Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 24 September 2024 and 17 October 2024.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2024 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

·       Councillor Chris Read had asked for examples of success by other local authorities who were ahead of West Berkshire Council in the Delivering Better Value programme.

·       In relation to Action 165, ‘work planning session with the Leader’ should read ‘dialogue with the Leader’.

It was noted that the action to develop a recommendations log was outstanding.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2024 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

·       Councillor Jeremy Cottam’s written question about the ownership of Thatcham Sewage Works, had not been included in Thames Water’s response.

Actions:

·       Officers to provide examples of success by other local authorities ahead of Wet Berkshire Council in the Delivering Better Value programme.

·       Officers to ask Thames Water about ownership of Thatcham Sewage Works.

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

Members noted the updates on actions from the previous meetings.

Further updates / comments were made in relation to the following actions:

·       89-91 – A new Libraries Manager had been appointed and work was ongoing to progress these actions. Councillor Nigel Foot promised to update the Commission as soon as possible.

·       130 – Officers had provided the Scrutiny Commission Chairman with an update on Transformation activities:

o   The Care Homes report had been approved by Executive on 7 November 2024.

o   Council Tax donations were being considered as part of the budget consultations.

o   Development of the Employee Value Proposition had resulted in a new recruitment website, and work was ongoing to reduce agency staffing costs.

o   A new officer had been recruited to look at home to school transport, and the Delivering Better Value work would feed into this.

o   Walnut Close was being refurbished – a family space had already opened, and a proposal for homeless facilities would be considered by Eastern Area Planning Committee shortly.

o   A report on Options for Shaw House was on the Executive Forward Plan.

·       132 – Text to be changed to reflect that the update had been received as a presentation rather than a report.

·       141 – Update received from Councillor Stuart Gourley: ‘Meetings are continuing in collaborative fashion. A recent joint media briefing was held to highlight works completed by various agencies, and what is ongoing. Letters to the new administration are in progress’

·       143 – Update received from Councillor Stuart Gourley: ‘The Environment Officer who joined us on the site visit, has requested a water quality monitoring device to be deployed along the Northbrook. We have a limited number of these devices available and for obvious reasons, they are all currently deployed at sewage treatment works across the Thames catchment. He has also had to focus his time on inspection visits to treatment works but did say he would repeat the request with the officers who manage this equipment, in case one can be made available but we cannot promise this will happen, nor say when this may be possible.’

·       178 – Neil Goddard would be happy to bring the performance dashboard to Scrutiny Commission when invited to do so.

·       179 – This action had been completed.

·       190 – Councillor Read confirmed that he had not been sent details of the lining works at Standford Dingley.

·       191 – Councillor Antony Amirtharaj requested that this action be reopened.

·       194-196 – No response received from the Environment Agency.

Actions:

·       An update on transformation activities to be brought to Scrutiny Commission next year.

·       Amend text for Action 132

·       Gordon Oliver to follow up with Jenny Legge regarding Action 161.

·       Chairman to liaise with AnnMarie Dodds regarding Action 180.

·       Gordon Oliver to follow up with Thames Water re Action 190 and the EA re Actions 194-196.

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.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam declared an interest in Agenda Item 9 by virtue of the fact that he had been involved in setting up the Downland Sports Centre, but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

Purpose: To provide a response to issues raised by Mr Paul Morgan in relation to the Faraday Road Football Ground.

The Commission considered a report concerning the Response to the Faraday Road Football Ground queries (Agenda Item 7).

It was noted that the questions had come from Mr Paul Morgan. The Chairman proposed to suspend standing orders to allow Mr Morgan to speak at the meeting to outline his concerns, and to ask a supplementary question if necessary. This was seconded by Councillor Jeremy Cottam. At the vote, the motion was passed.

Mr Morgan was invited to address the Commission. His full representation can be viewed here: Scrutiny Commission, Tuesday 26 November 2024 - YouTube

Councillor Nigel Foot (Executive Portfolio Holder - Culture, Leisure, Sport and Countryside) and Mr Jon Winstanley (Service Director – Environment) presented the report.

