Meeting documents
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday, 6th December, 2011 7.30 pm
| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor Michael Paterson (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley, Councillor David Billing, Councillor John Booth, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Jean Green (substitute), Councillor Richard Harman, Councillor S.K. Jarvis, Councillor David Kearns, Councillor Paul Marment, Councillor Alan Millard, Councillor Lawrence Oliver. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Councillor Lynda Needham (Leader of the Council), David Scholes (Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise), John Robinson (Strategic Director of Customer Services), Katie White (Corporate Legal Manager), Fiona Timms (Performance and Risk Manager), Andrew Mills (Service Manager - Grounds Maintenance) and Hilary Dineen (Committee and Member Services Officer). |
| ALSO PRESENT: | At the start of the meeting one member of the public. |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 50 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alan Bardett, John Bishop, Cathryn Henry, Mike Rice and Ray Shakespeare-Smith. Councillor Jean Green advised that, having given due notice, she would be substituting for Councillor Alan Bardett. |
Noted | ||
| 51 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2011 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 52 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2011 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 53 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS No other business was submitted for consideration by the Committee. |
Noted | ||
| 54 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no presentations from members of the public. |
Noted | ||
| 55 |
URGENT/GENERAL EXCEPTION ITEMS No urgent or general exception items were received. |
Noted | ||
| 56 |
CALLED IN ITEMS Since the last meeting, no decisions had been called-in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. |
Noted | ||
| 57 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) Members were reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda, and the nature of the interest, should be declared as either a prejudicial or personal interest at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a prejudicial interest should leave the room and not seek to influence the decision during that particular item; (2) The Chairman gave a further reminder that any advice from a Member of the Committee concerning a party whip direction should also be declared. |
Noted | ||
| 58 |
PRESENTATION BY THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL Councillor Lynda Needham, Leader of the Council, thanked the Chairman for inviting her to address the Committee on the impact and effect of Localism on the Council and its priorities and informed Members of the following: THE LOCALISM ACT - The Localism Act would have a large impact on NHDC and its priorities; - It was one of the most wide ranging pieces of legislation which runs to many hundreds of pages; - Part 1 dealt with issues relating to local government and the general power of competence and included many of the issues regarding governance, standards and pay policies amongst others; - Parts 2 and 3 relate to EU Financial Sanctions and are not that immediately relevant; - Part 4 contained some detail related to business rate supplements and reliefs although did not deal with the funding issue regarding returning National Non Domestic Rate to authorities as a replacement for the Revenue Support Grant; - Part 5 addressed the many significant aspects of Community Empowerment including Council Tax Referendums, The Community Right to Challenge and Assets of Community Value; - Part 6 related to Planning, in this area the main interest of and impact on NHDC relates to the abolition of regional strategies. The other matters covered in this part of the Act could have a significant impact on NHDC such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, Neighbourhood Planning, Planning Enforcement and National Infrastructure; - Part 7 dealt with a number of Housing related issues such as allocations, homelessness, tenancy matters. These would have less of a direct impact on NHDC, however, in a strategic sense it will be very interesting to see how the local housing associations deal with these matters, particularly North Hertfordshire Homes. Part 7 also contained provisions relating to Housing Finance, Housing Mobility and Regulation; - Part 8 contained matters specific to London; - Parts 9 and 10 contained technical and administrative arrangements and included lists of which parts of the Act would be subject to consultation and orders from the Secretary of State. - As well as the details above the Act had 25 lengthy and detailed Schedules setting out more of the practical issues; - One of the immediate impacts for NHDC would be the time required to assess the full implications of the Act and although parts of the Act was helpful it would also bring new requirements and duties at a time when the government has legitimate concerns about the level of burdens local authorities have to face. The implementation of such a wide range of new measures at a time of severe financial restraint and austerity would seem to offer the potential for much confusion. Councillor Needham informed Members that the NHDC priorities for 2012/2013 would be living within our means to deliver cost effective services, working with local communities and protecting our environment for