Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

 Apologies were received from Councillors Kightley and Sanders.

Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting.

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
Brown	11/33/CS	Personal: Member of Cambridgeshire LINK
Blackhurst	11/22/CS	Personal: Member of Trumpington Residents Association
Shah	11/33/CS	Personal:  Trustee of the Indian Community and Cultural Association
Shah	11/25/CS	Personal: Private landlord

To approve the minutes of the meeting on 13 January 2011.

The minutes of the 13 January 2011 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.  

Mr Taylor agreed to withhold his public question until the start of the following agenda item:

 

·        Cambridge Community Safety Plan 2011-2014

 

However, for ease of the reader, the question and response will be noted under this item.

 

 

Mr Taylor addressed the committee and made the following points:

 

        i.            Agreeing the Community Safety Plan was one of the most influential things that the City Council did. The setting of citywide priorities enabled the police to bid for additional resources.

 

      ii.            The Community Safety Partnership did not set its priorities in public and the information on their webpage needed to be more open and transparent.

 

    iii.            As part of this process, too much reliance was being placed on a survey, which only collected the views of 400 people.

 

   iv.            There is not enough evidence to remove burglary as a priority.

 

     v.            The City Council had an opportunity to influence police priorities across the whole city. Councillors should be encouraged to question the Partnership and not just rubberstamp their priorities.

 

   vi.            When being recommended to Full Council it should be made clear that the final document was not available for the Scrutiny Committee to consider.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health acknowledged that the Community Safety Plan was still in a draft format but highlighted the challenges of working with a multi agency approach.

 

The full data would be included in the version recommended to Full Council and the Executive Councillor would specifically highlight any sections that had not been seen by the Scrutiny Committee.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed that, whilst burglary and robbery had not been recommended as a priority in the Community Safety Plan, it would remain a priority for the police.

 

It was also noted that, whilst the first round of analysis had been based on the survey of 400 people, the full strategic assessment had been used extensively throughout the processes. Discussions through the Area Committees had also formed part of the analysis.  

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services agreed to look into the issues regarding the Community Safety Partnership webpages.  

 

 

Mr Taylor responded and made the following supplementary points:

 

        i.            Whilst burglary and robbery may still remain a priority for the police, there would be no formal reporting mechanism. It was important that the police could be held to account by the public.

 

      ii.            There was a need for more clarity around what was meant by ‘repeat’ incidents of anti-social behaviour.

 

These comments were noted.

In August 2010 Strategic Leadership Team and the Executive Councillors reviewed the Councils service planning process. It was agreed that service plans based on service areas would be replaced by seven annual Portfolio Plans, from 2011/12.

 

The Plans express the strategic objectives for the portfolio over the financial year 2011/12 and beyond. Beneath each of the objectives will be detailed the particular outcomes to be achieved in 2011/12. Finally the plans will include performance measures that will provide evidence to members and the public that the outcomes have been achieved.

 

This information will enable members and the services contributing to the delivery of the plan to be clear about the priorities for the portfolio and will assist in decisions about where resources should be focussed within the portfolio.

 

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to comment on the Executive Councillors Strategic Objectives and Performance Measures and the Executive Councillor is recommended to agree the Portfolio Plan.

 

Matter for decision: Approval of the Arts and Recreation Portfolio Plan setting out strategic objectives and performance measures for 2011/12.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation:

 

·        Approved the Arts and Recreation Portfolio Plan.

 

Reason for the Decision: Portfolio Plans allow Executive Councillors to set out, in agreement with the lead officers, their key priorities for delivery in the year ahead. 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Executive Councillor gave a brief overview of the 2011/12 Arts and Recreation Portfolio Plan.

 

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were then invited to comment and discuss the Plan.

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor and officers confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Strategic Objective AR 1.6: This highlighted the new approach to outdoor events management as discussed at the Scrutiny Committee in January 2011. Whilst guideline figures were included, any event would still need to fit the agreed criteria set out in the Events Management Framework.

      ii.            Strategic Objective AR 1.7: The Council was keen to increase participation in arts and recreation activities by people on low incomes. Research was currently being undertaken by the Judge Business School on ways that the City Council could improve access to these activities.

    iii.            A number of third parties including Cambridge United Football Club and Cambridge Rugby Club were currently looking into the idea of a Community Stadium. Land ownership would be a key issue but a number of sites had been proposed. The Council would be keen to engage with any of these third parties and offer its expertise and support with taking the project forward.

   iv.            The Council recognised the lack of allotment space within the City and was keen to increase capacity. The aim of the Allotment Management Plan was to identify new sites and reduce waiting lists.

     v.            A pilot project for BBQs on Jesus Green would take place in the summer, alongside increased enforcement of unauthorised BBQs.

   vi.            The Council would aim to deliver developer contribution projects in a more efficient and timely manner.

 vii.            Strategic Objective AR 3.1: As part of a three-year programme to implement energy efficiency measures a Biodiversity Management Plan was now in place.

viii.            Strategic Objective AR 3.2: The Council would be aiming to reduce the carbon footprint of its facilities whilst maintaining the current level of service.

