GREATER PETERBOROUGH PARTNERSHIP BOARD                                    AGENDA ITEM NO.2

 

Minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2004

 

Present:

 

Allan Arnott

Perkins Engines

Roger Tallowin

O & H Hampton Ltd

Gillian Beasley

Peterborough City Council

Councillor Franklin

Peterborough City Council

Councillor Scott

Peterborough City Council

Marco Cereste

Chair Health Partnership Board

Julian Stanley

Chairman of Culture and Tourism Partnership

Nigel Sunman

Chairman of the Community Safety Partnership

Roy Brown

Education Learning Partnership

 

 

Advisors

 

Richard Astle

GPP Director

Liz Wade

Peterborough City Council

Sheila Smith

Peterborough City Council

Heather Darwin

Peterborough City Council

John Coolbear

Go-East

 

 

 

 

1.              Apologies for Absence

 

            Apologies for absence were received from Harmesh Lakhanpaul, PREC, Ken McKay, Environment and Transport Partnership, Bishop Ian, John Bridge, Cambridgeshire Chamber of Commerce, Keith Nelson, Chairman Education and Learning Partnership and Rebecca Stephens, Evening TelegraphaH.

 

2.              Minutes

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2004 were agreed as a correct record.

 

3.         Directors’ Report

 

            Gladstone Visit

 

            The GPP Director outlined the follow up visit to the Gladstone area held on Tuesday 23 November 2004.  All partners were represented and initiatives were discussed with representatives from the local community.  The future direction of work with the community was still to be determined as the level of dialogue at the meeting had been limited.  It was hoped that this would be resolved in the coming months when the results of the action already being taken became clear to the community.

 

            Regeneration Strategy

 

            The GPP Director had attended the recent regeneration event held in Bretton to discuss the future development of the western area of Peterborough.  This had provided an opportunity to discuss the role of the Greater Peterborough Partnership (GPP) and the new Community Strategy.  This had illustrated support for the Strategy, however residents were unsure about the role of GPP, how accountable it would be and when the priorities in the Strategy would be delivered.


 

            Parish Council representation - Action

 

            Ian Glew, Chairman of Ufford Parish Council, was appointed as a member of the GPP Board to represent the local Parish Councils.

 

4.         Urban Regeneration Company

 

            Gillian Beasley, Chief Executive of the City Council, provided an update regarding the development of the Urban Regeneration Company (URC).

 

            The non-executive Director posts for the URC had recently been advertised and a good response had been received from individuals with a broad range of experience and expertise. 

 

            The Chairman of the URC would be a non–executive remunerated post and this would be advertised shortly with the three partners, the City Council, East f England Development Agency (EEDA) and English Partnerships (EP) making the appointment. 

 

            It was anticipated that approval for the establishment of the URC would be secured before the end of this year enabling the URC to be operational by April 2005.  It was acknowledged that there had been a delay to the approval of the URC business case, in the light of Peterborough’s inclusion as part of the growth area and the additional areas, which had to be included.

 

6.         Local Area Agreements

 

            John Coolbear, Go-East provided an overview of the new Local Area Agreements (LAAs) and Peterborough’s status as a pilot area for this initiative.  LAAs were part of Central Government’s 10-year strategy to build a new relationship between central and local government.  They were intended to be a new way of working to build a more flexible and responsive relationship between central and local government based on the priority outcomes, which needed to be delivered at a local level.

 

            The pilot phase in Peterborough would run from April 2005 and the initiative would pool existing funding under three blocks which were, Children and Young People, Safer and Stronger Communities and Healthier Communities and Older People.  There was a central role for GPP in the development of the LAA as the initiative had clear links to the priorities set out in the new Community Strategy.  GPP and the key partnerships needed to be involved in the development of the proposals, during the negotiations for the LAA and the review and monitoring of performance once established.

 

            The next stages for the development of the LAA were as follows:

 

·       The funding streams to be included in the LAA submitted by the end of December (as the City Council was the accountable body for this project, the funding streams accessed by the Council were currently documented);

·       The proposal to be submitted to GO-East by early-mid January outlining the outcomes to be delivered, targets, the funding streams included, possible performance indicators and any proposed freedoms and flexibilities to be used.

 

Some concern was expressed regarding this timescale and it was acknowledged that these concerns were being submitted to central government, with a request for additional flexibility.  However, at the present time these deadlines would have to be met by the pilot areas.

 

Action

 

            Project team to be established to prepare the LAA submission, including the Chairmen of the Community Safety and Health partnerships, Head of Economic and Community Regeneration and the GPP Director (Liz Wade).

 

            The meeting of the GPP Chairs to discuss the LAA submission on 21 December 2004.  This meeting would be extended to two hours to enable a full debate to take place (Richard Astle).

 

7.         Community Cohesion Update

 

The GPP Director provided an update regarding the work being completed by the Community Cohesion sub-group.  A cohesion conference would be held in late January to launch the Community Cohesion vision for the City.

 

The proposed vision was as follows:

 

We believe that Peterborough’s cultural diversity is one of its greatest strengths and that the city’s future depends upon people from different backgrounds getting on well with each other.

