Agenda and minutes

This being the first meeting of the new civic year the Chairman welcomed all those present.

Up to 15 minutes are allowed for public participation.  Participants are restricted to 3 minutes each.

The Chairman advised the Committee that one person had registered to address the Committee, regarding Agenda item 6 (a) (Update and Comments from the Public on the Implementation of Parking Charges in Market Rasen). 

The Chairman then welcomed Mr Adrian Campbell to the meeting and invited him to address the Committee. 

Mr Campbell then made the following statement to the Committee: -

“Shop owners in Market Rasen are continually reporting that in their view the town is declining but there has not been a report in any published Government or WLDC document to support this statistically.

Gainsborough, on the other hand, has had its retail health improvement reported authoritatively.

WLDC and other local authorities consult and report "Venuescore" widely, a ranking system for UK shopping centres. WLDC reports Gainsborough "advancing 257 places from 611th in 2007 to 354th in 2010."

According to that same "Venuescore" source over the same time period, Market Rasen fell in rank from 1,540th place to 2,107th.

A year later (2011) Market Rasen was even lower at 2,289th. After a short-lived boost to 1,907th as a Portas Pilot town, Market Rasen declined again to 2010th in 2014 and further to 2034th place in 2015.

This represents a drop of nearly 500 places since Market Rasen had it SRB regeneration. A stark contrast to Gainsborough's success.

Your Committee has not been given this information.

Whilst accepting that "Venuescore" is only 1 measure of retail 'health' does the PPC consider that, before parking charges are implemented, a report needs to be produced on Market Rasen's retail 'health' and in particular the likely effect of charging for car parking when the declared policy of WLDC to Market Rasen and Caistor is "To maintain and enhance their roles as market towns".

Does it also agree that "maintain and enhance" should refer to Market Rasen at its post SRB regeneration (2007) level.”

Mr Campbell further advised of a local petition regarding this matter that had been submitted to the Council containing over 2000 signatures.

The Chairman thanked Mr Campbell for his comments.

Members sought and received confirmation that Mr Campbell’s petition had been received and acknowledged, with Mr Campbell confirming he had been advised it would be debated at a future Council meeting, the date of which was to be advised.

Councillor Young made reference to a previously received petition on parking in Gainsborough and requested that both petitions be considered at the same time, as in his view the matter had not been dealt with appropriately in the first instance.

Mr Campbell was advised that in accordance with the public participation procedure as the Committee had had little advance notice of Mr Campbell’s submission he would receive a full written response within 7 days.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Meeting of the Prosperous Communities Committee held on 26 April 2016 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Meeting of the Prosperous Communities Committee held on 9 May 2016 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Matters Arising schedule setting out current position of previously agreed actions as at 27 May 2016

Members gave consideration to the Matters Arising Schedule which set out the current position of all previously agreed actions as at Monday 27 May 2016.

Relating to a previous resolution passed by the Committee, confirmation was sought and received that the Authority had now joined the Humber LEP.

RESOLVED that progress on the Matters Arising Schedule, as set out in report PRCC.02 16/17 be received and noted.

Members may make any declarations of interest at this point but may also make them at any time during the course of the meeting.

Councillor Tom Smith declared a personal interest in report, Update and Comments from the Public on the Implementation of Parking Charges in Market Rasen, as he had signed the petition referred to by Mr Campbell, was the Local Ward Member and a Market Rasen Town Councillor.

Councillor Steve England declared a personal interest in report, Welton Neighbourhood Plan – Approval to go Referendum, as he was the Member Champion for Neighbourhood Planning.

Councillor Trevor Young declared a pecuniary interest in report, Gainsborough Townscape Heritage Initiative, as the owner of property on Silver Street Gainsborough and indicated that he would not take part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillor Paul Howitt-Cowan declared a personal interest in report, Hemswell Cliff Masterplan, as he was the Local Ward Member.

Consideration was given to a report which sought to provide Members with an update on progress and implementation costs.

The report also provided an overview of the comments received back from the public in response to the proposed implementation of parking charges in Market Rasen, as outlined in the WLDC Car Parking Strategy.

In total over 120 responses were received during the 28 day period during which the proposals were advertised in affected car parks and the public were able to submit comments, prior to the order being formally made and implemented.

It was noted that alongside these comments there was also a petition submitted, which would be considered at Council.

The responses had been reviewed and categorised into the following themes:

·        Businesses and Shops

·        Prices and Times

·        Residents

·        Town Centre

The Local Community had raised concerns about the sustainability of the town following the implementation of the charges.

