(a)

the involvement of the Lord Mayor in this event;

(b)

whether the Council had received feedback as to why its Heritage Lottery Fund bid had not been successful;

(c)

the impact/risk to the event of not being successful in winning other Heritage Lottery Fund bids/grants;

(d)

the perception of neighbouring authorities that insufficient work was being undertaken to maximise their opportunities with this event;

(e)

the work being undertaken to tell the story of this historic event from differing perspectives;

(f)

whether work could be undertaken with Pride in Plymouth in order to secure Plymouth Pride in 2020;

(g)

how the event would be marketed internationally (in particular to America).

(1)

to support the continuing delivery of the Mayflower 400 programme in Plymouth and nationally;

(2)

to support the required bids into grant funding opportunities to secure additional funding for the overall programme;

(3)

to support the work growing international relationships up to and beyond 2020 for the long term economic and community benefit of the city;

(4)

engage with the Civic Office to investigate a greater role for the Lord Mayor within the event’s programme.

(a)

the cost involved in undertaking a Highways Impact Assessment as part of this process;

(b)

whether wide pavements could be used to increase parking capacity within the City;

(c)

the lack of public consultation regarding the new policy;

(d)

concerns regarding who should be included in the formal consultation process (ie whether each resident had a vote, or one vote per household, or residents on the electoral register);

(e)

the measures being put in place to encourage more people to use public transport;

(f)

concerns regarding the minimum percentage (51%) of balloted residents that needed to be in favour of a Controlled Parking Zone, in order to pursue the scheme;

(g)

the need for clear communications during the process to ensure residents were aware and understood the impact of implementing a scheme, or not;

(h)

concerns that in mixed areas of the City only residents were involved with the informal/formal consultation process thus excluding businesses and schools;

(i)

the need to have a process within the policy for medium term schemes which were strategically driven;

(j)

whether schemes currently being assessed through the existing policy would now need to be considered using the new policy.

(1)

that a clear communication strategy focussing on the impact on residents of a Controlled Parking Zone is required, in order to ensure awareness and understanding of the impact of such a scheme;

(2)

that consideration is given to the informal/formal consultation process in mixed areas, in order that not only residents but businesses and schools are able to vote on such schemes;

(3)

the inclusion within the policy of a process for medium term schemes which are strategically driven;

(4)

to consider who should be included in the formal consultation process (ie whether each resident had a vote, or one vote per household, or residents on the electoral register) and the inclusion within the policy of a process for counting the consultation responses.

(a)

whether an assurance would be given that no resources would be diverted from the work relating to the examination of the Plymouth and  South West Devon Joint Local Plan, in order to undertake the initial collaboration stage of due diligence/strategic options analysis;

(b)

how would this agreement impact on Plymouth’s reputation;

(c)

concerns regarding the lack of involvement from elected members relating to the termination of the collaborative agreement;

(d)

whether all members and in particular Shadow Cabinet Members could be involved in the briefings;

(e)

whether there would be conflict of interests regarding the planning process.

(1)

the involvement of elected members in the termination of the collaboration agreement;

(2)

cross party working in Plymouth (including briefing Shadow Cabinet Members).

(a)

what period the ‘waste only – customer call demand and percentage answered graph (quarter 3 2017/18)’ related to;

(b)

how customer complaints were handled in the First Stop shop when the cash machines had been removed;

(c)

the capacity of the system to deal with an influx of out of hour calls;

(d)

the length of time it took to speak to a Call Centre adviser (in some cases 20 minutes);

(e)

the lack of performance data (other than waste) regarding the calls handled through the contact centre.