Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Maqbool.

There were no declarations of interest or whipping declarations.

·         20 January 2014 – Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee

·         10 February 2014 – Joint Scrutiny of the Budget

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2014 were approved as an accurate record.

The minutes of the Joint meeting of the Scrutiny Committees and Commissions held on 10 February 2014 to scrutinise the Budget 2014/15 and Medium Term Financial Plan to 2013/24 were approved as an accurate record.

The decision notice for each decision will bear the date on which it is published and will specify that the decision may then be implemented on the expiry of 3 working days after the publication of the decision (not including the date of publication), unless a request for call-in of the decision is received from any two Members of a Scrutiny Committee or Scrutiny Commissions.  If a request for call-in of a decision is received, implementation of the decision remains suspended for consideration by the relevant Scrutiny Committee or Commission.

There were no requests for call-in to consider.

The Chair had received a request to move item 9 on the agenda, Funding Peterborough’s Future Growth forward.  The Chair asked the Committee if they were in agreement with this.  All agreed that this could be accommodated and it was therefore agreed to move item 9 to item 6 on the agenda.

The report was introduced by the Assistant Cohesion Manager and provided the Committee with the overview report detailing the outcomes from the Joint Scrutiny in a Day event held on 17^th January 2014.  The event looked at understanding and managing the impacts of welfare reform on communities in Peterborough. The approach had been an innovative one which cut across the remit of all the Scrutiny Committees in order to look at welfare reform comprehensively and gain a deeper understanding. The Committee were asked to agree the recommendations made by the committee on the day and advise on how they would wish to take them forward.

Members thanked the Officer and the Senior Governance Officer for arranging an excellent event which had been both informative and interesting.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members asked what would be the next stage following the recommendations in the report. The Assistant Cohesion Manager stated that if the recommendations were approved they would be developed into a detailed work plan which would come back to the committee for further action and scrutiny.

·         Members asked if a year was a proper timeframe for the work plan as the impact of welfare reform would be felt sooner. The Assistant Cohesion Manager responded that the report and its delivery would be ongoing throughout the year.

·         Members asked with regards to when the ‘return on investment’ report would be ready. The Assistant Cohesion Manager stated that Brenda Cook who was the Expert Adviser form the Centre for Public Scrutiny was still to provide observations in this regard which were expected to be available within the next few weeks. The Senior Governance Officer added that this would be incorporated into the work programme and come back to the Committee later in the year.

ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee noted the report and approved the recommendations:

1.    To consider the Council’s response to gambling and to devise a holistic approach to combatting the economic threats posed by gambling and vice.

2.    To understand the role that the voluntary sector can play in helping the council to deliver its key objectives.  To foster closer links into and between the voluntary sector and review how the Council can support this.

3.    To scrutinise the Affordable Housing Capital Strategy to enable the Committee to consider recommendations relating to social housing.

The recommendations would be taken forward and included in the work programme next year.

The report was introduced by the Wildlife Officer which provided the Committee with  information with respect to progress against the actions and targets contained in the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy (2010) and allowed feedback to be given by the Committee with respect to progress against the existing strategy.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members referred to page 89 of the report and asked if the Japanese Knotweed at Boardwalks Nature Reserve necessarily needed to be exterminated as it did not spread unless it was cut and spread around. Members were informed that the areas of the Japanese Knotweed were small and isolated and it was best practise to control this as it could spread quite rapidly.

·         Members noted that the Boardwalks were currently closed and asked when there would be funding for it to reopen. Members were informed that additional funding had been secured to replace the Boardwalks structure with more funding being sought. There had been severe flooding in the area but now the local authority was in a position to replace the structure in the coming months.

·         Members congratulated the officer on a good report and was pleased to see so many schools taking part in the eco-schools scheme referred to pages 106-107.

Furthermore, they asked if key action 21 on the 2010 biodiversity strategy reviewing the use of pesticides with a view towards reduction of their use was being implemented, as many trees had unsightly brown rings around them which indicated the use of pesticides and herbicides. Wildlife Officer responded that Amey abide by the relevant cost regulations in the use of pesticides and herbicides. The nature of the herbicides used was less damaging to the environment than it was historically and was more targeted to the area in which it acted.

