Pendleton Community Forum
10th October 2006
Broadwalk Library
7pm-9pm
Officers
Deborah MacDonald, Samantha Tindale, Chris Whitfield
Attendees
James Gillard, Edward Down, Trevor Finney, Mavis Shaw, Cllr Loveday, Suzanne
Robinson, Ray Cassidy, Paul Hudson, Matthew Whiteley, Patrick BoyceThomson, Daisy Shortman, Joyce Fitzpatrick, Ian Price, Paul Hutchings, Marie
Taylor
Apologies
Gordon Robinson, Councillor Warmisham, Syd Cauldwell
Item no
1
Item
Introduction and Apologies
Trevor Finney chaired the meeting, welcomed attendees and
invited the Officers and community representatives present to
introduce themselves to attendees.
Daisy Shortman also asked for each of the attendees to
introduce themselves and each did so in turn.
2
2.1
2.2
Minutes of last meeting
The chair Trevor Finney asked attendees whether they were
willing to approve the minutes from the last meeting.
Edward Down (ED) asked whether the PFI announcement had
been received? And whether there was any plan B in place?
Deborah MacDonald (DM) stated that the council was still
awaiting a response from the Government but hoped to receive
one shortly. ‘Plan B’, if required, would involve discussing the
options with the government and ensuring that local people are
consulted and kept up to date with developments.
ED asked what was in place to compensate should the PFI bid
be unsuccessful? And what happens if the Government offer us
Action
2.4
less that we expect? DM stated that a new regeneration focused
ALMO (Arms Length Management Organisation) would manage
council homes within the area for the next two years and, should
the government offer less credit than the council has requested,
the council would consult with local people to prioritise how the
funding is used.
Patrick Boyce-Thomson asked whether any indication had been
received from the Government at all? DM confirmed no
indications had been received but stated that the council
remained positive.
The minutes were endorsed by attendees.
3
Feedback from previous meeting
2.3
Strategy officer Chris Whitfield (CW) read out feedback in
response to feedback given through comments sheets filled out
at the last Community Forum meeting. The key points are
summarised below:
11 Comments sheets were completed and returned
at the last meeting.
How did you learn about tonight’s meeting?
1. By Letter
9
2. Word of Mouth 2
3. E-mail 1
What do you think of the venue and refreshments?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Excellent 1
Good 4
Average 5
Poor sound quality 1
The venue is a very poor one indeed. The room has all
the resonance of the municipal swimming baths. Such
poor acoustics meant I found it very difficult to hear all
that was said. While the location of the building was fine
for me, I think that parking and lack of easy access for
some who had to walk from the car park was problematic.
The officers did their best to provide refreshments but the
lack of facilities did not make this easy. I would think
twice before attending another meeting at this venue.
Response:
Officers within the team have discussed these issues and
decided that we will monitor the comments of attendees over the
next 3-4 meetings and make a decision based upon the
feedback we receive.
What did you enjoy about the meeting?
Most enjoyed: Ordsall & Langworthy Community Action Plan
with 8 votes.
A number of people mentioned the lack of forward movement on
PFI as disheartening – I think we recognise and share
everyones growing impatience as we await an announcement
but would ask you all to remain positive.
It was suggested that the update on the Community Action Plan
could have been sent out prior to the meeting to give you more
time to prepare for the activity. This wasn’t possible prior to the
last meeting, however, we will ensure that, wherever possible,
you receive the agendas and reports in advance in the future.
What have you learnt?
Answers ranged from Not a Lot to ‘I understand more clearly the
depth and range of the proposed next stage of consultation’. It
appears responses to this question were very much down to the
perception of each individual attendee.
What would you like to learn more about?
1. Involvement of the elderly in the community activity.
To date older people have been involved in a number of ways –
through attendance at the Community Forum and through
consultation specifically targeted at hard to reach groups in
summer 2005. During the next phase of consultation in
November and December we will once again work with a
consultancy called the Community Technical Aid Centre who will
monitor the responses we receive and ensure we are consulting
effectively with each of the Communities of Identity in the area –
this includes a variety of groups including older people.
Did you find the presentations relevant and
interesting?
1. Yes 5
2. No 2
3. For the most part, Yes
How could the presentations be improved?
Responses in general:
Presenters to speak clearly and audibly
Use visual presentations/methods wherever possible.
Stay clear of jargon – although please note we do have a
jargonbuster handy for those people who would like one.