 

Councillor Walker congratulated the Council on the ‘Chance to Dance’ event that had been held recently. It highlighted the importance of the City Council not just delivering services but also encouraging, supporting and enabling offers to do so. This event encouraged local residents to get involved in dance, but also attracted people from as far as St Neots to take part.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation approved the Portfolio Plan.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

  

Matter for decision: Anticipated variances from revenue budgets, where it is requested that resources be carried forward into the 2011/12 financial year, and consideration of project appraisals.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation:

 

·        Agreed the provisional revenue carry forward requests, totaling £141,980 as detailed in Appendix A of the officer’s report, to be recommended to Council for approval, subject to the final outturn position.

 

·        Approved the following project appraisals:

-         Parkside Changing Rooms

-         Paddling Pool Water Play

-         Play Areas (14 sites)

 

·        Approved additional funding of £60,000 from Developer Contributions for Public Art in respect of SC476 – Water Play Area Abbey Paddling Pool as shown in the project appraisal (See Appendix B/2 of the officer’s report)

 

·        Approved additional funding of £51,000 from Developer Contributions for Public Art in respect of SC487 and SC488 (Coleridge Recreation Ground – Landscaping and Informal Play) as shown in the project appraisal (See Appendix B/3 of the officer’s report).

 

·        Approved additional funding of £61,000 from Developer Contributions for Public Art in respect of Kings hedges Paddling Pool.

 

Reason for the Decision: To undertake or complete activities previously approved to take place in 2010/11, and to scrutinise and approve Project appraisals prior to project commencement.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant.

 

In response to member’s questions the Principal Accountant confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Whilst a carry forward request of £60,000 had been proposed for the Arts and Recreation restructuring costs, the final position would be confirmed as part of the July scrutiny cycle. It was also noted that this would be a one off cost and not ongoing provision.

      ii.            The carry forward request of £53,400 for the Leisure Contract client costs related to the legal fees for the swimming pool. This was an indicative figure subject to final invoices being received.

 

In response to member’s comments regarding Appendix B/1 of the officer’s report (Project Appraisal: Parkside Changing Rooms) the Recreation Services Manager and the Head of Arts and Recreation confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Segregation of vanity area spaces would be included as part of the consultation.

      ii.            Officers would ensure that the stakeholder group ‘Think outside the box’ would be consulted on any gender segregation issues.

    iii.            Further detail on environmental implications would be included as the projects progressed.

   iv.            The consultation would look to gain the views of those using the pool and also those not currently using the pool.

     v.            The recent refurbishment of Abbey Swimming Pool helped inform proposed costings for this project.

 

The Recreation Services Manager tabled an amended version of Appendix B/2 of the officer’s report (Project Appraisal: Developer Contribution – Paddling Pool Water Play).

 

It was noted that additional public art funding of £61,000 had been identified for the Kings Hedges Paddling Pool project (making a total cost of £191,000). The total capital cost of the Paddling Pool Water Play project was therefore estimated to be £546,000.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Streets and Open Spaces confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Funding for public art was dependent on developments taking place in a particular area and any set criteria placed upon that funding. However, possible public art projects could be looked into for Abbey.

      ii.            As the paddling pools were proposed in current play spaces, supervision and signage would be in place.

    iii.            The repairs to the toilets on Coleridge recreation ground would be investigated.

 

In response to member’s questions regarding Appendix B/3 of the officer’s report (Project Appraisal: Developer Contribution expenditure – ESPO framework) officers confirmed the following:

 

        i.            ‘Trim Trail’ related to outdoor fitness and agility equipment.

      ii.            As a result of the restructure of the Streets and Open Spaces department a dedicated Project Delivery Team had been established. It would be the responsibility of this team to work with specialists and officer colleagues to ensure that projects were delivered on time. It was however noted that deliver of some of the projects was subject to external factors such as the weather and public consultations.

    iii.            Four new tennis courts were proposed for Jesus Green. This provision would be free and officers would be working with local residents to develop new tennis clubs.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the amended recommendations unanimously. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

 

 

Matter for decision: Approval of the Cambridge City Council's Arts Strategy 2011-2014, and for work with stakeholders on an action plan to be progressed.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation:

   

·        Approved the Arts Strategy for immediate adoption.

