SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (ECONOMY AND
ENVIRONMENT)
MINUTES of a meeting held on 17th
April, 2007.
Present: Councillor N.P. Hodges (Chairman);
Councillors R.J. Bertin, Ms. L. Burnett, J. Clifford,
Miss J. Cole, G.A. Cox, A.D. Dobbinson, Mrs. M. Kelly
Owen, Mrs. A.J. Moore, Mrs. A.J. Preston, A.J. Williams and M.R.
Wilson.
Also present: Councillor R.F. Curtis
These were received from Councillors E.
Hacker, Mrs. V.M. Hartrey, Mrs. S.I. Sharpe, W.C. Vaughan
and S.T. Wiliam.
1012
MINUTES -
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the
meeting held on 13th March, 2007 be approved as a
correct record.
No declarations were received.
Members were informed of the findings of the
recent review of Scrutiny arrangements in the Vale undertaken by a
member of staff within the Improvement and Development Team,
together with a series of improvement options for consideration to
ensure the future development and sustainability of Scrutiny.
The review had been conducted in the summer of 2006 and it was
noted that, overall, there had been a good response rate to the
survey from all the key stakeholders. It was evident that the
Council had made significant progress in developing the Scrutiny
function since the last review undertaken in 2003 and it was clear
from the review that both Members and Officers were increasingly
becoming more engaged with Scrutiny.
The study had highlighted the key strengths /
achievements since 2003 to be:
·
good progress made in relation to policy, performance and review
and improvement review
·
training needs of Members addressed through a Member Development
Strategy and the publication of the Scrutiny Handbook
·
the establishment of the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen Group had
assisted in promoting good cross-party working and information
sharing
·
additional officer support in the IDT had played a vital role in
improving Scrutiny
·
Scrutiny had established strong working relationships with senior
officers
·
clarification of the roles and responsibilities of Democratic
Services Officers and the IDT had assisted in developing and
refining the Scrutiny process.
It was accepted, however, that the review had
also identified some key issues and areas of development, such
as:
-
revise and restructure membership of Committees
-
the length of agendas impacted on the ability to scrutinise
decisions
-
Scrutiny’s role in relation to external review and policy
development continued to be under-developed
-
the perception that Scrutiny was unable to influence
decision-making at the Executive level
-
the need for Scrutiny to review and evaluate carefully the choice
of topics for their annual work programme
-
Scrutiny Members needed to be encouraged to lead the Scrutiny
process through appropriate support and development
-
the need to reinforce good Scrutiny / Executive relations through
the development of mechanisms to promote co-operation and
participation
-
the need to engage more fully with the views of the public in order
to have a greater impact on local communities.
15 recommendations referred by the Chairmen
and Vice-Chairmen Group to each Scrutiny Committee for comment were
appended to the report. The Group had agreed that all 15
recommendations be implemented over a two year period.
Subsequent discussion included reference to the formal invitation
of Executive Members to Scrutiny meetings (Rec. R 4 as shown below)
– although it was accepted that the relevant Executive Members had
frequently attended meetings without such invitations being issued;
the greater public engagement in the scrutiny process (Rec. 6); and
the feasibility of member development in specialist functions (Rec.
11). Members were requested to consider prioritising those
recommendations and, to assist in that process, an action plan with
a proposed timetable would be circulated to all members for
comment.
Having regard to the above, it was
RECOMMENDED - THAT the content of the
Review be accepted and the following recommendations contained
therein endorsed:
(1)
Organise a Scrutiny event for non-executive members to explore and
further develop the effectiveness of scrutiny.
(2)
Develop a pre-work programme evaluation and checklist when scoping
reviews to asses the suitability of potential work programme items
paying particular regard to the Council’s risk register, corporate
priorities and Cabinet forward work programme.
(3)
Review the Scrutiny Handbook to ensure roles and responsibilities
are clear and transparent.
(4) When
managing committee business, that Scrutiny Chairmen and
Vice-Chairmen consider inviting Executive Members.
(5)
Develop and implement a post-review analysis to evaluate review
outcomes against review objectives.
(6)
Further develop website content to enable the public to engage with
the Scrutiny process.
(7)
Produce an executive public summary of the Scrutiny Annual Report
that is accessible to the public.
(8)
Investigate the feasibility of further developing task and finish
groups for appropriate Scrutiny work programme items.
(9)
Organise a workshop enabling members to discuss and review any
changes required to the process for developing Corporate Plan
priorities.
(10)
Explore the feasibility of reducing the size of committee
membership.
(11)
Investigate the feasibility of member development of specialist
functions within Scrutiny, enabling members to increase their
expertise in certain Scrutiny areas.
(12)
Develop a proposal to facilitate in increasing public participation
in the Scrutiny process and meetings.
(13) Revise the format
of Scrutiny meetings by restructuring the content of meetings and
the development of themed agendas.
(14)
Annually produce a summary of consultation activities from the
previous year to feed in consultation outcomes to assist in the
development of a yearly work programme.
(15)
Implement a series of triangulation meetings on a quarterly basis
for each Scrutiny committee involving relevant scrutiny
chairs/vice, officers and executive members to discuss work
programme items and any matters of concern.
Reason for recommendation
To apprise Members of the findings of the
Review and to enable the recommendations to be progressed.
