Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Allen, Councillor Maqbool and Councillor Martin.  Councillor Serluca, Councillor Harper and Councillor Forbes were in attendance as substitutes.

There were no declarations of interest or whipping declarations.

The Chair advised the Committee that due to unforeseen personal circumstances the officer presenting item 5 on the agenda Environment Capital Update Report had been unable to attend the meeting to present her report.  The Chair asked the Committee if they would agree to defer the item until the next meeting in September.  The Committee agreed in favour of this request.

Councillor Peach advised the Chair that he would have to leave the meeting early to attend another meeting.

The Committee had been asked to consider a Call-In request that had been made in relation to the decision madeby Cabinet and published on 1 July 2013, regarding Passenger Transport - Subsidised Service Provision - JUL13/CAB/059.

The request to Call-In this decision was made on 4 July 2013 by Councillor Shearman and supported by Councillor Sylvester.  The decision for Call-In was based on the following grounds:

(i)      The decision does not follow the principles of good decision making set out in Article 12 of the Council’s Constitution specifically that the decision maker did not:

a)    Realistically consider all alternatives and, where reasonably possible, consider the views of the public.

b)    Act for a proper purpose and in the interests of the public.

The reasons put forward by the Councillors were:

a)    i. There appears to be no consideration given to the re-routing of bus routes to ensure vulnerable communities do not lose their bus routes.(e.g. in the  Ravensthorpe area and also along Garton End Road)

ii. Contact has been made with us by a number of members of the public stating they had no idea that their bus route (particularly 406) was vulnerable to these reductions in service.

b)    It is not in the interests of vulnerable members of the public – particularly the elderly – to have their bus route (particularly route 406) WITHDRAWN. This route in particular provides a lifeline for many of these residents and to walk to the nearest retained route is for these people both unrealistic and uncaring.

After considering the request to call-in and all relevant advice, the Committee were required to decide either to:

(a)         not agree to the request to call-in, when the decision shall take effect;

             (b)       refer the decision back to the decision maker for reconsideration, setting out its concerns; or

             (c)       refer the matter to full Council.

The Chairman read out the procedure for the meeting.

Councillor Shearman and Councillor Sylvester each addressed the Committee stating why they had called the decision in.

Councillor Shearman made the following points:

·         Did not believe that the decision made considered all alternatives or considered the views of the public.

·         There was a great strength of feeling from members of the public against the decision.

·         When the cuts to bus services were decided upon alternative services should have been provided.

·         Had discussions taken place with Stagecoach to mitigate the impact of the service cuts?

·         Were the public consulted, were Age Concern consulted and people with disabilities.

·         Was the decision taken in the interest of the elderly, infirm and disabled?

·         The decision maker had failed to recognise that there were small communities that would now become isolated.

·         The decision was unrealistic and uncaring.

Councillor Sylvester made the following points:

·         Councillor Sylvester had been part of the Cross-Party Cabinet Advisory Group which was tasked with the role of reducing the cost of subsidised transport.  Members were informed that the Group worked to a very tight timescale to make recommendations but had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Partnership Director introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the performance of the Peterborough Serco Strategic Partnership contract.  The report covered the period 2012 to end of March 2013.  Members were informed that performance had improved since last reporting to the Committee in July 2012.  The report covered the following areas of operation:

·         Operations

o   Service delivery and improvements

o   Service Improvement Plans

·         Growth

·         Transformation

·         Procurement

Also included in the report was performance data against the Key Performance Indicators against which Serco were measured.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members sought clarification on the data provided on benefits performance which had shown a year on year increase in the number of days to process the claims.  Members were informed that there had been an unexpected significant increase in the activity around benefit claims.  Some of this was due to the change in government legislation which had made it easier for people to receive benefits such as automatic claim intervention from the Department of Work and Pensions.  Measures to transform the service were being taken to reduce the number of days to process the claims.

·         Members sought clarification of the national indicator NI181?  Members were advised that this was a National Indicator that was an aggregation of new claims and changes in circumstances.

·         Members were concerned about the data for complaints about Customer Service which had highlighted 26 complaints regarding staff attitude / conduct and complaints relating to Revenues and Benefits which had highlighted 72 complaints for delayed / failed service.  Members were advised that there would always be some people who were not satisfied with the service even if provided within the timescale.  Complaints regarding the delay and failure of service for revenues and benefits did not necessarily mean that the service provided was not within the required timescale.  All complaints still had to be logged even if the service provided had been within the timescale.  Customer service attitude was taken very seriously and people who did not have the right attitude were either retrained or let go if the conduct had not improved.

·         Who set the Key Performance Indicators?  Members were advised that the KPI’s were set locally by the Council and some were national targets. 