 

·        Agreed for work with stakeholders on an action plan to be progressed.

 

Reason for the Decision:  As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Arts Development Manager.

 

The Committee thanked officers for their hard work and commitment to the development of this strategy.

  

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

 

Matter for decision: Proposals to review Leisure Grants from 2012/13 to align grant priorities to the arts and sports strategies.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation:

 

·        Approved the review of Leisure Grants to voluntary and community organisations required to align priorities to the Arts Strategy 2010-14 and the Sports Strategy 2009-13.

 

·        Noted that following consultation with current grant recipients, proposals for Leisure Grant priorities 2012-14 would be brought back to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in July 2011.   

 

Reason for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Operations and Resources Manager.

 

In response to member’s questions the Operations and Resources Manager confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Officers would be undertaking further work on the strategies, priorities, consultation and implementation and details would be brought back to the next scrutiny cycle.

      ii.            Leisure grants currently included several Discretionary Rate Relief (DRR) awards. There was a notice period of 12 months from the beginning of a financial year to amend or terminate such agreements. This committed the Council to the current level of 2011/12 funding for DRR for current beneficiaries unless they ceased to operate from the premises for which the award had been granted. It was noted that any changes for 2012/13 would need timely communication.

    iii.            Agreed with members that grants for socialising (not just activity) groups was important. It was felt that a joint approach could be beneficial in order to identify the most appropriate funding for these types of groups.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation emphasised that, as a review of leisure grants had not been undertaken for four years, this was a good opportunity to look again at the process.

 

 The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

 

 

See information above 

Matter for decision: Approval of the Housing Portfolio Plan setting out strategic objectives and performance measures for 2011/12.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

·        Approved the Housing Portfolio Plan.

 

Reason for the Decision: Portfolio Plans allow Executive Councillors to set out, in agreement with the lead officers, their key priorities for delivery in the year ahead. 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Executive Councillor gave a brief overview of the 2011/12 Housing Portfolio Plan.

 

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were then invited to comment and discuss the Plan.

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor and officers confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Strategic Objective HS 01 Performance Measure 3: Discussions were ongoing with the University regarding the mix and rent levels for key worker housing.

      ii.            Strategic Objective HS 01 Delivery Risk 1: Robust negotiations were ongoing with developers and social landlords regarding affordable housing tenure mix. The Council would work hard to ensure mixed and well-balanced communities.

    iii.            To ensure effective long term planning, changes to housing policy were being modeled against the changes in the benefit system. A members briefing would be organised to look at this in more detail.

   iv.            The Landlord Accreditation Scheme, supported by a team of dedicated officers, encouraged landlords to raise the standard of accommodation and improve energy efficiency. Council funding was also available to landlords to address these issues and applications for this funding had increased significantly.

     v.            All New Affordable Housing would be build to at least Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes Code.

   vi.            Where appropriate Photovoltaic roofing would be used.

 vii.            Take up of energy initiatives by residents and landlords had increased due to improved signposting, dedicated information packs and close working with community groups.

viii.            The Council worked closely with local water companies to look at water management issues.

 

 The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the Portfolio Plan.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

  

 

Matter for decision: Anticipated variances from revenue and capital budgets, where it is requested that resources be carried forward into the 2011/12 financial year, and provisional rephasing of capital resources as part of the Housing Capital Investment Plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

   

·        Agreed the provisional revenue carry forward requests, totaling £47,350 as detailed in Appendix A of the officer’s report, to be recommended to Council for approval, subject to the final outturn position.

 

·        Agreed the provisional rephasing of £4,624,000 of capital resources, from 2010/11 into 2011/12, as part of the Housing Capital Investment Plan, to be recommended to Council for approval, subject to the final outturn position.

 

Reason for the Decision:  As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant.

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Efforts were made to re-let properties with disabled adaptations to new tenants with similar requirements.

      ii.            A major programme of works to tackle ad-hoc parking solutions across the City had been implemented as a result of concern being highlighted through the tenant’s survey.

 

As a result of further discussion, Councillors Walker and Brown agreed to raise the issue of Occupational Therapist referrals with the County Councils Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

Matter for decision: Approval of the Homelessness Grant distribution for 2011-12.

 

 Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

·        Noted and approved the proposed Homelessness Grant distribution for 2011-12.