Do you have any questions that you didn’t get to
ask?
All answers given stated: No
Is there anything else we could do to improve
future meetings?
Comment:
With an attendance of less than 20, (and Officers) the future of
the Forum does not bode well. A regular, comfortable venue
with good access might help. There may well be a need for a
revamp of the whole structure of the Forum to make it more
appealing, and indeed relevant, to more than the dedicated few.
Over the time that I have been attending these meetings it does
seem that they have moved from being a genuine Forum where
representatives of the TA’s and other members of the
Community had real sense of ownership – to being little more
than a process whereby boxes can be ticked in the Council’s
unending need to justify itself. I am sorry if this seems a bit of a
rant, but you did ask.
Response:
The Community Forum was set-up to provide local people with
the opportunity to have their say in the development of the Area
Action Plan and the Private Finance Initiative process for the
area. We believe it continues to serve this purpose, however,
over time, despite the work of officers to publicise the event, the
attendance has reduced. We believe there are a number of
reasons for this including the relatively slow process of
developing an Area Action Plan. In order to turn this around we
require your help – please take some time at the end of todays
meeting to fill out your comments sheet – which areas can we
improve on? Which topics do you wish to learn more about?
If you provide us with this type of information we will seek to
improve the meeting.
3.2
4
4.1
ED asked whether Lombardy Court could be used as an
alternative venue if attendees were experiencing problems with
the library? Other attendees stated they had experienced
problems with access to Lombardy Court due to the security
arrangements and the size of the meeting room would prove
limiting if there was an increase in attendance.
Matters Arising
The chair, with assistance from Chris Whitfield, read the list of
matters arising to attendees (see below).
2.1 Suzanne Robinson asked for 9.3 to be amended to read
Joyce Fitzpatrick asked who the Community
Representatives were? In place of the text that is currently
attributed to her.
Suzanne also requested that Joyce Fitzpatrick be added to
the list of attendees.
Amends made as requested.
6.1 Gerry Stone requested a breakdown of the reasons why
targets within the 2006 Community Action plan hadn’t been
achieved. RS agreed to supply information on this to her at
the next Pendleton Community Forum.
Ross e-mailed the following message to officers to read out at
this meeting. This text has also been sent to Gerry Stone.
Reasons why some objectives within 2006 CAP are identified as
'no progress at this stage'.
2.3
Establish off-road bike Enforcement Team (for
Ordsall and Langworthy).
The lead agency, GMP, eventually decided that problems
around staffing, maintenance and pursuit regulations
made the project impractical.
We had secured funding which instead was spent on 2
new pedal cycles and an un-marked police surveillance
vehicle.
2.6
Identify options for legitimate use of off-road
vehicles in Salford
This was always going to be a Salford, citywide project
and so far we are aware of no real progress on this.
7.1
Improve publicity of free removal of bulky
domestic waste service
The lead agency, Environmental Services, have said
there is no budget for this. We have included information
in newsletters but no comprehensive
publicity at this stage.
6.4
RS stated that the views of Suzanne and other
community members on
these issues needed to be fed into ‘the system’; in the
case of exclusion orders RS stated that he would take the
subject forward to the Ordsall and Langworthy Children
and Young People Task Group.
Ross has asked Inspector Smith at GM Police if views of local
people could be sought when evaluation of the Dispersal Order is
conducted.
9.2 RS described how at the next stage of consultation on the
Ordsall development Framework they were planning to
use Community Arts Workers to grab local peoples
attention at public venues and encourage their
involvement. RS asked whether this could be a useful for
the PAAP consultation? ST agreed that it should be
explored.
Samantha Tindale has contacted Sue Rigg to discuss this
matter and the use of community arts workers during the
consultation.
9.4
Cllr Warmisham requested that the term Church groups
be amended to read Faith Community Groups. Officers
agreed with this suggestion.
Officers will use this wording when describing these types of
groups in the future.
10.2
Sid Cauldwell (SC) asked whether any of the officers was
aware of a specific forum for older people living within
private sheltered housing? MW stated there was the
Citywide Elderley Persons Forum. GS suggested officers
could access details on this forum from the Partners IN
Salford Good Practice Team to pass on to SC.
Officers are contacting Mr Cauldwell to pass on the
information supplied by Gerry Stone.
