Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Maqbool and the Youth Council Representative, Ellie Jaggard.

Item 7.  Opportunity Peterborough Update

A declaration of interest was received from Councillor Arculus who declared that he was a Bond Holder and that some other Councillors on the Committee may also be Bond Holders apart from Councillor Fox.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2013 were approved as an accurate record.

There were no requests for call-in to consider.

The report was introduced by the Executive Director of Resources and provided the Committee with a broad update on Blue Sky Peterborough Ltd. and other energy matters that were ongoing and those planned for the future. The Executive Director of Resources further stated that energy was not solely about CO2 emissions and income but also about enabling regeneration in the city. He stated that the issues around the wind and ground-mounted schemes was well-documented but stated he had met with members of the committee to assure them that recommendations from the Scrutiny Commission for Rural Communities would be considered as part of the budget process. He also invited members to consider the role of scrutiny going forward.

The Chair thanked the Executive Director for his detailed report.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members referred to page 15 of the report and the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Commission for Rural Communities at their meeting on 16 December 2013 to Cabinet, which  recommended that Cabinet:

·         Immediately stops both options 1 solar and 2 wind for the America Farm project due to the negative income predicted  for the delayed project

·         Stops the solar panel option (1) on all three sites (America Farm, Newborough and Morris Fen) due to the significant total expenditure of £296 million, a poor return of £21 million net income and a Net Present Value figure of only £10.5 million’

Members wanted to know why the recommendations were not being considered by Cabinet until two months later. The Executive Director of Resources responded that for Americas Farm the projections were quite wide-ranging from optimistic to pessimistic. The department has been conducting work on what the most likely outcomes would be through conversations with developers regarding their business models in order for Cabinet to make a fully-informed decision.

·         Members sought clarification with regard to the report stating that since the company had been incorporated it had not traded but the report also stated that it had entered into a contract with City Fibre.  Was the company therefore an operational company or not. The Executive Director of Resources responded that in the first two years of financial trading no transactions had been put through the company. The Executive Director, Resources also stated that the company would not be used unless it needed to be and that where possible, the City Council would be the main partner.   With regards to City Fibre the contract had been entered into however there had been no trading.

·         Members responded that there was nonetheless a perception of secrecy and invited the Executive of Director of Resources to make any comments. Members were advised that no financial transactions had been entered into by Blue Sky Peterborough. A contract had been entered into with City Fibre and there were three Directors as nominated by the council.  Councillor Elsey, speaking as a Director of Blue Sky Peterborough also confirmed that none of the Directors nominated by the council received financial benefit from being Directors.

·         Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report was introduced by the Head of Corporate Property & Children’s Resources and was in response to a request from the Chair of the Committee for an update on the management of the Council’s Farms Estate and confirmation of what future proposals the Council had for that estate. The report provided the Committee with the history of the Farms Estate, Central Government Policy for Farms Estates and current and future developments for the estate. The Head of Corporate Property & Children’s Resources stated that there needed to be a strategy for the estates going forward as it was a valuable asset and should be effectively used.  He therefore suggested that a review group be set up to look at a range of matters affecting the future management of the Councils Farms Estate and to inform the development of the strategy.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members referred to page 31, paragraph 4.2 regarding Central government policy for smallholdings authorities and asked if the aims of a smallholdings authority set out in the report were being satisfied. The Head of Corporate Property & Children’s Resources responded that his perception after three months in his current role was that some of the goals were being met however a lot more could be done for young people wanting to come into farming.  The Farms Manager stated that over the past twenty years there had been little opportunity for new entrants into farming which was a structural issue as many tenancies were long term and this was a national farming issue. Best practise changed and what constitutes best practise one year often changed the next year. There was an opportunity to improve the performance of the estate. The estate supported many local families and there was therefore a wide influence on the local economy.

·         Members stated that there was a need for new entrants into the farming sector in order to avoid a situation in which large landowners had a large amount of control over the sector as this would have an effect on the wider economy.  Opportunity Peterborough could play a part in increasing the potential of the Farms Estate. The Head of Corporate Property & Children’s Resources stated Peterborough was historically a market town and it would be a positive development if the city centre could for instance have a farmer’s market back in the town centre.

