| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor R.L. Shakespeare - Smith (Chairman), Councillor Cathryn Henry (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor Steve Hemingway, Councillor Sal Jarvis, Councillor David Kearns, Councillor Ben Lewis, Councillor Sandra Lunn, Councillor Gerald Morris, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Frank Radcliffe, Councillor Deborah Segalini. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Councillor Tony Hunter (Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs), Andrew Cavanagh (Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management), Liz Green (Head of Policy and Community Services), Anthony Roche (Acting Corporate Legal Manager), Fiona Timms (Performance and Risk Manager), Brendan Sullivan (Scrutiny Officer) and Hilary Dineen (Committee and Member Services Officer). |
| ALSO PRESENT: | At the start of the meeting 5 members of the public. |
| Meeting attachment |
Agenda Front Sheet |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 29 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Harris and David Leal-Bennett. |
Noted | ||
| 30 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 July 2014 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 31 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS No other business was submitted for consideration by the Committee. |
Noted | ||
| 32 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman advised that he would re-order the agenda to enable the Items entitled Public Participation, Presentation by the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs and Asset Disposal Strategy and Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework to be considered one following the other, as they all related to the same subject; (2) Members were reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda, should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and are required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item. Members declaring a Declarable Interest which requires they leave the room under Paragraph 7.4 of the Code of Conduct, can speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote. |
Noted | ||
| 33 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mr Bernard Eddleston and Mr Robin Dartington of Charnwood Community Management Association, provided Members with a list of comments and suggestions regarding the Asset Disposal Strategy and Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework (Minute 39 refers) and gave a verbal presentation on the subject. Mr Dartington stated that the Government recognised the value of buildings and as such the Localism Act gave timescales regarding the disposal of buildings which included a 6 month moratorium before disposal to allow Community Groups to work up proposals to take on those buildings. Charnwood Community Management Association had recently been formed and been awarded grant funding of £7,000 to undertake pre-feasibility work to draw up plans for Charnwood House to become an educational centre. This funding was time limited and had to be used within 12 weeks. He advised that the Council needed to make a shift in its priorities and that Charnwood Community Management Association wished to work with NHDC as a partner regarding Charnwood House and asked Members to consider the list of comments and suggestions provided by them. Mr Eddleston stated that he was considering the Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework from the perspective of the Community Group. He assured Members that the group could manage the property, improve the building and bring it into use for the community, but to do this, groups would need access very early in the process in order to work up proposals. He believed that the proposed policy, particularly Paragraph 5.2, did not encourage community groups, stifled innovation and prevented community groups from accessing funding and the timetables in Section 6 were not long enough. Mr Eddleston urged the Committee to consider the Policy from the perspective of the community. Members asked several questions including whether Area Committees should have a role. In respect of Paragraph 1.3.2 of the suggestions, Members asked what form any assistance should take. They queried whether, if there were two groups interested in a property they would share any information they had gathered. Mr Eddleston informed Members that he would welcome Area Committee involvement and that the only reason it was not mentioned in their suggestions was that it was not in the NHDC Policy to start with. Mr Dartington stated that Area Committees met too irregularly. In respect of Paragraph 1.3.2 assistance would include such things as the provision of plans, surveyors report. If more than one group was interested in a property any information gathered by those groups would only be shared with each other at the same time it was shared with the Council, also the Council should introduce all groups interested in a property to enable them the opportunity to draw up a joint proposal. The Chairman thanked Mr Eddleston and Mr Dartington for their presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 34 |
URGENT/GENERAL EXCEPTION ITEMS No urgent or general exception items were received. |
Noted | ||
| 35 |
CALLED IN ITEMS Since the last meeting, no decisions had been called-in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. |
Noted | ||
| 36 |
MEMBERS' QUESTIONS No questions had been submitted. |
Noted | ||
| 37 |
