(1)

that Sue Eden, substituting for the panel’s Lead Officer, would clarify with Clint Jones, City Centre Manager, if any further information was available to support the data provided to members in the CACI report;

(2)

to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 August 2012.

(1)

Paul Barnard, Assistant Director for Planning, provide a report, to be circulated to all members by email, on the proposed new Planning laws;

(2)

government proposals to change the planning system is added to the panel’s work programme and a Planning Officer is invited to attend the next meeting to explain the proposals in more detail.

(a)

the report submitted provided a position statement on the city’s connectivity and what the council were doing to address connectivity issues within the city, such as:

·         increasing broadband speeds in areas that received less than two megabits per second (Mbps);

·         reduce the impact of digital exclusion; the term used to describe a group who find it difficult or are unwilling to connect to broadband, therefore disadvantaging them from other groups which can connect to broadband;

·         dealing with increased demand for connectivity within the city and aspiring to get the superfast broadband (broadband speeds of 20Mbps or over) in all city areas;

(b)

Plymouth had good levels of broadband connectivity with an average city broadband speed of 8.7Mbps, which compared favourably against the national average of 6.7Mbps;

(c)

superfast broadband speeds were available in 88 per cent of the city, although take-up of broadband in these areas was only 69 per cent;

(d)

in order to raise the citywide availability of superfast broadband the Council were working closely with BT and partners to increase broadband usage and encourage companies to provide the infrastructure to produce superfast broadband speeds.

(e)

Plymstock and Roborough, two localities within the city, had poor broadband speeds and the Council were working with BT to improve connectivity in those areas by using demand stimulation; a broadband take up campaign using posters, leaflets, speaking at local public and business events and publishing newspaper articles;

(f)

BT Openreach, provider of broadband services, by law had to resell their network to other providers as a result of the denationalisation in the 1980s, which was the main reason that the Council were working collaboratively with this company;

(g)

improvements to mobile phone networks and the supply of 4G network services could assist in improved broadband speeds and mitigate the impact of digital exclusion;

(h)

with regard to digital exclusion, the Social Inclusion Unit were working closely with organisations and local residents on the social elements of broadband connectivity. 

(1)

Tim Jones, Chairman of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, is invited to the next meeting to inform the panel what the LEP was doing to help Plymouth and how it planned to improve economic activity in Plymouth;

(2)

in order to aid the panel’s discussion the following information is emailed to all members in advance of the next meeting –

·         funding arrangements for the LEP;

·         what applications have been submitted by Plymouth City Council and Private Sector companies within Plymouth?

·         what is the relationship between the LEP and the Plymouth Growth Board?

·         what alternatives would exist if Plymouth were to remove its involvement with the LEP?

(a)

the actions required following the recommendations by the task and finish group had been delayed due to the Transport department’s restructure;

(b)

despite the confusion surrounding charges for Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTROs) for community events, the Council had funded all community events which met the criteria;

(c)

the Council had a clear policy on road closures, charging schedules and what was expected of event organisers, however, it was acknowledged that the delay in producing a list of events which would receive the road closure for free may have caused confusion amongst the public;

(d)

due to the Council no longer having to advertise TTROs in the local press charges had been reduced from £1000 to between £500 and no charge;

(e)

TTRO charging was being monitored and reviewed annually to ensure that all charges were appropriate and realistic in providing a cost neutral service.

(f)

they were disappointed that an approved list of events which the council would provide TTROs free of charge had not been completed, two years after the recommendations produced by the task and finish group were agreed;

(g)

the uncertainty surrounding charging for TTROs for community events may have had a knock on effect by impacting on local businesses who rely on visitors attending these events;

(h)

a timescale needed to be agreed with the Transport department and Cabinet Member for Transport in order to progress the recommendations and provide a clearer service to local communities.

(a)

a road maintenance priority list for 2012 – 2013 existed and was used to dictate which roads were to be improved in the current financial year;

(b)

the priority list was an ever growing list with the level of priority operating fluidly, as roads were continually added to the list and their inclusion and level of priority was determined against a set of criteria which included –

·         the number of defects previously reported/attended;

·         other defects that were not safety related;

·         any previous insurance claims on the road;

·         whether the road was used as a bus route;

·         whether the road was situated close to important amenities;

(c)

AMEY, the Council’s Highways service contractor, had developed a Winter Service Operation Plan, which now planned the gritting frequency of roads within the city;

(d)

it was hoped that to compliment the Winter Service Operation Plan a Winter Service Policy would be submitted to Cabinet later in the year;

(e)

with regard to third party accident claims, if an accident occurred and was not reported to the police then the Council would not be aware of that incident and could not include it in any data.

(1)

Ian Ellis would provide a briefing report on the maintenance of cycle routes to all panel members via email;

(2)

Ian Ellis would email to all panel members a copy of the Winter Service Plan and the most recent priority list for road maintenance.

(a)

if the council wanted residents to receive information, regarding any subject, then it was the council’s responsibility to inform the public and not members;

(b)

following the planning department’s decision to no longer send letters to householders, due to rises in postage costs, it would be unreasonable for members to undertake a blanket mail-out to residents informing them of planning applications;

(c)

members wishing to inform members of the public on planning applications should do so on what they consider to be a reasonable basis.

(d)

a protocol on the determination of reasonableness could assist members in future when deciding whether to communicate to residents any planning applications within their wards;

(e)

members were now informed and consulted on the location of site notices within their wards and this, if sited correctly would adequately inform local residents of any local planning applications.