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       It was noted that a spend of £230,000 was referenced in the report, but at Executive on 7^th November 2024, in response to a question from Mr Alan Pearce, Councillor Jeff Brooks had confirmed that £395,000 had been spent, and he had provided a detailed breakdown. Mr Morgan had subsequently indicated that the figure was now £430,000. It was confirmed that the figure in the report related to what had been spent in Phase 1, which was the question asked by Mr Morgan. Officers did not have the figure to hand for the amount spent on the current phase.

·       Members also asked if there were additional costs associated with doing the project in phases. Officers responded that the scheme had been designed so elements provided as part of the initial phases would not need to be replaced in subsequent phases, so there would be no additional cost incurred by doing it this way.

·       Members asked why football was currently being played at Henwick Worthy rather than Faraday Road. It was confirmed that a senior match had been played at Faraday Road, but work was needed to enlarge the changing rooms. Also, the project was being delivered in phases - Phase 1 was complete, and Phase 2 was underway.

·       A question was asked about why changing rooms had been built that did not meet the football league’s requirements. It was explained that the first game of the season had been earlier than expected, which had left no time for a league inspection. Facilities were like-for-like replacements for those previously on the site. However, the football league had subsequently ruled that they were to be treated as new facilities, which meant that larger floorspace standards applied.

·       Members asked how many hours of football had been played on the restored pitch at Faraday Road. Officers were unable to confirm this.

Action: Officers to confirm hours of football played at Faraday Road.

·       Members asked why the pitch could not be booked by members of the public. It was explained that because it was a grass pitch, the number of games had to be limited. Also, the pitch was still being prepared and availability would change over time. It was indicated that members of the public could book  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Purpose: To provide some background information and an overview of the use of Unregulated and Unregistered placements for children and young people in West Berkshire.

Rebecca Wilshire (Service Director for Children’s Social Care) presented the report on Unregistered and Unregulated Provision in Children’s Social Care (Agenda Item 7).

During the debate, the following points were made:

·       Officers were commended for their work in this difficult area.

·       It was noted that children in unregistered settings were often those with the highest level of needs.

·       Members asked:

o   what was being done to get providers registered;

o   was fostering promoted; and

o   were safeguarding measures sufficiently robust?

It was explained that some of the delay in registering providers was down to a backlog with Ofsted, resulting from a legislative change last year. WBC liaised with Ofsted to make them aware where they had to use unregistered providers and to ask if these could be fast-tracked. Some providers had not applied to be registered, and the Council sought to avoid using these or move children on quickly. Officers confirmed that fostering options were promoted and the WBC was exploring regional collaborations, which had potential for access to residential provision to meet the needs of high-risk/high-need children. In terms of safeguarding, it was confirmed that settings were visited weekly as a minimum.

·       Members asked if the Council sought to limit use of unregulated settings solely to those that were fully accountable in the UK. It was confirmed that accountability was achieved through regular visits, quality assurance, and the assessment framework. Registration with Ofsted provided additional assurances. Some settings were registered with the Care Quality Commission, which provided an element of regulation.

·       A question was asked about the difference in costs between regulated and unregulated care provision. It was confirmed that costs were generally higher, but these were mostly due to the increased level of needs of the children placed there. Often these were solo placements that required 2:1 staff to child ratios. As settings became regulated, they could take more children and costs decreased.

·       There was a query about additional reporting required for unregulated settings. This was achieved through regular visits and holding providers to account in terms of the progress that children were making. Alternative provision would be sought if children were not making progress.

·       Members recognised that it was not always possible to place children in registered settings, but felt that the report gave assurances that children and young people were being looked after.

·       Members asked if the Council used unregistered/unregulated settings outside of West Berkshire. Officers confirmed that some out of area settings were used. This was managed with parents and schools where safe to do so.

·       It was confirmed that WBC made less use of unregistered/unregulated care settings than many other local authorities.

