Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 25^th February 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25^th February 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Commission received a update on actions from the previous meeting and made the following comments:

2.4:  David Lowe advised that the table represented the total number of individuals who had made Freedom of Information requests and highlighted that individuals could make numerous requests to the Council.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from 26 March 2014 to 31 July 2014 and decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1594

Purpose: To receive new items and agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission for the remainder of 2013/14.

Changes to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission work programme were discussed and agreed:

·                     Item OSMC /11/119 (Continuing Healthcare): Would return to the Commission for a progress report in August 2014.

·                     OSMC/14/152 (Severe Weather): A special meeting would be arranged in September 2014. The Council would first conduct a localised debrief alongside the Section 19 reports in order to provide the Commission with a report about the weather’s effect and response of the Council.

·                     OSMC/13/150 (Homelessness – Young Families): Councillor Quentin Webb advised that the task group had invited witnesses to comment on their involvement with young families. The Commission heard that establishing the root cause was proving difficult.

Councillor Brian Bedwell called for the Commission to review items contained within the work programme and highlight priorities. 

Councillor Law introduced the suggested topic for scrutiny, Self Insurance Fund. The request was made following the commitment to review the reserve fund at the Council meeting in March 2014. He requested that the Commission considered whether the appropriate level of funds had been reserved according to the perceived level of risk.

Councillor Law advised that the reserve fund covered emergency payments where costs increased above forecasted levels. The value of the reserve fund had been reviewed by external auditors in order to ascertain whether the fund was appropriate. It was stated that the reserve fund had not been used year on year.

Councillor Beck proposed that the item was added to the work programme, the proposal was seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers.

Councillor Tony Vickers introduced the suggested topic of Parkway affordable housing delays. Councillor Vickers asked members to consider the reasons behind the delayed provision of affordable housing, 18 months after the development was completed.

Members considered the benefit of conducting a review which could led to a clearer understanding of how the Council could manage Section 106 agreements going forward. Councillor Paul Bryant questioned whether the Parkway development was an isolated case and therefore queried the value in conducting the review.

Councillor Macro stated that there was a further two developments planned in Newbury, from which Section 106 contributions might be required. It was suggested that any lessons which could be learnt from the Parkway development could prove useful.

Councillor Vickers confirmed that the suggested topic for scrutiny would not look at the economic impact of the delays, but rather the reasons behind the delayed provision of affordable housing.

Andy Day advised the Commission that the Commission could not consider regulatory matters such as planning and suggested that the topic could be considered by the Planning Policy Task Group.

Resolved that :

·                     The Self Insurance Fund would be added to the work programme.

·                     The Planning Policy Task Group would be asked to consider the Parkway Development, delays in delivering affordable housing.

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

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

Purpose: To assess the effect of the CHC operations policy and procedures in practise

Rachael Wardell introduced the report to the Commission on behalf of Nick Carter. It was stated that the Council had worked in conjunction with the National Health Service (NHS) to address the concerns raised by the Commission during the meeting in November 2013.

Continuing Healthcare (CHC) was a package of continuing care arranged and funded by the NHS where an individual had a primary health need. The eligibility threshold for CHC in West Berkshire was set at critical. The national framework for NHS CHC outlined that an individual’s primary care needs would be assessed as critical if they were unpredictable, complex and intense. If an individual met the eligibility criteria for CHC then the care provided would be covered by the NHS.

The CHC process consisted of five stages:

·         Checklist: The referral stage by which an individual would be considered eligible for CHC and carried forward for assessment

·         Decision Support Tool (DST): The collation of evidence in order to conduct an assessment of the individual’s primary care needs.

·         Multi Disciplinary Team (MDT): Evidence reviewed by the team in order to collate a recommendation/s based upon the eligibility criteria for CHC.

·         Panel (Clinical Commissioning Group): Through which the final decision would be made regarding an individual’s eligibility for care.

·         A dispute resolution process was established in order that the final decision from the panel could be appealed.

Rachael Wardell explained that the staff involved with the CHC decision making process jointly received training in order to ensure consistency. The objective was to provide a clearer explanation to applicants regarding the decisions made throughout the process and ultimately their eligibility for CHC.

The Commission heard that when the issue was considered in January 2014, the total number of completed applications for CHC was 16, of which 3 were deemed eligible for care. 38 cases had been open, of which 29 were over 3 months old (76%).

The current figures were presented as; 38 completed cases of which 13 were deemed eligible. 26 cases remained open of which 18 were over 3 months old. A total of 10 new applications had been received since January 2014. Rachael Wardell stated that significant progress had been made since the meeting in January 2014.

Cathy Winfield directed the Commission to a handout which provided a response to the questions raised in January 2014 regarding CHC budgets. The statistics suggested that the financial expenditure on CHC had risen by 18% year on year.

Historically the Berkshire West Primary Care Trust (PCT) had managed the commission of care services in West Berkshire. Since the changes to the health structure in April 2013 the area was covered by the Newbury District CCG (NDCCG) and the Reading West CCG (RWCCG). Cathy Winfield explained that arrangements between CCG’s were well managed and statistics suggested that local residents were benefiting from the change.

The Commission heard that the budget for CHC in West Berkshire was determined by eligibility and level of demand/need for the service. It was stated that the total spend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Purpose: To review the Council’s policies and procedures for Energy Saving.