our communities and observed that parts 5 and 6 of the Localism Act offered opportunities to work with the community, however this may have an impact on NHDC's ability to live within our means. She advised that the Council required further detail, which was yet to be published and that although some communities may wish to work with us and take more control their wishes may not coincide with those of the democratically elected Members which may result in protracted and extensive discussions. THE RESOURCE REVIEW Councillor Needham informed Members that the Resource Review detailed the proposals to localise business rates giving local authorities more control over 85% of their funding and simplify the funding arrangements. However there were a number of worrying aspects including how the baseline would be calculated, how would the Business Rate income be split in two tier areas and what impact would top slicing for other initiatives have. LOCALISATION OF COUNCIL TAX BENEFITS Councillor Needham informed Members that the proposals for the future administration of Council Tax Benefits could see different "local" Council Tax Benefit schemes across the country, which did not seem to relate to the amendments to other benefits into one Universal Credit. District Councils were lobbying for a key role in the delivery of Universal Credits and the decision regarding this could have a substantial impact on the future shape of the organisation. A further element of these proposals would see a 10 percent reduction of the budget given to local authorities with which to pay benefits, which equates to approximately £820,000 per annum for NHDC. We have been informed that "local" schemes must protect the elderly and other "vulnerable groups" which could result in reductions of Council Tax Benefit for low income working households of 17 percent or more. Councillor Needham stated that she had ensured that Officers responded to the consultations on the Resource Review and the Localisation of Council Tax Benefits and that she had written to our three local MPs to express concern and seek their assistance in clarifying and even amending the current proposals. OPEN PUBLIC SERVICES Councillor Needham informed Members that a recent White Paper on opening up public services included key principles such as choice, decentralisation, diversity, fairness and accountability which NHDC are already addressing. In conclusion Councillor Needham speculated that Localism was a great idea that good ward members and local District Councils have been doing for years and questioned whether the Localism Act and all the other developing proposals would support NHDC in continuing that role or whether local government was in danger of being passed over in the rush to even more devolution to the neighbourhood level. Members agreed that they would welcome training regarding the Localism Act and expressed concern regarding the conflicting elements of the Act and the possible financial consequences for the Council, particularly in regard to Council Tax Benefits and Business Rates and the development of local systems. There was some debate about neighbourhoods including how these would be constituted, who would bear the costs of referendums, how one neighbourhoods wishes may not coincide with another and how local communities would find out how to use the Localism Act . Councillor Needham advised that training for Members would be organised in due course and that more detail was required regarding any benefits scheme before taking action, however in the meantime it was imperative that benefits officers from different authorities liaised with each other in order to provide similar services. She advised that more detail was required regarding neighbourhoods such as what constituted a neighbourhood, and how neighbourhood referundums would work before publicising to the Community. In response to a number of detailed questions, the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise advised Members that the National Planning Policy Framework may happen on a different timescale to the Regional Spatial Strategy. He informed Members that the Community Infrastructure Levy had been considered for some time and that further communications were expected regarding revisions, however work was being undertaken to progress NHDC's evidence base. RESOLVED: That the Leader of the Council be thanked for her informative presentation. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider and understand the issues being addressed by the Leader of the Council. |
Noted | ||
| 59 |
MEMBERS QUESTIONS Report The following question had been submitted by Councillor David Billing. (A) HITCHIN INDUSTRIAL AREA - HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES "The traffic of heavy goods vehicles to Hitchin's industrial area, in particular the scrap-yard on Wallace Way, has been observed to continue at night-time, so as to park up in advance of the permitted opening time of the scrap-yard. This is very disruptive to the sleep and quality of life of residents, particularly in Cadwell Lane and its approach roads. Some time ago, with residents' support, I asked Hertfordshire Highways to look into the feasibility of a night-time HGV ban, ie no entry for HGVs between certain times (even for access) or a no waiting ban again for certain times. This might apply for example to Cadwell Lane, Girdle Road, Hillfield Avenue, Wilbury Way, Grove Road and Woolgrove Road, but the area could be adjusted to what is most feasible. We have heard no more for a year or more. Please could we have a considered view of the legality and practicality of such a ban, together with the process for introducing it?" The Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise provided the following initial response of the NHDC Transport Policy Officer. "Both Hertfordshire Highways and Hertfordshire Constabulary have been consulted on this issue. Discussion remains ongoing but the following summarises the situation to date. There are two basic options with regard to reducing night time HGV impacts. 