(i)

the Hoe Foreshore Task and Finish Group was complete as the Panel made recommendations to the Management Board at their last meeting which would be submitted to the 28 July 2010 meeting – this item had therefore been greyed out as complete and would be removed from the tracking resolutions document;

(ii)

the item on Destination South West had been moved to the Panel’s work programme – this item had therefore been greyed out as complete and would be removed from the tracking resolutions document;

(iii)

the item on Plymouth City Council Housing Services had not progressed specifically with regards to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board minute 94a recommendation ‘c’ as the Panel considered it was more appropriate to scrutinise homelessness and housing needs issues as a single Panel. It was agreed that the Panel recommend to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board that the Growth and Prosperity Panel add these items to their work programme and scrutinise the issues alone;

(iv)

the Events Strategy – Coherent Marketing Strategy (joint Task and Finish Group) had been added to the Panel’s work programme and would be developed alongside the Visitors Strategy – this item had therefore been greyed out as complete as it was on the work programme and would be removed from the Panel’s tracking resolutions document;

(v)

the Community Events and Road Closure Policy had been added to the Panel’s work programme and would be discussed later in the agenda; this item had therefore been greyed out as complete as it was on the work programme and would be removed from the Panel’s tracking resolutions document;

(vi)

the Tree Strategy, as discussed at the Panel’s last meeting on 14 June 2010 would not be added to the Panel’s work programme as it was noted that this issue would be highlighted to the Panel if it became a concern in the future; this item had therefore been greyed out and would be removed from the Panel’s tracking document;

(vii)

the item regarding the Panel’s terms of reference would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board on 28 July 2010;

(viii)

the Local Investment Plan should be added to the Panel’s work programme; this was agreed by the Panel;

(ix)

Section 106 Revenue should be added to the Panel’s work programme; it was acknowledged by the Panel that this item was already on their work programme;

(x)

Councillors Nicholson, Nelder and Berrow were nominated to sit on the South Devon Waste Partnership Joint Scrutiny Review; this was noted by the Panel

(i)

the policy could be made available in its final format within two months however this was not definite;

(ii)

it would be a good use of the Panel’s time to scrutinise this issue;

(iii)

it was considered unfair that the highways and transport budget should absorb the costs involved for all community events and road closures;

(iv)

it was important for these events to continue however it was also necessary to find out the impact of this upon resources;

(v)

having to spend this money on events and road closures had an impact upon the budget available for other transport projects;

(i)

the purpose of the Port of Plymouth study was to provide an evidence base for a port master plan, the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Review, the Local Economic Strategy Review and the Local Transport Plan 3;

(ii)

any port that handled over 1 million tonnes of goods was requested to produce a ports master plan; Plymouth had four ports which exceeded the aforementioned tonnage;

(iii)

all four ports in Plymouth did not have any port land;

(iv)

the work of the study consisted of baseline analysis, existing activities on the port, the ports assets, capacity and operating environment, the constraints and opportunities linked to the ports and a stakeholder workshop;

(v)

of the 60,000 vessel movements in 2009 in Plymouth ports, 75% were defence related;

(vi)

the key strengths identified in the study highlighted that Plymouth’s ports were well established and diverse, had relatively deep water and a natural harbour, were a major marine and waterside leisure location, had minimal coastal erosion and employed 12% of Plymouth’s population;

(vii)

the key weaknesses identified in the study highlighted that Plymouth’s ports  served largely local and regional commercial markets, had a limited mix of cargos, had a poor water depth at low tide and there was a lack of a single ‘champion for port interests;

(viii)

key opportunities identified in the study included an expansion of oil related cargos, a growing demand for marine / leisure based activity, a growth in demand for cruises, a strong policy support for sustainable freight transport (including short-sea shipping) and the potential release of vital port infrastructure at Devonport;

(ix)

key threats identified in the study included the competition for limited cargos and cruises, the need for infrastructure investment at Devonport, the HSE blast zone, lack of public funding for ports development, the loss of key waterside sites to non-port uses, limited expansion capacity at Cattewater & Sutton Harbour and port expansion constrained by local and regional transport networks;

(x)

the following scenarios were discussed by stakeholders however scenarios 1, 3 and 5 were discounted:

• Scenario 1 -   Safeguard existing position / business as usual
• Scenario 2 -   Targeted diversification

·        Scenario 3 - Managed contraction of commercial port facilities & enhancement of leisure role

• Scenario 4     Major step change/re-use of Devonport land and waterfront
• Scenario 5 -   Radical restructure

(xi)

possible next steps stemming from the study would include the Masterplan preparation, Coastal Action Plan, raising the profile of the Port by identifying a ‘Champion’, Cruise Market Feasibility/Action Plan and Safeguarding Cattewater Branch Line Track Bed;

(xii)

fishing employment was currently low for the city however was still seen as important;

(xiii)

the MOD would only allow the ports  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

(i)

a local staff survey identifying staff needs had not yet been completed however it was noted that acknowledgement and recognition of hard work were important factors;

(ii)

the Private Sector Housing team consisted of eight officers with a heavy workload; this was identified in the report;

(iii)

several local authorities had been contacted for benchmarking purposes;

(i)

was a new ‘not for profit’ landlord, was the largest housing association in the South West, had £250m of additional capital investment and was working on a major re-generation scheme in North Prospect;

(ii)

had met 100 day pledge which consisted of 125 promises in the business plan, provided a 5 year Business Plan, started North Prospect Plans, had provided new doors to properties, had installed new heating systems and achieved 27 of 125 promises

(iii)

had spent £4.7m on decent homes, issued new handbooks to all tenants, started improving neighbourhoods by estate inspections, created 120+ new jobs, created opportunities for apprenticeships, spent £500k on environmental improvement and started moving people out of North Prospect;

(iv)

had identified that only 41.5% of homes were decent, 66.01% of tenants were on Housing Benefit, 10% of tenants were unemployed, 73.25% tenants were satisfied with services and that £26m of savings needed to be made in the next 5 years;

(v)

needed to improve the caretaking service, produce detailed service standards and improve tenants access to our services;

(vi)

aimed to improve decency in homes, introduce a handy persons scheme and begin demolition in North Prospect;

(vii)

aimed to produce estate action plans, improve communal areas and get more tenants gardening;

(viii)

aimed to improve opportunities for resident involvement, improve communications and implement a scrutiny process;

(ix)

aimed to invest £1m in ICT equipment, deliver efficiency targets and continue to resource the North Prospect project.