Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 24 May 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 May 2022 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman:

It was noted that Councillor Biyi Oloko had tried to give his apologies, but was out of the country and was unable to make contact.

To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meeting.

Members noted the updates on the actions from the previous Minutes. In addition, the following comments were made:

·         Action 58 – Although West Berkshire Council had made initial approaches regarding recommencing the Kennet and Avon Canal Partnership and had allocated Members to it, so far there had been no interest from the other partners.

·         Action 62 – It was noted that a report on appraisals would be brought to the November meeting.

·          

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Tony Vickers and Biyi Oloko declared an interest in Agenda Item 6, but reported that, as their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

Purpose: To review Thames Water's investment priorities within West Berkshire.

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 by virtue of the fact that he had been nominated as Chairman of Newbury Flood Action Group. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate).

(Councillor Biyi Oloko declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 by virtue of the fact that he had previously worked for Thames Water. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate).

The Commission considered a presentation from Thames Water on their future investment plans for West Berkshire (Agenda Item 6). The presentation addressed issues raised by Members that had been sent to Thames Water in advance of the meeting. The presentation covered the following topics:

·         Improving River Health

·         Overflows

·         Sewage treatment works

·         Investment

·         ‘Go to Green’

·         Groundwater Impacted System Management Plans (GISMP)

·         Clean water

·         Planning

·         River Pang Chalk Stream Project

·         Plan for Reducing Harm to Water Quality in the River Thames Catchment

·         Leakage

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter was invited to address the meeting as Portfolio Holder for the Environment and Transformation. He highlighted that climate change resilience was a key plank of the Council’s Environment Strategy. Concern was expressed that Thames Water lacked focus on sustained improvements for flood risk management. Thatcham had been badly affected by flooding in 2007, with other areas affected more recently. Thames Water had previously supported the Thatcham Flood Water Management Plan, but had had not signed up to the most recent proposal. They were asked how they would help Thatcham and other local communities in future. Thames Water confirmed that known problem areas were being tackled. They offered to arrange a meeting to discuss the Thatcham scheme. It was stressed that investment had to be prioritised in terms of need and the ranking process was overseen by the Consumer Council for Water. Thames Water was also increasing spend on sustainable drainage which had a role in managing flood water, and they were keen to work with local authorities and others on such schemes. If the Council had specific issues then they would explain what they were doing to address these or explain why they could not help.

Action: Thames Water to contact Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter to arrange a meeting regarding flood protection works in Thatcham.

Members asked why investment in capacity had lagged behind need and why things had come to a head now. It was noted that investment in the network took place to support new development and to support predicted increases in population. Thames Water always sought to have spare capacity at sewage treatment works. Occasionally development came forward more quickly than expected, or calculations were proved wrong, but often the problem was with surface water, particularly where a development was poorly designed or constructed with cross-connections between surface and foul sewers. If surface water could be kept out of foul sewers, then Thames Water could cope.

Members asked if the oversight process was fit for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Purpose: To provide an overview and update on the functioning of the West Berkshire Corporate Parenting Panel.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning Corporate Parenting. It was noted that originally, OSMC had been asked to look at the Fostering and Adoption service, but that service was being reviewed by the Audit Team, so the decision had been taken to review the Corporate Parenting Panel and how Corporate Parenting could be made more effective instead.

Pete Campbell (Head of Children and Family Services) introduced the report. Key points from the presentation were as follows:

·         Corporate Parenting covered all children who were not able to live with their immediate birth family and were in the Council’s care up to 18 years old.

·         There were about 175 children in the Council’s care, with a similar number of ‘care leavers’.

·         A recent Ofsted inspection had included an assessment of Corporate Parenting – the Council had been praised for its ambition for children in its care.

·         Given the recent Ofsted inspection, there was no point in OSMC checking to see if the Council’s Corporate Parenting function had a ‘clean bill of health’. Instead the report focused on the general Corporate Parenting duty on Members and Officers.

·         Members had received Corporate Parenting training in 2019, with some refresher training since then, but Members did not receive regular updates on Corporate Parenting as a matter of course.