1. A night-time weight restriction that prevents vehicles over a defined weight from using certain roads on specific days/times. This restriction would be enforceable by the Police as a moving traffic offence. 2. A night-time weight limited waiting restriction that prevents vehicles over a defined weight from waiting on defined roads on specific days/times. As a ‘parking' restriction this would be for NHDC to enforce. Both of the above require Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). To support TROs a robust evidence base needs to be established in order to overcome any objections. OPTION 1 Normally used in circumstances where there is a ‘preferred' route or routes for HGVs but they are using ‘inappropriate' routes. It is a matter of judgement based on evidence as to the extent of the impact on residents versus the implications for business operations. Herts Constabulary advise that to restrict overnight access for HGVs via both of the available routes would be unique in Hertfordshire. This type of restriction prevents HGVs from travelling through the restriction but not to and from destinations within the restriction (i.e. ‘for access only'). The restriction should normally be promoted for no more than 8 hours within any 24. Anything longer would need Secretary of State approval. Another option would be to define one route as the ‘preferred' route and restricting the other. Again this is a matter for judgement but care should be taken to consider the implications for HGV routing in town in order to access the preferred route. This type of restriction does not restrict HGVs from waiting or loading on restricted roads which they are permitted to use for access only. HGVs would not be able to access roads beyond the restriction so, technically, waiting and loading on these roads would not be an issue. A TRO for this option would need to be promoted by Herts Highways. It would be likely to attract objections from affected businesses and possibly organisations representing freight transport interests. The hours of restriction need to be carefully considered so as to balance the need to preserve residential amenity and allow suitable access for businesses. A decision on hours should be reached in consultation with local residents and businesses. The Police would be required to enforce this type of restriction and the resources to do this should be considered. There is no provision in the Hitchin Urban Transport Plan for this type of proposal. OPTION 2 There are currently two TROs in place in the district that restrict overnight weekday and at any time weekend parking by vehicles over 5 tonnes. These TROs affect Baldock and Letchworth and as a general summary cover all roads except those in employment areas. The implication being that vehicles over 5 tonnes are encouraged to use non-residential areas to park during days/hours of restriction. In Hitchin a similar Order could be promoted by HCC or NHDC but it would only restrict HGVs from parking on defined roads, not using roads to access the employment area as per Option 1. If it is considered that HGVs parking on certain roads is the main problem for residents then it would be sensible to implement a localised weight limited parking restriction to protect the most affected areas. If an HGV restriction as per option 1 is proposed then it would make sense to consider an option 2 restriction on other roads that may be affected by ‘displaced' HGVs parking overnight before access restrictions end. Without access to employment area roads to park on or in the absence of any other alternative HGV parking, businesses may feel that this is an unreasonable situation compared to Baldock and Letchworth. Hours of restriction could be the same as for Baldock and Letchworth. The area and times of coverage are mainly dictated by whether an Option 1 restriction is also promoted. NHDC would be the enforcing authority although prior to the consideration of any controls, resources to enforce overnight and weekend restrictions need to be assessed. There is no provision in the Hitchin Urban Transport Plan or NHDC Hitchin Parking Review for this type of proposal." RECOMMENDATION At this stage it is recommended that District and County Councillors for affected areas meet with officers of Herts Highways, Herts Constabulary and NHDC to discuss the issues arising, identify costs/resources and the preferred approach. This would allow more detailed consideration and clarification of the above options. Any discussion should seek to establish the evidence base for any proposals and, if necessary, the work required to support the evidence base as well as consultation with interested parties. HCC's priorities are set out in the UTP and NHDC's within the Hitchin Parking Review. Any discussion on the way forward needs to consider this context." Councillor Billing informed Members that residents in the area of Cadwell Lane suffered a lot of disruption from lorries travelling through the area in order to park up awaiting opening times and stated that residents needed some protection from the disruption to their lives. Regarding the response provided, Councillor Billing advised, that in his opinion, neither option would resolve the problems in the area and therefore he was keen to meet with Officers to discuss the situation RESOLVED: 1) That, in respect of traffic issues around the Cadwell Lane, Hitchin area, the Transport Policy Officer be requested to arrange a meeting between the District and County Councillors who represent the affected areas, Officers of Hertfordshire Highways, Hertfordshire Constabulary and NHDC to discuss the issues, identify costs/resources and the preferred approach. 