Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Hopkins and Witherspoon.  Councillor Bennett was confirmed as a substitute for Councillor Hopkins.

There were no declarations of interest nor of any Party Whip.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 4th June 2013 be approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive an update on the action that has been taken to implement recommendations made by the Youth Services Task Group in April 2012 and to receive further information about the Positive Activities programme in Worcestershire.

(Report attached).

The Committee received an update on the action that had been taken by both Worcestershire County Council and Redditch Borough Council to implement the recommendations that were made by the Youth Services Provision Task Group in April 2012.  As part of this update a presentation was delivered on the subject of Worcestershire County Council’s arrangements for commissioning positive activities (Appendix A).

During the course of delivering this presentation the following salient points were highlighted for Members’ consideration:

·                Worcestershire County Council had adopted an outcomes based commissioning approach to delivering positive activities to young people in November 2011. 

·                The focus of this programme was on delivering positive activities to young people aged 13 – 19 and, in particular, on helping young people at risk of becoming NEETs (those not in education, employment or training) or of committing anti-social behaviour.

·                Worcestershire County Council had committed to maintaining existing youth services until the commissioned activities had started in order to ensure that there was a smooth transition to the new process.

·                Across the county 25 contracts had been issued to different service providers.  In each district contracts had been awarded by the County Councillors representing the area.

·                In Redditch two consortiums had been commissioned: the Arrow Vale Consortium and a consortium led by the shared Leisure service for Redditch Borough and Bromsgrove District Councils.  A third group, Core Assets, had been commissioned to undertake specific projects that would target young people at risk of becoming NEETs.

·                There had been a phased approach to the introduction of positive activities commissioned from the consortia. 

·                The consortia were expected to achieve particular outcomes that would have a long-term beneficial impact on the life prospects of the young people participating in the activities as well as on local communities.  The extent to which these long-term aims were achieved would be monitored rather than short-term outcomes.

·                The Commissioning Manager would be involved in monitoring the work of the consortia, though County Councillors and young people would also have a significant role to play in monitoring the delivery of activities.

·                The extent to which young people were engaged, together with any outstanding requirements for support, would be taken into account whenever activities were monitored.  Quarterly data would be provided to ensure that monitoring remained effective.

·                This quarterly data would over time enable Worcestershire County Council to assess how NEETS and young people at risk of committing anti-social behaviour were engaged in positive activities.

·                The Arrow Vale Youth Centre had been transferred by Worcestershire County Council to the RSA Academy Arrow Vale for school and community use.  All young people, not just pupils at the school, were entitled to access this facility.

·                Redditch Youth House was due to be disposed of by Worcestershire County Council’s Property Services team.  Two organisations had expressed an interest in the building and one body had submitted a bid.  A decision on the successful bidder would be made on 26th August 2013.

Further information was also provided about the work of the Council-led Consortium, focusing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To consider the final report of the Housing Density Task Group and to determine whether to endorse the group’s recommendations.

(Report attached).

The Chair of the Housing Density Targets Task Review, Councillor Bush, delivered a presentation on the outcomes of the review.  During the course of this presentation the following matters were raised for Members’ consideration:

·                The group had consulted widely including with: relevant Officers; the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Regeneration, Economic Development and Transport; local estate agents; a representative from the local Asian community; and a local housing developer.

·                A questionnaire had been circulated for the consideration of local estate agents.  Key points raised by the estate agents in their completed responses included concerns that there were limited numbers of three and four bedroom properties in the Borough and limited numbers of bungalows.

·                Estate agents were able to provide examples of individuals and families leaving the Borough to live in neighbouring districts due to a greater number of larger properties that would meet their needs and expectations.

·                Existing rules regarding housing density frequently deterred developers from building multiple bungalows on sites, due to the space required for bungalows.

·                Self-build properties provided an opportunity for people to build houses to a size that would meet their needs.  The Chair suggested that the option to secure larger self-build properties would help to attract more businessmen to live permanently in the Borough.

·                Self-build properties had been found in other parts of the country to have a beneficial impact on the local community and residents were often keen to remain in these homes years after they had been built. Also these residents found that they developed new skills as a result of participating in self-build projects.

·                Many members of the local Asian community lived in inter-generational households.  Often families struggled to purchase properties in the Borough suitable for inter-generational living, and a significant number of the larger houses that met this requirement were located near the town centre and were not high quality buildings.

·                Developments on large sites were eligible for discounts on road infrastructure.  Similar discounts for road infrastructure were not offered for developments on smaller sites.

·                Small, local housing developers, who often employed local people, struggled to compete with larger developers.

·                The group had considered suggesting that the first measure Members were proposing should be applied to sites less than 0.5 hectares.  However, the group had discovered that this would not have been realistic as it could have had a detrimental effect on the council’s ability to meet housing targets.  The Task Group had been advised that the same requirement for sites less than 0.16 hectares in size would not have the same impact.

·                Officers had been fully consulted during the course of the review and had expressed support for Members’ proposals prior to the Committee meeting.

Following delivery of the presentation the Committee debated the findings of the review.  There was general consensus amongst Members that more bungalows were required in Redditch, particularly to meet the needs of an aging population.  This would also potentially help to increase the number of three and four bedroom properties available to families further down the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To consider the most appropriate approach for Overview and Scrutiny Members to adopt to Crime and Disorder Scrutiny at Redditch Borough Council in future years.

(Report attached)

Members noted that the future of Crime and Disorder Scrutiny at the Council had been proposed at the previous meeting of the Committee.  A report had subsequently been prepared on this subject which detailed the options available to Members.  In preparation for the report the leaders of both of the political groups represented on the Council as well as the relevant Head of Service for community safety had been consulted. 

