?

Place and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee

 27 July 2016

?

Co-operative Scrutiny Board

17 February 2016

9 March 2016

?

Working Plymouth Panel

16 March 2016

?

Place and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee

27 July 2016

?

Co-operative Scrutiny Board

17 February 2016

9 March 2016

?

Working Plymouth Panel

16 March 2016

(a)

the project was currently referred to as the History Centre, although it was not the intention to retain this name; however, there was a need to ensure that the right name was chosen and that the public liked the name;

(b)

the cost of supplies for the project could be reported to the committee (officers to agree the best method for delivering this);

(c)

a decision from the Arts Council was imminent regarding the council’s application for funding;

(d)

crowd funding would be utilised once the designs, ideas and concepts had been developed; members of the public would have the opportunity to raise money for the exhibits;

(e)

work would be undertaken to engage with the local sub-contractor to support the connection between education and the construction market regarding the skills that would be required for the delivery of this project;

(f)

discussions were being held with the preferred contractor regarding the best methods of communicating the progress of the project; proposals put forward included video screens in the hoardings, time lapse photography, filming the site with the use of drones and the website; the activity plan included hard hat visits, a viewing platform, school site visits and visits to schools by the construction team; an important part of this project was the engagement of the community.

(a)

community engagement was vital in the development of this project; the preferred developer had recognised this specific need and had produced a communications plan; 

(b)

it was acknowledged that Ward Councillors would welcome the opportunity to work closely with officers and the developers on this project.

(a)

resident engagement was vital in ensuring the required behaviour change required to increase the household recycling rate across the city;

(b)

with the proposed reduction in household waste going to the incinerator, it was not envisaged that there would be any implications relating to the council’s contractual commitments;

(c)

staff had been engaged at the earliest opportunity, with regard to the proposals for modernising the service; in order to a achieve this there would need to be a change in culture of the workforce;

(d)

it was acknowledged that further work was required to inform residents of the reasons why their bins had not been collected;

(e)

a pilot scheme had been implemented within the Drake ward which had resulted in individual bins being replaced with commercial bins; a communications exercise had been undertaken with residents to provide them with useful information on recycling, a map of where the bins were located, etc;

(f)

the alignment and deployment of services to maximise efficiency would assist in the modernisation of the service;

(g)

the process of gathering intelligence relating to fly tipping would be streamlined by the use of smarter technology;

(h)

the council did have the powers to enforce the removal of rubbish on privately owned  land;

(i)

the Plymouth Food Waste Partnership feasibility study would inform future options for food waste collection (however, food waste acted as an ‘enabler’ in the burning of waste at the Energy from Waste plant).

(1)

the Cabinet Member instructs officers to produce a full business case at the earliest opportunity; it should contain –

(a)

detailed assessments for the impact on staff, recycling and the city council’s budget;

(b)

how the preferred option reflects contributions made –

(i)

through the detailed public responses put forward in the ‘Time for Big Decisions’ consultation;

(ii)

by the Place and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee;

(iii)

the feasibility study from Plymouth Food Waste Partnership;

(2)

the Cabinet Member makes provision in the forward plan immediately for decisions regarding waste, so that –

(a)

members of the public who are subject to any changes to waste services have early notification of any changes;

(b)

staff who may be affected have clear view of the forward direction of the service;

(c)

an education and communication plan can be adequately prepared and delivered to mitigate any adverse impact on the people of Plymouth;

(3)

scrutiny will consider all implementation, communication and education plans in relation to the new Plan for Modernisations of Waste and Street Services.

?

Waterfront Business Improvement District;

?

Mayflower 400.