Officers outlined the options that Members may be minded to give consideration to as detailed in Section 4 of the report.

However, given the level of charging that was being proposed and the Council’s commitment to reducing its bottom line costs, together with the subsequent need to cover existing liability and maintenance costs, the recommendation was to continue with the implementation of the parking charges as planned, with a commitment to closely monitor the impact on the town for the initial 6 month period to ensure any appropriate changes could be made promptly.  It was stressed that the Authority did not currently hold a large amount of data on the usage of car parks within Market Rasen.

Debate ensued and the Local Ward Member indicated that he whole-heartedly agreed with and supported the feedback received regarding the impact and effect on local shops and businesses.  He encouraged the Council to consider implementing free short stay parking with enforcement in the area as opposed to the proposed pay and display.  Some held the view that the introduction of parking charges in Market Rasen would be detrimental to the town and were a short term fix.

In responding to Members’ enquiries regarding parking enforcement in Market Rasen, Officers confirmed that they would extend the contract with the current providers in order to cover Market Rasen and on expiry of the revised contract, including Market Rasen, would be re-tendered.

A Gainsborough Member challenged Mr Campbell’s view that “all was rosy in Gainsborough” and outlined a number of problems the town centre and its businesses were experiencing.  The same Gainsborough Member shared concerns that parking charges could affect local businesses and shops but expressed greater concerns with the level and style of parking enforcement being undertaken.  He considered this was a bigger risk to the local economy and was turning people away.

Opposing views were expressed by fellow Committee Members, some with experience of trying to park in Market Rasen, who considered at present parking spaces were occupied all day long by commuters and therefore this did not assist businesses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Consideration was given to a report which presented the up-to-date position in terms of the development of Welton by Lincoln Neighbourhood Plan.  The report recommended that the Plan proceed to the Public Referendum stage following a successful independent examination.

The Committee commended the work undertaken by the Neighbourhood Planning Officer, the support he offered local communities and welcomed the submission of many more Neighbourhood Plans to come.

RESOLVED that the Welton by Lincoln Neighbourhood Plan be formally approved to advance to the Public Referendum stage, in line with the advice received from the Independent Examiner.

Consideration was given to a report which proposed the introduction of a Neighbourhood Planning “top-up” funding structure by West Lindsey District Council.  In presenting the report the Chief Operating Officer suggested that the recommendation be amended to incorporate the information contained in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the report, which detailed the criteria that would be applied and the maximum level of grant which would be offered. 

The Committee whole heartedly supported the introduction of the scheme and welcomed the news that there were now 25 Neighbourhood Plans in train across the District.

The work of the Neighbourhoods Planning Officer and the Member Champion for Neighbourhood Planning was commended.

RESOLVED that the proposed Neighbourhood Planning “top up” funding scheme be formally approved; subject to: -

(i)         the scheme being limited to a total of £25,000 for the 2016/17 financial year;

(ii)        any neighbourhood planning group applying for top up funding must supply evidence that they have attempted to access all available external funding for neighbourhood planning (locality and big lottery)

(iii)       any neighbourhood planning group applying for top up funding must demonstrate where they have used the funding they have already accessed and what the top up funding will be used for.

(iv)       top up funding will only be made available where it is essential to the formal adoption of the neighbourhood plan; and

(v)        individual top up grants will be a maximum of £5000 per neighbourhood planning group.

Consideration was given to a report which briefed Members on the proposed Townscape Heritage Initiative Bid for Gainsborough Town Centre.

It was noted that the Town Heritage Initiative Fund was a grant programme administered by the Heritage Lottery Fund which supported schemes that aimed to regenerate the historic environment in towns and cities across the United Kingdom. It was one of Heritage Lottery’s ways of achieving their strategic priority to promote conservation as an essential part of urban regeneration.

The Heritage Lottery Fund offered support to around twenty THI schemes per year, previously one had been undertaken in Caistor in West Lindsey. Gainsborough had been identified due to fact that the Conservation Areas that cover the town centre (Britannia Works and Town Centre) were on the Historic England “Heritage at Risk” register, this coupled with the underlying need for regeneration of the town centre meant that the THI bid would be a significant part of the heritage led regeneration of the town centre.

In presenting the report Officers provided Members with background information which supported the need for a bid.  The bid would seek to address a number of areas that had been identified in recent studies including: -

·              Under occupied and under utilised town centre

·              Poor state of repair of the urban environment

·              Predominance of derelict brownfield land (legacy of de-industrialisation)

·              Lack of connection to the riverfront

·              Lack of strong identity

·              Overt pockets of social deprivation

·              Market stigma.