PRESENTATION BY THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND RURAL AFFAIRS Councillor Tony Hunter, Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs, thanked the Committee for inviting him to give a presentation regarding the Asset Disposal Strategy and Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework (Minute 39 refers). Councillor Hunter stated that NHDC did excellent work with communities and community groups and that the Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework was in response to a number of recent changes in government legislation. The priorities of the Council were to the whole of North Hertfordshire, not just one area or one group and as such had to consider the benefits to the whole community when considering any proposals. He stated that these documents had been through a lot of processes and taken a lot of hard work so far and drew attention to Paragraph 6.2.3 of the Community Asset Transfer Policy which detailed who would consider any proposal and this included Ward Members. Paragraph 7.5 of the covering report explained that this Policy had been reviewed by the organisation "Locality" and considered to be sound and set out principles and processes under which asset transfer could take place. Members asked several questions including in what circumstances would selling a property be more beneficial than enabling a community group to use it. There was concern that Area Committee input wasn't included in the document and that sale of a property appeared to be more important than community use. Councillor Hunter reiterated that the benefit should be considered for the whole of the District as well as for a particular area and that the benefits of both would have to be taken into account. He drew attention to 1.3.2 of the Community Asset Transfer policy which explained that the Authority has to assess the consideration it receives in return for an asset and that this consideration was not restricted to financial gain. In respect of Area Committee input, he stated that this could be specifically included. Exceptionally the Chairman agreed that Mr Dartington could ask a question. Mr Dartington stated that the Council could retain ownership and lease a premises. The Chairman assured Mr Dartington that the Council would consider every option on a case by case basis. Members were concerned about what would happen if an interested group needed more than the 6 months mentioned in the report and asked if this could be extended. They were also concerned that, if extended, discussions without a conclusion could continue for an unreasonable period and queried whether discussions could take place between the Council and more than one group at any time during that process. The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management explained that a group must have commenced Stage 1 within the 6 months, that the length of discussions would depend on the complexity of the asset and that Cabinet would decide on a case by case basis when discussions should come to an end. In respect of multiple groups making applications for a single property, a nomination to make something an asset of community value did not entitle the nominator to exclusive bids for the asset and NHDC could talk to any interested parties, including commercial groups during the 6 month moratorium. The Head of Policy and Community Services advised that the Council aimed to continue to assist and enable community groups and that timetables were needed, although it was acknowledged that some community groups may necessarily take time. The Chairman thanked Councillor Hunter for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 38 |
RESOLUTIONS OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Resolutions List The Scrutiny Officer presented the report entitled Resolutions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and drew attention to the following: MINUTE 26 - JULY 2014 - TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT PARTNERSHIPS IN NORTH HERTS Members had queried the legality of including conditions of employment and training in Section 106 agreements. The Scrutiny Officer said he had received advice from the Council's Legal Department who had advised that employment and training conditions could be negotiated into a Section 106 Agreement provided the conditions were reasonable and enforceable and not so onerous that they placed an unnecessary burden on the developer. There were precedents available for the wording of such conditions and working with the developer from the pre-application stage should enable the formulation of an Agreement suitable to both the Council's planning authority and the developer which met the twin requirements of enforceability and reasonableness. RESOLVED: That the actions resulting from the resolutions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review and monitor the progress of resolutions made. |
Agreed | ||
| 39 |
ASSET DISPOSAL STRATEGY AND COMMUNITY ASSET TRANSFER POLICY/FRAMEWORK Report Appendix 1 - Revised Cabinet Asset Disposal Strategy Appendix 2 - Community Asset Transfer Policy The Head of Finance Performance and Asset Management presented the report entitled Asset Disposal Strategy and Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework. He advised Members that the report considered two issues, being Community Asset Transfer and Assets of Community Value. The Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework set out how the Council would proceed and identified another method that the Council could chose to dispose of an asset. The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management explained that the Right to Bid was a statutory Instrument with statutory timescales, however the Community Asset document should not be too prescriptive as the Council would need to consider the skills, abilities and time available of the applicant group. He stated that the Council would consider any application from any group and that more than one group could make an application. Although the Council would encourage groups to talk to each other it was not for the Council to co-ordinate this. He informed Members that this policy did not change the decision making process regarding the disposal of assets, until a decision had been made by Cabinet to dispose of an asset it would not be deemed as surplus to requirements. The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management drew attention Paragraph 8.6 of the report and clarified that the Community Group would have the full six months in which to make the initial request (stage 1) as set out on the CAT Policy. Members asked several questions and debated the Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework