Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 April 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Roger Hunneman declared an interest in Agenda Item 10, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

The Commission received an update on actions from the previous meeting. Councillor Hunneman informed the Commission that quarterly reports relating to the Adult Social Care waiting list had not been received, but that these were now in place for future meetings.

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan (Agenda Item 5) for the period covering May 2014 to August 2014.

Councillor Emma Webster requested that the Commission’s review of the severe weather during the winter of 2013/14 be cognisant of item EX2764 West Berkshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy in order to present a consistent message.

Resolved that the Commission’s review of the severe weather during the winter of 2013/14 be cognisant of item EX2764 West Berkshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

The Commission considered its work programme for 2014/15.

The Chairman advised the Commission that a new Task Group could now be formed as the Shaw House review had concluded. It was suggested that item OSMC/14/151 – Children’s Services governance arrangements should be considered. The Commission agreed.

Councillor Quentin Webb reported that the review into Homelessness amongst young families had met to discuss initial findings, and that a final report was expected to be submitted into the next but one executive cycle.

Delayed Transfers of Care

Councillor Hunneman requested that ‘delayed transfers of care’ (DTOC) be added to the Commission’s work programme. Councillor Hunneman expressed concern that DTOC, often referred to as ‘bed blocking’ was caused by delays in arranging suitable post-hospital care, and that national statistics placed West Berkshire very low in comparison tables. Councillor Hunneman asserted that it was necessary to identify issues and correct them, as delays could have a negative impact on the patient. There had been a suggestion from Officers that the published figures were not accurate, and this could also be considered during a scrutiny review. Councillor Hunneman believed that this review would be complex and would require a Task Group to be established.

Rachael Wardell clarified that whilst the published figures were not entirely accurate, it was acknowledged that correcting this would not resolve the issue, and stressed that Officers would not claim this to be the case.

Councillor Webster reminded the Commission that the Healthier Select Committee had reviewed this issue in 2011, and suggested that the recommendations from the previous review be examined during scrutiny.

The Commission agreed to add this item to the work programme.

Affordable Housing Process

Councillor Tony Vickers requested that the process for obtaining and delivering affordable housing within new developments, using Parkway as a case study, be added to the Commission’s work programme.

Following discussion at, and also after, the previous meeting of the Commission, Councillor Vickers had reviewed the scope of his suggestion and amended it to request consideration of the process by which affordable housing is agreed and delivered, rather than scrutiny of planning policy. Councillor Vickers wished the Parkway development to be used as an example as the money invested by the Council in the development had shown no return benefit to the local population. Councillor Vickers added that it would be necessary to review how CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) related to this process.

Councillor Webster agreed that the process for delivering affordable housing would be a suitable topic for scrutiny, but did not wish it to include a review of how the Parkway development was handled. Councillor Webster believed that the review should focus on improvement for the future rather than unpicking past actions.

The Chairman clarified that it was not intended that the Parkway development would be discussed, and that the focus would be on the system and how it was operating to the benefit of West Berkshire residents.

Councillor Jeff Brooks explained that by reviewing some details of the Parkway development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Chairman advised the Commission that a Call-In of an Executive Decision had been received the previous week. It had been decided that there had been insufficient notice to consider the Call-In at the current meeting but it would be considered next time to allow witnesses to be invited.

There were no Councillor Calls for Action.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

(Councillor Hunneman declared a personal interest in Agenda item 10 by virtue of the fact that his mother was in receipt of a care package. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

Councillor Gwen Mason introduced the item commenting that it was important to ensure that the Fairer Contributions Policy was right as it affected many people. However, Councillor Mason requested that the Disability External Scrutiny (DES) Board be invited to explain the issues that they had raised, believing that a clearer understanding would be gained by the Commission from their first hand accounts. Councillor Mason told the Commission that the DES Board considered the policy too long and complicated.

Jo England informed the Commission that the original policy had been introduced in 2003 and followed closely the guidelines set out by the Department of Health. The policy had represented a shift from an old Berkshire policy and as a result some discretionary items were introduced. In 2011 the policy was reviewed again and the Service consulted widely with a number of disability groups. The discretionary items were removed which led to some increase in charges, and due to the scale of the policy change, every individual affected received a letter outlining their recalculated charges.

Councillor Webb asked for clarification about the issues being debated as it was not clear whether the policy was considered to be unclear, or unfit for purpose.