A long list of projects with indicative costings had been drawn up and included:-

·              Frontage Enhancements and Fabric Repairs (including Shop Front Replacement) on Silver Street, Lord Street, Market Place, Church Street (north), Parnell Street, Bridge Street, Cobden Street, Morley Street, Gladstone Street;

·              Living Above the Shop on Silver Street, Lord Street, Market Place and Church Street (north);

·              Boundary Improvements to All Saints Church, Gainsborough Old Hall, residential streets surrounding the Old Hall, Gladstone Street (south) and the United Reformed Church;

·              Public Realm Improvements of varying quality, to be agreed under a Streetscape Guide for Church Street (south), Church Street (north), Gladstone Street, Parnell Street, Bright Street, Gooden Street, Morley Street and Caskgate Street

·              Interpretive Signage - on Parish Church (All Saints) - Pilgrim Fathers, Old Hall - Richard III, Market Place, Waterfront - Canute and Elswitha Hall;

·              Sculpture (by subscription) - low priority but in the long term, produce a sculpture of King Canute.

Debate ensued and the proposals were whole-heartedly and enthusiastically supported by Members.  Confirmation was sought and received that any works undertaken (in the event of a successful bid) would not affect, but further enhance the previous public realm work undertaken.

Several Members were very supportive of the “Living above the Shops” project and considered this would help re-vitalise the town centre by supporting local businesses.  People tended to shop where they lived so making the market place both a business and residential space again was considered a very positive step.

In response to Members’ questions, Officers confirmed that public displays and consultations regarding the proposals would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Members gave consideration to a report which presented the contents of the Hemswell Cliff Masterplan and outlined its proposals and recommendations to drive forward the social and economic regeneration of the wider settlement.

In presenting the report the 9 principles set out in the masterplan were further outlined and the rationale behind them was shared with Members.

Appendix 2 of the report further set out successes achieved in the last 5 years across all of the ex-MoD sites.

Debate ensued and the Committee welcomed the holistic approach that was being taken across the settlement and recognised the importance of the community having a sense of place about where they lived.  All were in agreement that some of the workshops located in the area were in need of urgent attention.  It was acknowledged that there were several key business players located in the area trading in European and Global markets who played a key part in the district’s economy. All were agreement that the settlement had lots to be positive about and lots of potential.

It was suggested that further dialogue should take place with local landowners regarding the flooding issues present in the area.

Officers confirmed that they had been attempting to contact the private owners of the former Mess.

RESOLVED that:

(a)       the Hemswell Cliff Masterplan proposal and Delivery Programme be approved as the basis of the Council’s strategy to further develop the FEZ and drive forward the social and economic regeneration of the wider settlement; and

(b)       it be RECOMMENDED to the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee that the release of the capital programme and revenue funding allocated to deliver this initiative be approved.

Members gave consideration to the final Progress and Delivery report for 2015/16 year, which highlighted the areas where services were “off target”, the reasons for this and the proposed rectifications.  The report also provided Members with an opportunity to examine the reasons why performance was off track and seek assurance that the measures which had been put in place were sufficient to tackle the issues which had been identified with the service.

The report also updated Members on those areas which had been highlighted in the third quarter report, these being: -

·         Complaints Received

·         Gainsborough Markets

·         Local Land Charges

·         Development Management

·         Enforcement

and further updates were given on each.         

Further “over performing” measures, not already mentioned were highlighted to the Committee and included the Assets and Facilities Management Function for their work on void properties and customer satisfaction levels, the Council Tax Team for their collection rates and the Trinity Arts Centre for its reduced operating costs.

Whilst the report was primarily an exceptions one, Members were provided with a flavour of activity currently ongoing in those areas which were on target or delivery as anticipated, including information on : -

·         The Home Choices Team, in particular with regard to Choice Based Lettings

·         The HR Team, in particular with regard to the work of the staff engagement group and the lowest sickness absence figures recorded since data collection commenced in 2009.

Debate ensued and a Member sought indication as to how many of those complaints received in the Planning Department related to general permitted development rights.  As this information was not available Officers undertook to provide this outside of the meeting to the Councillor concerned, but offered assurance that the figure would be relatively low.

In responding to Members’ comments regarding capacity in the Enforcement Team, Officers confirmed that whilst this was a small team within the Council, it was resilient and adopted a prioritised approach to the cases it received.   The increased demand on service was primarily as a result of Housing Enforcement requests and it was considered this had risen due to the service promotion which had been undertaken.  It was noted that resources in the Team had been reviewed and the Authority was recruiting an additional Senior Enforcement Officer.  Furthermore short term admin support was being offered to the team.

