Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 26 June 2012.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2012 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

·        Councillors Absent: Councillor David Holtby explained that he had given his apologies for the meeting but that these had not been passed on for recording in the minutes.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor Marcus Franks declared an interest in Agenda Item 10, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

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

Councillors Tony Vickers, Jeff Brooks, David Rendel, David Holtby, Mike Johnston and Dave Goff declared an interest in Agenda Item 11, and reported that, as their interests were personal and not prejudicial, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter..

Councillor Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Item 13, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, 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.  Comments were received regarding item 2.3.

Councillor Rendel asked if the updated report regarding the speed limit change on the A4 at Padworth had been circulated to the Commission.  He understood that reports that related to Individual Decisions would be circulated to all Members.  This was confirmed.

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

No items were called-in following the last Executive meeting.

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

There were no Councillor Call for Action.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

Purpose: To report year end results against the key accountable measures and activities for West Berkshire Council for 2011/12.

The Commission considered a report that set out the year end outturn against the key accountable measures and activities for the year 2011/12.

The Chairman highlighted to the Commission three areas where the Council had achieved notable success within Adult Social Care, Children in Care and Customer Focus.

Councillor Rendel commented that the report presented to the Commission contained the same mistakes that had been noted when it had been seen by the Executive and asked that in future mistakes were corrected.

Councillor Brooks believed that the current system for monitoring performance did not enable issues to be highlighted at an early stage, and that this resulted in the Commission not being able to recommend corrective action in a timely way. An example of this was that resource issues within the Planning department were not flagged to the Commission early. The Chairman informed the Commission of information that he had been shown illustrating the improvement in performance that had been achieved in Planning due to recent recruitment. Nick Carter explained that the quarterly indicators did provide an early warning that the year end target might not be achieved. Councillor Emma Webster raised the point that whilst the quarterly indicators could be useful, the Commission were unable to act on them until two quarters later when it would be too late to put remedial action in place.

Councillor Brooks was concerned that performance against the target to achieve 50% of service users and carers in receipt of Self Directed Support (including personal budgets) was far below the expected level. Margaret Goldie responded with the following points:

·        The service had reported from quarter two that they would not reach the year end target providing sufficient time for scrutiny and remedial recommendations to be made;

·        The target had been set according to the previous government’s priorities, but that there was less pressure to meet this target under the current government;

·        The priority over the year had been to reduce the Service’s overspend.  As a result, limited resources were being used to assess and place clients, and personal budgets were not being promoted. This was taking place at a time when day services were being closed resulting in a greater number of assessments being required;

·        Approximately 1500 clients were older people who were more resistant to adopting personal budgets.  Of the remaining client base, approximately 75% had personal budgets, representing good performance;

·        In order to achieve the target of 50% for all clients, the Council would need to set a default position that placed everyone on personal budgets unless they expressly opted out and this would not be sensible;

·        The overall number of clients had reduced over the year as a result of efforts to reduce the overspend.

Councillor Vickers expressed concern that the Commission had not been involved in the target setting process as had been agreed the previous year.  Councillor Webster advised the Commission that a Task Group had been established and at its first meeting had reviewed both local and national  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Purpose: To receive a report examining the methodology in operation for the repair of pot holes.

Councillor Brooks expressed a desire to consider this item with relevant Officers present, and proposed that as none were at the meeting, the item be deferred until the next meeting.  Councillor Holtby seconded the proposal.

The Chairman reminded the Commission that the Task Group had conducted the scrutiny review which had included questioning of Officers.  However the Commission agreed to defer the item until the next meeting.

Councillor Webster suggested that the Portfolio Holder also be invited.

RESOLVED that:

·        The report from the Repair of Pot Holes Task Group be deferred until the next meeting;

·        The Portfolio Holder and Highways Officers be invited to attend the next meeting to assist the discussion.

Purpose: To advise the commission of the process undertaken to manage the transfer of youth clubs from local authority control and the arrangements in place resultantly.

(Councillor Franks declared a personal interest in Agenda item 10 by virtue of the fact that he was the project coordinator for the Greater Greenham Project. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Commission considered a report advising the Commission of the process undertaken to manage the transfer of youth clubs from local authority control.

David Lowe explained that the item had been deferred from the meeting of 26 June 2012. 

Councillor Brooks expressed his disappointment that the report did not provide the level of detail he had expected, in particular the medium and long term financial viability of the seven remaining youth clubs. Councillor Brooks believed that unless the youth clubs mentioned in the report had a level of ongoing funding, or an employed person to run them, he expected their future to be uncertain. Margaret Goldie explained that the purpose of the report had been to provide details of the seven youth clubs that remained following budget cuts, but that the Council had disinvested from universal youth services, and would no longer have an ongoing role in respect of these seven facilities. The Council did not fund or run these seven clubs, and it no longer had the resources within the Youth Service in order to do so.

Councillor Brooks asked whether young people had access to the music room at the Moorside Centre, and whether volunteers were being sought to allow the ‘Blue Bus’ to visit Mortimer, Purley, Beenham, Bradfield and Burghfield. Maureen Phillips responded that the recording studio was available to young people if they were able to source a professional to accompany them as had always been the case.  She continued that the resources no longer existed to support the ‘Blue Bus’.