 

·        Delegated authority for grant distribution in 2012-15 to the Head of Strategic Housing in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing, Chair and Spokesperson on the understanding that a report be brought back to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee for approval for the subsequent spending review period. 

 

·        Noted the relevance of the report on forthcoming welfare benefits changes (as contained at appendix 1 of the officer’s report) to measures designed to tackle and prevent homelessness. 

 

Reason for the Decision:  As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Housing Options and Homeless Manager.

 

Councillors Walker and Todd-Jones raised concern about the current governments changes to the welfare benefits system and the affect this may have on the most vulnerable people in the City.

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the 40% increase in DCLG grant allocation would be beneficial and help ease the pressure caused by changes in the benefit system. It was also noted that the changes to the Cambridge Broad Market Rental Area (BRMA) introduced by the previous government had had a very detrimental effect on local residents.

 

In response to a members question regarding homelessness prevention the Housing Options and Homeless Manager agreed to bring back comparable Local Authority data to a future meeting. 

 

In response to member’s questions the Housing Options and Homeless Manager and the Executive Councillor confirmed the following:

 

        i.            The grant for Cambridge Women’s Aid would fund homelessness prevention and housings options work. The Scrutiny Committee had agreed a full service level agreement for this organisation in January 2011.

      ii.            Centre 33 had established links with apprenticeship schemes.

    iii.            As the number of mortgage repossessions in Cambridge City was very low, funding for future years was limited.

 

The Head of Housing Strategy highlighted the broad range of activities that the City Council undertook to prevent homelessness. It was noted that the trend was to move towards tailoring services to individual support needs.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

 

Matter for decision: Approval to set up of a shared Home Improvement Agency with South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

·        Agreed in principle that a shared service be established subject to: 

 

-         staff consultation on the restructure

-         the development of a legal protocol to govern the shared service 

-         the development of an agreed cost sharing mechanism between the district authorities

-         there being no additional costs to the Council and no reduction in the quality of the service

-         a final report being brought back to the next meeting of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee

 

Reason for the Decision: In order to offer the best opportunity to sustain the current levels of service across the districts at a time of reducing budgets.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Strategy.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Housing Strategy confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Plans to merge Huntingdonshire District Council, Fenland District Council and East Cambridgeshire District Council were still at a very early stage of development. It was not expected that this would affect a Shared Improvement Agency between Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council.

      ii.            Officers across the three authorities had worked hard to ensure that district wide priorities and accountability was as transparent as possible.

  

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

  

Matter for decision: Approval of the revised House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Licensing Procedure.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

·        Approved the revised HMO licensing procedure as detailed in Annex A of the officer’s report subject to the following;-

 

-         With the exception of paragraph 16 this procedure would be introduced on 1st April 2011.

-         Paragraph 16 in relation to landlord training would be introduced subject to consultation with mandatory license holders. Approval of this section should be delegated to the Executive Councillor subject to review of the consultation responses.

-         Officers would inform all current mandatory HMO license holders prior to the introduction of the new procedure.

 

Reason for the Decision: To ensure consistency and equity to the way in which the Council works with all landlords and ensures that legal challenge is avoided.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Head of Refuse and Environment.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Refuse and Environment confirmed the following:

 

        i.            The revised HMO Licensing Procedure had been updated taking into account current good practice and case law.

      ii.            Due to an error by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Fitzwilliam College had been omitted from the relevant Statutory Instrument from April till November 2010 - exempting their HMO's from the requirement to be licensed. The College had now been properly exempted from the requirement to license.

 

    iii.            The City Council worked closely with all of the colleges in Cambridge to ensure they provided a high standard of accommodation.

   iv.            The City Council would be working closely with landlords to ensure that they fully understood the revised procedure.

     v.            The City Council had a leasehold condition to ensure that any properties sold under ‘right to buy’ could not be turned into an HMO.

 

Due to the very complicated and technical subject matter, the Head of Refuse and Environment agreed to set up a members briefing to cover the issue in more detail.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 5 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

  

Matter for decision: Approval of the Statutory Enforcement Work Plan for Health and Safety Law Enforcement 2011/2012.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

   

·        Approved the Statutory Enforcement Work Plan for Health and Safety Law Enforcement 2011/2012

 

Reason for the Decision:  As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations: There was no debate on this item.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

  

Matter for decision: Approval of the Statutory Enforcement Work Plan for Food Law Enforcement 2011/2012.    

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

·        Approved the Statutory Enforcement Work Plan for Food Law Enforcement 2011/2012.    

