Venue: Committee Room A, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, TN1 1RS. View directions
Contact: Nick Peeters, Scrutiny & Performance Officer
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting. Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gray and Stewart. |
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest made, within the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members. |
|
Minutes of Previous Meetings PDF 219 KB Minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting dated 23 October 2017. The Chairman will move that the minutes of the previous meeting be signed as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy. Procedure rules applicable to all meetings Part 4, section 6. Minutes: The minutes of the meetings dated 23 October 2017 were submitted.
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Committee meeting dated 23 October 2017 be agreed. |
|
Items Called in under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 13 If there are any ‘Call-in’ items, details will have been circulated to Members under separate cover. Minutes: There were no items which had been called-in under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 13. |
|
Chairman's Introduction Minutes: The Chair confirmed the order of the agenda. |
|
Draft Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2018-19 PDF 407 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Director of Finance, Policy and Development, Lee Colyer, updated Members on the 2018-19 Draft Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). Mr Colyer highlighted the following points:
The report presented was the third in the process of setting the budget. There remained a gap in the budget of £149,000, which was an improvement of £120,000 since Mr Colyer’s presentation at the Committee’s October meeting
· The government’s autumn Budget statement had been delivered, which included a scheme to bring long-term empty properties back into use. However, the government was only allowing a 50 percent premium on council tax for those properties, resulting in an additional charge of £750 per annum. There were 67 properties in the borough which had been empty for two years; the annual increase in property value in Tunbridge Wells was an average £25,000 per annum and there was little financial incentive for owners of empty properties to bring them back into use. As a result, it was unlikely to bring about the behavioural change needed and it would have been more beneficial for the percentage premium to have remained in local control. The policy also needed primary legislation and this had not been timetabled by Parliament until implementation in April 2019.
· The pilot for the 100 percent localisation of business rates was progressing and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council was included in a Kent wide bid for a competitive process. All the authorities in Kent had reached an agreement and a strong bid had been submitted, with a response expected the following week. If the Kent bid was successful it could generate a £600,000 share of the business rates, which currently went into the HM Treasury. Any success from the scheme would be treated as a windfall and not included in any budget plans. It would be for Councillors to determine how the revenue would be used.
· The latest budget projections set out on page 23 of the agenda showed that the revenue support grant would be withdrawn entirely in 2018 (a £202,000 reduction for the Council). The Council received one of the steepest reductions in the grant and a transitional, two year grant, had been provided to mitigate this.
· Local land charges income was being centralised which meant the Council would continue with the work but the income would be held by the Land Registry.
· An increase in inflation would mean a £250,000 pressure on the Council, particularly when dealing with contracts and the running of services.
· The Homelessness Reduction Act would result in an additional financial burden for the Council as additional staff would be needed to administer the process in accordance with legislation. This also applied to the Data protection regulations, which would need additional staff to ensure compliance.
· European Union legislation meant the Council would not be able to pass on credit card charges, although it would still have to pay credit card companies.
· The Council had reduced its insurance contract costs with a saving of £80,000. Improvements at the Crematorium and an ... view the full minutes text for item OSC43/15 |
|
Portfolio Holder Plans and Progress - Sustainability PDF 160 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Ronen Basu, portfolio Holder for Sustainability, highlighted his achievements in 2016-2017 as detailed in appendix A to the report and his ambitions for 2017-18. Councillor Basu referred in particular to the following areas of his portfolio:
· Design work for the Phase 2 Public Realm Project Phase was ongoing, including engagement with the bus operators. The Council’s Joint Transportation Board recently considered a paper for phase 2 of the scheme including the proposal to introduce the increased traffic movement restrictions in Mount Pleasant Road.
· A total of 165 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions had been saved since October 2014 as a result of the photo voltaic panels being installed at the Tunbridge Wells Sports Centre. As of October 2017, the PV panels had produced energy savings of £57,100 (up to October 2017) - which had gone back into the Council’s general fund.
· The Collective Switching Scheme had been running since June 2013 and with auctions taking place each year. To date average savings on energy bills had been approximately £200, and from June 2013 to May 2017 overall savings to residents had been £77,500. A new auction was taking place and residents could sign up at www.energydealswitch.com.