·       Members asked about legal risks. Officers indicated that that main risk was to the Director of Children’s Services (DCS) for use of unlawful placements. One DCS in another local authority had been interviewed under caution, but officers were not aware of any prosecutions.

RESOLVED to note the report.

Purpose: To provide an overview of the Early Intervention and Family Help & Achievement Model and its impact on meeting the needs of families earlier and decreasing the need for costly long-term statutory involvement with children and their families.

Rebecca Wilshire (Service Director – Children’s Social Care) and Karen Atalla (Service Manager - Children and Family Services) introduced the report on Early Intervention and Family Help (Agenda Item 8).

During the debate, the following points were made:

·       Members asked if the Council worked with Time2Talk and other voluntary sector organisations. Officers confirmed that there were several voluntary sector organisations that the Council worked with, and it was stressed that a whole community response was required. Links, collaboration and relationships developed with statutory and voluntary partners allowed issues to be identified sooner. The Council already partnered with 16 different agencies, including mental health organisations, to deliver early help, but there was a desire to expand the footprint.

·       Articles were cited highlighting differences in deprivation and levels of support received by those living in rural and urban areas. Members asked if the Council could be overlooking rural deprivation issues and late intervention problems because they were more difficult to spot. Officers indicated that there had been changes in approach since 2016 and again post-Covid. Officers had a good understanding of what West Berkshire’s rural areas looked like and this was not considered to be a significant issue locally.  However, further work was needed to consider how services could better engage with rural communities, particularly in relation to family hubs and early help.

·       Concerns were expressed about reductions in the number of health professionals visiting young families, particularly in rural areas affected by deprivation. It was suggested that this could be a topic for a future scrutiny review. Officers highlighted that there had been a recent push to identify young carers in rural areas by working with parish councils. Efforts were also being made to ensure that they were able to access activities to the same extent as those living in urban areas, which relied on volunteer support. However, a mobile facility was being explored. Members suggested that parish councils could be engaged to help source volunteers.

·       The importance of the first 1001 days was highlighted, and officers were asked if there were enough hubs in the right locations, and if midwives and health visitors were involved. It was confirmed that they were involved and there was a good partnership, with a focus on the first 1001 days. Options were being considered to increase the number of hubs, including remote/ satellite facilities. Also, consideration was being given to how families could be better informed about what services could be accessed through the hubs and to bring them in from ‘day one’.

·       It was highlighted that money invested in early intervention had clear impacts, improved lives, and in doing so could free up funds for other work. It was noted that work was ongoing to explore pan-Berkshire prevention initiatives that would help to reduce costs within Children and Family Services.

·       Members asked if the Council was meeting its statutory obligations with regards to youth services. Officers explained that they were looking at how they could work more closely with Berkshire Youth, and they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Purpose: to set out the financial planning assumptions for the four years ahead over the period of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). This includes the latest assumptions on Government funding, and reform of Local Government Finance, and implications for the savings requirement in future budgets. The report also includes items that are to be consulted upon over the period 11 November to the 23 December 2024.

Councillor Iain Cottingham (Executive Portfolio Holder: Finance and Resources) and Joseph Holmes (Interim Chief Executive) presented the report on the Medium Term Financial Strategy (Agenda Item 9).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Members asked if the Council was borrowing to fund services. It was explained that the Council borrowed to fund capital expenditure. Also, the High Needs Block deficit was being financed through the general fund and as the deficit grew, the financing cost would also rise.

·       Officers were asked about the impact of recent Employer NI increases. It was expected that central government would exempt local authorities from paying this, or there would be an appropriate contra-entry. However, it was recognised that suppliers may pass on the additional costs.

·       Members asked whether the Collection Fund Deficit and the Capital Financing Cost Deficit could be avoided. It was explained that the Collection Fund Deficit was the difference between what the Council had expected to raise in Council Tax and Business rates vs the outturn. The Capital Financing Cost Deficit was related to increases in borrowing costs. This may come down in future, subject to the size of the Council Funded Capital Programme. Further details would be provided in the final Budget in March. Also, additional borrowing was incurred where clients came into care and the Council had a charge over their property, until such time as the charge could be repaid.