2) That any discussion should seek to establish the evidence base for any proposals and, if necessary, the work required to support the evidence base as well as consultation with interested parties. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the issues raised under Members Questions are investigated as fully as possible. |
Agreed | Transport Policy Officer |
|
| 60 |
RESOLUTIONS OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Cover Sheet Resolutions Report The Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise presented the report regarding the Resolutions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He advised that a significant number of items had been removed as they had been completed. He drew attention to the following: JULY 2011 - MINUTE 25 - OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY TASK AND FINISH GROUP ON TEENAGERS FACILITIES IN NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE That a representative of Herts County Council Youth Services would be invited to report to the Committee in February 2012. JULY 2011 - MINUTE 26 - TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT - THE INPLEMENTATION OF THE PARKING STRATEGY Members considered that updates should be requested on an annual basis and after each significant development in order to consider the effect of the implementation of the Parking Strategy and were concerned that all areas of parking were reviewed including town centres. The Strategic Director suggested that the update to this report could be included in the February 2011 meeting and that Members consider inviting the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise to that meeting. RESOLVED: (1) That the actions resulting from the resolutions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be noted; (2) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to invite Hertfordshire Youth Services to attend the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee due to be held on 7 February 2012 to update the Committee on progress in respect of the recommendations of the Task and Finish Group on Teenagers Facilities in North Herts; (3) That the Transport Policy Officer be requested to provide an update regarding recommendations of the Task and Finish Group on the Implementation of the Parking Strategy to the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee due to be held on 7 February 2012 and annually thereafter (4) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to invite the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise to present to this Committee at the meeting due to be held on 7 February 2012. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review and monitor the progress of resolutions made. |
Agreed | Scrutiny Officer, Transport Policy Officer |
|
| 61 |
MONITORING OF THE REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000. Report The Corporate Legal Manager presented the report regarding Monitoring the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and drew attention to Paragraph 4.1.1, which detailed the Councils use of RIPA and Paragraph 4.3 of the report which provided an update on the future of RIPA. RESOLVED: That the matters contained in the report entitled "Monitoring the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to properly monitor the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). |
Agreed | ||
| 62 |
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MONITORING REPORT - POSITION AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 Report Appendix A The Performance and Risk Manager presented the report regarding Performance Indicator Monitoring - Position as at 30 September 2011 and drew attention to the following: MI LI015 - NUMBER OF SWIMS AND OTHER VISITS Paragraph 4.3 of the report detailed that the target had been exceeded in the months from July to September 2011, which had resulted in the indicator turning green from amber for the first time since April 2009. Members noted that the number of swims had only increased by 0.03 percent The Performance and Risk Manager acknowledged the small amount of increase, but advised that this indicator had been on a downward trend and therefore any increase was to be welcomed. BV12 - WORKING DAYS LOST DUE TO SICKNESS ABSENCE Short term absence had decreased to 1.33 days, however long term cases had increased, which had affected the indicator. Human Resources considered each case of long term sickness absence on a regular basis with Occupational Health involvement. LI026 - % OF H&PPS PROGRAMMED INSPECTIONS COMPLETED ON TIME (CUMULATIVE PERFORMANCE) Members acknowledged that this indicator had been affected in the past by staff sickness and asked whether the backlog created at that time had now been resolved. The Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise advised that the indicator was cumulative and therefore if a backlog occurred early in the year it became very difficult to recover. The team continued to prioritise inspections and ensure that statutory duties were covered with the result that performance was increasing. RESOLVED: That the position of the Performance Indicators as at 30 September 2011 be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to effectively review the performance of the Council in relation to its performance targets. |
