SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (ECONOMY AND
ENVIRONMENT)
MINUTES of a meeting held on 13th
March, 2007.
Present: Councillor N.P. Hodges
(Chairman); Councillors R.J. Bertin, Ms. L. Burnett, J. Clifford,
G.A. Cox, A.D. Dobbinson, E. Hacker, Mrs. V.M. Hartrey, Mrs. M.
Kelly Owen, Mrs. A.J. Moore, Mrs. A.J. Preston, A.J. Williams and
M.R. Wilson.
Also present: Councillor G. John.
927
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -
These were received from Councillors Miss J.
Cole, Mrs. S.I. Sharpe and W.C. Vaughan.
928
MINUTES -
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the
meetings held on 13th and 27th February, 2007
be approved as a correct record, subject to the name of Councillor
A.J. Williams being added to those apologising for absence on
27th February, 2007.
929
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -
No declarations were received.
930
TRAFFIC TASK AND FINISH GROUP -
The following report of a meeting held on
28th February, 2007 was submitted:
Present:Councillor N.P.
Hodges (Chairman); Councillors R.J. Bertin, Mrs. M.E.J. Birch, J.
Clifford, E. Hacker, Mrs. A.J. Preston, Mrs. S.I. Sharpe and M.R.
Wilson.
(a)
Declarations of Interest -
No declarations were received.
(b)
Provision of Individual Disabled Parking Bays (IDPB)
-
Scrutiny Committee (Economy and
Environment) on 28th November, 2006 had agreed the
recommendations of the meeting of the Traffic Task and Finish Group
held on 14th November, 2006 that
“The topics to be considered by this Task
and Finish Group be ‘provision of parking bays’”.
To assist in the Group’s deliberations,
Members had been provided with copies of
-
Scope of the Task and Finish Group
-
Minutes of the last meeting of the Group as accepted by Scrutiny
Committee (Economy and Environment)
-
Report of the Director of Environmental and Economic Regeneration
to Scrutiny Committee (Community Wellbeing and Safety) on
7th December, 2006
-
Decision of Scrutiny Committee (Community Wellbeing and Safety) of
7th December, 2006 as endorsed by the Scrutiny Committee
(Economy and Environment) on 16th January,
2007.
Mr. Paul Gay, Operational Manager -
Engineering Design, advised Members that the procedure followed by
the Council in allocating IDPBs had been in place for many years,
and had actually been inherited from the former South Glamorgan
County Council.
Members had been provided with a copy of
the policy and procedure for the provision of IDPBs. The
procedure involved much officer-time although it was impossible to
quantify the costs.
The rate of provision of IDPBs had
historically been six per year, although this had recently
increased to ten. The total number of applicants between
February 2006 and February 2007 had been fifty six, of whom twenty
four had been approved and been added to the list for future
provision.
The Task and Finish Group were provided
with comparative data about the provision of IDPBs or otherwise, by
other Welsh Local Authorities.
Mr. Gay advised that the current policy
and procedure took no account of an applicant’s needs. It was
reported that the staff of the Engineering Department did not have
the skills to assess applications on a need basis and so would have
to be involved in discussions with colleagues in Social
Services. Furthermore, the current waiting list for IDPBs was
compiled on a ‘first come, first served’ basis, and this was
understood by the applicants. The use of a ‘need’ assessment
could lead to variations to the waiting list which previous
applicants may find difficult to understand.
Members were advised that the options
before them in regard to the provision of IDPBs were:
(i) Abandon the provision of
individual disabled parking spaces altogether.
(ii) Include an
assessment of need to be managed by Social Services based on the
existing process.
(iii) Extend the service
to include carers of disabled adults and parents of disabled
children.
(iv) No change to the
current process.
(v) Any other
combination of the above.
Members of the Task and Finish Group were
offered an opportunity to comment:
|
Comment
|
Response
|
|
Can parking bays be used by anyone with a
Blue Badge?
|
Yes.
|
|
How are changes to a person’s eligibility
monitored
|
Cases are not reviewed.
|
|
Parking space is at a premium in
Penarth. Also, there is an elderly population. Demand
for IDPBs will rise expotentially.
|
|
|
There is a need for transparency in the
process for allocating IDPBs.
|
|
|
Should it be determined that ‘need’ be one
of the criteria used in determining IDPB places, the level of
bureaucracy will increase.
|
|
|
The view was expressed that the Council
was not doing enough, although it was difficult to suggest
improvements.
|
|
|
Cabinet should be informed of the comments
made at the meeting and be requested to make additional resources
available.
|
An injection of additional funding could
lead to the possibility of either:
(a) the provision
of more parking bays
(b) the funding of
professional advice from officers of Social Services Department for
‘needs’ assessments.