· The Car club was successful - data up to October 2017 showed a total of 187 users, with a growth rate of 37.5% over the previous twelve months. An average utilisation rate across all cars of 22.1% which continued to grow. The scheme was self-financing and the car club operator indicated that the Tunbridge Wells car club location was regularly ranked in the top 5 locations on a monthly basis.
Section 106 funding for £10K had been secured to support the expansion of the car club into the St John’s area.
There were 6 car club vehicles in the fleet including the electric vehicle in Crescent Rd and a small 1L petrol engine hybrid - both of which had lower emissions. There were also electric points available for charging.
Survey feedback received from TW car club members through an online survey in April 2015 confirmed that a decrease in average car mileage after joining the car club; with respondents using more public transport, sharing lifts and walking more.
· The Tunbridge Wells Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) based along the A26 from Southborough to Tunbridge Wells had seen levels at the kerbside reduce and were currently steady at around 44µg/m3. However, they continued to exceed the national annual air quality objective for nitrogen dioxide of 40µg/m3.
· Defra’s recent review of the monitoring data for 2016 indicated that, after distance correction, there were no exceedances of the of the annual air quality objective within the existing AQMA. Based on the latest monitoring data, Defra advised this suggested the authority is moving towards compliance with the annual mean objective for nitrogen dioxide.
· To progress further improvements to local air quality a joint proposal between Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone Borough Councils, and supported by Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council had been submitted ... view the full minutes text for item OSC44/15 |
|
Dog Fouling/Public Space Protection Orders - verbal update Minutes: The Head of Environment and Street Scene, Gary Stevenson, provided an update to Members on the Council’s use of public space protection orders (PSPOs). Mr Stevenson advised that the item also covered the Communities and Wellbeing portfolio but noted that Overview and Scrutiny’s interest was the ability to impose fines for dog fouling through the PSPOs. Mr Stevenson advised Members that the current fixed penalty notices (FPN) for dog fouling was fixed at £50 - lower than for littering, but that through PSPOs, dog fouling could be classed as anti-social behaviour and the legislation for PSPOs would allow a high FPN to be determined. Mr Stevenson went on to say that the actual value for a future FPN had not yet been agreed and this would be a decision for the Cabinet following public consultation. Mr Stevenson added that there were signals from government that there could be an increase in fines for littering.
Members expressed the following views:
Councillor Woodward asked whether the scope of the PSPOs would be extended throughout the borough or remain focused in Tunbridge Wells, and if it did become borough wide, whether there would be one broad PSPO, or different levels according to need. Mr Stevenson advised that, for dog fouling, the intention was to initiate the scheme borough wide and he added that this would include a penalty for dog owners not having a means to pick up after their dogs. Mr Stevenson went on to confirm that further work was needed to determine the legal implications of which type of PSPO to use and whether they needed to vary dependant on the circumstances.
Councillor Huggett said that this was an important initiative as education on its own did not work and on-the-spot fines would be more effective.
Councillor Basu said there were targeted, proven educational initiatives such as ‘flag and bag’ that were available if specific areas were identified. He said the use of a PSPO to issue FPNs was not intended to penalise dog owners but as a last resort.
Councillor Hill said that if enforcement officers were not available in the problem areas and at the time of day when incidents occurred. Mr Stevenson said that enforcement officers did target hotspots when they were identified.
Mr Stevenson said the consultation was already open and would close on 7 January, with approximately 90 responses received to date. Mr Stevenson urged Members to provide responses and to let others know that they could respond also.
RESOLVED to note the update. |
|
Report of the Tackling Excessive Speeds in Rural Areas Task and Finish Group - to follow PDF 248 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman of the Tackling Excessive Speeds in Rural Areas Task and Finish Group, Councillor Hills, presented the final report of the Group. Councillor Hills reminded Members that there had been some changes since the previous version of the report had been circulated to Members. Councillor Hills referred to a comments received from Members and in particular a suggestion that Kent County Council (KCC) provide a guide to the cost of the various types of engineering that was available to provide road safety measures and vehicle speed. Councillor Hills questioned the practicalities involved as the affordability of each scheme would vary and include a number of factors.
Councillor Mackonochie referred to the use of solar powered speed devices and expressed concern at the cost and the battery life. Councillor Mackonochie then commented on her suggestion that there be a clearer indication on the KCC website as to what measures were available and which ones KCC now subscribed to. She added that it would be useful for KCC to provide an explanation as to why a particular measure was no longer subscribed to as it provide a more realistic picture for those communities that were looking for assistance.