The above survey represented the third
large-scale public opinion survey which the Council had conducted,
the first being in 2003, then 2005 and again in 2006. The
survey had been designed to gain an insight into public opinion and
a range of Council’s services as well as the public’s general
impression of the Council and the way in which it operated.
The survey carried out in 2005 used a market research company,
which employed a quota sampling process to ensure
representativeness. Given that it was uneconomical to engage
an external market research company annually, in 2006 the Vale of
Glamorgan’s Citizens Panel (approximately 1,200 local residents)
was used as a means of collecting opinions. Whilst not
totally representative of the population profile of the Vale of
Glamorgan, it was noted that in past years the responses
extrapolated from the Panel had been reasonably accurate, closely
reflecting the views obtained through external research
surveys. It was also noted that an impressive response rate
of 73% had been received.
A summary of the survey results was appended
to the report. On a general note, those results indicated
that:
·
overall satisfaction levels with the service provided by the
Council had increased from 74% to 86%
·
there had been an increase in the number of people who felt able to
influence decisions affecting their local area from 34% to 47%
·
the number of those proud to live in the Vale had stayed at the
high level of 87%.
Attention was also drawn to other issues
relating specifically to the remit of this Committee,
including:
-
satisfaction levels with refuse collection, bulky / special item
collection, kerbside recycling, recycling banks, grass cutting,
traffic signs and street signs, tree maintenance and overall parks
and grounds maintenance had all improved
-
satisfaction levels in respect of civic amenity sites, pavement
maintenance and, in particular, public toilets had fallen
when compared to 2005
-
responses in respect of leisure centres showed generally improving
satisfaction levels (although a drop in satisfaction had been
evidenced when questioned about pricing in the leisure centres)
-
satisfaction levels in respect of tourist information centres and
tourist facilities overall had also increased
-
as regards transport within the Vale, no major shifts in
satisfaction levels or opinions had been evidenced although one
change in opinion had found that access to and the provision of
information about public transport had declined, with only 53% of
respondents stating that they were satisfied with that provision
compared to 81% in 2005.
Subsequent discussion focussed primarily on
the need for and methodology to be adopted should such need be
established of undertaking a similar survey annually. It was
considered that, if either adequate funding could be made available
to engage external consultants or a means of attracting a more
representative response than simply using the Citizens Panel could
be identified, it would be useful to undertake the survey annually.
Following further consideration, it was
RECOMMENDED – THAT the value of the
information obtained from the Public Opinion Survey be acknowledged
and Cabinet urged
·
to find ways of establishing a more representative sample of the
population, and
·
carry out a survey for 2007.
Reason for recommendation
To acknowledge the value of the Survey and to
seek the views of Cabinet.
1016
REVENUE AND CAPITAL MONITORING, 1ST APRIL, 2006 –
28TH FEBRUARY, 2007 (DEER) –
1023
URBAN PARKS PROGRAMME : VICTORIA PARK, BARRY (DEER) (EXEMPT
INFORMATION – PARAGRAPH 20) -
Members were notified of the progress to date
in respect of the restoration project for Victoria Park, Barry
following the award of grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)
under the Urban Parks Programme. The restoration works had
been designed, procured and supervised on site by external
consultants Soltys Brewster Consulting (SBC) and, as lead
consultants, SBC had employed Gleeds cost management consultants to
assist in the project along with architectural and other technical
inputs. Gee Construction had been awarded the contract to
undertake the restoration works themselves.
Problems encountered with the scheme were
currently being addressed, a synopsis of the situation being shown
below. At the outset of the scheme the total cost of the
tender together with the associated fees was contained within the
approved funding. Work commenced on site in March 2006 with a
planned completion date in October 2006. The contractor’s
first request for an extension of time to complete the contract was
only received in September 2006 – at which time officers were
unaware of any major cost implications in relation to the proposed
extension of time or additional work items instructed by SBC.
HLF had appointed Hornagold and Hill (H and H) as project
management consultants to the project, their role being to oversee
financial aspects in relation to the approved scheme and input the
programme generally in terms of quality and adherence to HLF grant
conditions. It had subsequently become apparent that progress
on site had slowed increasingly and that quality standards were not
being satisfactorily achieved across a range of items. It was
also confirmed in January 2007 that, due to increasing costs and
uncertainty, SBC had omitted the Multi Use Games Area and play area
items from the main works which not only detracted from the
presentation and function of the park but were a requirement of the
grant conditions. A series of meetings had taken place since
that time to review the contract situation and to ascertain the
full extent of valid claims and cost implications for
Council. Upon completion of the review, a further report
updating the situation would be presented to this Committee.
(1) T H A
T the issues in relation to the contract works as outlined in the
report be noted and the measures taken to investigate matters
approved.
(2) T H A
T an application to HLF for uplift funding be supported.
(3) T H A
T Cabinet approval be sought for the Director of Environmental and
Economic Regeneration to authorise contractual payments.
(4) T H A
T a further report be presented to this Committee on the completion
of the internal review of the contract situation, such a review to
include the direct involvement of Internal Audit.
(5) T H A
T the report be referred to the next Cabinet meeting.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To
progress resolution of contractual issues.
(2) To
enable a formal application to be made.
(3) To
meet contractual requirements.
(4) To
apprise this Committee of the situation.
(5) To
apprise Cabinet.