·          

had officers bid for the £1.6m of funding associated with the National Disability Strategy launched by the Government?

·          

had the council been involved in supporting bids between faith groups and the Government associated with the £1m Faith New Deal Pilot Fund?

(a)

as contained within the report, the flow chart provided set out the process followed by officers when casework was raised regarding parking issues. Stage two of the flow chart was introduced in 2018 to allow the team to build historical data with parking records. Stages 1 – 5 was the listening, developing and proposal stages;

(b)

in current CPZ areas, healthcare assistants and business permits were available;

(c)

one of the challenges encountered with regards to CPZ was engagement from residents, specifically trying to get an outcome that everyone agreed upon. Sometimes the numbers needed to progress through the CPZ process were not met meaning plans could not be taken forward;

(d)

officers were still trying to assess the impact of Covid 19 with regards to people’s habits, specifically were they working from home more/ commuting more – both having an impact on parking and controlled parking zones;

(e)

Plymouth had 54 CPZ with three legacy one hour zones, and three legacy two hour zones – the current policy introduced in 2018 introduced a minimum of three hour zones;

(f)

the report prepared set out the background to CPZ, the challenges identified alongside the background of support that the team had been able to provide over numerous wards as well as an outline suggestion of areas of discussion for the committee.

(g)

with regards to capacity, it was acknowledged that the team had worked in a different way in the last 18 months due to the pandemic, however there were  still areas of the city that still experienced commuter parking issues. It was queried what was the capacity of the team to look at CPZ currently requested as well as new applications, especially considering different areas’ parking issues may have changed during the pandemic;

(h)

when officers considered the implementation of CPZ, were they also looking at the potential overspill (displacement) of parking problems in neighbouring streets and the impact the CPZ may have overall and not just for the street/s applied for?

(i)

did the update take into consideration manifesto commitment 71 (“we recognise that residential parking is an issue so we will provide funds and work with communities to create additional neighbourhood car parking spaces to be reconfigured in areas to allow diagonal and perpendicular parking”) ? – had cost implications been considered? When would officers be in a position to commence and complete this manifesto commitment?

(j)

what sort of accountability and checking system was there with regards to the approval of business parking permits? It was considered by some Peverell ward residents that people were applying and being automatically approved for business parking permits who shouldn’t be eligible, or for social/ leisure use?

(k)

it was questioned how manifesto commitment 62 (“to assist residents living near  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

1.     

figures regarding government funding received by the Council linked to the Move On Fund would be provided to Members; Funding was received however the actual figure was not known as this went directly to the Social Housing provider;

2.     

clarification as to whether the Council had submitted a response to the ‘Domestic Abuse support within a safe accommodation: statutory guidance and regulations consultation’ by the close date of 27 July 2021 would be provided to Members. The Council had submitted a response however the actual response was not available as it was submitted online.

(a)

the figures within the report would fluctuate over the course of the remaining months however it was hoped that they would travel in the right direction to balance the budget which was the key objective;

(b)

overall, in terms of the variants total, the Council had moved from a £1.276m overspend to a £1.446m overspend – this was highlighted as going in the wrong direction. Within the CCS directorate (Corporate and Customer Services Directorate) it had moved from £1.382m overspend to a £1.498m overspend. The Business Support Review, which fell under this directorate, had slipped by one month due to the impact of covid and this had had an adverse effect upon the timings/ savings. Within the overspend, there were other savings targets likely to be delivered later than planned, and included a legacy of £949,000 and the facility management saving target of £550,000. The Management Team continued to monitor the savings targets closely and assurance was given that the directorate was moving in the right direction; the August finance report included a positive significant move in the figures provided;

(c)

Members were aware of the unprecedented financial pressures on the Council’s finances due to the Covid 19 pandemic; those pressures still remained as infection rates in the city were above the regional and national averages. There was a commitment to continue to show the position of the additional costs and income lost due to Covid 19 which was currently showing a drawdown against grants of approximately £15.5m; these were set out in section b of the report. A full disclosure of revenue savings targets was included in appendix a of the report;