·       Officers were asked if community bonds were being considered. It was confirmed that they were, but any decision would depend on prevailing market rates.

·       Members noted that parking charges had already increased and asked if it was proposed to increase them again. Officers confirmed that it was not proposed to increase parking charges further.

·       Members noted that Thames Valley Police’s opposition to turning off streetlights between 12 - 5am was not reflected in the consultation document. Members requested that they be added to provide a balanced view.  They also asked that responses made on the basis of the original wording be disregarded. The Portfolio Holder had not seen the TVP comments, but he undertook to review them and see if they could be added to the consultation.

Action: Review the TVP comments and decide whether they could be added to the consultation document.

·       It was highlighted that the purpose of the consultation was to elicit feedback from partners as well as residents. Officers were asked if key partners were actively invited to respond. Officers confirmed that the consultation had been shared with partners and the Police and Crime Commissioner had responded. However, Members noted that the majority of respondents would be residents, who would only see the three pieces of evidence supporting the proposal. It was felt that residents would want to know if the proposal would be likely to lead to an increase in crime. Members asked if TVP had any factual evidence about the impacts of turning off street-lights, and suggested that their views should have been sought prior to consulting residents.

·       It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Purpose: To receive updates from the chairmen of task and finish groups appointed by the Scrutiny Commission.

The Scrutiny Commission received an update on the work of the Sports Hub Task and Finish Group (Agenda Item 10).

The update can be viewed on the meeting recording here:

Scrutiny Commission, Tuesday 26 November 2024

It was noted that there was an outstanding action to identify a third project for the Project Management Task and Finish Group to consider. It was suggested that there would be lessons to learn from the Sports Hub review.

Members asked for a list of recent projects and lessons learned. It was suggested that these should include successful projects, so good practice could be identified and captured.

Action: Officers to provide a list of recently completed projects.

RESOLVED to note the report.

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

The Scrutiny Commission received an update on the work of the Health Scrutiny Committee (Agenda Item 11).

The update can be viewed on the meeting recording here:

Scrutiny Commission, Tuesday 26 November 2024

Members noted that it was planned to take a report to Council proposing to move scrutiny of Adult Social Care services from the Scrutiny Commission to the Health Scrutiny Committee.

Action: Scrutiny Commission Members to see the report ahead of the Council meeting.

RESOLVED to note the report.

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

The Commission considered the Executive Forward Plan (Agenda Item 12).

It was noted that the Response to the Scrutiny Commission Task and Finish Group Report on Covid and Recovery was due to be presented to the December meeting.

Also, it was noted that there were reports on Shaw House Options and the Corporate Accommodate Review scheduled for the Executive meeting on 13 February 2025. Members were invited to consider when they would like a report on the Transformation Programme.

Resolved that the Forward Plan be noted.

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

The Commission considered the draft Work Programme (Agenda Item 13).

Suggestions for changes to the programme included:

·       Proposed flood alleviation/flood protection schemes

·       Traffic and road safety measures around schools

·       Housing issues:

o   social housing disrepair

o   sale of social housing

o   future reports to Executive on Empty Homes, Housing, and the Housing Strategy for Care Leavers and Veterans

o   difficulties re adoption of social housing/lack of social housing in new developments

o   alms-houses

o   adaptations for disabled residents

Members noted that the Environment Department was putting on a lunchtime talk on the Great Shefford Flood alleviation scheme.

It was highlighted that the Commission could ask for a flooding update at any time.

It was suggested that the Chairman of Transport Advisory Group be approached to understand if they had already considered road safety outside schools.

Care was needed to ensure that Scrutiny Commission was not duplicating the work of other committees around Housing.

Actions:

·       Check with the Chairman of the Transport Advisory Group to understand what aspects of school road safety schemes have already been considered.

·       Liaise with the Executive Portfolio Holder: Planning and Housing regarding the timing of proposed housing reports.

RESOLVED to note the work programme.