Councillor Hill expressed concern that the recommendation for more powers to be given to police community safety officers (PCSOs) would necessitate a need for more PCSOs, which she currently felt was insufficient. Councillor Hills advised that the report would be presented to Greg Clark MP and that the stakeholders involved would be invited at a later date to comment.
RESOLVED to note the report and endorse the recommendations. |
|
Task and Finish Group(s) Update - verbal update Minutes: The Chairman of the Planning Application Process Task and Finish Group, Councillor Woodward, advised Members that representatives from the Tunbridge Wells Civic Society, and four local councils over two separate meetings; had been met. Councillor Woodward said consideration was being given to one further meeting, which would be with Members from the unparished wards in the borough, allowing a different perspective on the process to be provided. Councillor Woodward commented that there seemed to be varied levels of engagement and interest in the planning application process and many of the comments were around levels of consultation. Councillor Woodward said the intention was for a report to be provided to the February meeting.
RESOLVED to note the update. |
|
Scrutiny in Challenging Times - verbal update Minutes: The Scrutiny and Performance Officer, Nick Peeters, updated Members on a training course he had recently attended with the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny, Councillor Dawlings. Mr Peeters highlighted the following issues discussed on the course. · Overview was about involvement in policy shaping before decisions are made and about improving the decision making process. This could include the monitoring of agreed actions. Scrutiny generally took place after decisions were taken and allowed questions of those decisions to be asked - normally realised through the call-in procedure. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has the Cabinet Advisory Board system which offered pre-scrutiny on the key decisions the Council took. The impact of the advisory boards could be seen through the reduction in call-ins. · The Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) produced four principles of good scrutiny in 2012 which were still used by many authorities on the relevant website pages: to provide a ‘critical friend’ challenge; reflect the public voice; take the lead and own the scrutiny process; and make an impact on service delivery. These could still used when looking at the benchmark for what all scrutiny committees should aspire to. · Politics could be a wedge that stopped effective Scrutiny and was more evident in hung councils or councils with a slim majority. However, even in authorities with a large majority schisms and factions existed. The key point was that politics should be left at the door. · Finding issues that are important and are of interest and which can be directly influenced and getting the right people to meetings. Ensuring stakeholders were relevant. Problems occurred when ‘star’ witnesses were not able to give the level of detail needed. Sometimes a local source was more appropriate. · There was an argument that Scrutiny members should get the same training resources as planning and similarly licensing. But those are quasi-judicial committees and the training is mandatory. Scrutiny does have an important role and there are opportunities for targeted training within a limited budget. · The impact of reduced scrutiny was a concern. There were examples of catastrophic failures by local authorities where the use of arms-length organisations to provide services had not included effective scrutiny and where Councillors had failed to appreciate impact, ultimately, on the Council. · Scrutiny was potentially at a crossroads. The way public services were delivered and the structures used for delivery had changed. The support and resources given to scrutiny had also shifted. In terms of officer support, it was more likely that an officer supporting scrutiny would cover other areas of committee or election work. · The 2011 local government act gave authorities the opportunity to move back to the old committee system and there was concern that scrutiny would be lost as a function. The uptake for this option had not been as significant as originally thought. · Scrutiny has a wide range of powers and the effectiveness of the work was determined by the demographics and environment in which it functioned. Larger, more diverse authorities would have a different set ... view the full minutes text for item OSC48/15 |
|
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2017-18 PDF 146 KB Minutes: The Chairman, Councillor Dawlings, introduced the item and updated Members on the following items in the Committee’s work programme:
Dog fouling – the Head of Environment and Street Scene, Gary Stevenson, had provided an update earlier in the meeting.
Weed infested areas of the borough – Members were advised to contact the Contracts Manager, Paul Shipley if there were areas of concern.
Tunbridge Wells to Uckfield Rail link – there had been some activity and Lewes District Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee had it on its work programme. There was an active organisation called Brighton Mainline 2 (BML2) who campaigned for the reopening of the Lewes – Uckfield line.
RESOLVED to note the Committee’s work programme |
|
Urgent Business To consider any other items which the Chairman decides are urgent, for the reasons to be stated, in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972. Minutes: There was no urgent business. |
|
Date of the next meeting The next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will take place on Monday 12 February 2018. Minutes: It was noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would take place on Monday 12 February 2018. |