as follows: KEY STAGES Members queried whether the initial 6 month period could be extended if necessary, whether the key stages timetable was adjustable. They were concerned as to how long discussions with a community group regarding an asset could continue and what would be seen as reasonable. The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management clarified that Stage 1 would have to have commenced within the 6 month period, the key stage timetable was indicative rather than prescriptive. In respect of continuing discussions regarding an asset this would depend on the complexity of the asset, the skills of the community group and, recognising that most community groups are managed by volunteers, the time available for them to spend on this. Members agreed that: - The Key Stage Timetable at section 6 of the Policy should be re-titled "Indicative Key Stages"; - Paragraph 1.3.2 be amended to make clearer that the six month period could be extended as agreed by both parties and that any recommendation to terminate discussions with a group would be the subject of a report to and agreement by Cabinet; - Paragraph 1.3.2 be amended to include that at an early stage of the process, the Council, in discussion with the community group, would agree a specific indicative timetable. MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS Members accepted that it wasn't for NHDC to facilitate talks between varying groups that may apply for the same asset, but felt the policy should address how they would manage this possible situation. The Head of Finance Performance and Asset Management advised that a nomination to declare an asset of community value did not entitle the nominator to exclusive bids for that asset, should it be declared surplus to requirements and the Council could choose to talk to other groups until such time as Cabinet make a decision as to disposal of the asset. They agreed that NHDC should enable contact between the groups and that Paragraph 5.4 of the CAT Policy should be amended to include that if more than one group express an interest then the council would seek to enable contact between the groups. Members were concerned that, once embarked on the process groups needed to be assured that they were the only group being talked to and thought that Paragraph 6.4 should be amended to reflect this. The Acting Corporate Legal Manager queried whether the Council would want to limit its options by giving exclusivity to one group early on in the process. Members agreed that Paragraph 6.4 (first sentence) be amended to add ‘ If such a decision is made to proceed with the Community group then the Council will not proceed with any other party concerning the disposal of the asset until a further and final report is made to cabinet based on a detailed business plan (Stage 2)'. Members were concerned that it was not clear whether the key stages were concurrent or consecutive and agreed that Section 6 be amended in order to clarify that the stages are consecutive weeks. COSTS Members queried how much this process may cost the Council. The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management advised that costs would be dependent on the size and complexity of the asset and the skills of the community group interested in taking on the asset. However handing over an asset would remove the liability for the Council and therefore the costs involved in this process would be of benefit to NHDC over a period of time. The Acting Corporate Legal Manager advised that the amount of cost to the Council could also depend on the Community Group's Business Plan. DECISION MAKING/CONSULTATION Members acknowledged that any decision was in the power of Cabinet, but felt that consultation with Area Committees was an imperative, as they may have more knowledge of both the asset and the community group making an application. They agreed that due to the limited number of Area Committee meetings, this consultation could be completed by way of email. The Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management clarified that consultation with the relevant Area Committee, and local Ward Member(s) remained part of the Asset Disposal Strategy. Members agreed that Section 6.2.3 should be amended to include that Area Committees or Members of the Area Committees had been consulted. OTHER ISSUES Members acknowledged the email sent to them by Mr Dartington, which included several suggested amendments. They agreed that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs and relevant Officers be asked to review this document and include any further recommendations with the referral from this Committee. ACCESS TO BUILDINGS The Acting Corporate Legal Manager advised that there may be good operational reasons as to why groups may not be given access to a particular building and that, if entry was allowed, this may raise expectations that the building would become surplus to requirements. Members discussed the suggestion that groups should be given access to buildings whether or not they had been declared as surplus to requirements. Although there was some sympathy for the needs of the groups to see the buildings, they agreed that this would not be available as a matter of course, although any group could apply to look round a building and the Council would make a decision on a case by case basis. RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: That, in respect of the Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework, attached at Appendix 2 to the report, (1) The Key Stage Timetable at Section 6 of the report should be re-titled "Indicative Key Stages"; (2) Paragraph 1.3.2 should be amended to make clearer that the six month period could be extended as agreed by both parties and that any recommendation to terminate discussions with a group would be the subject of a report to, and decision of Cabinet; (3) Paragraph 1.3.2 should be amended to include that at an early stage of the process, the Council, in discussion with the community group, would agree a specific indicative timetable; (4) Paragraph 5.4 should be amended to include that, if more than one group express an interest then the council would seek to enable contact between the groups; (5) Paragraph 6.4 (first sentence) should be amended to add ‘ If a decision is made to proceed with a Community group then the Council will not proceed with any other party concerning the disposal of the asset until a further and final report is made to cabinet based on a detailed business plan (Stage 2)'; (6) Section 6 should be amended in order to clarify that the stages are consecutive weeks; (7) Section 6.2.3 should be amended to ensure that Area Committees or Members of the Area Committees have been consulted. RESOLVED: That the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs and relevant Officers, be asked to review the document supplied by Mr Dartington and include any further recommendations with the referral from this Committee. