Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

Minutes of the Meeting held on 30^th August 2011 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2011 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.

The Chairman advised that the agenda had been rearranged to allow the Head of Environmental Services to leave the meeting after the following item.

Members were informed that Councillor Brookes had given notice to the chief executive that he wished an item relevant to the terms of reference of the meeting to be included on the agenda for the meeting. The panel were asked to determine whether the issue should be included in its work programme based on its relevance, as compared to the priorities as set out in the scrutiny work programme.

Members of the panel were advised that following a recent article in the local press Councillor Brookes had requested that the planned maintenance of council housing be included as an item for consideration in the panel’s work programme. The chief executive had been consulted and a briefing note had been arranged by the head of Environmental Services.

The Panel were reminded that members of the Panel were entitled to give notice to the Chief Executive that they wished an item relevant to the terms of reference of the meeting to be included on the agenda for the first available meeting. Members were requested to determine whether the issue should be included in the Budget and Performance Panel Work Programme based on its relevance as compared to the priorities as set out in the scrutiny Work Programme (Part 4, Section 5 of the Constitution).

It was advised that following a recent article in the local press, Councillor Brookes had raised concerns regarding the planned maintenance of council housing, and whether the council was getting value for money from its partnership contractor. As such Councillor Brookes had requested that the planned maintenance of council housing be an item for consideration in the Panel’s Work Programme. The Panel were advised that the Chief Executive had been consulted regarding the request, and a briefing note had been produced by the Head of Environmental Services for members’ consideration.

Members were requested to determine whether consideration of planned maintenance of council housing should be added to the Panel’s Work Programme.

The Chairman advised the Panel that the issue was also scheduled to be considered by both Cabinet and the Council’s Audit Committee. Councillor Brookes advised that his questions mostly related to the Audit report, and as such the chairman advised that they would best be directed to the Audit Manager.

Members agreed that the decision regarding whether to include to the issue in the Panel’s Work Programme should be made once Cabinet and Audit Committee had considered the issue.

Members asked questions of the Head of Environmental Services relating to the Planned Maintenance of Council Housing, referring both to the article which had appeared in the local press and the briefing note which had been circulated to members with the agenda.

Resolved:

(1)        That the determination of whether consideration of Planned Maintenance of Council Housing should be added to the Panel’s Work Programme be deferred until after Audit Committee had considered the issue at its meeting on 18 January 2012.

(2)        That Councillor Brookes refer his questions regarding the Planned Maintenance of Council Housing to the Audit Manager.

The Head of Environmental Services left the meeting at this point.

Councillor Sowden arrived during consideration of the following item.

Joint report of Assistant Head (Partnerships) and Accountancy Services Manager. 

The Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Finance, Revenues and Benefits have been invited to attend the meeting for this item.

The Panel received a report from the Leader of the council in respect of the second quarter performance review team (PRT) cycle for 2011/12 recently undertaken by individual cabinet members. The report had been considered by the Leader on 17 November 2011, and was due to be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 6 December 2011.

The second quarter of individual cabinet member PRT meetings for 2011/12 had taken place between 2 and 9 November 2011. These were presented by service heads covering each portfolio area and related corporate priority. Each meeting had monitored progress against the actions included in the Corporate Plan for each Cabinet member and any outstanding issues from the previous round of meetings.

Individual Cabinet Members had also been provided with financial reports for Quarter 2 covering their portfolio and service areas and provided with reasons for any variances and actions being taken to address these.

Following a review of the experiences from Quarter 1 PRT meetings, the guidance supporting the PRT reports had been amended slightly to include a description of the underlying principles behind the RAG (Red, Amber and Green) ratings so that a more consistent approach was developed in determining the council’s overall performance.

These ratings for both Corporate/Service Plan Outcome Delivery and council Project and Programme Delivery were set out in the report. The Corporate Financial Monitoring report of the Head of Financial Services set out an indicative corporate picture of the council’s financial performance relating to the period ending 30 September 2011 and summarised the variances reported through services’ quarterly PRT meetings and identified any omissions, updates and actions required. In addition there were specific sections for salary monitoring, capital expenditure and financing, housing revenue account (HRA), revenue collection performance and insurance and risk management.

Following the Leader’s report members asked extensive questions regarding areas of concern, which the Leader advised would be referred to the relevant portfolio holders. These included issues relating to the following portfolio areas:

·         Adactus top up grants – the Panel queried whether it was possible for the properties to be leased or rented in the short term while the council waited for the housing market to improve. It was advised that currently the houses were not in a fit state to be let, and that the council was currently awaiting an announcement from the government which should enable officers to provide a report to council regarding the properties.

·         Central Promenade Morecambe, Urban Splash development – Members queried as to why this particular area had been flagged as ‘amber turning red’. It was advised that options were being considered in line with the Morecambe Area Action Plan.

·         Partnership working (work with partners to support the Children’s Trust Board) – the Panel highlighted that the comments included on this item indicated that the council was not currently meeting its statutory requirements for safeguarding. It was advised that this issue had been flagged internally, and that a number of steps had been identified for action by officers to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Report of Head of Community Engagement.

The Panel received the report of the Head of Community Engagement to advise members of the outcomes from the recent public sector engagement exercise.

The Panel was advised that it was anticipated that the impact of the government’s public expenditure reductions would continue for the foreseeable future and that this would continue to have an impact upon public services within the district. There was recognition that the issues facing this district could best be addressed by public services working even more closely together with local communities.

As a result an engagement exercise had taken place during October and early November.  The exercise aimed to develop ‘a conversation’ with local people and organisations to:

·         Share the realities we all face.

·         Discuss options and opportunities.

·         Encourage a shift in public thinking, expectation and behaviour, with local people considering the role can play not only in shaping their district and its services but in delivering them too.

