Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 30 October 2012.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 2012 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Commission considered the minutes of the special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission held on 26 November 2012.

David Lowe advised the Commission that Councillor Vickers had submitted a number of proposed changes to the draft minutes and that it was for the Commission to agree whether to accept any of the amendments. The Chairman reminded the Commission that minutes were not intended to be verbatim. Nick Carter advised that the correct procedure was for the Commission to consider whether the minutes were a true and accurate record of the meeting, and the Commission was not entitled to redraft the minutes.

Councillor Webb suggested that where numerical or other factual information had been presented publicly, this need not be included in the minutes also. Councillor Webb proposed that the minutes be agreed subject to changes already agreed. Councillor Beck seconded the proposal and at the vote the proposal was carried.

The Minutes of the special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission held on 26 November 2012 were therefore approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

·        Page 9, bullet 5: Prefix the sentence with ‘The Homeless Prevention Grant is not ring-fenced money, however’;

·        Page 7, paragraph 1: Add ‘and the Council has to match funds from Government.’ to the end of the paragraph;

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor David Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Items 11 and 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 and made the following comments:

Paragraph 2.6: Councillor Jeff Beck requested that the word ‘office’ be amended to read ‘officer’.

Paragraph 2.16: Councillor Tony Vickers requested clarification as to whether the South East Region of the National Housing Federation had been invited to the special Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission review into homelessness. David Lowe responded that they had been invited but had been unable to attend. Councillor Vickers went on to ask what provision would be made to consider evidence from those witnesses who had not been able to attend on the day. Councillor Mike Johnston responded that a scrutiny review could not remain open indefinitely; and that the absence of some witnesses did not detract from the value of the recommendations. The Chairman suggested that the progression of the review and resulting recommendations should be considered during the main discussion of the item.

Paragraph 2.17: Councillor Vickers asked whether the homelessness mystery shopper report would be circulated for consideration alongside the existing findings of the homelessness scrutiny review. The Chairman responded that the report remained with Officers at present.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from December 2012 to March 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 from December to March 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 2011/12.

The Commission considered its work programme and that of the Health Scrutiny Panel and Resource Management Working Group for 2012/13.

Resolved that the work programme be noted.

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 review the Individual Decision relating to the proposed implementation of revised parking charges at Burdwood Centre car park, Thatcham.

The Commission considered a report concerning the Call in item ID2518 – Petition for removal of proposed parking charges at Burdwood Centre car park, Thatcham, which was presented for consideration by Individual Decision on 8 November 2012.

Councillor David Rendel presented the reasons for calling in this item, raising the following points:

·        The proposed increase in parking charges had been objected to by Thatcham Town Council;

·        By considering the effect at the Gilbert Court Car Park after a similar increase in parking charges was implemented there, it could be assumed that parking would be displaced to other areas. For the Burdwood Centre Car Park, Councillor Rendel believed that the displaced vehicles would park in nearby free spaces that currently served local retail traders. The concern was raised that if drivers chose to use these spaces for all day parking, the local traders might be adversely affected;

·        If vehicles were displaced, it was expected that the income from the Burdwood Centre car park would not justify the expense of installing the ticket system. In addition, Councillor Rendel did not believe that the expected income of approximately £2,000 would be considered of value to the Council and would therefore not be missed if the charges were not implemented.

The Chairman asked if any evidence had been gathered to illustrate the extent to which retailers might be affected by the increase in parking charges. Councillor Rendel responded that this was not possible to quantify. Councillor Vickers reported that retailers near Bartholomew Street had reportedly experienced a reduction in trade following the introduction of charges for a residents’ parking area there.

The Chairman reminded the Commission that the proposal included a two hour free parking period, and suggested that this would be sufficient time for people to shop in the area without incurring a charge. Councillor Johnston added that it was common practice for supermarkets to allow a two hour free period for parking and that this was adequate time for shoppers. Councillor Rendel responded that drivers might not be aware of the requirement to obtain a ticket during the two hour free parking period.

The Chairman invited Mark Cole to introduce his response to the reasons for the Call In. Mark Cole explained that all of the issues that had been raised had been addressed in the report that was circulated with the agenda. However Mark Cole drew the Commission’s attention to an error in the report on page 59 of the agenda where ‘first seven months’ should read ‘first five months’. Mark Cole highlighted the following points:

·        Many shops in West Berkshire were located in areas with paid for parking, and it was not considered that users of this car park should be exempt from charges;

·        The two hour free parking was suitable for the type of retail trade in the area and would be expected to allow shoppers adequate time to complete their business without a negative effect on retailers;

·        If the Co-operative Food store became affected by the displacement of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

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

There were no Councillor Calls for Action.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

Purpose: To consider and agree draft recommendations arising from the scrutiny review into homelessness in West Berkshire.