Members asked regarding item number 11 in the strategy on page 94 stating that the loss of trees and shrubs would be minimised. There had been an FOI request asking how much shrubbery had been removed and the response was that 1000 square metres had been removed and converted to grass. They therefore asked how consistent this was with the objective. Furthermore, they asked when replacement trees would be planted as Amey had stated they would be planted 30^th June which was not a good time to plant trees. Wildlife Officer responded that a number of the trees removed had likely been due to standard maintenance and thinning programs. He added that 30^th June was a late time and stated he would ensure Amey were not planting trees unnecessarily.

Members asked regarding point 8 on page 91 if trial areas could be identified where a reduction in the tentative landscape management could be tested. A small number of trials had been carried out but there had been no city-wide rollout. They therefore asked why there had not been an element of cost reduction in the report. Wildlife Officer responded that Amey was being worked with in order to identify areas  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report was presented by the Interim Head of Human Resources and provided the committee with a means to facilitate scrutiny of staffing and workforce matters. Key points highlighted included:

HR Developments \ Updates \ Priorities

Reward and Policy

Training and Development

Investors in People

Statistics/Analysis

Workforce Diversity

Stress Absence

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

Members asked regarding page 129 with the stressor gain what the difference between the two figures and why at the end of September stress levels were still quite high as were musculoskeletal problems. HR Analyst responded that the figures in the report were for the last 12 months and one was from September backwards and another was from November backwards. The stress total was 2,500 and this may not have been clear in the report.

Members said that 1,084 days lost per month was still a large amount. Interim Head of Human Resources responded that out of that figure, 444 were from musculoskeletal, stress, depression, etc. issues. Within the context of the private sector average, this was not a bad figure. The shape of the organisation had changed and now the two main chunks of staff incorporated areas where many members of staff were prone to stress-related illness. A number of things were in place to provide support and assistance. There would be a stress audit where employees could complete a stress questionnaire in order to ascertain how many individuals were becoming more overloaded, overworked and stressed.

Members stated that the layout of the graphs were difficult to follow as many graphs had inconsistent figures for musculoskeletal problems. HR Analyst said that the table above probably had more employees than the table below. Interim Head of HR stated that at the end of the month the previous 12-month period was looked at and this could be different a month later. The graphs only represent current employees which could alter and previous employees would not be included retroactively.

Members asked why the Christmas, Easter and Holiday period were the most stressful. Interim Head of HR stated that they were typical blue month periods but it was difficult to understand why Easter would be a particularly stressful period.

Members asked regarding the ethnic diversity slide and the expressed concern regarding comparative recruitment. In collecting the minority information was there a possibility that people were answering them incorrectly and this would account for the seemingly low result? Interim Head of HR responded that throughout the process there is screening to ensure that the information only comes from people filling in the form.

Members asked if the issues around ethnic minorities of mixed origin were still the same as last year. Furthermore, the percentage of female workforce seemed to be very high. Interim Head of HR responded that people had been lost more than they had been recruited. Ultimately, the decision as to who was the best person for the job was up to line managers. There was training around diversity going on but there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report was presented by the Customer Service Manager and provided a summary of formal complaints monitored between 1^st April 2012 and 31^st March 2013 which fell under the Corporate Complaints Policy. Furthermore, members were invited to comment on the annual report from the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) about the council’s performance on complaints.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

Members asked regarding the increase in compliments coming in. Many seemed to be internal and members asked for clarification as to what this meant. Customer Service Manager responded that internal and external compliments had both gone up in the past year. Internal compliments were compliments given by councillors and from one department to another.

Members expressed positivity that the number of compliments had gone up. Customer Service Manager responded that complaints had also been going down. Customer services and the planning department were at a very high standard and there was a constant review of delivery of services in order to react to customer demand for change.

Members stated that the local authority was not learning enough from Amey as they had a very low number of justifiable complaints and asked what 474,000 customer interactions per month meant. Customer Service Manager responded that this referred to collections. The stats were provided by Enterprise and the complaints department did not have any role in scrutinising it. Head of Customer services added that he suspected the number referred largely to bin collections.

Members asked where a complaint gets logged regarding bin collections. Customer Service Manager responded that it can either go to the Amey complaints team (very rare) or the local authority’s call centre. There can be a request to service if it is a one-off issue, however if it is an ongoing issue it would be logged as a complaint. The complaints team do also get a large volume of the complaints because many people still see the council website as the first port of call.

Members asked if the notional complaint therefore gets logged in the figures on page 159. Customer Service Manager responded that this was the case.

ACTIONS AGREED

The committee noted the report.