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the report entitled Asset Disposal Strategy and Community Asset Transfer Policy/Framework. |
Agreed | ||
| 40 |
REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT (RIPA) UPDATE AND ANNUAL REVIEW Report Appendix A - Ripa Policy The Acting Corporate Legal Manager presented the report entitled Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act Update and Annual Review. He drew attention Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of the report which detailed that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee received quarterly updates regarding the use of RIPA and that there had had been no further RIPA authorisations since the last report and no on-going RIPA authorisations. The Acting Corporate Legal Manager referred to an article which gave the view of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner regarding the impact of the requirement for a magistrate to sign off RIPA authorisations and offered to circulate this to all Members of the Committee. The Acting Corporate Legal Manager reminded Members that the Council's RIPA Policy must be reviewed annually and that a comprehensive review of the Policy had been carried out in 2013. He advised that the policy had not been used since the Policy was last reviewed and there had been no updated guidance produced and therefore it was proposed that the existing RIPA Policy be re-adopted for a further year. RESOLVED: (1) That the Acting Corporate Legal Manager be requested to circulate the article regarding the Chief Surveillance Commissioner's view's to all Members and substitutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee; (2) That, in respect of the Council's use of RIPA, the report be noted. RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: That the Council's RIPA Policy, as attached at Appendix A to the report, be re-adopted. REASON FOR DECISION: (1) To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review and monitor the use of RIPA progress of resolutions made. (2) To comply with best practice guidance and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee's terms of reference. |
Agreed | ||
| 41 |
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MONITORING REPORT - FIRST QUARTER 2014 Performance Indicator Monitoring Information The Performance and Risk Manager presented the report entitled Performance Indicator Monitoring Report - First Quarter 2014 and drew attention to the following: BV8 - PERCENTAGE OF INVOICES PAID ON TIME All invoices had been paid within 32 days of the invoice date. BV9 - PERCENTAGE OF COUNCIL TAX COLLECTED IN YEAR & BV10 - PERCENTAGE OF NNDR COLLECTED IN YEAR Both targets had been met, but the percentage collected was lower than in June 2013. BV12 - WORKING DAYS LOST DUE TO SICKNESS ABSENCE, BV12a - WORKING DAYS LOST DUE TO SHORT TERM SICKNESS ABSENCE & BV12b - WORKING DAYS LOST DUE TO LONG TERM SICKNESS ABSENCE The amount of short term sickness absence had improved since June 2013, but long term sickness absence had increased, which was reflected in the total days lost figures. NI191 - Kg RESIDUAL WASTE PER HOUSEHOLD & NI192 - PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE SENT FOR RE-USE, RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING Members asked how NHDC compared to other authorities. The Performance and Risk Manager advised that she would find the information and report back to Members. CP LI042 - COST OF DOMESTIC EASTE COLLECTION PER HOUSEHOLD Cabinet had agreed to delete this performance indicator therefore the 2013/14 year end data completed the reporting cycle. Members asked why Cabinet had decided to delete this Performance Indicator. The Performance and Risk Manager advised that she would investigate and report back to Members. CP LI045 - PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING ON BROWN FIELD SITES Members asked whether the figures quoted related to the number of sites or the number of houses and asked that the commentary for this Performance Indicator be made clearer for future reports. The Performance and Risk Manager advised that the figure quoted were was the number of dwellings. RESOLVED: (1) That the Performance and Risk Manager be requested to circulate the answers to the following queries regarding Performance Indictors BV12 and BV12a to all Members and substitutes of the Committee: (i) In respect of BV12 and BV12a, how did NHDC compare with other like Authorities; (ii) In respect of CP LI042, why did Cabinet chose to delete this Performance Indicator after 2013/14. (2) That the Performance and Risk Manager be requested to provide a clearer explanation in the narrative of Performance Indicator CP LI045. (3) That the Performance Indicator Monitoring Report - First Quarter 2014 be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider Performance Indicator Monitoring. |
Agreed | ||
| 42 |
