Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Warspite Room, Council House
Contact: Rosie Brookshaw Email: democraticsupport@plymouth.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Declarations of Interest Councillors will be asked to make any declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda. Minutes:
|
|||||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2024. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held 16 October 2024 were agreed as a true and accurate record.
|
|||||||||
Chair's Urgent Business To receive reports on business which in the opinion of the Chair, should be brought forward for urgent consideration. Minutes: There were no items of Chair’s urgent business.
|
|||||||||
Central Park Petition - Response Report Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Finn introduced the item and highlighted the following points:
a)
The Ponds Project was the most recent project to come forward as
part of the Central Park Improvement Plan;
b)
The Project was the third phase of the original Central Park
Project;
c)
The business case for the project was approved on 21 January 2022
and the aim was to transform water from a problem, to a
resource;
d)
The project involved re-landscaping the area of the park to provide
a nature-based solution to flooding using sustainable drainage
systems and to manage surface water and provide space for wildlife
and the public;
e)
The petition submitted, which ran from 16 July 2024 to 31 August
2024, raised four key issues. Amanda Pannell
(petition author) added:
f)
The petition came about due to Plymouth City Council’s (PCC)
failure to communicate effectively and consider the needs of their
residents;
g)
Over 3000 park users and residents signed the ‘Fix Our
Park’ petition, and this would have been more but some
members of the public were not comfortable with sharing their
personal details;
h)
Regardless of Council Officers opinions and justifications for the
way they had communicated, 3000 people felt misinformed and
ignored;
i)
The public disputed some claims within the report, including that
the Ponds Project had featured a significant level of public
engagement before plans were finalised, and that a film was created
to ensure the public could visualise the final scheme;
j)
Only two of the 3000 members of the public who signed the petition
stated they had input on the plans, and that was due to their
membership to the now defunct ‘Friends of Central Park’
group;
k)
The film that was created to ensure the public could see what the
site would look like after the work was finished was not true to
what the park now looked like;
l)
There was genuine anger from members of the public about the lack
of information, and some blamed themselves for not taking the time
to investigate and challenge the plans before they took
place;
m)
From November 2022 to December 2023, park users were blocked from
using large areas of the park whilst witnessing felled trees,
enduring the noise from generators and heavy machinery and
experiencing detours through muddy, unlit diversions;
n)
Incorrect information was given regarding when paths would open up
again;
o)
From January 2024 no work was carried out for eight months, which
created stagnant water, fly tipping, unwelcoming signs and
overgrown paths;
p)
Members of the public lodged complaints online, over the phone and
spoke to both local Councillors and MPs;
q)
The public felt the petition was the only way to gain the
Council’s attention and create accountability for the work
done in the park;
r)
The petition authors had appreciated meeting with Council officers
within the park; s) Resurfacing of paths at Barn Park had started without public warning which created confusion to regular users who could not utilise their normal ... view the full minutes text for item 20. |
|||||||||
Household Waste and Recycling Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Briars-Delve (Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change) introduced the report and highlighted the following points:
a)
The year to date recycling rate was 37.5% which was lower than the
national average;
b)
The recycling rate at the two recycling centres in Plymouth
averaged at 63%;
c)
The Net Zero Action Plan (NZAP) had a target for most of
Plymouth’s waste to be recycled by 2030;
d)
Although recycling was important, PCC aimed to create awareness of
reducing and reusing. This had resulted in several collaborations
with local organisations including Little Camden Market, Cafco and
the Devon and Cornwall Furniture Reuse Project;
e)
PCC had been running a recycling engagement campaign over the past
12 months;
f)
Work had been done around Green Community Hubs, including a
partnership project with Generous Earth for community
composting;
g)
A Councillor had been appointed as the Zero Waste
Champion;
h)
An Executive Decision for £2 million had been approved to
procure vehicles and bins ready to introduce food waste collection
in Plymouth. This was mainly grant funded;
i)
There would be a push on recycling engagement over the 2024/25
festive period;
j)
The Street Services team had been restructured, and Recycling
Officers would be introduced to work on provoking behavioural
change and public engagement with regards to recycling; k) Work had been undertaken to understand the waste compositional analysis of residual waste containers.
In response to questions, it was explained:
l)
The benchmark for national recycling rates included food waste,
which Plymouth did not yet have;
m)
MVV Energie had a Community Engagement team working to actively
encourage members of the public to recycle;
n)
The initial capital investment for food waste collections was
funded primarily by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) to procure vehicles and caddies;
o)
Only 0.12% of waste collections were reported as missing;
p)
Although health and safety was not included in the report, a
briefing note could be given to Members with this
information;
q)
The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPT) scheme would change the
way packaging was developed, making it easier to recycle;
r)
Food waste would be processed through anaerobic digestion which
would create compost material and renewable energy. The Panel agreed to note the report.
|
|||||||||
City Centre Car Parks Additional documents: Minutes: Philip Robinson (Service Director for Street Services) introduced the report and highlighted the following points:
a)
There were inherent challenges with car parking capacity in the
city centre. Mike Artherton (Group Manager for Parking Marine Garage) added:
b) The report was a snapshot of the parking in the cite centre and outlined how the parking was used, what the current challenges were and what next steps would be to mitigate these challenges;
In response to
questions, it was explained:
c)
Interdepartmental discussions were taking place to mitigate parking
issues related to housing in the city centre;
d)
Electric vehicle charging ports where being introduced throughout
car parks in Plymouth in a way that considered the weight of
electric vehicles in multi-storey car parks;
e)
Work had been carried out which gave PCC a baseline on current
parking, how it was used and how it would change over the
years;
f)
There would always be challenges both with car parking and real
estate in the city centre. The Panel agreed to note the report.
|
|||||||||
Minutes: The Panel agreed to note the update and agree to receive a full briefing in February 2025.
|
|||||||||
Minutes: During discussion the following requests were made:
a)
Bus Shelter Contract. The Panel agreed to note its Work Programme. |
|||||||||
Minutes: The Panel agreed to note its Tracking Decisions.
|