Should the monies be directed towards the
provision of additional bays, the backlog would diminish and there
may well be no requirement to prioritise applications.
|
|
Medical assessment of ‘need’ would result
in bureaucratic delays, and any possible appeals could create
longer delays. This should be a highways issue, and more
money should be requested from Cabinet to speed-up the
process.
|
|
|
Should Social Services wish to support an
individual application, then they should be required to pay for the
provision of the IDPB.
|
|
Following the conclusion of discussions,
it was
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T
H A T the current Policy and Procedure for the provision of
Individual Disabled Parking Bays be retained.
(2) T
H A T the Director of Social Services be permitted to support an
individual’s application, based on a needs-assessment, and that in
such cases the Social Services Directorate provide the funds
required to provide the Individual Disability Parking Bay.
(3) T
H A T, in order to reduce the waiting-list for the provision of
Individual Disabled Parking Bays, Cabinet be requested to increase
the level of funding by £10,000 per annum from 2007/08.
(4) T
H A T the above recommendations be considered by the Scrutiny
Committee (Community Wellbeing and Safety).
_________________
Discussion ensued on the concerns of the Task
and Finish Group to have regard not only to highway issues and the
needs of the applicants but to the economic argument that assisting
in enabling persons to remain in their own homes by providing a car
parking bay was far more cost effective in the long term than their
being placed in the care system. Concerns had also been
expressed at the Social Services Directorate being required to find
the funding for a parking bay which had been provided as a
consequence of a needs- based assessment, given the severe
financial constraints within that Directorate - although it was
accepted that Visible Services staff could not assess needs and
that the budget for such works was similarly constricted.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A
T recommendations (1), (3) and (4) above be endorsed, with
recommendation (3) being referred to Cabinet and all
recommendations to the Scrutiny Committee (Community Wellbeing and
Safety).
“T H A T the Director of Social
Services be permitted to support an individual’s application, based
on a needs-assessment, and that in such cases the Social Services
Directorate may provide the funds required to provide the
Individual Disability Parking Bay if deemed necessary”.
931
IMPROVEMENT REVIEWS 2007/08 (CX) -
Endorsement was sought to suspend Scrutiny
Reviews undertaken by the Improvement Development Team from the
Forward Work Programme in order for members of that Team to support
the actions contained in the Social Services Change Plan. It
was accepted that the impact of the significant overspend on Social
Care Services had affected all other areas of work and the report
indicated that the current work programme for the IDT would involve
concluding just two ongoing Reviews. Scrutiny Committees
were, therefore, being asked to have regard to the above when
setting their Forward Work Programmes for 2007/08. It was
confirmed that IDT would continue to support the Scrutiny
Committees in such areas as performance management and
information.
Members relayed their concerns at the proposed
reduced support for the role of scrutiny over the forthcoming
twelve months but, following consideration of the points in
question, accepted that the Social Services Change Plan required
extensive assistance. Attention was also drawn to the fact
that this Committee had already established several Task and Finish
Groups to scrutinise specific issues. It was considered that,
whilst those Groups were not undertaking “reviews”, the scrutiny of
specific tightly focused topics by a small number of Members in a
less formal setting within a limited time span was already taking
place without the involvement of IDT and should continue.
Members within those Groups were already playing a more pro-active
role and that, too, it was considered should be further
developed.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the proposal to suspend
Scrutiny Reviews until May 2008 be supported.
932
COASTAL ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME (DEER) -
Consideration was given to the WAG initiative
to develop a new Coastal Access Improvement Programme (CAIP).
The programme required that an outline CAIP be prepared by April
2007 to be accompanied by a bid for grant for 2007/08. A full
CAIP would have to be in place by October 2007 to enable grant bids
for future years. Initially the programme would run for three
years from 2007 to 2010 with a probable extension for a further two
to three years following a review. The Countryside Council
for Wales (CCW) would administer the programme and offer grant aid
on behalf of WAG. Whilst the CAIP had to be prepared by local
authorities, organisations and individuals could put forward
proposals for possible inclusion. In order to develop a
programme for the Vale of Glamorgan, all coastal Town and Community
Councils had been consulted, together with a number of major
landowners as well as a working group of Council officers.
The Local Access Forum had also already been consulted.
The WAG initiative was widely welcomed and
discussion ensued on various matters including the specifics of the
grant, the needs of cyclists, horse riders and the
mobility-impaired, and on the development of a Coastal Strategy
which would link into the initiative.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A
T the Coastal Access Improvement Programme be welcomed and the
principle of bidding for grant aid to the Countryside Council for
Wales endorsed.
(2) T H A
T Cabinet be requested to approve recommendation (1) above.
(3) T H A
T a progress report be made to this Committee on the grant
application and also on the development of the Coastal Strategy in
due course.
(4) T H A
T the report be referred to the Glamorgan Heritage Coast Advisory
Group.
