Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 23 February 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2016 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(s) Lee Dillon and Emma Webster declared an interest in Agenda Item 11, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they 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 updates provided, in response to two actions recorded from the previous meeting, were noted.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from 20 April 2016 to 31 July 2016 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 (Agenda Item 5) for the period covering 20 April 2016 to 31 July 2016.

Resolved that

1.    the Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To receive new items and agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission for 2016/17.

The Commission considered its work programme for 2016/2017.

David Lowe advised Members that, in respect of Item OSMC 12/135 (Annual Target Setting Task Group), the annual review would take place in June 2016 and required four volunteers to contribute. Councillor Emma Webster and Councillor Lee Dillon agreed that they would confirm the name of those volunteers to David Lowe.

Councillor Dillon introduced Appendix C to the Commission and advised Members that the suggested topic for scrutiny was a review of the existing income generation of the Council. He stated that many Local Authorities had undertaken a similar activity in light financial pressures and the ongoing reductions to the Revenue Support Grants.

Members agreed that the review should be time limited – in order that it complemented the Officers’ task group which had been established to consider the same matter. Councillor Dillon suggested that the review incorporated an examination of the work undertaken by other Local Authorities as a guide.

Members accepted the suggested topic for scrutiny onto their Work Programme and stated that the Terms of Reference should clearly outline the scope of the review in order that the discussions remained focused.

Councillor Dillon introduced appendix B to the commission and advised that the item sought to review the actions of West Berkshire Council associated with the Faraday Plaza planning application. It was proposed that the suggested topic of scrutiny would enable an opportunity to check the process, learn from the lessons indentified and gain confidence in decision making.

Andy Day advised Members that the Commission was not permitted to consider planning matters but it would be feasible to consider a review into the role of the Executive through the decision making process.

Councillor Webster stated that Members should be cautious when considering the case for review as were a number of complexities, including legal elements, associated with the case.

It was concluded that the suggested topic for scrutiny would more suitably considered by the Planning Policy Task Group. Therefore, it was agreed that the topic would not be added to the Commission’s Work Programme.

Resolved that

1.    Councillor Emma Webster and Councillor Lee Dillon would confirm the names of those volunteers willing to participate in the Annual Target Setting Task Group (OSMC 12/135).

2.    The suggested topic of scrutiny – to review the existing income generation of the Council and recommend further opportunities – would be added to the Work Programme.

3.    The suggested topic for scrutiny – Faraday Plaza – would not be added to the Work Programme.

4.    The work programme be noted.

Purpose: To consider any items which an Urgent Decision is required to be taken by the Executive, in exception to the requirements of the Local Authorities( Executive arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

There were no urgent items to consider.

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

There were no Councillor Calls for Action.

To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions received at the meeting.

To provide a more in depth analysis of the overall performance status for the basket of measures used at corporate level to monitor progress of the delivery of Council Strategy Priority 3 – ‘Enable the completion of more affordable housing’.

(Councillor Lee Dillon declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11 by virtue of the fact that he was an employee of Sovereign Housing. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate).

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11 by virtue of the fact that she was an employee of a property developer. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she was permitted to take part in the debate).

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning an in-depth analysis of the overall performance status for the basket of measures used to monitor the progress of delivery of the Council Strategy Priority 3 - Enable More Affordable Housing.

Catalin Bogos introduced the report to Members and explained that the information contained in the report presented a detailed analysis of the performance as at Quarter three. Members heard that the Strategy Board had also considered the priority to identify opportunities to deliver more affordable housing.  It was stated that the measure asked the service to investigate ways to deliver more affordable housing and Officers were present at the meeting to provide context around this target.

Andy Day advised that the Council was seeking to create capacity through volunteers within the Council to facilitate ways to move projects forward – from this the Collaborative Architects were formed. Councillor Hilary Cole advised that the volunteers received training from an external consultant who demonstrated the various skills required to drive, challenge and invigorate an effective review.

Paul Hendry (Collaborative Architect) explained that their role was to act as a catalyst for change. They facilitated a meeting between the subject matter experts (internal and external contacts) to dissect the subject and develop ideas. He advised that the first question the group considered was ‘the definition of Affordable Housing’. Members heard that the group agreed that affordable housing incorporated more than social housing and a broader definition was necessary in order to alleviate the pressure on current housing demands.

Mike Scapello (Collaborative Architect) advised that the meetings were attended by housing associations, Newbury Building Society, builders, Members, planning consultants and representatives from the Homes and Communities agency (HCA).

Paul Hendry explained that in discussing the current and future demands for affordable housing the group considered four keys key areas:

·         Increase housing density: Promote the change of use of agricultural land for affordable housing (AH) only.

·         Rural Housing Development Programme: Increase the density of developments to deliver more affordable housing and change the perception within the market place in West Berkshire, by identifying successful projects elsewhere to be used examples.

·         Incentives for affordable housing:A range of incentives (non financial) will deliver sites with a higher proportion of affordable housing than otherwise would be delivered.

·         Proactive Land Assembly Now Team: Create a team to re-assess sites that ‘missed the short list’ with the aim of securing more affordable housing through the release of this land.

The group proposed a set of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

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

(Councillor Richard Somner declared a personal interest in Agenda item 12 by virtue of the fact that he was an employee of The Royal Berkshire Hospital. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate).

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 12) concerning the Quarter three outturns against the Key Accountable measures contained within the 2015/2016 Council Performance Framework.

Members heard that the report appraised progress against a basket of 27 key accountable measures and activities aligned to the objectives set out in the Council Strategy. Of the 27 reported measures, outturns were available for 24. Of the remainder, 2 which were reported only once a year and 1 was unavailable at the time of publication of the report. Therefore, of the measures reported:

·         19 (78%) were reported as ‘Green’ – on track to be delivered/ achieved by year end.

·         4 (17%) were reported as ‘Amber – behind schedule, but still expected to achieve or complete the measure/ activity by year end.

·         1 (4%) was reported as ‘Red’ – not achieved, or do not expect to achieve, the activity or target within the year.

Catalin Bogos advised Members that the additional narrative (performance intelligence) was not available, on this occasion, due to the prioritisation of budget pressures above other tasks.Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter was concerned to learn that all the exception reports related to measures within the same directorate. Rachael Wardell advised that in a big directorate with a large number of challenging measures it was not uncommon for measures to be reported below target, although the measures had improved through the quarter four reporting.

Rachael Wardell explained that in some cases the measures were reported against a small group of people and could therefore be easily affected by any changes to their circumstances. With this in mind, Rachael Wardell stated that it was paramount that the services were not led by targets in such a way as to drive perverse incentives. She stressed that, although there was a need to track performance, the service was directed to take the most suitable course of action based on an individual’s needs, irrespective of the impact this might have upon targets.

Councillor Richard Somner asked whether the measure had been adversely affected by the inclusion of 4 clients in permanent care home placements. Rachael Wardell explained that the service was clear about their objective, aiming to keep people within their own homes with support of reablement/rehabilitation services. However, sometimes those services could not meet the needs of some individuals so an alternative provision of care was required. She advised that Members were entitled to know the circumstances but she remained clear that meeting an individual’s need was paramount.

Resolved that:

1.    The report be noted.