Minutes

Meeting Title:

/ Infrastructure Providers Group

Date:

/ 3rd March 2011

Time:

/ 10.00 – 12.00

Location:

/ Council Chamber, Carrick House

Chaired by:

/ Steve Havers

Attendees:

/ Corine Dyke, Heidi Sims, Sarah Thorneycroft, James Evans, Alyson Cooper, Andrew McDouall, Andy Stevenson, Chris Vercoe, Dave Watkins, Elizabeth Fletcher, Ian Parsons, Julian Cowans, Mark Harvey, Mark Summers, Paul Martin, Peter Hearn, Rachael Bice, Steph Thomas, Steve Crummay, Rod Hulme; Hilary Gooch, Tim Sargent

Apologies:

/ Alison Ward, Andy Stittle, Chris Jackson, Clare Burch, Garth Weaver, Ian Bartlett, Louise Geddes-Brown, Mark Beighton, Nigel Hewitt, Peter Rugg, Tim Wood, Tony Berndes, Trevor Ives, Versha Koria,

Minutes

/

Action

1

/

Welcome and Apologies

  • SH opened the meeting with introductions

2

/

Project update

CorineDyke gave a brief project update (presentation available) on the:

  • Recently published Infrastructure Baseline Report;
  • Appointment of a ‘critical friend’ Parsons Brinkerhoff;
  • Alignment with the Community Infrastructure Levy process and the Local Investment Plan;
  • Starting work on the Schedules;
  • Paper on standards circulated – all to feedback thoughts to us by 25th March.
  • Timetable update
  • Second newsletter produced and circulated.
/ All

3

/

Infrastructure Projects Schedules

  • Sarah Thorneycroft gave a presentation (available) on the role of schedules in the infrastructure delivery plan process. Key points were:
  • Purpose – statutory planning purpose and a wider infrastructure provider purpose
  • Two types of schedules
  • Committed schedule – projects that have a commitment to be delivered
  • Requirements (wish list) schedule – projects that are required but haven’t got funding, delivery strategy, etc.
  • Importance of adding all projects to the database – if projects are not included, they are less likely to be considered for CIL and other purposes.
  • All to check the schedules for their organisation’sprojects and amend/add to as necessary, and to send details of any additional proposed/aspirational projects to Sarah by 25th March.
  • We will be consulting on the draft schedule this summer
  • Schedules will be regularly monitored and reviewed
  • Infrastructure projects delivered will be published.
  • Question:Steve Crummay - Are we taking into account investment related to agri-environment funding under the Common Agricultural Policy as this is worth more to Cornwall than Convergence?
  • Answer:Looking to widen the types of infrastructure we will include and this may include some projects under this investment stream.
  • Comment: Andrew McDouall – it is beneficial to be involved in the infrastructure work as it creates the right links.
  • Comment: Ian Parsons – theHighways Agency have no resources to run transport modelling or to fundmajor schemes
/ All

4

/ Core Strategy Options Feedback
  • Corine Dyke gave a brief overview of how we would like members of the group to feedback their thought on what the different distribution options mean for their type of infrastructure at a community network area level. All to respond by 25th March
  • Question: Mark Summers - How are we looking at sustainability issues, particularly carbon reduction and peak oil?
  • Answer: Both the Core Strategy and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan are subject to detailed sustainability appraisals. Community Intelligence (Cornwall Council) is looking at a resilience mapping model and we will be using this.
  • Comment: Mark Summers knows of another model which he will give us some details on.
  • Comment: Ian Parsons – the evidence for the costs of additional infrastructure provision could influence the Core Strategy option that will be taken forward, i.e. looking at the costs of particular options it may make them to expensive to be delivered.
  • Comment:Steve Havers – we are starting to look at how we may be able to cost the options, so feedback on what infrastructure providers see as their preferred distribution option (and any costs associated with this) will be very helpful.
/ All
Mark Summers