·         Members of the Corporate Parenting Panel were well-informed, but there was an opportunity to communicate achievements of and ambitions for children in care more widely.

·         A review had been undertaken of what other local authorities were doing. While some activities carried out by larger local authorities would not be practical in West Berkshire, some ideas could be implemented here.

·         The Council was keen for children to provide feedback on services via social media or face-to-face.

·         The report’s recommendations took account of planned changes to Ofsted reviews, which would include care leavers in future, and also the findings of the MacAlister Review of Children’s Social Care to which the Government was expected to respond before Christmas.

·         It was noted that many Members already took an interest in Corporate Parenting, but the report’s sought to improve communications and better celebrate achievements.

Councillor Dominic Boeck was invited to comment as Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education. He articulated his ambition to do an even better job of Corporate Parenting and for Members to be more aware of their responsibilities and to be more involved outside of the Panel.

Members noted recommendations to produce an annual report on Corporate Parenting to Full Council, and to improve information on the Council’s website, and asked what was stopping this from happening. It was explained that the Council had previously organised an annual celebration event. This had lapsed during Covid, but would be re-introduced for October 2022. It was then planned to have an annual report 6 months later. This would be made as accessible as possible to a wider audience.

It was noted that the Scottish Government had moved to a system of Community Parenting. Members supported the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Purpose: To report on the in-year financial performance of the Council’s revenue budgets.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning the Revenue Report for Quarter One 2022/23..

Joseph Holmes (Executive Director - Resources) introduced the report. Key points from the presentation were as follows:

·         The Council was forecasting an overspend of £2.1 million after mitigations.

·         There would be further impacts associated with inflation and the staff pay award.

·         Within the People directorate, there was increased demand from both Adult and Children Social Care. Adult social care had gone up by 5-6%

·         There were residual income pressures from Covid, particularly in relation to car parking and the leisure contract.

·         The underlying position of savings was positive.

·         Some mitigations were proposed, which would be reviewed at the end of Quarter 2.

Members asked about the likely future direction of the overspend and whether central government would provide additional support. Officers noted that in previous years, demand for adult social care places decreased in months five and six, but the last two years had been affected by Covid. There had been no announcement to date regarding additional central government funding. It was noted that other local authorities had similar overspends for Q1. Additional grants had been claimed for initiatives such as Homes for Ukraine, which would be recorded in the Q2 report.

Clarification was sought as to the meaning of the term “managing demand to the model”. It was explained that this was about trying to keep clients out of care for as long as possible by offering advice and guidance or other support not delivered by the local authority. Clients were supported through lower level services for as long as possible, e.g. through reablement support.

Members queried why despite lower occupancy in our own care homes, clients were being placed in externally commissioned beds, which cost more. It was confirmed that some homes were unable to cope with the complexity of the individual’s care needs, or there could be issues that meant it was not suitable for an individual to go to a particular care home (e.g. placement restrictions for certain types of care).

Members asked why the forecast increase was 20 clients in 2022, but the model only showed 10 in 2023. It was explained that this was down to the way in which the model was calculated, which was based on trend analysis in previous years as well as local intelligence about clients. In previous periods, there had been government support for hospital discharge and these clients would subsequently be picked up by the Council.

Members noted that there were limited reserves and asked about the impacts of inflation, rising energy costs, rising interest rates and the pay award. Officers stated that the minimum levels of reserves was £7 million and the current level was £8.9 million. If the predicted outturn was achieved, then it would push the reserves below its minimum level. In relation to bank rates, it was noted that there would be an underspend due the Council not borrowing for the current year’s capital programme. With respect to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Purpose: The financial performance report provided to Members on a quarterly basis reports on the under or over spends against the Council’s approved capital budget.  This report presents the Quarter One financial position.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning the Capital Report for Quarter One 2022/23..

Joseph Holmes (Executive Director – Resources) introduced the report. Key points from the presentation were as follows:

·         The forecast was for a small capital underspend.

·         There would be some reprofiling of spend in future financial years.

·         Officers expected to deliver most of the capital programme, but there were some issues with rising costs – and there would be long-term cost pressures due to significant inflationary rises across a range of construction materials.

