Agenda and minutes

Purpose: To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on Tuesday 2^nd August 2011.

The Minutes of the meeting held on the 2^nd August 2011 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Page 6, second paragraph - the following topics had been discussed;

The following was added to the list:

·         To understand the arrangements in the East of West Berkshire concerning GP Commissioning;

·         To understand and review the changes to the ambulance performance indicators.

Note: Councillor David Holtby joined the meeting.

Purpose: To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor David Rendel 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.

Purpose: To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meetings.

1. Activities for Teenagers: Examination of the facilities in place for young people.         Agenda Item 9

There was one action followed up from previous Commission meetings:

1. Activities for Teenagers: Examination of the facilities in place for Young People was discussed under agenda Item 9.

Purpose: To consider any items called-in by the requisite number of Members following the Executive meeting held on Thursday 8^th September 2011.

There were no items called-in following the last Executive meeting held on the 8 September 2011.

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

There were no Councillor Calls for Action.

Purpose: To receive any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

Purpose:

1. To report quarter 1 progress against the key accountable measures and activities for West Berkshire Council for 2011/12.
2. To report by exception those measures / activities not achieved / expected to be achieved and cite remedial action that is being taken.

Note: Councillor Emma Webster joined the meeting.

Jason Teal (Performance, Research and Consultation Manager) introduced agenda Item 8, Key accountable measures and activities 2011/12 – Update on progress: Q1 outturns.  The report covered data up to the end of June 2011 and was submitted to the Executive on the 8^th September 2011.   This was a new look report with new information.  The report consisted of 39 key measures or activities that had been drawn from individual service plans and focussed on those measures of particular importance / significance to the work of the Council as a whole.  Within the 39 measures, 8 were assessed at a single point in time within the year these were currently coded in blue.  Of the remaining 31 measures reported at the end of June, 28 were green, 2 amber and one had no data available as yet.

The 2 amber measures reported were:

• Children in Care – Core assessments conducted within 35 working days;
• Housing – High priority housing grants approved within 9 weeks of receipt of full grant application.

Councillor Brian Bedwell welcomed the much more sensible approach of using fewer measures than the 109 reported within the previous year.  He thought the report was much more suitable and easier for both officers to produce and Members to use.

Councillor Tony Vickers enquired who had determined which measures were to be used and how had the targets been derived or justified. Some of the RAG judgements made in Q1 performance report he had caused to doubt the validity of their assessment.  For example – Planning – The adoption of the Local Development Framework’s Core Strategy by March 2012 and Planning applications determined within Government guidelines appeared to be well below target.  Similarly Planning appeals upheld at 40% achievement was failing against the national average target of 35%. He was of the opinion that all of these targets should carry an amber or possibly a red assessment. 

Jason Teal explained that the RAG assessment was based on the projected year end performance at 31 March 2012.  Some measures had profiled targets for each quarter and the RAG assessment was based on the Q1 achievement against the profiled target for Q1.

Councillor Tony Vickers referred to the definition of amber on page 18 of the report: ‘Amber means we are behind schedule, but still expect to achieve or complete the measure / activity by year end’

Jason Teal commented that the measures that Councillor Vickers was referring to were assessed green as the Q1 profiled target had been met.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld (portfolio holder for performance) shared Councillor Vicker’s concern and commented that some measures were not linear. A performance plan had been profiled for such measures and the Q1 assessment was based on the performance against the profiled target for that quarter.

Councillor Dominic Boeck commented that shadow portfolio holders had access to the detailed information behind the measures being reported and were given the opportunity to questions heads of service on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Purpose: For the Commission to agree the Terms of Reference for an examination of the facilities available for young people.  To set up and agree membership of the Task Group to conduct the examination.

Note: As this Item 9 was under discussion and the debate moved to include the Greenham project, Councillor Marcus Franks declared an interest in Agenda Item 9, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate but not to vote on the matter.

Councillor Brian Bedwell introduced the discussion on Item 9 and commented that he was not satisfied with the presentation made on Activities for Teenagers at the August OSMC meeting. He was of the opinion that it raised more questions that it had answered and the topic required further scrutiny.  It was important to look and two or three targeted areas and the views of parish councillors should be included.

Councillor Tony Vickers agreed with a focus on some specific areas but added it was most important to include young people views and consult with young people’s groups. 

Councillor Marcus Franks commented that a focus on 3 areas – urban, high deprivation and rural would be useful.  He thought it was important to map current provision of facilities and build up details such as average number of attendees, cost of provision, cost of attendance and carry out some general research of need and demand.