The report was introduced by the Director of Growth and Regeneration and provided the committee with an update on the current position and progress in relation to the planned investment joint venture between the Council and a new Peterborough Investment Fund.  Members were informed that since writing the report the name of the investor had been confirmed which was Hume Capital.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members asked what the infrastructure around the financial plan would look like. The Director of Growth and Regeneration responded that a report later in the agenda on the Community Infrastructure Levy would deal in part with the issue of funding infrastructure to deliver growth. The onus was on those proposing growth to fund some of the infrastructure around that growth. Any development was subject to a Planning Obligations Implementations scheme whereby any development had to pay towards the cost of infrastructure. Historically new development had funded the whole cost of infrastructure and the council has had to make up the gap. This was funded in various ways such as through the Local Enterprise Partnerships. There was however an element which was outside the control of the planning system such as a change of use.

·         Members stated they would like to see more transparency regarding infrastructure appraisals so people were able to understand what could or could not be done in advance of something happening. The Director of Growth and Regeneration responded that there were two levels: a strategic level of infrastructure and a neighbourhood level of infrastructure. The former serves the whole city and the latter deals with local levels e.g. a local road junction. Money could be secured through Section 106 agreements for development decisions which impacted at local levels e.g. road junctions or school places.  However a new development would only have to pay towards the infrastructure development it creates.

·         Members sought clarification as to who the investors were and where the funding would come from. The Head of Strategic Finance responded that Hume Capital were the Fund Managers who would be seeking investment from various organisations. Once it was known who the organisations were then the details would be released. The fund was controlled by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission and the UK Financial Conduct Authority who could impose restrictions if there were international sanctions in place on individuals from undesirable countries.

·         Members sought clarification that even though there was no direct control over who invested that it was still possible for the council to cancel projects if the source of funds was deemed undesirable. The Director of Growth and Regeneration responded that there was a deadlock arrangement in place which stated that the council cannot be made to do anything it did not want to do.

·         Members asked why the investment was going through an offshore account and why the fund could not be managed in the United Kingdom. The Head of Strategic Finance informed Members that this sort of investment commonly came through sources.

·         Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The report was presented by the Team Leader, Research and Information and was intended to draw attention to important proposed changes to the way in which the local authority collected and administered developer contributions in the light of recent statutory and regulatory changes instigated at the national scale. The report set out the proposed timetable through to CIL adoption.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

Members asked if there was a way to take out of the main budget for infrastructure in a certain area and redistribute it for all wards. Team Leader, Research and Information responded that once money comes in, there is already a system in place called the Planning Obligation Implementation Scheme which requires the money to be used in a certain way. The CIL will generally be collected for projects which are more strategic in nature. The bottom line, however, was that the project needed to support growth.

Members followed-up stating that the old part of the city where there was no development would not benefit. They asked if it was possible to direct from the main budget into wards where the money is needed to address an imbalance in the city. Director of Growth and Regeneration responded that there would be benefit to other parts of the city because it would mean that development was more viable in those parts. The question, however, is more a question regarding how the council allocates its budgets which is a decision to the council and not specifically about CIL itself.

Members asked regarding 5.4.2 on page 193 and requested further explanation. Team Leader, Research and Information responded that this referred to a situation once CIL is in place and money has been collected. Any money collected within a Parish, 15% of the money collected in that financial year as a CIL receipt would go back to the Parish council.

Members asked if the plan on page 146 with the draft residential charging zones was correct and not an oversimplification as a large part were in the low-value zone. Team Leader, Research and Information stated the regulations were clear that complexity should be avoided. A lot of feedback had been received that a flat rate across the city was not sensitive to the different areas in the city. The plan was simple but it was felt that the plan was right after reviewing the evidence and understanding the value of land transactions. It was impossible to be 100% accurate. Director of Growth and Regeneration responded that the price difference from a developer’s point of view was unlikely to have much of an impact.

Members asked what the next stage of this would be. Team Leader, Research and Information stated that it would go to Cabinet and Full Council in July and the supporting documentation would be available. Then there would be a period of six weeks consultation. Comments would be collated and sent to an independent examiner who would give a date for a one or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Committee received the latest version of the Forward Plan of 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 Forward Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Committee’s work programme.

Members requested further information on the following key decisions:

Play Centres.

Temporary Agency Framework.

Approval of Community Asset Transfer of Gladstone Park Community Centre.

The Senior Governance Officer presented the report which provided the Committee with a list of possible items to be included in the Committee’s 2014-2015 work programme. 

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the report.

The meeting began at 7.00pm and ended at 9.25pm