Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Helyar.

Members are asked to declare interests in items for consideration at the meeting.

Councillors Brailsford and Exton declared a personal interest in agenda item 8 – Stamford Hospital because they were trustees of health boards.

Councillors Exton and F Hurst declared a personal and prejudicial interest during any other urgent business on the South Road, Bourne item on account of their membership of the Development Control Committee.

The notes of the meeting held on 16^th January 2007 are attached for information.      (Attached)

Noted.

                                                                                                               (Attached)

• Copies of letters received from the Department for Transport and the County Council regarding satellite navigation systems and the results of the classified traffic count were circulated.
• Traffic issues in Grantham town centre had escalated problems on Gorse Lane; residents reported significant deterioration in the road’s condition since the Panel’s site visit on 5^th September 2006.
• Residents had prepared a DVD, which would be supplied to the press.
• The letter from the Department for Transport stated “The Highway Authority…has the option of providing advisory or compulsory signage to warn drivers of unsuitable roads.”
• Proposals for a Grantham bypass could impact further on Gorse Lane.

ACTION POINT:

1.                To find out Lincolnshire County Council’s criteria for the application of weight restrictions to roads.

2.                To write to the Highway Authority about the option of providing signage to warn drivers of unsuitable roads.

Mandy Renton from the Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust will attend the meeting to provide an update report.

• The Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust had begun consultation on the proposal to set up Stamford Hospital as part of a joint venture scheme. The aim was to provide good quality, convenient services as locally as possible.
• Value for money was a key part of the scheme; this would allow reinvestment in other services. The scheme aimed to provide strong financial management to ensure hospital services remained viable despite the changing health agenda.
• The scheme would bring together GPs, dentists, social services, Primary Care Trusts, voluntary agencies and community groups. It was hoped that the scheme would offer a greater range of services including increased diagnostics, services for older people and anti-natal care.
• Elective surgery and day cases were being developed further on the Stamford site.
• The joint venture scheme could look at services for cancer patients. While it would not be possible for diagnostics to take place on the site, ongoing treatment could be delivered.
• Stamford hospital had applied for capital investment funding but had not been successful.
• Following consultation a robust business case would be presented to the regulators and the board.
• The Edith Cavell Hospital, Peterborough had won long-term major funding. This was not anticipated to have any impact on Stamford hospital.

The Chairman thanked Mandy Renton and Ruth Livingstone for their presentation and attendance at the meeting.

15:30 to 15:42 – meeting adjourned.

The Panel will look into bulk collections and fly-tipping.                (Attached)

• When refuse collection was brought back in-house in 2003, the District Council took responsibility for the collection of bulky goods. There was a charge of £10 for the collection of the first item and £5 for subsequent items. A one-off charge of £10 was levied for the collection of white goods.
• Householders could take waste to Household Recycling Centres; there were two of these in the district.
• The District Council did not offer a trade waste collection service. It was suggested that the District Council should look to provide such a service to try and reduce fly-tipping. If the District Council did collect trade waste they would have to pay for the disposal of that waste.
• No figures had indicated an increase in fly-tipping following the introduction of fortnightly waste collection.

The Council will consider the Waste Management Strategy as approved by the Cabinet on 8^th January 2007.                                                                                                               (Attached)

• 1,495 tonnes of street sweepings were collected each year. Large amounts of grit added to the weight of sweepings that were collected.
• Waste from within the District Council’s offices went to landfill.
• Furniture recycling schemes in Sleaford and Peterborough were advertised within the literature circulated with the twin bins.

RECOMMENDATION:

The District Council should look at recycling waste produced within the Council Offices.

The Panel will feed into consultation on the draft Street Scene Strategy.                      (Attached)

• The authority did not have an obligation to empty dog fouling bins. Parish Councils could choose to offer this service. A press release on this had been circulated to local media outlets.
• There had been significant problems caused by pigeons. It was suggested that the District Council should clean up mess caused by pigeons on health and safety grounds.
• The cleaning of graffiti from private dwellings had to be commissioned by the homeowner. Graffiti was removed from buildings using a pressure washer and chemicals.
• Bins on the Riverside Walk, Grantham were often vandalised. The usefulness of CCTV to prevent littering and the destruction of bins in this area would be limited because of poor lighting.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Panel will scrutinise claims made against the council following incidences with waste collection vehicles.                                                                                                               (Attached)

·         The issue of insurance claims made against waste collection vehicles was referred to the Healthy Environment DSP by the Resources DSP on 18^th January 2007.

·         Figures relating to the number of claims made against the council in report WCS30 related to all vehicles, not just refuse vehicles.

·         The total number of incidents involving refuse vehicles had decreased. Over the last three years, two-thirds of motor claims were caused by waste collection vehicles. Previously 90% of reversing and parking incidents had been caused by refuse vehicles. The percentage to date for 2006/7 was 75%.

·         All vehicles were fitted with rear view cameras. The use of banksmen had been introduced. They were trained to guide drivers during manoeuvres.

·         The length of waste collection vehicles had increased because of the bin lift. Narrow roads and parking issues made driving the vehicles more challenging.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Panel commended the effort of waste collection teams in reducing the number of motor incidents involving waste collection vehicles.

• Carbon Plan Working Group                                               (Attached)

• The report on the Carbon Plan Working group was noted. It was suggested that the project was now ready for Member input. The Working Group would be reconvened following the election in May 2007.

                                                                                                            (Attached)

Noted.

SK10 on the street cleaning pass rate for towns had turned red because of seasonal conditions. Since the compilation of the indicators, performance had increased to 92%. It was hoped that by the end of the year the target of 96% would be met.

                                                                                                            (Attached)

Noted.

The following items had been added to the work programme following the publication of the forward plan for April to July on 16^th March 2007:

• Play Strategy – not before 1^st May 2007
• Dry Recyclables – not before 1^st May 2007

                                                                                                               (Attached)

Noted.

The following items were accepted by the Chairman as urgent business for the following reasons:

Meres Stadium – Storage that offered suitable protection for equipment was required as soon as possible, however, the timing of the meeting with representatives from Grantham Athletics Club meant that the issue could not be included on the agenda for the meeting.

South Road, Bourne – The timescale associated with the planning process meant that representations had to be made within a short time frame.

• A meeting had been held with Mike Bundy of Grantham Athletics Club on 27^th March 2007. At this meeting the preservation of sports equipment was discussed.
• The condition of equipment would deteriorate if left outside throughout the year.
• Investment in storage could reduce longer term expenditure as equipment would need to be replaced less frequently.

RECOMMENDATION:

A lockable, 40ft container should be purchased by the District Council and sited at the stadium for the storage and preservation of sports equipment.

Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, Councillors Exton and F Hurst left the meeting.

• An application for outline planning permission for a development on South Road, Bourne had been made.
• There had been reports of water voles on the site but a wildlife survey had not been conducted.
• The only way the DSP could make a recommendation about this was by making a representation through the planning process.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a representation should be made through the planning process, requesting a wildlife survey be conducted on the site.

The Chairman advised members of the Panel that the meeting of the DSP scheduled for 10^th April 2007 had been cancelled due to insufficient business. As this was the last meeting of the Panel, he thanked members for their work throughout the year.

The meeting was closed at 17:11.