Agreed | ||
| 63 |
HALF YEAR MONITORING REPORT ON THE KEY PROJECTS IN THE PRIORITIES FOR THE DISTRICT 2011/12 Report The Performance and Risk Manager presented the half year report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management regarding Key projects in the Priorities for the District. She advised that Paragraph 2.1 should read " This report does not contain a recommendation on a key decision and has been referred to in the Forward Plan. She drew attention to the following: PARAGRAPH 4.7 CIVIC CENTRE SITE, ROYSTON The forum meeting due to take place in November 2011 would now take place in January 2012 with the draft Design Brief being submitted in March 2012 to the Royston and District Committee followed by public consultation. PARAGRAPH 4.4 REFURBISHMENT OF MULTI-STOREY CAR PARKS Works on refurbishment of car parks would cease from 9 December 2011 to 3 January 2012 in order to maximise parking spaces for the Christmas shopping period. PARAGRAPH 4.14 RE-ROOFING OF NORTH HERTS LEISURE CENTRE This would be completed during the next financial year. PARAGRAPH 4.18 EMERGING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK The Localism Act had now received Royal Assent PARAGRAPH 4.21 REVIEW OF PROVISION OF SOME BACK OFFICE SERVICES Work continued to produce a detailed business case for May 2012 Members were concerned that any delay to production of the business case would preclude the results being considered in the budget setting process. The Performance and Risk Manager advised that implementation had always been planned for 2013/14. PARAGRAPH 4.23 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Members noted that the Constitution gave the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the responsibility of receiving Fundamental Service Reviews as well as initiating them. The Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise advised that Service Reviews had been completed, but had not yet been considered by the Challenge Board. He would advise the Committee regarding the Constitution at a later date. RESOLVED: That progress against the delivery of the Key Projects stated in the Priorities for the District 2011/12 be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to comment on the report entitled "Half Year Monitoring Report on the Key Projects in the Priorities for the District 2011/12" prior to consideration by Cabinet on 13 December 2011. |
Agreed | ||
| 64 |
CEMETERY CAPACITY WITHIN NORTH HERTS Report The Service Manager - Grounds Maintenance presented the report of the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services regarding Cemetery Capacity Within North Herts. He informed Members that new policies had been considered by Cabinet in March 2011 who had agreed to delay implementation until January 2012 in order to allow further research to be undertaken. NHDC had undertaken a consultation exercise which had resulted in 35 responses being received and four organisations expressing an interest to investigate the opportunities for developing cemetery provision. Since conclusion of the consultation exercise in June 2011: ROYSTON Royston Town Council had undertaken work which had identified a site which would be suitable subject to various approvals. ASHWELL Ashwell Parish Council had been investigating solutions to provide extended capacity with the Service Manager providing advice. BALDOCK St Mary's Church, Baldock had identified a plot of land the could be used as a cemetery in future however the Church was reluctant to pursue this. HITCHIN There was a significant area in St John's Cemetery, Hitchin which had already been used for burials but that had no memorials. The Service Manager advised that this area would be a viable location for the development of a Garden of Remembrance and could accommodate the scattering of ashes, although it should be noted that there had been no expressions of interest from Hitchin. Members suggested that public travel to Wilbury Hills Cemetery was not easy if using public transport and welcomed the work being undertaken by the Service Manager to investigate local solutions. Members asked whether people were aware that there was a possibility of reusing graves or placing a garden of remembrance over existing graves. The Service Manager - Grounds Maintenance advised that the area being considered for a garden of remembrance had no memorials in place and that the graves would remain. RESOLVED: That the recommendations contained in the report entitled "Cemetery Capacity within North Herts" be fully supported. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to comment on the report entitled "Cemetery Capacity within North Herts" prior to consideration by Cabinet on 13 December 2011. |
Agreed | ||
| 65 |
HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP In response to a request from a Member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise presented a verbal report on the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership and gave the following information: BACKGROUND Local Enterprise Partnerships are locally-owned partnerships between local authorities and businesses and play a central role in determining local economic priorities and undertaking activities to drive economic growth and the creation of local jobs. They are also a key vehicle in delivering Government objectives for economic growth and decentralisation, whilst also providing a means for local authorities to work together with business in order to quicken the economic recovery; - As Local Enterprise Partnerships are based on economic areas, they will be better placed to determine the needs of the local economy along with a greater ability to identify barriers to local economic growth; - On 28 October 2010, Government announced 24 partnerships that were ready to move forward and establish their Local Enterprise Partnership boards. A further 14 partnerships had been announced since October; - There were two Local Enterprise Partnerships which NHDC is a member of being Hertfordshire and Greater Cambridge/Greater Peterborough. HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP - The Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership was a new business-led partnership responsible for growing the economy in Hertfordshire by removing barriers to growth and creating new jobs; - The aims were to help existing businesses to grow and bring new businesses into the county, ensure skills provision met the needs of business, secure investment for key infrastructure and promote Hertfordshire as a place of prosperity to business and visitors; - An interim Board had been established together with Sub-Boards including Strategic Infrastructure (NHDC represented) and Innovation and Enterprise; - Herts bid for an Enterprise Zone to be based at Maylands in Dacorum, but this was unsuccessful; - Issues being considered included business related broadband infrastructure constraints and working with the operators to enable speeding up of connections; - Growing Places Funding of £10m was available for Hertfordshire to allocate to Infrastructure investment to bring forward housing and jobs. GREATER CAMBRIDGE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP - It was important to maintain links with this Partnership; - In January 2011 key areas of focus were agreed by the Project Board including skills and employment, and support for high growth business; - They would be focusing on attracting funding including regional growth funding and growing places funding. - The Partnership had been successful in its bid for an Enterprise Zone. Members asked several questions including whether more information was available regarding the bid process; whether widening of the A1(M) would be considered; how was the work of the Local Enterprise Partnership judged and who was it accountable to. They requested information regarding membership, accountability and scrutiny arrangements. The Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise advised that he would prepare an information note for Members regarding the Local Enterprise Partnerships; that the Strategic Infrastructure Sub-Board would consider infrastructure projects and would work with partners and other agencies to progress; that the Local Enterprise Partnership was autonomous and therefore it was important that objectives were measurable. RESOLVED: (1) That the Strategic Director of Planning Housing and Enterprise be requested to circulate a briefing note to all Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding Local Enterprise Partnership membership; (2) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to invite a Board member of the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership to attend the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting due to be held on 13 March 2012. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is updated on the work of the Local Enterprise Partnerships. |
Agreed | Scrutiny Officer, Strategic Director of Planning/Housing & Enterprise |
|
| 66 |
TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT ON PROJECT BOARDS Covering Report Addendum Report Appendix A - Task and Finish Group Report An addendum report detailing the comments of the Senior Management Team on the Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group Report on Project Boards was tabled at the meeting. Councillor David Billing, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group on Project Boards, presented the report. He thanked the members of the Task and Finish Group and the Scrutiny Officer for their hard work and diligence and drew attention to the following: PARAGRAPH 2.1 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT The Task and Finish Group had limited knowledge of the role of the project board and through the investigation clarified that Prince 2 protocols were adopted by project boards and that Members could request information using the protocol for communication they concluded that communication from project boards should be improved. Paragraph 2.4 of the addendum report detailed the Senior Management Team comments that the Project Management protocol on communication should be followed, although there may be specific reasons or constraints around communication matter. Which in some instance would affect the level of detail that could be communicated. The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group accepted that there may be legal or contractural reasons why some issues may not be communicated, but did not see this as affecting the Task and Finish Groups recommendation that communication from project boards should be improved. PARAGRAPH 2.2 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT The Group interviewed project board members, senior staff and the Chief Executive regarding membership of project