(Councillor Rendel declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11 by virtue of the fact that his wife was a GP in West Berkshire. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Chairman introduced three reports related to the special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission held on 26 November 2012. Since the meeting, a sub group of the Commission had met on 3 December 2012 in order to formulate draft recommendations for consideration by the Commission. The Chairman advised the Commission that Councillor Vickers had amended the proposed recommendations, and that these had been circulated and would be the version under consideration for agreement.

(7:18pm - Councillor Jeff Brooks joined the meeting)

The Commission discussed the proposed recommendations from the review into homelessness and agreed the following:

1.      “The Executive Member for Housing should work with other local agencies to agree an accepted methodology for the counting of rough sleepers. A report outlining the production process and count should be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission within 6 months of agreement.”

2.      “The Executive Member for Housing should advise the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of the genuine concerns held locally that the impending changes to the benefits regime will have an adverse effect on homelessness in West Berkshire.”

3.      “The Executive Member for Housing should establish how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) plans to deliver Universal Benefits (which include Housing Benefit) locally and report by 31 March 2013 on plans for transferring Housing Benefit payment to DWP.”

4.      “The Executive Member for Housing should consider the production, either as part of the Homelessness Strategy or separately, of a ‘reconnection’ policy, to ensure that homeless people who have no local connection to West Berkshire are able to sustainably relocate to those places outside of the district with which they do have a link.”

5.      “The Executive Member for Strategic Support should ensure that time is made available at a District Parish Conference for Housing officers to explain to Councillors the content of, and rationale for, the Homelessness Strategy when agreed.”

6.      “At the next revision of the Council’s Service Level Agreement with the Citizens Advice Bureau, the Executive Member for Strategic Support should consider the offer by SHELTER to assist with housing advice, so as to ensure that the document contains the requirement for the Bureau to provide a dedicated housing advisor.”

7.      “Performance monitoring reports received from the Citizens Advice Bureau relating to homelessness (including all financial advice), which are sent to the Executive Member for Strategic Support should be routinely made available to the Executive Member for Housing and his Shadow.”

8.      “The Executive Member for Housing should work, through the Local Government Association, the Government  and especially the Valuation Office Agency, to achieve transparency of the factors and values taken into consideration by VOA when setting the Local Housing Allowance and, if possible, an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Purpose: To consider and agree the proposed terms of reference for

reviewing the Council’s Fair Access to Social Care eligibility criteria.

The Commission considered the proposed scoping document for a review into Adult Social Care eligibility criteria.

Resolved that the review be undertaken in line with the scoping document.

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

(Councillor Rendel declared a personal 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 determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 13) on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel (HSP).

Councillor Webb  reported that at the meeting of the Health Scrutiny Panel held on 4 December 2012 the following topics had been discussed:

·        Continuing Healthcare had been the main item as it had been established that further investigation would be required and this was being progressed;

·        Dignity and nutrition in hospitals, the initial responses from a survey carried out had proven to be encouraging.

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 (Agenda Item 14) on the work of the Resource Management Working Group (RMWG).

Councillor Vickers reported that at the meeting of the RMWG held on 6 November 2012 the RMWG had agreed to consider whether they should routinely assess individual items on the risk register where they were related to assets. The Commission discussed the issue to ensure that the item would not be discussed at more than one forum. Nick Carter confirmed that the Governance and Audit Committee owned the risk register and had an overview of it, but did not review individual items. The Commission agreed that if the terms of reference for the Group allowed for this discussion, then the request should be submitted on the scrutiny topic proposal form.

(Post Meeting Note: Following the meeting it was noted that the Constitution stated that: ‘The overall purpose of the Governance and Audit Committee is to provide effective challenge across the Council and independent assurance on the risk management and governance framework and associated internal control environment to members and the public, independently of the Executive.’)

Resolved that the verbal report be noted.

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

The Commission considered a report updating the progress of scrutiny recommendations.

Councillor Webb asked when the recommendations from the scrutiny review into domestic abuse were to be presented to the Executive. David Lowe advised the Commission that the report would be viewed by Management Board on 20 December 2012, and would thereafter be presented to the Executive.

Councillor Johnston requested that the report include the date that each set of recommendations were endorsed by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission.

Resolved that the date that each set of recommendations were endorsed by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission be added to future reports.