Councillor Alan Macro wanted to cover provision in general and not just Council provided or facilitated services.

Councillor David Holtby supported Councillor Macro’s view and added that the Task Group should look at young people’s needs across an age range of either 9-21 or 11-21 and not just teenagers.

Councillor Brian Bedwell stated that the residents’ survey had for many years shown that more facilities for younger people was seen as a top priority.

Councillor David Rendel asked for paragraph 3.1 of the covering report to be reworded by replacing ‘teenagers’ with ‘young people’ and that the Task Group was best placed to determine the age range it should cover.

 Councillor Brian Bedwell agreed that it should be worded as young people and Julia Waldman’s Youth Services report should go into the Task Group for consideration.

Andy Day agreed that Julian Waldman’s report should go to the Task Group and it was most important to talk to young people.  The Greenham project should be consulted for their views as it had been successful and had resulted in a high level of buy-in by young people.  Understanding the role of the ‘Big Society’ and how it could be successfully delivered was key.  Examining other youth projects such as the work at Wired Rock, Hungerford, Clay Hill and Kintbury would be helpful.

Brian Bedwell asked Members to consider volunteering to join the Task Group and asked those interested to register that interest with David Baker.  The Task Group could also co-opt volunteers from outside OSMC.  

RESOLVED that the covering report and the comments made by the OSMC be used as a guide to the Task Group in setting and agreeing their final Terms of Reference.

Purpose: To provide a verbal update on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel and provide information on the meeting planned for 4^th October 2011.  

Councillor David Rendel 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.

The Commission considered a verbal report (Agenda Item 10) on the work of the Scrutiny Health Panel (SHP).

Councillor Quentin Webb confirmed that two additional work items had been added to the Health Scrutiny Panel work programme at their last meeting on 19^th July 2011.

They were as follows:

·        To understand the arrangements in the East of West Berkshire concerning GP Commissioning;

·        To understand and review the changes to the ambulance indicators.

These work items would be discussed at the next meeting of the Health Scrutiny Panel to be held on Tuesday 4^th October 2011.

RESOLVED that the verbal report would be noted.

Purpose: To provide a verbal update on the work of the Resource Management Working Group and provide information on the meeting planned for 27^th September 2011. 

The Commission considered a verbal report (Agenda Item 11) on the work of the Resource Management Working Group (RMWG).

Councillor Tony Vickers confirmed that there had been no meeting of the Resource Management Working Group since the last meeting of the OSMC.

The first meeting of RMWG was scheduled for Tuesday 27^th September which would be addressing the following work items:

·         Quarter 1 Establishment report;

·         Legal and Electoral Services Budget;

·         Finance Performance Report (Month 4);

·         Strategic Risk Register.

The RMWG was also proposing an additional work item to scrutinise part of the Parkway Development in the areas of:

·         Car parking fees;

·         Commissioning of affordable housing.

Councillor Emma Webster commented that as all the original detailed work on the Parkway Development had been carried out by the Newbury Town Centre Task Group (NTCTG) that the work item should be addressed by that group.

Andy Day (Head of Policy & Communication) commented that he supported the view that Newbury Town Centre Task Group had the expertise and knowledge to address the work item.  The OSMC had two Members on the NTCTG in Councillors Mike Johnston and Marcus Franks.  Other Councillors on the NTCTG were Paul Bryant, Roger Hunneman, David Allen and Jeff Beck.

Councillor Tony Vickers support the idea that NTCTG should address the Parkway Develop work item.

Councillor David Rendel commented that there were legal and financial areas of the Parkway Development that were important to the whole of West Berkshire and not just Newbury Town Centre and these needed wider discussion and may need to come back to the OSMC.

Councillor Brian Bedwell supported the view that NTCTG should addressed the Parkway Development work item and any feedback could be brought through the RMWG.

RESOLVED that the NTCTG would be requested to review and address the Parkway Development work item.

Councillor Tony Vickers confirmed that the RMWG work programme included the following work items:

·         Quarter reports on revenue, capital and establishment;

·         Legal and Electoral Services Budget;

·         Finance Performance Report (Month 4);

·         Strategic Risk Register;

·         Highways Asset Management Plan;

·         Energy Saving;

·         MTFS;

·         Timelord;

·         Procedures for Blue Badge Holders.

RESOLVED that the report would be noted.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West

Berkshire Council from September - December 2011 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 11) for the period covering September to December 2011.

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 2011/12.

The changes to the combined OSMC work programme resolved under Items 9, 10 and 11 would be made.

RESOLVED that:

The changes to the work programme would be noted.