Councillor Dominic Beock, Adrian Slaughter and Paul Anstey introduced the report to the Commission.

The report explained that the Carbon Management Plan (CMP) was adopted by the Council in 2009. The document was produced as part of the Carbon Trusts ‘Local Authority Carbon Management Programme’ and involved liaising with external Carbon Trust approved Consultants to analyse the Council’s carbon footprint. Potential energy efficiency/carbon saving projects were identified and if implemented would help to improve the Council’s energy efficiency and reduce it’s carbon footprint. The progress report outlined the aims and objectives of the Energy Management Team who managed the process and detailed the energy efficiency projects implemented to date.

The Commission heard that the Energy Efficiency Programme was reviewed by the Resource Management Working Group in 2012 at which point it was agreed that the item would return for a progress report in 2014.

Adrian Slaughter highlighted that an amendment was required to table 3 in point 6.1; the number of ground source heat pumps should read as three.

Councillor Hunneman questioned why there was no reference to the biomass carbon savings in table three of point 6.1. Adrian Slaughter advised that the service was waiting for statistics from St. Batholomews School in order to report the accurate savings overall. It was stated that the Council could incur charges if the figure was incorrect.

Councillor Jeff Beck requested clarification on the responsibility that a Local Authority had to provide technical advice to academies. In response, the Commission heard that:

·         It was the responsibility of the community to manage the performance of their carbon foot print, however, the Council provided incentives in order to encourage reductions.

·         The incentive offered the applicant savings and funding arrangements in order to implement reduction measures.

·         Applications would contain plans for the scheme of works and associated costs. The service would consider suitability of the proposal and if agreed the applicant would receive a loan in order to proceed.

·         The loan would be provided by capital funds.

Councillor Emma Webster asked what work the service had conducted to promote the available funding. Paul Anstey advised that a mechanism had been established across the Thames Valley area to distribute leaflets and guidance packs to likely applicants. It was stated that the service was currently operational on a small scale, but it was expected that the provision would expand.

Councillor Gwen Mason asked whether a project team had been established in order to manage the applications received from schools.  Adrian Slaughter advised that at this stage they had not identified a specific role to manage school applicants; these were  managed on a case by case basis by the existing team.

Councillor Lazlo Zverko asked what pay back arrangements were in place and how the value of C02 savings was calculated. Adrian Slaughter explained that there were multiple measures which could be used to ascertain the potential reduced carbon footprint. Payback arrangements were agreed in advance of the loan being issued.

In response to a question from Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

Purpose: To receive the latest period revenue and capital budget reports

Andy Walker introduced the report to the Commission which provided the month ten revenue position. He advised that the Capital Report was produced quarterly only.

The Commission heard that the forecasted outturn position as of month 10 for the 2013-14 financial year was an overspend of £101k, an increase of £284k from month nine. The reason for the expenditure increase was the recent severe weather and the costs associated with incident response. Andy Walker explained that funds could be recovered through the Bellwin scheme. At this stage the Council was reviewing what could be recovered before submitting the final claim in May this year.

Councillor Webb asked for an explanation of the reasons for the overspend in the Looked After Childrenservice area. Rachael Wardell explained that the service had received the highest number of Looked After Children cases for some time. The service was considering the means for reducing costs by creating a business case for the provision of alternative care arrangements.

The service was developing a model to increase the number of specialist foster carers for children with specialist needs, which would reduce the demand on current resources. Rachael Wardell explained to the Commission that the service was demand led and at this stage was considering the most effective means to deliver early preventative measures which would in turn reduce overall spend.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To monitor quarterly the performance levels across the Council and to consider, where appropriate, any remedial action.

Andy Day introduced the report to the Commission. The report appraised the progress against 47 key accountable measures and activities aligned to the objectives set out in the Council Strategy. He advised that:

·         Of the 47 key accountable measures, 40 were available for an update at quarter 3.

• 34 were reported as delivered/ achieved at year end.
• 3 were reported as behind schedule but expected to be delivered/ achieved by year end:
  • Proportion of children becoming subject of a child protection plan for a second or subsequent time (within two years of the previous plan end date)
  • Number of active foster carers
  • Number of days taken to make a full decision on new benefit claims
• 3 were reported as red:
  • Number of children accessing short breaks
  • Proportion of older people still at home 91 days after discharge from hospital into re-ablement/ rehabilitation services
  • Proportion of upheld planning appeals was less than the national average

In response to questions asked, David Lowe advised that requests for information to the Council could be considered, in most cases, as business as usual. A Freedom of Information request would cover something that would otherwise not be routinely provided by the service to which the request was made.

The Commission heard that the Freedom of Information request was frequently used by researchers, business and the media. It was acknowledged that the FOI Act provided an opportunity for information to be obtained and that the right was being used.

Councillor Alan Macro highlighted that on page 69 of the report it suggested that the number of clients accessing community based services had decreased, despite the belief that West Berkshire had an aging demographic.  It was stated that the figures were not unusual compared to the national average.

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that the number of planning applications upheld was misleading as they appeared favourable against the national average, however, he highlighted that the number of cases locally was still very high.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To provide the Commission with an update on the progress of recommendations resulting from scrutiny reviews.