Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Maqbool.  Councillor Nawaz was in attendance as substitute for Councillor Maqbool.

Councillor Sandford declared an interest in relation to item 5, Environment Capital Action Plan in that he was a Board Member of PECT.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2013 were approved as an accurate record with the exception of the following:

Councillor Arculus referred to page 10, first bullet point where the minutes stated “Are the roads part of the Council’s assets?  The Chairman responded that the council did not own the roads” Councillor Arculus advised that this was inaccurate in that he had not referred to the council as not owning the road but had explained that the Highways Authorities had owned the roads up to two spits deep.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2013 were approved as an accurate 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.

There were no requests for call-in to consider.

The report introduced by the Climate Change Manager provided the Committee with the Environment Capital Action Plan (ECAP) which form the single delivery plan for the priority to create the UK’s Environment Capital.  The Plan provided a clear vision for an Environment Capital and was produced in partnership with the Peterborough Environment City Trust (PECT) using the internationally recognised concept of One Planet Living.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members noted in the report that the number of nesting pairs of Barn Owls had increased from 5 to 65 between 1990 and 2012.  Was there any data available to show that an increase in Barn Own population was indicative of the increase in the biomass pyramid and increased biodiversity?  Members were advised that there was no data available.

·         Members noted that under the Sustainable Transport section of the ECAP is had stated that “Travelchoice, a £3.24m government project, achieved a 9% reduction in car journeys”.  Where had this figure come from?   Members were advised that the figure of 9% had come from a detailed study that the Department for Transport had undertaken during the first round of funding.  Peterborough was one of the first sustainable travel demonstration towns and therefore the DfT wanted to undertake an in depth study to understand what the impact of the funding had been.

·         Members sought clarification as to whether the study had been done by measuring the car journeys or through Travel Choice Surveys.  Members were informed that it was an independent telephone survey that had been conducted and observations over a day counting the numbers of walkers, cyclists and car users.

·         Members noted that the ECAP stated that “The council is currently administering a £5m fund to encourage sustainable travel” but had not mentioned the recent cut of £500K in the public transport subsidy.  Members were informed that the Plan did not mention everything as it was designed to be a short version to enable people to be able to pick the plan up and easily engage with the topic without making it complex.  The council faced huge budget pressures and the difficulty was about how the council addressed competing priorities however the Plan clearly set out the cities ambitions and aspirations. The Cabinet Member for Environment Capital and Neighbourhoods informed Members that the commitment to the long term aspirations for Sustainable Transport remained the same but due to budgetary constraints difficult decisions had to be made.

·         Members referred to the Sustainable Transport theme and the vision of “A pedestrian, public transport and cycle first city and 90% of all journeys will be zero emission” but noted that there were no short term targets for percentage of people cycling and number of journeys made by public transport.  Members were advised that the short term targets that were in the plan would not create the UK’s Environment Capital but would take the council on a journey towards that priority.  The targets were aspirational and the challenge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Climate Change Manager introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the Peterborough City Councils 2012/13 carbon dioxide emissions.  These were reported as part of its mandatory participation in the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme.  The three different carbon emission reports were listed as:

Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) which includes buildings where PCC pays the energy bills including schools and Academies. The key points for this year were:

• Annual report emissions = 24,036 tonnes of CO₂
• Annual cost of allowances = £288,437
• Schools proportion = 64% of emissions equating to approximately £180k

Carbon Management Action Plan (CMAP) which includes building, street lighting, fleet transport and business transport emissions. This was the fourth year (of five) where progress against the 35% reduction target had been monitored. The data showed a provisional reduction of 15% since the baseline year (2008/09).

Greenhouse Gas Report (GHG) which is essentially the same as CMAP but the sources are treated differently. The figures were in line with the other reports which had been published in 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12 and showed an increase in 2012/13 but an overall reduction of 21%.

Whilst the council’s carbon emissions reduced in 2010/11 and 2011/12 compared to 2008/09, emissions had increased in 2012/13. This was due to a combination of milder winters during 2010/11 and 2011/12 in comparison to a much harsher winter during 2012/13.

Members were advised that the council would be part of phase 2 of the scheme.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members sought clarification as to why the carbon emissions from street lights had increased by 25%.  Members were informed that the increased figure had been due to the fact that an inventory of street lighting had been conducted which had adjusted the CO2 consumption figure which had included an increase in street lighting from new developments.  There would be an investment in street lighting and as more street lights were upgraded a reduction in carbon emissions would be seen.

