(a)

initially in 2013 there was a small budget set aside for highways schemes in the city that could be requested by the police, MPs, local Councillors and local residents; there were approximately 2000 requests per year of which it was considered that only 1200 applications were valid;

(b)

the valid schemes would be judged alongside a set criteria to ensure they were of benefit to the city; out of the 1200 valid applications, officers considered they could only realistically deliver 10 requests;

(c)

Councillor Coker, as Cabinet Member for Transport, amended the scheme to the Living Streets budget whereby ward councillors were allocated a sum of money, approximately £4000 per ward, to help prioritise works via consultation with local residents;

(d)

the programme was designed for small highways schemes that, when implemented,  could benefit the quality of life for local communities;

(e)

the Living Streets scheme was introduced as a pilot and mistakes had occurred due to miscommunication, but the workings of the scheme had improved;

(f)

it was considered that local Councillors were best placed to advise on priorities for their local community. Once a scheme had been submitted it was the job of officers to develop initial costs and design the scheme; this could take up to six weeks;

(g)

schemes relating to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) or works involved with underground services could take up to a minimum of six weeks to progress due to the requirement to advertise; planned traffic or highways works to be undertaken in the area would also be considered;

(h)

scheme costs were continually reviewed to ensured that Councillors were provided with the most accurate information available; the Council was only charged for the cost of work incurred;

(i)

schemes involving TROs including double yellow lines, controlled parking zones or speed limits had to be advertised due to a statutory requirement; this added costs and time to the scheme;

(j)

90 schemes had been delivered through the Living Streets programme;

(k)

Councillors had been provided with their Living Streets information packs for 2015/16 and had been invited to meet with officers to discuss options;

(l)

officers fell behind with schemes in the last quarter of the financial year as several applications were committed during this period and Officers were not prepared for this;

(m)

applications linking to white bar markings or disabled parking bays should not be submitted through the Living Streets budget as these were subject to separate rules and regulations.

(n)

pedestrian crossings were included within the scope of the Livings Streets scheme;

(o)

the Living Streets table of schemes did not list who requested the scheme or when it was requested; Officers agreed to provide this information for future schemes as well as monthly updates including updated information as the schemes progresses, the date schemes were requested and approved, estimated budget figures, actual budget figures and a rolling balance per Ward/ Councillor;

(p)

Officers had undergone training for the administration of the Living Streets scheme;

(q)

Officers took on board comments that Ward Councillors should see all applications for the Living Streets scheme before they were added to the published list;

(r)

Officers were double checking applications to ensure that requests were allocated to the correct ward budget;

(s)

Officers agreed to email Working Plymouth Councillors with a copy of the Living Streets powerpoint presentation;

(t)

every scheme was assessed on its own merits;

(u)

the Council was under contract with Amey to undertake works associated with the Living Streets scheme; Members were assured that value for money was provided;

(v)

works undertaken by Amey were of a high quality and those employed were accredited to work on the highway network. Services that had to be re-routed because of works carried out by Amey would be put back correctly.