Action Notes

Cheylesmore Neighbourhood Forum Held on Tuesday 28 July 2015

Cheylesmore Community Centre

Who was at the meeting?

Residents Ball, Nick Makepeace, Nigel Bell, D Marchi, William Bell, Richard McDonnell, Keith Binks, Keith McDonnell, M Bristow, Robert McNicholas, John Butcher, Ralph Murland, Joan Cheema, Mr. Page, Lynne Cosser, Jenny Parbury, Ernest Cunliffe, Elisabeth Robins, Judith Davies, Mary Robinson, Ron Davies, Matthew Rowe, Jeffrey Edwards, Kath Rutter, Marie Fielding, Frances Rutter, Patrick George, P Sanderson, Christine Hartley, John Short, Charles Hartnett, Martin Smith, Jeffery Hill, Hazel Taylor, Mark Howey, Derek Thomas, Jeremy Jones, Christine Thorpe, Gordon Jones, Peter Williams, Alan Knight, Patricia Winter, G Makepeace, Janet Wood, Paul Number of residents: 44 signed in

Officers and Partner Agencies Name Representing Councillor H Noonan Coventry City Council – Ward Councillor (Chair) Councillor R Bailey Coventry City Council – Ward Councillor Councillor R Brown Coventry City Council – Ward Councillor Simon Brake Coventry City Council – Senior Support Officer Vanessa Millar Coventry City Council – Support Officer

www.coventry.gov.uk/neighbourhoodforums Action Notes

Guest Speakers and other Officers/Partners Name Representing Alan Jones Galliford Try Colin Knight Coventry City Council – Place Directorate Sergeant Stuart Randall West Midlands Police

1. Welcomes and Introductions

Cllr. Hazel Noonan welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked everyone for their attendance.

2. Actions from previous meeting and matters arising

An update was given on the allocation of 106 monies. A successful event had been held towards the end of March 2015, whereby residents came along to talk about Cheylesmore, consider the range of different activities in the area and think about how different ideas could fit together. In total, 16 bids had received 106 monies.

Discussion: Queries were raised as to why parts of Cheylesmore had been excluded from this process and why residents/groups in Earlsdon had been able to bid for this funding. It was confirmed that ASDA, the developer in question, had drawn a half- mile circle from their site, as this was the area in which they wanted local residents to benefit.

Furthermore, the criteria had been discussed at the Participatory Budget Planning Meeting. This meeting had been open to any resident from Cheylesmore to attend and vote.

A point was raised by one individual that the number of residents in each of these meetings had been small and that they had been outnumbered by Council officers. It was felt in this particular instance that the session facilitators had already decided which template they were going to use and had asked for this point to be recorded.

ACTION: None.

www.coventry.gov.uk/neighbourhoodforums Action Notes

3. Combined Authorities – Simon Brake (Coventry City Council)

Simon outlined to the group why Combined Authorities were being created and the Council’s intended approach. Combined Authorities were a way of devolving power, funding and decisions currently made in Whitehall to regions so Councils could work together to make decisions based on sub-regional, not national, priorities. The Council had agreed in principle to create a Combined Authority with a preferred option of Councils from Coventry and Warwickshire and Hinckley and Bosworth with Councils from Greater Birmingham and Black Country Local Enterprise Partnerships areas. This was only the beginning of a formal legal process that had been set out by Government.

Discussion: A point was made that around 5 years ago the Government had scrapped Regional Development Agencies (felt to be a huge waste of money), then moved towards Local Enterprise Partnerships and were now exploring Combined Authorities. It was thought that Combined Authorities would last longer, but would not preclude a Government changing its mind in the future.

Other Council areas were discussed and it was felt that it would be logical for Coventry to take the lead in Coventry and Warwickshire (C&W), rather than be subservient to Birmingham. However, it was outlined that the strength of C&W by itself would be too small and would not offer sufficient development opportunities. The physical geography of C&W may be greater, yet the population and economic powers were much smaller.

A question was raised regarding who would make the final decision. It was confirmed that the decision in Coventry would be made by Full Council, by the 54 Elected Members. The final decision about whether or not a Combined Authority would occur at all would be made by the Secretary of State (Government).