·         Use that information to work together and ensure the public services that are available in this district in the future are those that are most important to local people.

The engagement programme had included a mixture of presentations, workshops, and information for a range of groups, which had included:

·         Residents.

·         Lancashire Association of Local Councils (Lancaster District).

·         Voluntary sector representatives.

·         Community Leaders Group.

·         Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership Management Group.

·         Lancaster (District) Arts Partnership.

·         Business Sector.

The Head of Community Engagement provided the Panel with an overview summary of the feedback which had been received through the public sector engagement exercise. It was advised that a number of overarching themes had emerged, these were as follows:

·         Firstly, there was broad recognition of the need for public services to join together and to share assets.

·         There was a need to acknowledge that at a very local level, individuals, families, voluntary groups and communities would request more in the way of support from the public sector.

·         Finally, the landscape was already changing quickly and unpredictably, not only for individual public sector organisations, but also others who rely heavily on public expenditure, such as community, voluntary sector and arts organisations.

Members discussed the summary of the themes that emerged across the entire engagement exercise in detail, and asked questions of the Head of Community Engagement accordingly.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

Report of Head of Community Engagement.

The Assistant Head of Community Engagement (Partnerships) presented a report to inform the Panel of the background information and resolution of Cabinet on 8 November 2011 in respect of the Council’s future approach to working in partnership in the district, including the use of uncommitted Performance Reward Grant (PRG) funds.

Members were advised that at its meeting on 8 November 2011 Cabinet had resolved the following:

Cabinet approve the new partnership arrangements proposed in the report.

That the uncommitted Performance Reward Grant funding of £27,535 revenue and £89,910 capital revert back to the city council.

The report had set out the background information and recommendations of the leader of the council in respect of the council’s future approach to working in partnership in the district, including the use of uncommitted PRG funds.

The Panel was asked to consider the report in line with its terms of reference relating to partnership working and the scrutiny of the performance of the Council’s major partnerships.

The report had recommended that the council’s efforts be dedicated to the following partnerships whilst recognising that as priorities shift, other opportunities for partnership working may be required:

·         District Children’s Trust.

·         Community Safety Partnership.

·         A Voluntary, community and faith sector partnership.

·         A Health and Well Being Partnership.

·         Public Sector Leaders Group.

·         Arts and Culture Partnership.

·         Economic Partnership.

·         Community Leaders Group.

·         Parish Councils.

The Panel considered the Cabinet report in detail and asked a number of questions relating to individual partnerships.

Councillor Newman-Thompson queried how the Health and Being Partnership would be constituted. It was advised that the board would be Lancashire wide, and that there would be three places allocated between the 10 district councils in the area. Those nominated to these three places would be tasked with representing the interests of all 10 district councils.

The Panel discussed the Lancashire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), members were anxious that the City Council should be actively involved in such a scheme. The Chief Executive advised that the partnership would be private sector led, and would include representatives from unitary councils in Lancashire and Lancashire County Council. Lancashire’s district councils would be represented on the partnership, but there would only be 2 representatives to represent the 12 district councils which fell within the LEP’s borders.  It was advised that the LEP would also help Lancashire to bid for funding from the Regional Growth Fund. Currently the suggestion was that strategic schemes should be made priorities once the LEP was firmly established, it was advised that the City Council currently had 2 projects on the list of possible projects, Heysham Port and Lancaster Science Park. It was reported that currently, funding for the Lancashire LEP was in the region of £12.9M.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.  

Report of Head of Governance.

The Democratic Support Officer submitted a report to update members on the Panel’s Work Programme. Members were asked to consider whether they would like to include any further items in the Work Programme. It was noted that the issue relating to Planned Maintenance of Council Housing had been considered earlier in the meeting (minute number 21 refers).

Members were advised that at a meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 5 October 2011, members had discussed the issue of link membership with Budget and Performance Panel. It had been reported that at a meeting of full Council held on 14 September 2011 it had been agreed to remove the requirement for a link member from the Council’s Constitution.

As such, members of the Committee had been requested to determine a reporting mechanism between the committee and the panel. It was agreed that the Chairman of the Budget and Performance Panel be invited to attend meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as and when issues arose.

Members were advised that at a meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 5 October 2011, Councillor Barry had provided members with a breakdown of his portfolio which had included responsibility for markets, connecting with communities, voluntary sector and older people. Part of the discussion had referred to issues surrounding service level agreements (SLAs).

The Panel was advised that following the discussion the Committee had agreed the following:

“That the issue of SLAs and reviewing the procedures and criteria for local organisations who receive funding from the council be referred to the Budget and Performance Panel for consideration.”

Members were requested to include the issue of SLAs in the Panel’s Work Programme and to agree a date for the issue to be considered. The Panel were reminded that the issue had been included on the Panel’s Work Programme for consideration at its meeting on 18 October 2011, but the report had been delayed.

The Assistant Head of Community Engagement (Partnerships) advised the Panel that one of the relevant portfolio holders had requested that the report be delayed, and as such it was not yet ready to be circulated. It was hoped that the report would be ready for consideration in time for the panel’s meeting on 21 February 2012. The panel agreed that the issue should be included on the Work Programme for this meeting.

Members were also advised that the Deputy Chief Executive had requested than an item relating to corporate plan performance be included on the panel’s work programme alongside the ‘2011/12 Qtr3 Corporate Financial Monitoring, including Treasury Management’ report, which was due to be considered on 21 February 2012. The report was intended to update members on corporate plan performance.

The Assistant Head of Community Engagement (Partnerships) advised the Panel that due to the tight deadlines surrounding PRT meetings it would be difficult for the Qtr 3 Corporate Financial Monitoring report to be produced in time for the February meeting of the Panel. Members discussed the possibility of pushing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.