·         It was expected that there would be increased volatility in the capital programme showing by Q3 and Q4.

·         Cost increases were expected to show up more in the long-term programme for the next 5 to 10 years, which was due to go to Full Council in March 2023.

Members asked if capital projects would be delayed as a result of inflation and increased borrowing costs. Officers indicated that the Capital Strategy was continually reviewed to see how best to balance out the costs of capital financing and inflation. It was considered likely that there would be reprofiling shown in the report to Full Council in March 2023, which would take account of the Council’s supply chain and inflationary pressures. While the previous strategy had been to borrow over the longer term, it was expected that the Council may undertake shorter-term borrowing as it started to pay off greater levels of debt over the next 5-10 years. This created opportunities to make savings on the revenue budgets, since shorter-term borrowing was a bit cheaper. It was noted that much depended on macro-economic factors, including borrowing rates and other investors, such as the UK Infrastructure Bank.

Members expressed concern that current contracts may be reduced in scope due to the impacts of construction inflation. While it was accepted that this would deliver capital savings, it would have implications for future revenue budgets. For example, reduced specification on road surfacing would mean that the repairs would not last so long. Members asked about the scope for moving revenue savings from future years into renegotiating capital costs for the current year. Officers confirmed that they were always looking for opportunities to generate revenue savings through the capital programme. There were examples of such schemes in the report related to Adult Social Care and care homes. It was explained that many of the schemes in the current capital programme had already been procured, which was why there was not an immediate inflationary pressure in many cases. However, there would be greater impacts on future schemes, which would either require additional borrowing, grant funding or changes to project scopes.

Members noted that around £3 million was due to be spent on renewable energy provision. However, the Revenue Report had indicated that income from solar had been disappointing. It was confirmed that over the shorter-term there had been less income from solar projects, since fewer projects had been delivered than expected. A budget adjustment would be made for 20223/24  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Purpose: To review progress in implementing the Council’s Economic Development Strategy

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 8) concerning the Operational Review of the Economic Development Strategy .

Katharine Makant (Economy Manager) introduced the report. Key points from the presentation were as follows:

·         The review was based on the refreshed version of the Strategy, which was approved in June 2021, in response to Covid related challenges.

·         The Economic Development Team had administered significant amounts of grant funding.

·         The team had set up the Business West Berkshire website, which was the first of a number of initiatives designed to encourage business investment in West Berkshire as part of an Investment Strategy.

·         The Newbury Town Centre Vision and Master Plan had been progressed and a scheme was being developed for Newbury Wharf.

·         A lot of work had been done to support employment, working in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions through Kickstart, and with the Skills and Enterprise Partnership to sponsor a STEM Zone in their careers fair.

·         The team was looking to work more closely with rural businesses and was planning a conference in November.

·         Relationships had been built both within the Council and with external partners such as the Chambers of Commerce to engage with local businesses.

Members noted that the Business West Berkshire website did not include links with LinkedIn or the main West Berkshire Council website. Officers undertook to review this.

Action: Katharine Makant to look at how the website could be better linked to LinkedIn and the Council’s website.

It was noted that footfall in Hungerford had remained fairly static, but had fallen significantly in Newbury and Thatcham. Members questioned whether expenditure had been effective in supporting the High Streets. It was noted that a new provider of footfall information had been commissioned, which utilised mobile phone signal data. Discussions were being held with the provider, since officers were surprised by the data and the figures did not match those from the Newbury BID. Also, Newbury Town Centre had been highlighted as one of the top performing town centres towards the end of last year. Members felt that figures should not be published until they could be confirmed, since they appeared to show that revenue spend had been ineffective. Officers explained that funding had come from the Welcome Back Fund from Central Government and schemes had been put forward by Newbury Bid and Thatcham Town Council. Also, projects were directly funded that had been put forward by Hungerford Town Council. Members pointed out that this was still taxpayers money. Members also noted that car park revenues were still down, which suggested that there were fewer visitors to the town centres.

Members asked if they could attend the Rural Business Forum. It was confirmed that Members would be invited once the date had been agreed.