boards. There were two types of projects, those that had a less obvious effect on service users and those which were public facing. Users were currently represented by the Portfolio Holder and although membership may be democratic when initiated, it did not remain so whilst the project was in progress. The Group therefore concluded that public facing projects, in terms of reference and composition of project boards, should have greater Member and stakeholder involvement. Paragraph 2.5 of the addendum report detailed the Senior Management Team comments that consideration needed to be given to the Member role on any specific project board and that to require a local Member as well as a relevant Portfolio Holder as a matter of principle was unduly prescriptive. The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group did not accept the comments of the Senior Management Team that requiring a local Member would be unduly prescriptive. PARAGRAPH 2.3 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT The current method of communication appeared to be that information was given to Members when they asked for it, however they felt that, because milestones of a project were not made available, Members did not know the appropriate time to ask for that information. The Group concluded that decisions and progress against milestones should be recorded and made accessible to Members through Member Information Service. Paragraph 2.6 of the addendum report detailed the Senior Management Team comments that there was some concern that this recommendation would add additional time and cost burdens on a project and felt that a flexible approach should be used regarding the publication of information. The Chairman did not accept that publishing basic milestone information to Members in order that they could ask for further information would add time or cost burdens to a project. PARAGRAPH 2.4 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT The Group considered that the Priorities for the District report did not provide sufficient info to enable monitoring of a project and concluded that the scrutiny of project boards should be improved, with exception reports being sent to either the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or Area Committee for consideration. Paragraph 2.6 of the addendum report detailed the Senior Management Team comments that there was some concern that this recommendation would add additional time and costs burdens on a project and felt that a flexible approach be used to communication. The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group stated that scrutiny of a project should be improved and exception reports would be a way to do this. PARAGRAPH 2.5 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT The Group concluded that the Project Assurance Officer should take an active role to ensure that project risks and issues were highlighted and dealt with in a timely manner. PARAGRAPH 2.6 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT Debriefing sessions should take place at the end of each project and lessons learnt actively shared corporately. Paragraph 2.7 of the addendum report detailed the Senior Management Team's strong support for this recommendation. PARAGRAPH 2.7 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT Project Boards should be renamed Project advisory boards in order to make the role clear to the public. Paragraph 2.8 of the addendum report detailed the Senior management Team comments that the renaming of Project Boards may cause confusion with other parties such as contractors or external delivery organisations. The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group advised that other authorities called Project Boards by different names and that this should not confuse the organisations we wish to work with. PARAGRAPH 2.8 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT Members required further information and training on the roles and responsibilities of project boards and this should be addressed through an information note to Members and inclusion of the topic in the new Member induction programmed. PARAGRAPH 3.15 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT Paragraph 2.3 (i) of the addendum report detailed the Senior Management Team comments that having fixed rules on Project Board membership would add unnecessary constraints and potentially costs to project delivery and that Project Boards needed to be flexible. The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group did not accept the comments of the Senior Management Team that rules regarding membership of a project board would add unnecessary contraints an potential costs on project delivery. PARAGRAPH 3.26 OF THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT Paragraph 2.3 (ii) of the addendum report detailed the Senior Management Team comments that, in relation to Communication and visibility the Task and Finish Group report should be clarified regarding publication of board minutes on the Internet. The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group was happy to accept this clarification. Members discussed that recommending improved communication did not mean that every detail would be required, but that communication with Members about milestones and delays to a project should be improved. They agreed that local Member involvement in a project board should not be seen as detrimental and could see no reason for this recommendation to be amended. RESOLVED: (1) That, in respect of the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task