The continued improvements at the Trinity Arts Centre were welcomed and congratulated, indication was sought as to whether Officers considered it feasible to further reduce these in light of the efficiencies that had already been generated.  In responding Officers outlined that further savings could be realised by the two prong approach being taken; increasing income whilst reducing operating costs.  It was anticipated that the works currently being undertaken on the roof would further help to reduce overheads and shows would continue to be secured on financially advantageous terms.

RESOLVED that having given consideration to the matters listed in the report assurance was received that the rectifications proposed would deal with identified issues.

Members gave consideration to the final Progress and Delivery report for 2015/16 year, which dealt with the projects.

The Chief Operating Officer reminded Members that the Progress and Delivery reports were by exception only, either above or below target, and only reported on those projects currently in delivery stage which were regularly monitored.

The report contained an update on one item contained in the previous report; this Gainsborough South West Ward Programme, previously reported as amber status, now reported as green with supporting commentary. 

The following projects were reported as being an Amber Rating during this period: -

·         Hemswell Cliff MasterPlan

·         Fraud Investigation Services

and further reasoning for such was offered to the Committee.  It was anticipated that both projects would be back on track when the next report was due for consideration.

RESOLVED  that having given consideration to the matters listed in the report, assurance was received that the arrangements in place to oversee Programme and Project development across the Council are effective.

Members gave consideration to a report which presented recommendations from the Challenge and Improvement Committee’s Progress and Delivery Working Group with regard to a revised format for the Council’s Progress and Delivery report for 2016/17.

By way of context and background it was noted that the working group had been established in December 2015 to: -

a)    Review the measures reported in 2015/16 and determine their on-going appropriateness

b)    Consider how these measures provide a performance framework for the organisation that allows Members to monitor progress against the Corporate Plan, service delivery and project development

c)    Consider the reporting format for future reports

The working group had met on three occasions and its Members had reviewed the current reporting format and content, scrutinised the Council’s current Corporate Scorecard, had sight of a proposed set of measures to oversee delivery against the new Corporate Plan priorities and were introduced to the concept of a measure definition sheet to be used internally so as to ensure consistency of reporting.

As a result the Working Group had expressed overall satisfaction with the Progress and Delivery format and content, however they had suggested some improvements, namely: -

·         Direction of Travel indicators to be used in reporting

·         Consistent usage of explanations and rectification actions where appropriate

·         Corporate Measures that would give members a sense of how the overall organisation  was performing

As a result, the format of the P and D report had been modified to include the working groups suggestions and the revised report format now had the following six distinct sections:-

·         Executive Summary: Provides the reader with an overview of the reports context

·         Corporate Health measures: Key performance measures which give the reader a high-level view of the Council overall. Full performance is to be reported (red, amber and green) within this section.

·         Corporate Plan measures: Reporting against performance measures aligned to the themes and priorities of the Corporate Plan. Full performance is to be reported (red, amber and green). Please note that these measures will be included in the P&D report on a six-monthly basis

·         Commercial Plan measures: Reporting against the measures contained within the Commercial Plan. Please note that these measures will be included in the P&D report on a six-monthly basis. 

·         Programmes and Projects: Identification of Council programmes and projects that are not progressing as anticipated and identification of actions needed to improve.

·         Service measures: Performance of services areas on an exception basis; red or green measures

At the request of the Challenge and Improvement Committee an additional summary table, as part of the executive summary, setting out the total number of red, green and amber actions had now also been incorporated.

RESOLVED that the revised reporting format for 16/17 as attached to report PRCC.10 16/17 be adopted.

Members gave consideration to the Committee work plan.

The Chief Operating Officer advised that he had been liaising with the Chairman regarding key pieces of work which would need consideration by the Committee over the coming civic year.  It was intended that these would be entered into the Work Plan, with the caveat that timescales may change. 

There was heated debate regarding the earlier resolution passed by the Committee relating to Market Rasen Car Parking Charges. Some Members were concerned as to how this would affect the agreed budget whilst others were of the view that the community needed to be listened to.  At the request of a Member clarity was offered around the call-in process.   Officers confirmed that the Petition would be heard by Council and as earlier resolved the deferred report would be re-submitted to the Committee at their next meeting, it would be for Members to determine how to proceed.

RESOLVED that the Work Plan as set out in report PRCC.11 16/17 be received and noted.