(d)

 against the directorate total savings target of £4.571m, there was £2.266m worth of savings on track which was just shy of the 50% target the Council was aspiring to achieve by the end of the year;

(e)

it was considered that the Council had now seen the peak of the element of forecast overspend described by the Leader. Officers were now preparing the period 5 financial report which would arrive for further discussion by scrutiny in the future. It was expected that there would be a very significant reduction in the variants described, and this followed on from the work linked to the management of the CCS finances. Officers were working hard with the directorate to mitigate the overspend identified.

(f)

with regards to the Childrens Services Directorate and the addition to the department’s budget of £3m raised at the Council’s budget setting meeting, as well as the added one off payment of £7.914m covid relief grant from Government, what actions was the Leader taking to address the Childrens Services Budget? Could the Leader share if he had a plan b and what that was?

(g)

it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

(a)

the report covered the period April to June 2021 and could be used by the committee to help develop their work programme by identifying areas for further scrutiny;

(b)

key areas of good performance included:

·        

there was an improvement on the percentage of streets graded as acceptable identified by street audits carried out by the highways team;

·        

the Council was continuing to improve target spend in the PL postcode including, in quarter one, the procurement of good and services from 1188 suppliers;

·        

there was improved performance on new corporate indicator carriageway defects completed on time to 98.8%;

·        

the Council was achieving its target for homelessness prevention however homelessness in general was still a persistent pressure with high numbers of households still in temporary bed and breakfast or temporary accommodation;

·        

there was an improvement on the resolution of stage 1 complaints; in quarter one 93% were resolved within expected timescales;

·        

the Council was achieving its target for the trajectory for collection of council tax;

(c)

key areas of performance challenges included:

·        

an increase in the average number of rough sleepers each week;

·        

sickness levels in quarter one had crept up however were now on target.

(d)

pressures in homelessness and rough sleepers were highlighted in the report, how and where did those pressures reflect in the risks in the current budget delivery – what was the effect on the current revenue budget?

(e)

page 15 and 16 of the agenda set out the performance data for children, young people and adults protected – these numbers were increasing month on month and failing to meet targets. The Council was looking after more children and they were feeling less safe and secure in the Council’s service – this was of concern;

(f)

the current administration had made seven manifesto commitments about housing – in terms of performance of building new homes, how was the council going to deal with current issues associated with the supply of material and skilled labour?

(g)

could the Leader provide assurance that the Stoggy Lane project for housing  would continue and be brought forward in a timely manner?

(h)

Plymouth City Council had recently won Council of the Year, therefore was it time to consider tougher targets so continuous development could be achieved?

1.      

to recommend that performance issues highlighted in the Corporate Plan Performance Report with an associated budget pressure should also appear in the Financial Monitoring Report;

2.      

to note the Corporate Plan Quarter One Performance Report.

·        

Trade Waste – to be a small task and finish group, potentially in part 2 (private) due to its commercially sensitive nature;

·        

Gambling Policy – to be a small task and finish group to discuss changes in the policy and the impact on Plymouth and the potential impact on mental health, addiction;

·        

Leisure Services – to be a small task and finish group starting in part 2 (private) with a selection of Councillors joining an officer group – then moving in to part 1 to discuss implications and delivery;

·        

Environment Bill Update – to be scheduled for December meeting to discuss how the Bill would affect the waste strategy and what financial impact it would have upon the Council;

·        

Business Support Review Update to move to March meeting;

·        

People Strategy Update – the strategy and update on the action plan to be circulated to Councillors, potential issues to be discussed at the following formal scrutiny meeting under ‘work programme’ if further scrutiny is required;

·        

Member Development Update to be moved to March meeting;

·        

Equality and Diversity Update to be moved to March meeting;

·        

Bereavement Services Update to be considered at the December meeting.