It was felt that a referendum should be held and this was discussed in great detail. The cost and timings involved would not make a proposal feasible. However, the process did allow for consultation to take place.

The benefits of a Combined Authority were outlined, including an update on what was happening elsewhere. The West Midlands was not the only major urban area without a Combined Authority. However, it was recognized that even if Coventry did not join then things would change irrespectively.

The importance of this decision was discussed and, overall, the local community felt that residents should make the decision and not the Council.

A question was asked about whether there was any research on where Combined Authorities already existed and whether there was any information on the benefits that this partnership could bring. It was reported that there was some information available on how these places were progressing at the moment.

The decision about whether a referendum should be held was mentioned again and one resident suggested that if other local residents did not like the decisions that were being taken then the residents should consider the annual democratic process, as residents had elected certain individuals to make decisions. It was felt that joining up with Warwickshire alone would bring Coventry down and that it made absolute sense to strive for growth and development opportunities for the whole region. It was realised that this was a major decision and that even today there was only a very small representative of Cheylesmore in attendance and that if it was felt that this was such a good idea then the Council should have the confidence to put it to the people and persuade the local population.

Another question was raised regarding the barriers that would prevent a referendum in Coventry. Several issues were noted including the costs (could be as much as £500,000), the nature of the question to ask with no obvious binary choice and timings (with the delays this would bring). All things considered, the Council had decided that a referendum was not an appropriate route to follow.

A question was raised regarding the leadership of the organization and why there was nobody present at this meeting. It was clarified that there were 3 Ward Councillors in attendance, representing different political parties.

Timescales were discussed. Engagement would continue until 7th September. A Full Council debate would then be held and a decision taken on whether to proceed. In the Autumn, the Secretary of State would carry out further consultation in the West Midlands, including consultation with neighbouring Local Authorities, Coventry residents and key partners.

A point was made that whether Coventry joined or not was a complex question and queried how many people fully understood the implications. It was suggested that local residents elected Councillors as a guide and pointed out that there would be a huge cost to the Council if a referendum was held.

A question was posed about how many Councillors had actively sought the views of their constituents. It was known that each Ward held their own Forum meetings, with Cheylesmore being the most active in the city. The Cheylesmore Ward Councillors were contactable via telephone and email and were active in the area.

Another resident queried the fact that it was mentioned that Combined Authorities were happening elsewhere and that if all of these other authorities were planning to combine with others in the same way then it would feel like the agenda had already been set and that the programme had already been made.

Discussion ensued on whether this would make the country fragmented. The intention was that this approach would better support regions in making decision about their own futures.

It was suggested that most people knew that a decision had already been made and that a decision would be imposed on local residents and that that was why more people weren’t present at the meeting this evening.

A vote was taken on those in favour of a Combined Authority with the West Midlands (15 votes), with Warwickshire (19 votes) and with nobody (0 votes).

Another vote count was taken on those in favour of the Council holding a referendum (yes – 20 votes, no – 20 votes, others had abstained).

Dates for drop-in sessions were also highlighted (from 13th to 26th August).

www.coventry.gov.uk/neighbourhoodforums Action Notes

4. Policing Update – Sergeant Stuart Randall (West Midlands Police)

Police Sergeant Stuart Randall provided an update on current staffing levels in the area, recent crime figures for 2015 and the police budget reductions. It was highlighted that total crime was down by 15% when compared to the previous year and that between March 2010 and March 2015 there had been a 19% reduction in police officer numbers, with a 16% reduction in police staff during the same period.

Sergeant Randall suggested that neighbourhood policing would look quite different over the next few years. At the moment, in Coventry and across the West Midlands, each area had a local team of dedicated officers. However, in the future, resources would need to be focused on areas where demand was highest.

Discussion: Questions were raised in relation to why the Police had reduced staffing levels (if there were any other reasons aside from budgetary reductions) and whether local residents were more or less safe as a result of these reductions. Sergeant Randall confirmed that according to a national crime survey, crime was reducing generally, although this could be attributed to the fact that people might be reporting fewer crimes. In terms of police staffing, morale was relatively good, considering the local policing teams had witnessed 5 years of change already, with even more posts under threat over the next few years.