·         The Chief Executive of Opportunity Peterborough added that there had recently been a successful regional growth fund bid.  It was a grant scheme available for the farming sector. Collectively there might be some avenues worth exploring. There was also an historic programme in the country called Leader Plus which was a European-funded project which designated certain areas across the country which could potentially add £500,000 a year for the rural areas of Peterborough and Rutland.

·         Members stated that Newborough had many young farmers and expressed support for the farmer’s market idea and were positive about the support for young farmers.  Members were advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report was presented by the Chief Executive for Opportunity Peterborough and provided the Committee with an update on work being undertaken by Opportunity Peterborough and the overall economic picture in Peterborough.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members asked what the position was regarding Queensgate and if the upgrade of Queensgate and the redevelopment of North Westgate would happen in a timely fashion. The Director of Growth and Regeneration advised that he had been in discussions with the new owners of Queensgate and the promoters of North Westgate to ensure that this project would be delivered.  It would however be different to the original design and more of a mixed use project.  The new owners of Queensgate intend investing in the centre..

·         Members asked if some government offices were being relocated to Peterborough or if they were from the private sector. The Chief Executive for Opportunity Peterborough responded that there was the potential for some government departments being moved out of London to Peterborough and that this was being promoted.

·         Members commented that perhaps too much time had been spent on the regeneration of a small area of Peterborough (the city centre) at the expense of other areas. The Director of Growth and Regeneration advised Members that investment in the wider public realm delivered positive outcomes for the city as a whole. He stated that part of his job was to pull in external funding for that to reduce cost to the council.   There were still some major interventions to be done including Bourges Boulevard.  Members asked regarding Cambridge airport and its expansion and whether Peterborough was making full use of it being nearby. Members were advised that Cambridge airport was aimed at the high end and there was a premium to fly out of there.  Norwich airport which was a hub airport had been in discussions with Opportunity Peterborough.  Peterborough was well placed for airports but the biggest challenge for the city was in convincing businesses to export.

·         Members wanted to know if there had been any discussion regarding the redevelopment of the town end of Broadway in order to make it more connected to the city centre. The Director of Growth and Regeneration replied that too many cars currently came into the city centre and this affected the pedestrian environment.  It was being actively looked at whether or not it was possible to reduce the number of vehicles coming along Broadway and to improve the street as part of future proposals.

·         Members asked if Opportunity Peterborough were engaging with smaller businesses throughout the city to free up commercial space to bring it back into the residential market.   This would attract people to live in the city centre. The Chief Executive responded that developers were interested in developing areas of the city centre as residential units. This did not fall under the remit of Opportunity Peterborough but any information regarding this was fed to the council to follow up.  Peterborough was one of the few  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report was presented by the Transport and Infrastructure Planning Manager and provided members with information regarding the Local Transport Plan Programme of Works 2014/15 to the Committee before submission to the Cabinet Member for Growth, Strategic Planning, Housing, Economic Development and Business Engagement for approval. Members were informed that the budget had not yet been allocated and the programme of works was based on an indicative figure.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members commented on street light maintenance and stated that there did not seem to be a criteria for replacement of the columns or the light.  Newer parts of the city appeared to have had the street lighting replaced before older parts of the city. Members were advised that there was a methodology used to assess if a replacement was needed.  There was an asset data base and a survey was conducted with regard to structural and electrical testing of the lighting. Cast iron columns were particularly hazardous and were prioritised for replacement.  Replacement was not based on particular wards but on assessment and budgetary constraints as to what could be done in a financial year.

·         Members asked what the process was for deciding that one particular development or replacement was dealt with first as opposed to another. The Transport and Infrastructure Planning Manager stated that he would circulate the methodology to the committee.  Prioritisation of expenditure was dependent on two factors which were the condition of the street lighting and safety.