5

/ Co-Location and Joint Delivery
  • Rod Hulme of Community First gave a presentation (available) on the work they are doing – key points were:
  • Work they are doing of the LIFT (Local Improvement Finance Trust) schemes in Cornwall
  • Work mainly with the local Primary Care Trust in Cornwall but are keen to work with others as they have done elsewhere.
  • Key message in the current climate is ‘doing more with less’
  • Lots of changes on the horizon in health services
  • Have a strategic planning asset mapping system
  • Comment: Mark Summers - Stockport is a very good example of co-location and the use of green technologies.
  • Comment: Ted Simpson – delivery is not joined up enough in Cornwall and the Fire Service would like to explore more opportunities with health as this has not worked to date (arson, single parents, Flashpoint Centre, etc).
  • Hilary Gooch gave a short presentation (available) on the ‘multi-functionality’ of green infrastructure and how co-locating and joint delivery works from the green perspective.
  • Attendees split into two groups at this point and were tasked with identifying opportunities for co-location and joint delivery under the headings of
  • ‘easy/something already going on/or planned’,
  • ‘more difficult to achieve but possible’, and
  • ‘wacky/off the wall/extreme’
  • Feedback – ‘Easy’
  • Libraries/One Stop Shops/Tourist Information Centres
  • Could add work hubs to above, could enable virtual work space
  • Libraries could go into leisure centres
  • Green infrastructure multi-functionality – SUDS for example which can provide amenity space, access to green space, ecology, biodiversity and play spaces.
  • Use of design4life in planning policy and at pre-application stages.
  • Fire service working on safety issues with number of groups (single parents, children at Flashpoint Centre, etc) – have tried to get health services involved for a number of years – seems a logical joint delivery opportunity.
  • Fire service has extra space at most of its fire stations – these could be better used.
  • Primary schools and health services (pilot in east of Cornwall ‘Integration through Co-location’ combining health and social services on education sites)
  • Could also look at providing space in primary schools for the voluntary sector
  • Plans for Plymstock Quarry and Sherford include the co-location of a number of services
  • National pilot at the moment looking at co-locating fire and ambulance services.
  • Feedback – ‘Difficult’
  • Waste into energy, even at a community level.
  • Could have local ownership of waste and recycling
  • Co-location of waste and freight distribution into consolidated centres (use of larger lorries - enabling full loads both ways – i.e. bringing goods in, taking waste out), making better use of ports and stations
  • Co-location of health centres, leisure centres, health and well-being centres, linking to cycle ways and footpaths and other green spaces
  • Public services having satellite offices in schools – would help with child care issues and reduce transport
  • All emergency services (fire, ambulance and police) on same site sharing facilities, pool cars, etc.
  • A few fire stations are in remoter locations (e.g. St Dennis, Delabole) and there may be opportunities to share space with health and others.
  • Sharing space with the private sector e.g. supermarkets
  • Can we share space with the voluntary sector – would this be cost effective or would it be a community benefit (i.e. it wouldn’t help with costs)
  • Feedback – ‘Extreme’
  • More co-location of public transport – bus and trains – and joint tickets/pricing (like in London)
  • Community waste and energy production as above, also including business waste
  • Sharing space with the private sector e.g. supermarkets
  • There are some really good community buildings in many places – we need to use these spaces better and co-locate services into them. E.g. could have a doctors surgery consulting room one day, office space another day, meeting rooms for local business
  • People could access their doctor (and other services) over a video conferencing link from a local community space
  • Issues
  • Land values – some services can sell off unwanted land but others cannot reduce the number of outlets they have (e.g. primary schools) so they have to come up with other ways to make them more cost effective.
  • Requires some change in how people interact with public services
  • Transport and travel costs are becoming increasingly problematic
  • Need to consider climate change, flooding and carbon proofing where we can
  • Conclusions
  • Co-location and joint delivery would be much easier to achieve if there were the right policies in place to start with (Core Strategy?)
  • The larger the site the more innovative we can be
  • Requires changes in the way people move around and in the way they expect to access public services
  • Can reduce travel if services are brought to people rather than people travelling to services
  • Easier to plan to co-locate services in new communities
  • All need to think about how we can share the spare spaces we have and who we can share the spaces with.
  • We need to invest now to gain future benefits – co-location of services may not work as well as we hope in the short term but it may be the best option for the future.
Attendees were invited to put down some additional thoughts on post it notes, and also to give some thought as to how they want to take co-location and joint delivery forwards. Everyone to let us know their thoughts.
The following thoughts were written on post it notes during the meeting:
  • Under-represented groups need a voice in this process, e.g. children, people with disabilities
  • Would suggest any project ideas for co-location are managed by a co-ordinator
  • Needs of individual communities should be considered for co-location projects e.g. community centres
  • Green infrastructure to lead infrastructure planning, i.e. think about what green infrastructure can perform before putting in engineered solutions
  • Moving rhetoric about adaptation for climate change into reality and ensuring adaptation is built into new infrastructure provision
  • Partnerships with private sector? E.g. co-location projects with large supermarkets – services from shared sites
  • Shared headquarter functions such as a) human resources, b) pay, c) administration. This could work with emergency services, local authorities, education and health.
  • Ensure ecological features/habitats (e.g. bird nesting features, invertebrate habitats) are specifically designed into development (Design Guide)
  • Limitations to co-location are organisational and current accounting methods/systems – these do not consider wider benefits (e.g. social benefits) of things like co-location. Although the Core Strategy can’t solve this issue, it does have a role in facilitating delivery of co-location
/ All

6

/ Community Infrastructure Levy and IDP
  • Steve Havers gave a presentation (available) on the community infrastructure levy – the key points are:
  • It can be charged on all new development with the exception of social housing and buildings for charitable purposes,
  • Viability testing is key as we must ensure that we don’t inhibit development
  • Differential rates can be charged if it is proved that some areas are more expensive than others.
  • A preliminary draft charging schedule will be produced in the Autumn for consultation, with the final version produced for the end of the year
  • Comment:Mark Summers - Eco Communities and health are talking about this so need to ensure we are working together.
  • Question: Steve Crummay – how do we decide on how the CIL is distributed?
  • Answer: Through the IDP and the projects list in the schedules. A meaningful proportion will be allocated to local communities, probably through neighbourhood planning process. The importance of projects being listed in the schedules was reinforced – if they are not on the list it is harder for them to be considered.

7

/

Any other business

  • Invite a representative of the voluntary sector to the Infrastructure Provider Group meetings – Mark Summers suggested Ian Jones.

8

/

Dates of next meeting are as follows. An electronic appointment will be sent out shortly for these two dates.

  • 5th May 2011 Council Chamber, Carrick House, 10-12
  • 7th July 2011 Council Chamber, Carrick House, 10-12

Page 1 of 7