and Finish Group on Project Boards (following consideration of the comments from Senior Management Team), the following responses of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be reported to Cabinet at the meeting due to be held on 24 January 2012: (i) That the comments relating to Recommendation 2.1 of the Task and Finish Group Report be supported; (ii) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agree with the comments relating to Recommendation 2.2 of the Task and Finish Report that, a local Member should be on project boards which related to a specific area; (iii) That, in respect of the comments regarding Recommendations 2.3 and 2.4 of the Task and Finish Group Report, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recognised that a flexible approach was required, providing one of the specified options was used; (iv) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee welcomed the support of the Senior Management Team regarding Recommendation 2.6 of the Task and Finish Group Report; (v) That, in respect of Recommendation 2.7 of the Task and Finish Group Report, the title "Project Advisory Boards" should be used in future as these were not decision making bodies; (vi) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee did not accept the comments relating to Paragraph 3.15 of the Task and Finish Group Report which stated that alterations to membership of Project Boards would add unnecessary constraints and potentially costs to project delivery; (vii) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee accepted that Paragraph 3.26 of the Task and Finish Group Report should be clarified in regard to the publication of Board Minutes on the Internet; (2) That, subject to the comments in (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report of the Task and Finish Group on Project Boards be supported. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to effectively scrutinise the work of Project Boards. |
Agreed | Scrutiny Officer |
|
| 67 |
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2011/12 Work Programme - Covering Report Appendix A - Work Programme Draft Forward Plan Forward Plan - Pending Items The Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise presented the Work Programme 2011/2012 and drew attention to the following: AMENDMENTS TO THE REPORT That matters to be discussed at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting due to be held on 13 March 2012 should read: "Crime and Disorder Matters, Portfolio Holder Presentation (tbc), Update on the use of powers under RIPA, Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report." That Table 3 (i) of the report should read: "responsibility for strategic corporate planning and development" PORTFOLIO HOLDER PRESENTATIONS That the Portfolio Holder for Policy had been invited to address the Committee at the meeting due to be held on 17 January 2012 and Members should consider which areas of her portfolio she should be asked to focus on. He also asked Members to consider which Portfolio Holder they would like to invite to attend the March 2012 meeting of the Committee. Members agreed that the Portfolio Holder for Policy should be requested to focus on items (iv), (v) and (viii) as detailed in Table 3 of the report and that the Portfolio Holder for Leisure be invited to make a presentation to the March meeting of this Committee. TASK AND FINISH GROUPS The Task and Finish Group on Communication and Consultation had completed its work, the report would be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 17 January 2012. The review of Street Cleansing would commence in December 2011 and was scheduled to meet 4 times over an 8 week period. Members agreed that the process around the local Development Framework should be considered and that they would wish to consider any report due to be presented to Cabinet regarding housing numbers. FORWARD PLAN Members considered that the following item from the forward Plan should be considered by this Committee "Closure of Bancroft Hall". RESOLVED: (1) That, subject to any further suggestions being received by the Scrutiny Officer, the Scrutiny Officer be requested to ask the Portfolio Holder for Policy to focus on the following elements of her Portfolio in her presentation to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting due to take place on 17 January 2012: (i) The Council's Annual Report, service reviews, performance statistics and all aspects of the Council's efforts to secure improvements in quality in its services, cost improvements and external accreditation and recognition, including Comprehensive Area Assessment; (ii) the Council's officer arrangements for scrutiny activity through its Overview and Scrutiny Committees; (iii) the Council's communications strategies and activities and press and publicity activity; (2) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to invite the Portfolio Holder for Leisure to address the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting due to take place on 13 March 2012; (3) That the Process around the Local Development Framework could be considered as a Task and Finish Group; (4) That any report regarding Local Development Framework Housing Numbers be considered by this Committee prior to consideration by Cabinet; (5) That the item entitled "Closure of Bancroft Hall" be considered by this Committee prior to consideration be Cabinet on 24 January 2012; REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to plan and carry out its workload efficiently and effectively. |
Agreed | Scrutiny Officer |
|