Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 16 April 2013.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 April 2013 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor Webster declared an interest in Agenda Item 8, but reported that, as her interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Franks declared an interest in Agenda Item 11, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meeting.

The Commission received an update on actions from the previous meeting and raised the following comments:

Paragraph 2.8: Councillor Jeff Beck requested further clarification regarding the number of reported personal budget users.

Paragraph 2.6 and Appendix A: Councillor Jeff Brooks questioned whether West Berkshire Council’s broad alignment with other local authorities in the timing of the scrutiny of performance information was acceptable, or whether the Council should strive for improvement. David Lowe explained that this issue had been raised with Management Board and the Executive but it had not been considered necessary to alter the current timetable.

[Note: 6:38pm Councillor George Chandler joined the meeting.]

Resolved that the Head of Adult Social Care clarify the information provided in relation to the number of people who manage their own budgets.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from June 2013 to October 2013 and decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan for the period covering June to October.

The Chairman reminded the Commission that the purpose of reviewing the Forward Plan was to enable the Commission to consider whether scrutiny could provide meaningful challenge to a decision prior to it being considered by the Executive.

Councillor Alan Macro observed that a date was yet to be set for the publication of the accompanying report for a number of items listed in the Forward Plan, including some due for consideration in June 2013 and asked if this could be corrected.

Councillor Brooks suggested that the IT strategy would be appropriate for scrutiny. Following discussion, the Commission agreed that technology was relevant both within the Council and externally for residents, however the decision was due to be taken prior to the next meeting of the Commission.

Resolved that the Democratic Services Manager would clarify the date of publication of reports for items on the forward plan.

Purpose: To receive, agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission, the Health Scrutiny Panel and the Resource Management Working Group for the remainder of 2011/12.

The Commission considered its work programme for 2013/14.

Councillor Brooks asked for clarification as to how the outstanding items from the Resource Management Working Group and the Health Scrutiny Panel would be managed. The Commission reviewed each item and agreed the following:

Health Scrutiny Panel

·        Continuing Healthcare – This was due to conclude in September, and the Commission would receive the expected update at this time;

·        PCT Quality Handover – This was due to conclude in September, and the Commission would receive the expected update at this time;

·        Adult Social Care (ASC) Eligibility Criteria – This was being undertaken by a Task Group and was due to end later in 2013. The Task Group would conclude this item;

·        Home Care – David Lowe suggested that a Task Group might be an appropriate route for consideration of this item. Councillor Quentin Webb requested that this Task Group follow the ASC Task Group in October.

Resource Management Working Group (RMWG)

·        Energy Saving – This was due to be reviewed in April 2014, and could be added to the Commission’s work programme for this time;

·        Procedures for Blue Badge Holders – This item was due to conclude in May 2013 and it was agreed that a Task Group be formed to finalise the scrutiny;

·        Shaw House – This item was due to conclude in May 2013 and it was agree that a Task Group be formed to finalise the scrutiny;

·        Other items, which were received by the RMWG on a regular basis - it was suggested that these transfer to the Commission’s work programme.

David Lowe advised the Commission that there was sufficient staff resource for two Task Groups to run concurrently. The Commission agreed that a Task Group be established to conclude the work on Shaw House, to run alongside the current ASC Task Group. It was agreed that the following Councillors would form the Task Group: Councillors David Holtby, Marcus Franks, Jeff Brooks and Jeff Beck. Following the conclusion of this work, a subsequent Task Group would be established to consider Procedures for Blue Badge Holders.

Councillor Holtby related that the Portfolio Holder for Culture was taking a holistic review at the use of Shaw House and asked whether this work would be completed prior to the Task Group being set up. The Chairman advised that the Task Group should consider evidence from the Portfolio Holder during its discussions. Councillor Brooks questioned the Council’s policy making process, requesting clarity around the appropriateness of the Portfolio Holder undertaking discussions with Officers and others that might impact on future decisions without the involvement of the Opposition. Nick Carter explained that Portfolio Holders held regular conversations with Officers to understand current and arising issues. These were held informally within the organisation and provided clarity on areas of policy. Where there was an indication of a requirement for a new, or change to existing, policy, this would proceed through formal routes. Councillor Webster suggested that the Task Group invite the Shadow Portfolio Holder to give  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider any items called-in by the requisite number of Members following the previous Executive meeting.

The Chairman advised the Commission that one item had been called in following the last Executive meeting, and that this would be heard at the next meeting of the Commission.

Purpose: To consider any items proposed for a Councillor Call for Action.

(Councillor Webster declared an interest in Agenda Item 8 due to the fact that the company she was employed with had worked for the developer involved in the Councillor Call for Action discussed during the meeting, but reported that, as her interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

There were no Councillor Calls for Action.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked for clarification as to what a Councillor Call for Action was. The Chairman explained that a Councillor Call for Action could be brought by a Councillor where a significant issue in the community was not being addressed. Issues would be submitted to Council for consideration and passed to an appropriate body for action.

The Chairman provided an example where a development in his ward which had not been maintained for many years, was mostly empty and was attracting vandalism. By bringing a Call for Action, the development had been successfully reinvigorated.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

Purpose: To consider the strategy for managing school organisation that ensures there are sufficient school places and in the right locations to meet demand.