5
Preferred Options Presentation
Principal Officer Samantha Tindale introduced the Ppvote
system through a presentation that provided a ‘flavour’ of the
types of questions local people and stakeholders will be asked
during the November-December consultation period, for
instance, on subjects such as housing, recreational areas etc.
Each attendee was given a ‘clicka-pad’ from which they could
select a response to questions projected onto the projector
screen. Each individuals response was then captured by a
sensor and the results from each individual were collated
together to appear anonymously on the screen in the form of a
graph, representing the results for each slide. In general
comments from attendees were very positive and the interactive
nature of the Ppvote proved popular. However, Suzanne
Robinson (SR) did add a word of caution by recognising that the
questions asked during the consultation period would need to be
more considered and specific.
5.1
SR asked how many children lived within the project area? ST
stated that she would find out.
Daisy Shortman (DS) asked whether each home within the
Pendleton area would be receiving a questionnaire during the
consultation period? ST confirmed that yes all homes within the
project area would receive questionnaires, plus a DVD in
advance to raise the awareness of residents to the project and
the consultation; ST stated that the DVD would be shown at a
later point in the meeting.
Patrick Boyce-Thomson (PBT) observed that private companies
such as the owners of Salford Shopping City should use private
means to invest in their buildings. Deborah MacDonald
(Pendleton Project Manager) responded by reminding attendees
that monies raised through the Private Finance Initiative would
be focused on council housing, but by receiving this funding and
developing the Area Action Plan it would provide the ideal
environment to attract further investment.
Consultation Events and Activities Programme
ST introduced the programme of events scheduled for the
November–December consultation on the Preferred Options
report, but reminded attendees that the date of the consultation
was dependent upon receiving a PFI response no later than the
24th October.
Edward Down (ED) stated that the slow progress on the PFI and
PAAP projects had become monotonous for attendees of the
community forum and steering group and asked how officers
intended to overcome this issue? ST responded by stating that
5.2
5.3
6.0
6.1
ACTION:
ST
6.2
7.0
7.1
7.2
8.0
8.1
officers did recognise that due to the length of the projects it
may prove difficult maintaining the enthusiasm of local people,
however, the consultation techniques (including the use of the
DVD & Ppvote) and publicity planned for consultation were
being developed with this in mind.
Joyce Fitzpatrick (JF) asked who will formulate the questions
that are circulated within the questionnaires on the Preferred
Option Report? Dm stated that the questions were taken
directly from the report, which is itself based upon previous
feedback and consultation with the community.
JF stated that she believed it was important that members of the
public had involvement in formulating questions. ED expressed
his concern that the questions will be ‘loaded’ towards a ‘desired
outcome’. ST re-stated that the questions are based upon
feedback from previous consultation activities.
PFI Update
Strategy Officer Chris Whitfield explained to attendees that the
council was still awaiting a response from the Government on
whether its PFI Expression of Interest, submitted on the 31st
March 2006, had been successful.
An initial decision had been expected in July 2006, however,
government minister Yvette Cooper made a statement in the
Houses of Commons informing councils and stakeholders that a
decision would be made “during the summer”.
Daisy Shortman asked whether everyone present had heard
that thrr high rise blocks on the Broadwalk Estate, Magnolia,
Sycamore and Mulberry, had been moved from the PFI into the
ALMO investment option.
CW responded by stating that the decision had been made to
move the blocks into the ALMO investment option to ensure that
the appropriate funding could be acquired to meet the
guarantees made to residents - in terms of achieving the decent
homes standard.
Edward Down informed attendees that Thorn Court residents
association were currently considering applying to become a
Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) and were receiving
advice/support from TPAS.
Community Representatives Time
The floor is opened to questions from the Community
representatives present.
SR stated that she wished to ensure that the community had
input into the questions for consultation. DM responded by
stating that the officers working on the project were pushing for
a robust, transparent and flexible consultation – and the
consultation events and activities planned far outweighs the
11.0
12.0
10.0
statutory responsibilities of the authority due to the work of the
Pendleton Team in housing.
AOB
Joyce Fitzpatrick stated that more information needed to be
provided to attendees on strategic issues such as potential
plans for a new high school development within the area.
Feedback & Equality Forms
Officers circulated the Feedback and equality forms for
completion by attendees at the meeting.
Date and time of next meeting
The Chair informed attendees that the next Pendleton
Community Forum will take place on the 28th November 2006 at
the Broadwalk Library.