Reasons for decisions
(1)&(2) To
enable bids for grant aid to improve public access to the
coast.
(3)
To assess progress.
(4)
For consultation progress.
933
RHOOSE FOOTBALL CLUB - REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF CROWD CONTROL
BARRIERS (DEER) -
Consideration was given to a request for the
improvement of facilities at the senior pitch at Ceri Road, Rhoose,
to permit the progression of Rhoose Football Club in the South
Wales Senior League. The request involved the installation of
crowd control barriers, 900 mm. high and positioned 2 metres away
from the pitch touch-line. The barrier would be installed by
the Club with no construction costs to the Council and it would be
a requirement that the structure be covered by the Club’s own
liability insurance. In addition to covering all costs of
manufacture and installation, the Club would also be responsible
for any maintenance.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the request from Rhoose
Football Club to erect a barrier around the senior pitch at the
Ceri Road site to a standard and design to be agreed by the
Director of Environmental and Economic Regeneration at no cost to
the Council be supported and referred to Cabinet for
consideration.
Reason for decision
To enable the Club to meet the requirements of
higher league football and to obtain an Executive decision.
934
REVENUE AND CAPITAL MONITORING: 1ST APRIL, 2006 -
31ST JANUARY, 2007 (DEER) -
The projected outturn for the 2006/07 Revenue
Budget was for a balanced budget. Details of the variances
within individual services were outlined in the report and
particular attention drawn to the Trading Accounts - Building
Services which were currently showing a projected deficit of £180k.
which would be met from underspends elsewhere in the
Directorate. As regards to the Capital Programme, it was
anticipated that various schemes would not be completed on target
and details were presented of the action requested as a
consequence. As regards the Knap Pool, a further report was
requested on the whole scheme given the current condition of the
site, together with an inspection of the site. Reference was
also made in the course of the subsequent discussion to the works
at Dyffryn House following which it was agreed that a future
meeting of this Committee be held on site.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position with regard
to the 2006/07 Revenue and Capital Monitoring be noted and that a
further report be presented to a future meeting detailing the
problems at the Knap Pool, the remedial action necessary and the
future plans for the area.
935
MATTER WHICH THE CHAIRMAN HAD DECIDED WAS URGENT -
RESOLVED - T H A T the following matter which
the Chairman had decided was urgent for the reason stated, be
considered.
936
VISIBLE SERVICES: PROPOSED FEES AND CHARGES 2007/08 (DEER) -
Urgent by reason of the need to
determine the charges prior to 1st April,
2007
Consideration was given to the proposals for
service charges for the following functions managed by Visible
Services:
Waste Management and Cleansing
Parks and Grounds Maintenance
Highway Maintenance
Engineering Design and Procurement.
Due to reductions in the Visible Services
Revenue Budget for 2007-10, over and above efficiency savings, it
had been considered necessary to increase fees to a level
sufficient to assist in maintaining services where possible.
In brief, it was proposed
§
that the majority of waste charges be increased by 20%, it being
noted that the bulk of those costs would fall on the private sector
(which had a choice whether or not to use the Council’s
service);
§
that the charges for the docking of the Waverley / Balmoral be
increased since a large number of those operations fell outside of
normal working hours (which necessitated an additional cost to the
Council);
§
that charges for senior football be increased by £4 per match for
changing facilities and by £3 per match without, it being noted
that in order to encourage football and rugby at a mini pitch
level, it had been proposed that the charges be discontinued;
§
that it be noted that the remaining increases in charges falling
under the remit of Parks and Grounds Maintenance reflected the
necessity to generate a greater level of revenue income within the
service area;
§
that charges for coastal car parks be increased to £3.50;
§
that it be noted that, whilst the charges proposed within the remit
of Engineering Design and Procurement were generally above the rate
of inflation, they were largely incurred by private property
developers and would assist in supplementing the budget for
2007/08.
Following further discussion on the above and
related matters, it was
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A
T the charging and fee proposals for Visible Services as appended
to the report be endorsed, subject to the charges relating to Café
Style Licences in that whilst the licence fee should be as
proposed, namely £350 over three years, an additional charge be
levied based on the square metreage of the area used for the
purposes.
(2) T H A
T all charges come into effect from 1st April, 2007 with
the exception of charges for football and rugby which would be
implemented from the start of the next season.
(3) T H A
T this Committee receive a report in six months to ascertain
whether additional funds had been generated as a result of the
increased charges, together with details of other providers of
similar services in order to assess the position and address any
implications arising therefrom.
(4) T H A
T recommendations (1) and (2) above be referred to Cabinet for
approval.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To
demonstrate the Committee’s approval of the charge increases.
(2) To
accord with the necessary timetable.
(3) To
review the situation.
(4) To
gain Executive approval.