DBS CHECKS FOR NHDC COUNCILLORS - POLICY POSISITON Report The Head of Policy and Community Services presented the report entitled DBC Checks for NHDC Councillors - Policy Position and drew attention to Paragraphs 7.2.3 which gave examples of the type of activity that would be considered regulated activities and therefore require a Disclosure Barring Service Check and Paragraph 7.2.4 which demonstrated that the majority of NHDC Councillors or Co-Opted members did not undertake those types of activities. She informed Members that NHDC took a proportionate approach when considering whether DBS checks were required and reminded Members that, if Councillors wished to change the Policy, there would be associated costs and therefore Cabinet would need to identify funding to accommodate this. There was some debate about the duties undertaken by Councillors and the risks associated with those duties and whether DBS checks should be undertaken on all NHDC Councillors as a matter of course. Following a vote it was: RESOLVED: (1) That the current NHDC policy in regard to Disclosure Barring Service checks on Officers and Elected Members be noted; (2) That the current Hertfordshire County Council policy in regard to Disclosure Barring Service checks on Members, and the rationale for that approach be noted; (3) That the Head of Policy and Community Services be requested to include a review of the policy for Disclosure Barring Service checks on elected Members and any proposal for change in the annual review of Safeguarding, due to be presented to this Committee in July 2015. REASON FOR DECISION: (1) To ensure that the current policy in regard to Disclosure Barring Service Checks on Officers and elected Members is proportionate to the duties undertaken. (2) To recognise that the approach taken by Hertfordshire County Council reflected the increased children and adult care responsibilities. |
Agreed | ||
| 43 |
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME Report Appendix A - Forward Plan The Scrutiny Officer presented the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme report and drew attention to the following: CRIME AND DISORDER The Scrutiny Officer reminded Members that this Committee had responsibility for scrutinising crime and disorder matters and needed to hold at least one crime and disorder meeting each year. He suggested that the Chief Inspector for North Herts and the Head of Housing and Public Protection Service be invited to attend the January meeting of this Committee. Members considered it might be useful to look beyond neighbourhood policing issues and scrutinise more strategic considerations such as the reorganisation and resource sharing of the Hertfordshire and neighbouring Constabularies. The Committee suggested that the Scrutiny Officer invite the Police and Crime Commissioner and The Chief Constable for Hertfordshire to the next meeting. LEADER OF THE COUNCIL The Scrutiny Officer reminded Members that the Leader of the Council would be invited to attend the March meeting of this Committee and asked whether Members had any specific topics that they wished her to concentrate on. Members suggested that the Leader be requested to provide an overview of 2014/15 and a forward projection for 2015/16. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Members asked that the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise be invited to attend the January meeting of this Committee to discuss the Local Development Plan. FORWARD PLAN The Scrutiny Officer asked Members to identify any items from the Forward Plan that they would wish to consider. Members considered that the items entitled "Land at Radburn Way/Baldock Road, Letchworth Garden City" and "Town Lodge and Associated Properties, Letchworth Garden City" should, be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Letchworth Committee. They also considered that the items entitled "Adoption of a Community Trigger in Resect of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014" and "Community Centres - Lease Renewals" should be considered by this Committee. Members asked that the Scrutiny Officer investigate the appropriate timing for reviewing the performance criteria regarding the Waste and Street Cleansing Contract. TASK AND FINISH GROUPS Members asked the Scrutiny Officer to draw up a draft scoping document for a Task and Finish Group on The commercialisation of Council Services, which would include preparedness and expertise available. RESOLVED: (1) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to invite the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire and the Chief Constable for Hertfordshire to attend the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting due to be held on 9 December 2015; (2) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to invite the Leader of the Council to give an overview of 2014/15 and forward projection for 2015/16 to the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee due to be held on 17 March 2015; (3) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to invite the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise to attend the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee due to be held on 20 January 2015 in order to discuss the Local Development Plan; (4) That the items on the Forward Plan entitled "Land at Radburn Way/Baldock Road, Letchworth Garden City" and "Town Lodge and Associated Properties, Letchworth Garden City", due to be considered by Cabinet in 27 January 2015, be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Letchworth Committee; (5) That the following items on the Forward Plan be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee: (i) Adoption of a Community Trigger in Resect of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, due to be considered by Cabinet on 16 December 2014 (ii) Community Centres - Lease Renewals, due to be considered by Cabinet on 16 December 2014; (6) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to ascertain the appropriate timing to review the performance criteria regarding the Waste and Street Cleansing Contract; (7) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to draw up a draft scoping document for a Task and Finish Group on The commercialisation of Council Services, which would include preparedness and expertise available; (8) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to plan and carry out its workload efficiently and effectively. |
Agreed | ||