Councillor Rendel questioned how the report showed a comparison between the previous situation and the current one.  Margaret Goldie explained that the tables showed the previous situation, and the bullet points following each table explained the current situation. In future, there would be limited oversight by the Council of these facilities, as they were now run by local communities and not by the Council’s Youth Service..

Councillor Franks commented that a service level agreement had been established with the Berkshire Association of Clubs for Young People (BACYP) regarding the ‘Rural Navigator’ mobile provision, and asked if similar service level agreements had been set up for other services.  Maureen Phillips confirmed that they had been.

The Chairman commented that whilst surveys had indicated that facilities for young people were the top priority amongst residents when they had been surveyed on the matter, the attendance figures shown in the report did not support this. Councillor Irene Neill stated that parents showed a desire to have more facilities for young people, but that young people did not want to be organised formally and would prefer more casual arrangements. Margaret Goldie expressed the view that if parents placed importance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Purpose: To consider the factors contributing to an increase in homelessness.

(Councillor Franks declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 11 by virtue of the fact that he was employed by Sovereign Housing Association. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he determined to  take part in the debate but would not vote on the matter).

(Councillors Vickers, Brooks, Rendel, Holtby, Johnston and Goff declared an interest in Agenda item 11 by virtue of the fact that they were landlords. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

David Lowe introduced the item explaining that the issue of homelessness had been raised at the Commission’s meeting of 17 April 2012, and subsequent meetings had resulted in a request to invite the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Officers from the Housing Service and representatives of Sovereign Housing Association and the Citizens Advice Bureau to this meeting in order to discuss the issues that were leading to homelessness and consider possible solutions.

Councillor Vickers informed the Commission that the question had initially been raised due to a concern regarding the accuracy and clarity of the numbers of people presenting as homeless and those being assessed to be homeless.  The figures indicated a four fold increase in those to which the Council owed a duty of care which was at odds with the 11% being reported. It was confirmed that the 11% referred to an increase in homeless preventions and not homelessness approaches.

Councillor Roger Croft informed the Commission that for the year 2010/11, 14 people or households were assessed as being homeless compared to 53 the following year.  This represented an increase of 29 people or households.

The Chairman asked what was being done to halt the increase.

Councillor Webster commented that whilst it was interesting to be informed of the number of people to whom the Council had a duty to assist, her concern was for those who presented themselves as homeless, but who did not meet our criteria to be classed as homeless.

Mel Brain responded that the Council would owe a duty to assist approximately one third of those presenting as homeless.  However the Council worked with many more households who required housing options and advice, not just those who were homeless. In 2011/12, approximately 2900 households had approached the housing service for advice and assistance. For those who were homeless or threatened with homelessness, the primary focus was prevention, for example through negotiations with landlords, mortgage rescue, or help in paying rent arrears.  If homelessness could not be prevented and was likely within 28 days, a homelessness application could be taken.  Mel Brain commented that the proportion of people being assessed as homeless was small in comparison to the number being helped by the service. June Graves informed the Commission that the assistance given to people requesting advice was proactive and recorded.

Jan Rothwell (Citizens Advice Bureau) presented information indicating an increase in the number of people threatened with homelessness, those actually homeless,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Purpose: To receive the Scrutiny Annual Report 2011/12.

The Commission considered the annual scrutiny report 2011/12.

The Chairman advised that the report provided a summary of the work undertaken by the Commission, the Health Scrutiny Panel and the Resource Management Working Group over the previous year, and that the information contained within the report had previously been available to Members and the public within the minutes of each meeting.

Resolved that the Commission receive the annual scrutiny report each year.

Purpose: To provide an update on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel.

(Councillor David Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Item 13, by virtue of the fact that his wife was a GP in West Berkshire. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Commission considered a report on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel (HSP).

Councillor Webb confirmed that at the meeting of the Health Scrutiny Panel held on 19 June 2012 the following topics had been discussed:

·        Dignity and Nutrition in Hospitals

·        The Anti-Child Poverty Strategy

·        An update on the Health and Wellbeing Board

Councillor Webb reported that the next meeting of the Health Scrutiny Panel was 11 September 2012.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To provide an update on the work of the Resource Management Working Group.

The Commission considered a report on the work of the Resource Management Working Group (RMWG).

Councillor Vickers confirmed that the Resource Management Working Group had last met on 2 July 2012 and had discussed the following items:

·        Asset Management

·        Establishment Report 2011/12

·        Provisional Financial Outturn Report 2011/12

Councillor Vickers confirmed the meeting scheduled for 7 August 2012 had been cancelled, and the next meeting would therefore be 25 September 2012.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpoe: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from August 2012 to November 2012 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 August 2012 to November 2012.

Resolved that the Forward Plan be noted.

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 2012/13.

The Commission considered its work programme and that of the Health Scrutiny Panel and Resource Management Working Group for 2011/12.

Councillor Webb reported that the first meeting of the Domestic Abuse Task Group had been held on 20 July 2012, and four further meetings had been arranged in September and October.

Resolved that the work programme be noted.