The Commission received a report containing the Schools Place Strategy which was approved for consultation by the Executive on 9 May 2013.

Ian Pearson explained that the report set out how the Council planned for sufficient school places and identified where extra places might be required.

Caroline Corcoran explained that the strategy for forecasting school places was underpinned by an analytic model and overlaid with local intelligence to produce a five year forecast of required school places across the district. The model was updated three times each year and a strategic school place planning group assisted in identifying issues, challenges, and potential solutions.

Caroline Corcoran continued by stating that projected pupil numbers underpinned the model, but that these were based on national data sources which were often out of date and inaccurate. The system had been in development since October 2012 and had undergone strenuous testing using four years’ worth of past data, including the weighting of some factors. This year the accuracy of the model had proved to be within 0.6% of actual figures which provided confidence that the system was robust.

The system included a data dashboard which allowed the information to be manipulated, for example the inclusion or exclusion of planned housing developments. The overlay allowed local knowledge to be mapped to provide a more comprehensive projection which might highlight areas of concern.

The strategy had been developed alongside talks with schools, and was now due for consultation with stakeholders and the public. An updated version would be available in September 2013.

Following questioning, Caroline Corcoran and Ian Pearson were able to provide the following information:

·        In 2012, 95% of primary places offered matched parental preference, despite there being insufficient places when requests were made. In 2013 this rose to 98.6% for primary schools, and 99.2% for secondary schools;

·        A consultation plan had been developed which included the use of school newsletters to alert parents, and using Children’s Centre mailing lists to contact parents whose children were due to enter primary education;

·        The number of children attending private schools was reducing, resulting in a greater need for places in West Berkshire schools, however the number was not significant or of concern;

·        There was some fluctuation in the number of places required in different areas as parents changed their preference during the year, however the extensive testing and regular update of information had provided confidence in the new system;

·        Schools were recognised to have a great depth of knowledge about their local area and were able to provide a range of ideas which could be incorporated into the intelligence layer of the model;

·        The assumptions about the number of children who would be living in new developments had significantly increased over time and this had to be recognised within the model;

·        Secondary schools places were not a current priority as there was capacity at present, however the expected increase in the requirement for places would need to be addressed and the five year plan would assist this;

·        The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Purpose: To consider the draft Housing Allocations Policy.

(Councillor Franks declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 11 due to the fact that he was employed by Sovereign Housing, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Commission received a report which provided an update on progress in the development of the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy. Mel Brain introduced the report informing the Commission that the detailed policy was undergoing consultation until 21 July 2013, and a final policy was expected by October 2013. All relevant stakeholders had been notified of the consultation and it was also open to anyone to provide feedback, through Consultation Finder and on the Council’s website. Testing of the Housing Needs Assessment was being undertaken to ensure it would remain effective following the changes resulting from the policy. Mel Brain drew the Commission’s attention to the Queen’s Speech during which potential legislative changes were raised which might impact on Housing and stated that should these come about, the policy would require further amendments.

Councillor Macro asked whether there was any doubt that the policy would be effective. Mel Brain responded that there were no concerns at present, and advised that the testing being undertaken was specific to the Housing Needs Assessment.

Councillor Brooks expressed surprise that many of the changes listed had not been included in the original policy. Mel Brain replied that the draft policy intended to clarify what could be expected, making the information more explicit, and advised that some of the changes represented new information in the policy, some provided clarity on information already contained within the policy, and some placed information within the policy which had previously been set out elsewhere.

Following questioning by the Commission, Mel Brain provided the following responses:

·        The policy’s application for students returning to their family home in the holidays was dependent on whether the student had accommodation available to them during this time. Those in private rented accommodation would normally not be required to leave during the holidays and would therefore not be considered under the policy. However, individuals could request a review where they believed an extra bedroom to be necessary and the need would be assessed;

·        Where the care of children was shared between parents, the Housing Needs Assessment would recognise the parent who was responsible for 50% or more of the care of the child. Only one principal home could be recognised for a child;

·        In relation to multiple units of affordable housing being available on new developments, a single advert would be placed for these, and a shortlist would be developed from those who applied. The Housing Association would manage the shortlist and final tenants;

·        This review was significant as the policy had not been reviewed for several years;

·        Applications were assessed on personal circumstance and not, for example, the receipt of Housing Benefit;

·        Points awarded for medical needs were based on legislation which stated that preference  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Purpose: To receive the draft Scrutiny Annual Report 2012/13.

The Chairman introduced the Scrutiny Annual Report, advising that it contained a summary of the work undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, the Health Scrutiny Panel and the Resource Management Group over the previous year. The Chairman asked whether the Commission would like to request any additions or amendments prior to its submission.

Councillor Brooks commented that it demonstrated that a significant amount of work had been undertaken involving both Member and Officer time. He requested clarification as to how the Leader of the Council viewed the work of the Commission. The Chairman responded that he believed the Leader of the Council wanted the Commission to provide robust scrutiny of the decisions made by the Executive. The Chairman commented that the upcoming scrutiny training session would be beneficial to all members of the Commission in being able to meet this expectation.

Councillor Franks requested that information be presented to show the number of recommendations that had been approved by the Executive.

Resolved that the number of recommendations approved by the Executive be added to the report.