 

Peterborough will be a place where:

 

Ø      people from different backgrounds get on well together - in the community, at work and at school

Ø      racial, religious and cultural differences are respected and valued

Ø      everyone is treated equally and has the same life opportunities

Ø      people are proud of their city, and can have a say in its future

Ø      newcomers to the city are welcomed and are helped to fit in

Ø      young people’s contribution to the life of the city is recognised and facilitated

Ø      community leaders are sensitive to the impact of their decisions and statements on

-        relations between the city’s different communities

-        Peterborough’s image, to its own people and to the outside world.

 

Action

 

All Board members to consider the proposed vision and confirm that their organisations/partnerships would be willing to sign up to this vision for the City (All Board Members)

 

8.         Greater Peterborough Partnership – Resources and Structure

 

            The GPP Director had submitted a paper relating to the future role of the GPP in overseeing the delivery of the Community Strategy and the resources and structures required in the light of that role.

 

            The specific issues highlighted for consideration were the broad ‘direction of travel’ in terms of GPP’s future role and the resources and structures required to sustain that role and whether individual partners were, in principle, prepared to share the cost of any required additional resources and on what basis.  Consideration needed to be given to whether the GPP would continue in the present form or become a non-executive board providing strategic direction for a range of issues across Peterborough.

 

During the discussion the Board members present made the following observations:

 

·       Support for the development of GPP as an overarching policy forum guiding the future vision for Peterborough.  However, particular consideration needed to be given to the role of the GPP in relation to the City Council and other partners, would this be true partnership working or would GPP provide the overarching lead?

 

·     Accountability was important, as unlike the City Council the GPP Board members were not elected representatives.  This included how individuals were appointed to the Board/key partnerships and membership arrangements;

 

·     Consideration should be given to existing Local Strategic Partnership models working in partnership with an operating Urban Regeneration Company to assess the lessons that could be learnt from elsewhere;

 

·     There was a requirement to engage the wider partnership in these discussions as a number of partners were not represented at the meeting;

 

·     Clarification was required about the respective roles of the GPP and the Urban Regeneration Company;

 

·     The review should include the key partnerships to ensure that their structures were able to deliver the Community Strategy;

 

·     There should be a definite monitoring and performance management role for the GPP Board to ensure that the Community Strategy objectives were delivered;

 

·     Support for the direct delivery of certain services and objectives by the GPP;

 

·     There was support for the work of GPP being adequately resourced and ensuring there was sufficient capacity available to deliver the Community Strategy;

 

·     There was a need to ensure there was no duplication of effort within the City for the delivery of the vision and Community Strategy;

 

·      A suggestion that GPP should be adequately resourced from all partners;

 

·     GPP should be a strategic body, which did not have too many members to ensure that it was focused on a strategic lead and delivery;

 

·     Clarification was required about how a Councillors’ community leadership role would fit into a revised GPP structure;

 

·     The role of the GPP needed clear marketing to ensure the whole community was aware of its role, once this was determined;

 

·     The requirement for a Local Authority to form a strategic partnership for children and young people and how this should be incorporated within any revised GPP structure to ensure this was situated at a strategic level;

 

·      Additional links were required between the existing key partnerships.

 

It was acknowledged that the decision relating to the future direction of GPP would need to be agreed by a range of partners, including the City Council.

 

            Action

 

            GPP Director to submit a further report to the GPP Board in January outlining the following:

 

·       The different models available for the development of the GPP as a separate organisation based on best practice elsewhere;

·       How these organisation were organised including membership arrangements and accountability;

·       The resources required and proposals relating to which organisations should provide these resources;

·       The preferred structural arrangements based on the principle of streamlining the partnerships.

 

The next meeting to be dedicated to discussion about the future GPP role, structures and resources (Richard Astle/Heather Darwin).

 

The GPP Director to hold discussions with partners about the options for raising funds to make the revised organisation work (Richard Astle).

 

The location of the Strategic partnership for children and young people to be discussed by the GPP Director, Keith Nelson, Roy Brown and Sheila Smith prior to the next meeting (Richard Astle).

 

9.         Partnership Update – Health Partnership

 

            Marco Cereste, Chairman of the Health Partnership, provided an update relating to the work of the partnership.  The current developments included the establishment of the new Intermediate Care Centre and Mental Health Hospital.

 

            It was acknowledged that the current format of the Health Partnership was not appropriate for the development and delivery of the new Community Strategy.  As a result, a sub-group had been established to review this partnership and a strategic away day would be held to establish what the partnership could contribute to GPP and the Community Strategy.

 

            It was also noted that a review of the Culture and Tourism and Community Safety Partnerships would also be required, in the light of the new Community Strategy and a nationwide review of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships respectively.  In particular, the Chairman of the Culture and Tourism partnership believed that this area should be represented on the other key partnerships to ensure this element received a profile in other areas.

 

            Action

 

            The outcomes of the review of the Health Partnership to be submitted to the GPP Board in due course (Marco Cereste)

 

10.       Dates of Future Meetings

 

            Action

 

            The following additional dates were agreed for the GPP Board to hold community engagement events during 2005:

 

            6 April 2005

1 June 2005

5 October 2005

7 December 2005

 

The venues and themes for these engagement meetings would be determined in consultation with the Council’s community regeneration team.

 

An away day for the GPP Board to be organised during May 2005.  The date to be reviewed to prevent a clash with a half-term holiday.  (Subsequent to the meeting, the proposed date for the away day is 24th May 2005)