·         Members sought clarification on the following statement in the report “the next year is likely to see the Council and Serco bidding together for a range of opportunities which could include commissioning and delivery of health and social care services”. Members wanted to know if this meant that Peterborough would be approaching other local authorities to operate their health and social care services.  Or did it mean the health and social care services within Peterborough City Council would be handed over to Serco to run.  Members were informed that the example mentioned in the report was something that was being worked on with Serco and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group.  There were four areas of commissioning that had gone out to tender  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Waste Partnership Officer introduced the report which informed the Committee about the planned relocation of the Household Recycling Centre (HRC) from its current location next to the landfill site at Dogsthorpe to a new site in Fengate in the former RSG building.  Members were advised that the move was necessary as the lease at Dogsthorpe would expire in October 2014.  The council had a statutory obligation to have a Household Recycling Centre and therefore another location had to be found.  The proposed new location which was the former RSG building had a number of benefits including a well-positioned location, a larger site which was already owned by the council and it had existing planning permission for other waste uses.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         What provision has been made for people who did not have cars who wanted to transport waste to the new location.  Members were advised that it was near a cycle route and there were also a lot of bring sites located across the city which took recycled goods.  Some of these also took electrical goods.

·         Had a survey been conducted to establish how many people attend the current Dogsthorpe site either by walking or cycling?  Members were advised that a survey had been conducted over a few days to see what mode of transport people arrived by and no one had arrived by cycle or by walking.

·         The Waste Partnership Manager advised Members that there were alternative collection services for people who did not have cars like the bulky waste collection service.

ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee noted the report and supported the proposal to relocate the Household Recycling Centre to the former RSG building in Fengate.

The Waste Partnership Manager introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the progress of the development of the Energy from Waste (EfW) Facility in Fengate.  Members were reminded of the background to the project and the key benefits.  Members were advised that the site was currently being cleared and prepared ready to commence construction.  Steel work to form the skeleton of the building would start in early 2014.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas: 

·         Is the full contract now available for Members to see?  Members were advised that the full contract was now available but before allowing Members to see it a check would have to take place to see if any areas needed to be redacted.

·         Members requested to see the Environmental Impact Assessment.  Members were advised that the facility had just been awarded an Environmental Permit which was the license from the Environmental Agency to operate. All the information from the Environmental Impact Assessment would be part of that document and could be obtained from the Environmental Agency.

·         Was the council still aiming to achieve a recycle and compost rate of 65% plus as part of the waste management strategy?  Members were informed that the aim to achieve 65% of waste recycled and composted was for the year 2020 however over 50% of the target was already being achieved.

·         Was there going to be any pre-sorting of the waste before going into the incinerator.  Members were advised that the facility would not have any pre-sorting equipment.  The pre-sorting would have already been completed at the curb side collection through the black bin, green bin, brown bin and food waste bin.

·         Members sought clarification on the cost of landfill charges.  Members were advised that the current price was £72 per tonne tax and approximately £20 per tonne fee to the operator at the facility.  Landfill tax used to be £2 per tonne and had risen steadily over the past few years with another rise due on 1 April 2014 which would take it to £80 per tonne in tax.

·         Members sought clarification as to when the feasibility study for the Combined Heat and Power part of the facility would be completed.  Members were advised that the facility would be enabled with Combined Heat and Power from the start and could be connected at any time.  The challenge would be when and where to provide this.

·         If it is unknown when and where the electricity and heat would be used will this affect the financial projections that have been put forward for the facility?  Members were advised that when the facility was up and running it would be the third most efficient energy from waste facility in the country.  No income from heat sales had been included in the financial modelling.

ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee noted the report.

The Senior Governance Officer presented the report which set out proposals to hold a cross-Scrutiny Committee event that would focus on the impacts of welfare reform. This event would be held in order to understand and mitigate against the breadth of impact on individuals, families, communities and businesses. Nominations would be sought from each Scrutiny Committee to form a working party to help plan and provide input for the day.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Councillor Sandford requested that nominations for the working party be sought from the Group Secretaries.

·         Members requested that when planning the day consideration should be given to those Members who worked during the daytime.

·         Councillors Fox and Arculus nominated themselves to be part of the working party to help plan the event.

·         Members sought clarification as to how many members from each committee would be able to take part in the Scrutiny in a Day event.  The Senior Governance Officer advised that all members of each Scrutiny Committee would be invited to take part as the purpose of the event was to hold a cross Scrutiny Committee event to include all Scrutiny Committees and Commissions.

ACTIONS AGREED

1. The Committee noted the report and supported the recommendation to hold aScrutiny in a Day event with a focus on Welfare Reform.

2.    The Committee also agreed to put forward nominations to the working party.

            The Committee received the latest version of the Council’s Notice of Intention to Take Key Decisions, containing key decisions that the Leader of the Council anticipated the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would make during the course of the following four months.  Members were invited to comment on the Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Committee’s work programme.

            ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee noted the Notice of Intention to Take Key Decisions and requested the following information:

·         Information on the Moy’s End Stand Demolition and Reconstruction – KEY/03APR/12

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme for 2013/14 and discussed possible items for inclusion.

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2013/14 and the Senior Governance Officer to include any additional items as requested during the meeting.