·         Members referred to Annex 1, Page 51 of the report listing the Integrated Transport Programme 2014/2015 and asked what the St. John’s scheme was. Members were advised that St. John’s Street was being remodelled to improve footpaths and provide better areas for cyclists to use rather than through the city centre as it was a key corridor into the city.

·         Members referred to page 51 and the section on Safer Roads and asked if the £250,000 allocated to Staniland Way was for Staniland Way junction with David’s Lane. Members were advised that it was allocated for this junction.

·         Members asked if there was any available information yet regarding performance of the new bus service. Members were informed that in terms of bus performance it had improved and there have been less complaints than previously.  Feedback from the new bus service had been very positive.  A full report would be provided after the service had been in place in twelve months’ time.

·         Members expressed concern at the condition of rural roads in the city and stated that they were dangerous to travel on and not enough attention had been paid to preventative measures. The Director of Growth and Regeneration responded that this was in fact a national problem. He stated that the Council with Cambridgeshire and Norfolk had applied for Government funding to address drought damage on rural roads but were unsuccessful, however there was money set aside in the Council’s budget to address drought damage.  The roads were being monitored.

·         Members stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The report was submitted to the Committee following an investigation into the benefits of extending 20MPH Speed Limits throughout residential areas across the Peterborough Unitary Authority Area.    The purpose of the report was to seek the Committees approval for the submission of the report to Cabinet.  The report was introduced by Councillor Shearman.  Councillor Shearman gave thanks to the three officers; Clare George, Gary Goose and Paulina Ford for their guidance, research and technical support throughout the review which enabled the Task and Finish Group to complete the report.  Councillor Shearman gave the committee some background information with regard to the introduction of 20MPH speed limits and went through some details and recommendations of the report. The Task and Finish Group recognised the lack of funding to be able to introduce 20MPH speed limit across the city and therefore a recommendation had been made to introduce a pilot scheme in villages in Peterborough.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members stated that this would be a significant benefit in rural areas and would be welcomed. It should be noted though that the police would not be able to enforce it due to lack of capacity and members were therefore concerned about enforcement. 

·         Members asked if it would be beneficial to wait for more evidence regarding effectiveness from other authorities that had implemented 20MPH before recommending a pilot.  Furthermore, they asked if the recommendations were for the upcoming budgetary year or if they were for 2015/16.  Members of the Scrutiny Task and Finish Group responded that they doubted it would be implemented in this budgetary year.

·         Members asked if it would therefore be possible to acquire more evidence from other authorities and then make further recommendations based on that evidence.  Members of the Scrutiny Task and Finish Group confirmed that this was possible. The group further stated that groups such as the NHS might also welcome the proposals as it would have cost savings for them.

·         Members followed up asking how there was a relationship between traffic in villages and urban areas and how a pilot scheme in a village would be able to assess implications on areas such as Bourges Boulevard. Members of the Scrutiny Task and Finish Group responded that the villages were very easy to implement speed limits whereas urban areas such as Bourges Boulevard were less easy to have their speed limits changed.

·         Members commented that it was important to have similar campaigns within the city area as there were many instances of dangerous driving in the city as well as rural areas. The Safer & Stronger Peterborough Strategic Manager advised Members that villages were keen to implement these schemes and therefore the pragmatic approach was to start the pilot with them.  During the course of the next twelve months there would be a lot more evidence available for similar urban areas to Peterborough.  However each city should be treated on its own merits and it would not be sensible to reduce all roads  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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 asked if the amendments to the Affordable Housing Capital Funding Policy were completed.  The Director for Growth and Regeneration advised that they had not been completed but would be presented to the Committee when they had.

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.

The Chair wished to record the Committees thanks to the Senior Governance Officer for co-ordaining the innovative Scrutiny in a Day event which took place on 17 January 2014.  The Committee agreed that it had been a great success and should be repeated on an annual basis.

·         Monday 10 February, Joint Scrutiny Committee and Commissions Scrutiny of the Budget

·         Monday 7 April, Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee

Monday, 10 February 2014

The meeting began at 7.00pm and ended at 9.45pm