 

Reason for the Decision:  As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations: There was no debate on this item.

 

 Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

  

Resolved, unanimously that the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health and the Community Services Scrutiny Committee thank the Head of Community Development for his hard work and commitment over 24 years service with Cambridge City Council.

See information above 

Matter for decision: Approval of the Community Development and Health Portfolio Plan setting out strategic objectives and performance measures for 2011/12.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

·        Approved the Community Development and Health Portfolio Plan.

 

Reason for the Decision: Portfolio Plans allow Executive Councillors to set out, in agreement with the lead officers, their key priorities for delivery in the year ahead. 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Executive Councillor gave a brief overview of the 2011/12 Community Development and Health Portfolio Plan.

 

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were then invited to comment and discuss the Plan.

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor and officers confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Strategic Objective SO 1: Work was underway to encourage children and young people to engage with the Area Committee process. It was important to look at activities that would provide appropriate pathways into the decision making process.

      ii.            The Council would be engaging more with BME communities through sponsored projects, and aim to open up more effective channels of communication.

    iii.            Strategic Objective SO 4: Delivery of the mercury abatement project was on target.

   iv.            All community facilities subsidised by the City Council operated a tiered charging system, which encouraged community as well as commercial bookings.

     v.            Changes to the CCTV provision at Kingsway Flats and Arbury Court would be monitored closely to ensure that resident’s expectations were met.

   vi.            The Major Sites Team would ensure that safe routes to schools and play parks were incorporated into any new developments.

 vii.            The Equalities Funding of £138,000 would be spent in the coming year. A framework for this spending had been endorsed by the Steering Group and was likely to cover:

 

-         Engagement with children and young people

-         Training and support of a youth worker

-         Community cohesion projects

-         Start up grants for community groups

 

Through discussion it was acknowledged that the delivery of the first stage of community infrastructure in the Southern Fringe and the north west of the City would not be completed by March 2012.

 

The Executive Councillor agreed to amend this proposed timescale within the Portfolio Plan. 

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the Portfolio Plan unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the Portfolio Plan.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

  

 

Matter for decision: Anticipated variances from revenue and capital budgets, where it is requested that resources be carried forward into the 2011/12 financial year.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

   

·        Agreed the provisional revenue carry forward requests, totaling £158,140 as detailed in Appendix A of the officer’s report, to be recommended to Council for approval, subject to the final outturn position.

 

Reason for the Decision:  As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant.

  

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

  

Matter for decision: Approval of the scope, methodology and timescale for a proposed review of the CHYPPS, the outcome of which would be implemented from April 2012.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

   

·        Approved the scope, methodology and timescale for the review of the Children and Young People’s Participation Service.

 

Reason for the Decision:  As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Director of Customer and Community Services.

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor and the Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed the following:

 

        i.            The review of the service was not finance driven.

      ii.            The City Council was very proud of its work with children and young peoples and sought to allocate its investments in the best possible way.

    iii.            Lots of work had been undertaken to obtain the views of young people but the challenge was to channel these views into local priorities and service delivery.

   iv.            The ‘Hay Days’ project worked with children and families referred from agencies such as schools, the police and social services. The aim of the project was to build confidence and was a good example of agencies working together towards a common goal.

  

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None

 

  

Matter for decision: To endorse the priorities and note the format of the Community Safety Plan 2011 – 2014 and recommend it to Full Council for adoption.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

   

·        Endorsed the priorities and noted the format of the Community Safety Plan 2011 – 2014.

 

·        Recommend that Full Council adopt the Community Safety Plan 2011-2014 (subject to completion of the document) at the full Council meeting on 7 April 2011.

 

Reason for the Decision: The Community Safety Partnership’s current Community Safety Plan expires in March 2011.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Director of Customer and Community Services.

 

Whilst they were in general agreement with the proposals, Councillors Todd-Jones and Walker raised concern that data was missing and that the Plan was still in draft format.

 

In response, the Executive Councillor confirmed that a final version would be available for further discussion at the Full Council meeting on 7 April 2011.

 

In response to member’s questions the Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed the following:

 

        i.            As the Integrated Offender Management System would be in place by 2013, ‘Reducing re-offending’ would need to be a local priority beyond 2012.

      ii.            The distribution of specific funding and resources had yet to be agreed, but would take place during the next stage of the process.

    iii.            Whilst not listed as a specific priority, alcohol consumption in general would continue to be addressed by other agencies.

   iv.            Data showing repeat incidents of domestic violence was thought to be the most effective way to measure the effectiveness of any reduction measures.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted): None