The Police and Justice Act 2006 introduced a requirement for every local authority in England and Wales to have a scrutiny Committee designated with responsibility for reviewing the work of the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP), often referred to as a Community Safety Partnership.  The legislation required that each Council reviewed the work of the partnership at least once a year.  In Redditch the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had established the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Panel in 2010 to undertake this work.  The Panel had focused on the work of the Redditch Community Safety Partnership and, following a merger with Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest, the North Worcestershire Community Safety Partnership.

The Chair of the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Panel, Councillor Brazier, explained that the group had held four meetings the previous year.  During these meetings Members had considered a lot of interesting information about the work of the Partnership, however, there had been no recommendations made as a result of this work.

Members agreed that the work of both scrutiny Task Groups and Panels should be constructive.  For this reason the Committee agreed that changes needed to be made to crime and disorder scrutiny at the Council.  However, Members suggested that it would not be appropriate to disband the Panel.  Instead, the Committee proposed that a meeting of the Panel should be convened at least once a year.  During this meeting members of the Panel could be invited to consider subjects such as the Partnership’s Community Safety Plan and latest performance data.  In the event that any areas of concern were identified as a result of this meeting work could be delegated to a Task Group to review the subject.

RECOMMENDED that

1)        the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Panel hold at least one scheduled meeting during the year to scrutinise the work of the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership; and

RESOLVED that

1)        additional work identified during this meeting be delegated on an ad hoc basis to Task Groups as and when required; and

2)        the report be noted.

To consider the outcomes of the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme Planning event on 12th June 2013.

As part of this item Members are asked to consider whether:

·                any of these subjects would be suitable for Members to scrutinise at the Committee level; and

·                any of these topics would be suitable subjects for a time limited Task Group exercise.

(Report attached).

The Committee was invited to consider the outcome of the workshop session that had taken place during the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme Planning event in June 2013.  A large number of topics had been suggested during this workshop as potentially suitable for further scrutiny.  Members were invited to consider whether any of these items would be suitable for either a Task Group or the Committee to review in further detail.  However, the Committee noted that no Task Group exercise would be launched until detailed terms of reference had been submitted for Members’ consideration.

When selecting items for scrutiny Members were advised to consider the extent to which the topics matched items listed on the Executive Committee’s Work Programme or had recently been the subject of a decision by the Executive Committee.  The Committee was also informed that in line with best practice in Overview and Scrutiny the relevance of the topics to local community needs and priorities needed to be taken into account.  As part of this process Members were urged to note that anything impacting on the local community, including services and activities delivered by external organisations, could be scrutinised.

During consideration of this item the Committee’s Work Programme was also considered.  Members noted that a scoping document, detailing the terms of reference for a proposed review of the Abbey Stadium, was due to be submitted by Councillor Derek Taylor for the Committee’s consideration on 23rd July.  Councillor Hopkins had also expressed an interest in submitting a scoping document for the Committee’s consideration in due course; on the subject of trees and landscaping, which would take into account grass cutting and the impact of tree roots on footpaths.

The Chair advised Members that he was keen to ensure that the Committee’s Work Programme remained flexible during the year.  As part of this process he suggested that the Committee should not seek to set items for every meeting at an early stage in the municipal year.  Flexibility in the Work Programme would provide the Committee with an opportunity to respond to urgent issues as and when they arose.

The Committee also considered the resources available to support scrutiny exercises.  The two Democratic Services Officers with lead responsibility for Overview and Scrutiny at the Council realistically had capacity to support one Task Group review at any one time effectively.  Members agreed that they were keen to ensure that the time dedicated by these Officers to supporting scrutiny exercises was used as constructively as possible.

The impact of service transformation on the timing of some reviews was discussed in detail.  Members questioned whether it would be appropriate to review subjects such as trees and landscaping at a time when changes to landscaping services were being trialled through the transformation process.  Instead, it was suggested that Councillors could ask to observe or participate in the trials.  In addition, Members noted that it might be useful to invite Officers involved in the trials to deliver a presentation to the Committee, as this would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

To consider the minutes of the latest meeting(s) of the Executive Committee and also to consider whether any items on the Executive Committee’s Work Programme are suitable for scrutiny.

(Minutes and Work Programme attached).

The Committee noted that at the latest meeting of the Executive Committee, on 11th June 2013, Members had endorsed the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s proposal for funding to be allocated to the installation of a canopy over the access ramp to Shopmobility.  However, the source of funding for this project would be derived from the Shopmobility Donation reserves rather than from the Council’s balances, as had originally been proposed by Scrutiny Members.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the Executive Committee held on 11th June 2013 and the latest edition of the Executive Committee’s Work Programme be noted.

RESOLVED that

the Committee’s Work Programme be noted.

To consider progress to date on the current reviews against the terms set by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The current reviews in progress are:

a)    Joint Worcestershire Regulatory Services – Redditch representative, Councillor Mason.

 (Oral reports)

The Committee was advised that the first meeting of the Joint Worcestershire Regulatory Services Scrutiny Task Group had not yet taken place.  This delay had occurred because some of the local authorities participating in the review had not confirmed appointments to the Task Group.  Bromsgrove District Council, which was due to host the review, was scheduled to appoint Members to the group at a meeting of the Bromsgrove Overview and Scrutiny Board on 15th July 2013. 

Officers explained that following the previous meeting of the Committee Worcestershire County Council had reconsidered the terms of reference for the review.  The County Council had subsequently agreed to participate in the joint exercise.  As a consequence every Council in the county would be involved in the review.

RESOLVED that

the update report be noted.