·         Members noted that the report had stated in Table 2, Carbon Dioxide Emissions (tonnes) that Council buildings had reduced in CO2 emissions.  Was this due to the fact that the number of the council buildings had reduced.  Members were advised that there was many different reasons for the reduction in CO2 emissions which were complex to analyse.   An example was that of outsourced services which were not part of the equation for the first three years of reporting but had been introduced in the last two years.  Although services had been outsourced the council still influences the outsource providers in what they deliver and therefore include them as if they were still a council service and take into account their CO2 emissions.

·         Members noted that the report had mentioned a performance league table that ranked participants who were part of the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme and requested to see a copy of the league table to see where Peterborough was placed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report provided the Committee with a draft set of new Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) for Amey.  These had been produced in conjunction with some Members of the Committee who had volunteered to work with Amey and the Strategic Partnerships Manager to discuss and agree the way forward with regard to proposed KPI’s.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members were pleased to note that under the Parks, trees, grass cutting, shrubs and flowers service there was a KPI measure for maintaining and to potentially increase the number of Green Flag awards across the city.

·         Members referred to the Traveller Management service and sought clarification as to whether Amey would secure land after and eviction of an unauthorised encampment.  Members were advised that the land would be secured within 24 hours to avoid further encampments.

·         Members asked the Strategic Partnership Manager how confident he was that that Amey would keep to the KPIs once they had been agreed.  The Strategic Partnership Manager responded that he was confident that once they had been signed off they would be enforced.  Spot checks would be carried out to ensure they would being adhered to and Amey would be held to account.

·         Members were concerned that by publishing the KPIs it would raise public expectation as to the service that would be provided.  This was of concern when there was a possibility of further government funding.  Members were informed that if the council wanted to make significant savings in this service area there would need to be significant communication to raise awareness that the cuts had not been from Amey but from the council.

·         Members were concerned that the KPI’s would increase and therefore cost more.  Members were advised that the list of KPI’s would be the contractual minimum and would not increase in anyway.

·         Members commented that the mechanical cleaners were unable to clean some of the streets due to road size and therefore in those particular areas the KPI would not be achieved.

·         Members also commented that commitments made from Amey during some of the ward walks had not been followed through. The Strategic Partnership Manager noted the concern raised and advised that he would look into it.

·         Members asked the Strategic Partnership Manager if incentives had been discussed with Amey as well as penalties.  Members were informed that incentives were being discussed as well as penalties and welcomed further input from the Member working group with regard to suggestions for this.

·         How will the KPIs be managed and reported on.  Members were advised that the monitoring regime would be as specified against each KPI so that it was clear and transparent to everyone what was expected.

·         Members wanted to know if there was a definition of open spaces and the city centre.  Members were advised that the definition for open spaces and the city centre would be circulated to the Committee.

·         Members sought further clarification with regard to the city centre and the measure of ‘Overall customer satisfaction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Senior Governance Officer introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the progress being made towards organising the Scrutiny in a Day event on 17 January 2014 which would focus on the impacts of Welfare Reform.

The following comments and suggestions were made:

·         Could the effects of LASPO and Legal Aid cuts be included?

·         Members commented that it might be difficult for some people to attend the event in the day time.

·         Councillor Sandford commented that it was an important subject and felt that the whole day should be held in public.

·         Could session 2a – The evidence be run in public.

ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee agreed that the Senior Governance Officer take the comments made by the Committee back to the Member Working Party for consideration.

The Committee received the latest version of the Forward Plan of Key Decisions, 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 Forward Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Committee’s work programme.

Members requested further information on the following key decisions:

• Long Causeway Public Realm Improvements – KEY/15NOV13/01
• Bourges Boulevard Improvement Scheme: Bright Street to Crescent Bridge – KEY/04OCT13.04

The Director of Growth and Regeneration advised that there would be a public consultation event later in the month which would provide more information.

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme for 2013/14 and discussed possible items for inclusion.

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2013/14 and the Senior Governance Officer to include any additional items as requested during the meeting including the following:

• Blue Sky Peterborough
• Management of the Agricultural Estate
• Peterborough Delivery Company
• Opportunity Peterborough

Monday 10 February 2013

Monday, 10 February 2014

The meeting began at 7.00pm and ended at 9.20pm