Members queried how the affordable housing completion figure could be negative. It was suggested that the this may be as a result of the Council getting rid of some of its own rented accommodation.

Action: Katharine Makant to query the affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Purpose: To receive updates from the Chairmen of Task and Finish Groups appointed by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission.

The Commission received updates from the Chairmen of the Task and finish Groups (Agenda Item 12).

Councillor James Cole presented an update on the work of the Customer Journey Task and Finish Group. He confirmed that the Task Group had gone a long way into what was a very wide subject. He noted that the Task Group’s report was due to be presented to the November meeting of OSMC, but he sought a further extension to defer the report to the meeting on 7 March 2023.

It was suggested that the Task Group may be able to present some preliminary findings to the next meeting.

Action: Gordon Oliver to arrange a meeting with Councillor Cole and the OSMC Chairman and Vice Chairman to discuss the reasons for the proposed extension.

Councillor Tony Linden presented an update on the work of the Fees and Charges Task and Finish Group. A pre-meeting had been held with officers where it had been suggested that it would be very challenging to complete the review in time for the November OSMC meeting given that the Task Group had started later than planned. The first meeting of the Task and Finish Group had been arranged for 15 September. Staff resources were identified as a potential concern going forward.

Purpose: To receive an update from the Chairman of the Health Scrutiny Committee.

The Commission received update on the work of the Health Scrutiny Committee (Agenda Item 13) from Councillor Dennis Benneyworth on behalf of Councillor Claire Rowles.

The last meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee took place on 14 June 2022. Representatives from Elysium Healthcare provided an update regarding Thornford Park Hospital and their plans for future investment in response to the Care Quality Commission report. Representatives from Royal Berkshire Foundation Trust also provided an update on current performance regarding waiting times and referrals for cancer treatment and the mitigating measures introduced.

The next meeting was planned for 20 September, with South Central Ambulance Service and WestCall out of hours services on the agenda. Standing agenda items included updates from the Integrated Care Board and Healthwatch.

The Committee was also in the process of setting up a Task and Finish Group to look at provision of healthcare serving new development in the district.

Councillors Claire Rowles and Tony Linden had attended an informal meeting of the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC) for Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West. The meeting had been very helpful as an opportunity to share forthcoming health scrutiny items and to learn how other councils approached committee meetings and best practice. A discussion had taken place about the experiences of working with Integrated Care System colleagues and shared information about the creation of the Integrated Care Board, Integrated Care Partnership and Place Based Partnerships. There was also a discussion about potential areas of work for the JHOSC. A further meeting was planned for the autumn.

It was also noted that a site visit was planned to the Royal Berkshire Hospital in response to the planned redevelopment proposal.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of future items to be considered by West Berkshire Council’s Executive and decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Forward Plan.

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan (Agenda Item 14) for the period covering the period to March 2023.

Members noted that there were limited opportunities for scrutiny ahead of items going to Executive. The Chairman had met with the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council to highlight the need to the Forward Plan to have a longer timeline. This had been agreed in principle, but it would probably not be implemented until the next fiscal year.

The Chairman suggested that OSMC should consider the North and East Thatcham Flood Alleviation Scheme, which was due to go to Executive in February. He proposed to defer the Flood Risk Management Strategy Item to be considered alongside the Flood Alleviation Scheme report. This was agreed.

Purpose: To provide an overview of the West Berkshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) 2022-2027; outline the Council’s duties and responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act; and provide an update on activities undertaken in the last 12 months and on planned flood alleviation and drainage works programmed for the 2022/23 financial year

It was agreed that the item on the West Berkshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (Agenda Item 9) be deferred to the next meeting and be considered alongside a report on the North and East Thatcham Flood Alleviation Scheme.

Purpose: To receive new items and agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission.

The Commission considered its work programme for the remainder of the 2022/23 municipal year. The following amendments were agreed for the meeting on 29 November 2022

·         An additional report on North and East Thatcham Flood Alleviation Scheme

·         A possible Interim Report on the Customer Journey Task Group

·         The Appraisal System Review report to be brought forward from 2023/24.