A question was raised around links with Coventry University and it was confirmed that the local university office was based in Canley and the Sergeants of those areas shared an office and did not work in isolation. Intelligence was constantly being shared.

Cllr. Noonan thanked Sergeant Randall for his attendance at the Ward Forum.

ACTION: None.

5. Residents’ Parking Scheme – Colin Knight (Coventry City Council)

Colin updated on recent developments to the Cheylesmore Residents’ Parking Scheme. Latest figures revealed that Cheylesmore East had applied for 587 permits, with Cheylesmore West having 453 permits. In terms of enforcement, warning letters were currently being issued and, from Monday 3rd August, penalty charge notices would be issued (where people were parking incorrectly).

Colin informed the group that the Council had wanted to adopt a fully virtual system, as it was easier to monitor abuse of the scheme. However, feedback had been received from local residents that a virtual system did not suit everyone’s needs and therefore a paper-based system had also been established. Action Notes

Discussion: Questions were raised around the process for re-applying for permits and signage in the local area. Colin informed the group that the parking schemes would be monitored and that the team would be happy to consider applications for any logical extensions to the current scheme.

In terms of signage, specific details of particular roads were discussed. Problems with people parking on pavements were also mentioned. There were generally two ways to tackle this problem, a verge parking order or by re-instating marked bays, the latter could be carried out on an experimental order.

A question was raised around the benefits that residents would see as a result of this parking scheme. Colin reported that the scheme was designed to be ‘break even’, however it was noted that costs had been incurred to the Council during the implementation phase. A clear majority of people had wanted the scheme, but it was acknowledged that the scheme was not welcomed by all.

ACTION: None.

6. Whitley – Colin Knight (Coventry City Council)

Colin updated on the Whitley site works. The group were informed that the Northbound on/off slip would be opening on Thursday afternoon (30th July) and it was hoped that Leaf Lane would be open by Friday (31st July).

Discussion: Discussed centred on some of the specific details including white line markings, double yellow lines and speed control in the area. Colin informed the group that his team would be happy to consider junction protection measures, should residents feel that these measures were required in specific areas.

ACTION: None.

www.coventry.gov.uk/neighbourhoodforums Action Notes

7. Tollbar Island – Alan Jones (Galliford Try)

Alan updated on recent developments and the work that was currently being undertaken. It was noted that a series of overnight closures were planned, commencing from 3rd August, in order to raise the level of the existing roundabout. Alan also updated on recent awards the scheme had received including the ‘RoSPA Gold Award’, which had been presented to the project for high levels of performance and demonstrating well-developed occupational health and safety management systems and culture.

Discussion: Discussion was held on some of the scheme elements, including the diversion route that vehicles would need to follow during road overnight road closures. It was confirmed that all traffic would be diverted to roads of equal proportion and that local delivery drivers would be briefed accordingly.

Congratulations were given to Alan and his team for their excellent project management.

ACTION: None.

8. Any Other Business/Future Items and Venues

The following points were noted:  The Electoral Registration Officer would be conducting the 2015 Annual Canvass and each household in the city would shortly receive a Household Enquiry Form. All residents were being encouraged to confirm their details or register separately (if they were a new elector) as quickly as possible. There was a legal requirement to respond to this form.  ASDA on Daventry Road had applied for an extension to hours of delivery. The Council Planning Department had initially rejected the application, however, after an appeal the decision was overturned and permission had been granted.  A question was raised about parking permits and Cllr. Noonan agreed to deal with this particular issue after the meeting.  The number of residents attending Ward Forums across the city was variable and the future of Ward Forum meetings was unknown. Residents would be informed of any decisions taken in due course.

ACTION: All residents to respond to the Household Enquiry Form, once received.

=

www.coventry.gov.uk/neighbourhoodforums Action Notes

If you would like to find out the most up-to-date progress on the action notes above please call 024 7683 1502 or visit www.coventry.gov.uk/wardforums

If you wish to start/stop receiving information relating to Neighbourhood Forums, please contact [email protected] or call 024 7683 3079 giving your details and requesting that you are added or removed from our mailing list.

Coventry City Council is always looking at reducing the amount of paper we produce and send out. If you have an email address and would prefer to be emailed all Ward Forum documentation, please contact me using the details above.

www.coventry.gov.uk/neighbourhoodforums