were informed that with the new contract there would be no new developments, it would remain the same as the existing one. The detailed specification was being led by the Council and not the future contractor. The existing contracts were due to expire at the end of July 2013 however they had been extended until the end of September 2013. The work would need to start at the beginning of October and there would not be time for the Specifications to be scrutinised. The specifications were safety driven and they had to remain within the Highways budget.

·         Members were concerned that residents did not have knowledge of the Highway Service’s plans and therefore did not know what to expect. Members were advised that residents expectations should not change as the Highway Services intervened in terms of the asset based upon safety criteria as the Council did not have money to focus on aesthetics.

·         Members queried whether it would be an additional risk for the Council to be involved with a single contractor and whether there were any clauses within the ten year contract to enable the Council to pull out if the contractors were not carrying out their work correctly. The Transport and Engineering Group Manager advised the Committee that the contractor would be a major company and would get efficiencies working with the supplier and sub-contractors therefore there should not be any cause for concern. There would be penalties for the contractors if they did not meet the key performance indicators and they could loose years off the contract however they could also gain years for good performance. 

·         Members commented that street lighting in Peterborough had improved although in some areas of the city the street lights had not been changed could this be included within the new contract. Members were informed that inspections were carried out regularly and proactive work would be carried out on streetlights in the Autumn/Winter time. In Peterborough there were over 24,000 street lights and it was impossible for them all to be checked, therefore the bidder would be challenged as they would need to resolve the issue and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

This report was presented to the Committee to seek their views on the draft Local Transport Plan Capital Programme of Works and the Highways Revenue Maintenance Schemes 13/14 prior to its consideration by the Cabinet Member for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Planning.

The Local Transport Plan 2011-2016 and the generic five year programme were adopted by the Council on 13 April 2011 following an extensive consultation with consultees and a wide range of stakeholders.

The Neighbourhood Committees had been consulted and agreed the programme for 2013/14 at a meeting on 13 February 2013.

Appropriate consultation would also be undertaken on individual schemes in the programme as required.

The Committee were asked to scrutinise the proposed programme of works contained in annexes 1-4 and make any recommendations.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members requested further information on the Dropped Kerb Programme mentioned on page eleven of the report and queried whether it was citywide and if so would it be possible for Officers to Contact Councillors to find out where the dropped kerbs were needed. The Transport and Planning Manager advised the Committee that the Drop Kerb and Mobility Improvements Programme were concentrated on the city centre at the request of DIAL as they felt it was not very accessible to disabled people.  This was now being extended to other parts of the city. A request database was kept and requests were put in to order of priority. Members were advised to write in with any requests.

·         Members commented that the Congestion ‘Hot Spot’ Treatment Scheme on page eleven was a good idea as when road works were in progress the traffic became excessive and the bus routes were blocked. Members were advised that the new technology Intelligent Transport Systems had become more popular and its function was to report traffic flow. The Council worked closely with the Bus companies to resolve problems they had with traffic.

·         Members were concerned that cycle chains were being left on cycle racks within the city centre and some of them had been there for long periods of time.  They could be a hazard or seen as unsightly and queried whether this issue could be resolved. Members were advised that this issue would be looked in to. 

·         Members queried how the streets were chosen in Annex 2 of the report to be included in the Highways Maintenance Programme. The Transport and Planning Manager informed the committee that the maintenance assessment procedure included the condition factor, the strategic importance of the road and the cost factor.

·         Members queried whether every street was inspected as it seemed that some areas on the main highways were never included on the list. Members were advised that it worked on a hierarchy system therefore the streets that were used more frequently or were in bad condition would appear on the lists.

·         Members queried why Bus Priority Measures were mentioned within the Local Transport Plan and not the report to the Committee. Members were advised that the Intelligent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The purpose of this report was to enable the Committee to scrutinise recommendations to be put before Cabinet on 25 March 2013.  The primary recommendation having been the suspension of any further grant allocations from the Council’s Affordable Housing corporate resources part of the Capital Programme until a thorough review of the Council’s policy on funding schemes from this source was undertaken. Such a review was considered necessary to ensure the Council gains maximum benefit and value from the use of its Capital Programme resources.

The report to Cabinet would recommend that schemes that discharged obligations to provide affordable housing in accordance with individual Section 106 agreements would still be considered and Section 106 receipts would continue to be applied to fund such schemes in accordance with the 2011 Policy Framework.

The following issues had arisen which had prompted the recommendation that a review of the Policy was undertaken:

·         Grant uptake had been relatively low, perhaps a result of the fairly constrained bidding criteria within the policy.

·         The finances of the Council had, in general terms, become even tighter; there was therefore a need to review whether best value was being achieved from this funding policy.

·         Adult Social Care had been brought back in to the Council, there was therefore a need to review whether the policy should be revised to compliment the Council’s amended Adult Social Care duties.

·         The Council had some particular areas it wished to target investment, such as the continued transformation of the city centre. There was therefore a need to review whether the policy should be amended to compliment those priority areas.

·         The Council continued to support the growth of the city, including new homes, but recognised the difficult economic conditions the house building industry faced, there was therefore a need to review the Policy to see if amendments to it could further stimulate the house building market.

A number of options for policy amendments had provisionally been explored and it was in the following areas which Cabinet were to be asked to endorse officers to investigate:

(i)    Whether the scoring criteria within the policy be amended so as to favour bids in specific priority locations, such as the city centre and rural areas

(ii)   Whether priority could be given to those bids which assisted the Council in meeting its children and adult social care duties

(iii)  Whether it was legally possible and would offer better value if funds were made available as a loan rather than a grant or a mixture of the two

(iv)Whether the funds could be made available to the wider house building market rather than, as was the case with the current policy, just registered providers

(v)  Whether the current definition of ‘Affordable Housing’ used in the policy could be widened so that other forms of low cost housing could became eligible for funding

(vi)Whether the policy could be amended so as to better link with wider growth and investment possible initiatives of the Council, such as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.