Jo England explained that the element that the DES board had discussed and raised concerns over, had been Disability Related Expenditure, which formed a part of the overall Fairer Contributions Policy. Jo England stressed that whilst some individuals had been unhappy with the policy, there were approximately 3,000 assessments carried out each year and very few appeals were made against the decisions. The Service believed they were operating fully within the guidelines.

Councillor Hunneman suggested that if the issue was specifically about Disability Related Expenditure, the DES board might be able to explain further.

Councillor Webster agreed, commenting that this was an important issue and the Portfolio Holder and members of the DES board should be allowed to speak directly to the Commission in order to consider the issues with a full set of information.

Acknowledging that some members of the DES board were restricted in the hours that they could attend a meeting, Councillor Webb suggested that this item be discussed at the next meeting and that it begin at the earlier time of 5pm. Councillor Mason agreed that this would be a suitable solution.

Jo England requested clarity as to whether the issue for discussion would be the full Fairer Contributions Policy or the Disability Related Expenditure element. The Chairman said that this would be clarified when all interested parties were present.

Councillor Laszlo Zverko requested clarification as to the number of people who had been consulted and the responses received. Jo England explained that the first  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Councillor Jeff Beck presented the final report and recommendations arising from a scrutiny review into Shaw House. Councillor Beck thanked everyone who took part in the review and drew the Commission’s attention to the following points from the report:

·        The Council’s use of the building had left many rooms underused, and the budget contributions did not reflect the true worth of the space used;

·        There was considerable scope for development of the house, maintaining it for the future whilst also bringing in revenue;

·        Although some clearing and tidying had been undertaken, a more complete restoration of the gardens would be required;

·        The car parking arrangements would need to be addressed, and to improve the appearance of the house, it had been recommended that the front car park be returned to a grassed garden;

·        The Council’s registration service was based within Shaw House, and this meant that whilst wedding ceremonies could take place, the house was not permitted to hold wedding receptions. It was therefore recommended that the administration of registrations be moved;

·        There were insufficient catering facilities on site to allow the preparation and service of full meals which meant that the house was not desirable as a conference venue and would not meet the needs of those holding a wedding reception. It was also difficult for outside caterers to operate in the house as there were no reheating facilities;

·        The location of the toilets in the basement was not appropriate for all events;

·        The Task Group were in accord with the findings of the Cultural Asset Working Group;

·        The house was Grade 1 listed and conditions therefore limited alterations to the house;

·        The Task Group was of the view that the house was an important attraction for West Berkshire, but it required greater self funding. There was a need for greater expertise with regard to marketing and the Task Group recommended that the Council engage with an external consultancy to obtain the required expertise.

Councillor Jeff Brooks, as Vice Chairman of the Task Group, added the following points:

·        The Task Group had run after the Cultural Asset Working Group, and whilst in broad agreement with the findings set out in the subsequently developed business plan, the Task Group felt there was a lack of ambition for the potential of the building;

·        It was considered that assistance would be required to help market the building and to hold successful events. Examples of where this was needed were the lack of signage to inform the public that the house was open to them, the insufficiency of information on the internet; and that schools were not encouraged to visit;

·        The Task Group were disappointed that the operating subsidy of £150,000 continued to be required and that it would be a number of years before this would reduce significantly due to a slow increase in income;

·        Further investigation would be required to establish the allowable level of income under the Heritage Lottery Fund rules;

·        Whilst financial stability was important, it was equally important  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

David Lowe presented a report outlining recommendations arising from the Commission’s review of Welfare Reform and its impact in West Berkshire. Following the February meeting, the Chairman and Councillor Vickers had met to develop a set of recommendations. The Commission were invited to comment on the proposals.

The Chairman stated that the discussion at the February meeting had been closely reviewed during the development of the recommendations.

Councillor Webster expressed her support of the recommendations and proposed they be accepted.

Councillor Hunneman requested the inclusion of a comment from Councillor Vickers that the Local Government Association be lobbied.

The Commission approved the recommendations.

Resolved that the recommendations from the review of Welfare Reform be submitted to the Executive cycle.

David Lowe introduced the proposed terms of reference for the scrutiny review into Children’s Services governance arrangements, and requested that the Commission consider the terms and amend them as necessary.

Rachael Wardell advised the Commission that the Children and Young People’s Partnership had ceased to operate the previous week and requested that the Task Group review the effect of this.

The Commission approved the terms of reference.

Resolved that the effect of the Children and Young People’s Partnership ceasing be examined as part of the review.