Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“This meeting will be webcast live to the Internet and will be archived for later viewing. Copies of recordings may be made available on request.

By entering the chamber’s lower seating area you consenting to becoming part of the webcast.

If you wish to avoid being filmed you should move to the public gallery or speak to the webcasting officer”

The Chairman reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

It was noted that Councillor A Watts was substituting for Councillor J Philip.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 25 February 2014.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2014 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(1)          Councillor G Chambers declared a non pecuniary interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of being employed by Barts Health NHS Trust. He advised that he would remain in the meeting for the duration of the item:

·         Item 6 – Presentation from Barts Health (NHS Trust)

(2)          Councillors Murray and Angold-Stephens declared a non pecuniary interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of being members of Loughton Town Council. They advised that they would remain in the meeting for the duration of the item:

·         Item 11 – Cabinet Forward Plan – item in the Environment Portfolio Holder section on the refurbishment of the Charlie Moules Footbridge

To receive a presentation on stakeholder update on Whipps Cross Hospital and on the wider issues of Barts Health (NHS Trust).

The Committee welcomed Dr Alistair Chesser, the Group Director for Emergency Care and Acute Medicine and Helen Byrne, Hospital Director for Whipps Cross. They were there to present an update on Whipps Cross and on the wider issues of Barts Health (NHS Trust).

Barts Health was chosen by the CQC as one of the first hospital trust to be inspected under its new regime. A team of 90 CQC inspectors visited all Barts Health hospitals during the week commencing 4 November 2013. A report was published on 14 January and shared with local stakeholders and partners. We noted that the overall findings were tough but fair, with much to be proud of. Three warning notices for maternity and care of the elderly issued last year at Whipps Cross were lifted. That the staff provided safe, compassionate care in clean surroundings with excellent infection prevention and control.

Areas for improvement include appointment attendance rates, cancellations, complaints handling, leadership development and organisational culture. The trust was clear that bullying and harassment had no place in Barts Health.

As part of their response, the Trust had developed six action plans which detailed how they would address the issues raised. There was also a single high level plan covering Trust wide actions and five site-specific plans covering actions at five of the six individual hospitals (all except Mile End, where the CQC found no actions to be necessary). They were also commissioning an independent review on staffing levels and were working on improving staff morale to make staff feel as valued as possible; and would be providing 24/7 consultant cover.

As part of addressing issues raised at Whipps Cross, they would be addressing delays in discharging patients; improving the patient environment and would be addressing equipment shortages. Some of the positive comments made about the hospital were that the staff were considered to be compassionate, caring and committed. The hospital was clean and the staff adhered to good infection control practice. Improvements had been made in both accident and emergency and maternity services since the May 2013 inspection. The three warning notices were lifted. Palliative care was compassionate and held in high regard by staff, patients and their friends and family.

They were doing all they could to support their staff and were aiming to reach a 95% staffing establishment (by September 2014) in all areas. This would help them reduce their reliability on temporary staff and improve quality and safety.  They were also aiming for a greater visibility of their Executive Team with a seven day a week presence and were also setting up a new system to provide anonymous online dialogue between staff and members of the Trust Board. They would also commission independent investigations into specific allegations of bullying.

They were also developing monthly reporting of actual staffing levels by shift and ward/department and were rolling out a leadership and skills programme. Stronger links were being developed between their risk register and capital programme to target equipment replacement more effectively. They  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

(a)             To consider the updated work programme

The current Overview and Scrutiny work programme is attached for information.

(b)          Reserve Programme

A reserve list of scrutiny topics is required to ensure that the work flow of OSC is continuous.

OSC will ‘pull out’ items from the list and allocate them accordingly once space becomes available in the work plan following  the completion of  existing reviews.

Members can put forward any further suggestions for inclusion in the reserve list  either during the meeting or at a later date.

Existing review items will be dealt with first, then time will be allocated to the items contained in the reserve work plan.

The Committee reviewed the Overview and Scrutiny work programme.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Committee considered their work programme noting that this was their last scheduled meeting for the year and that their work programme was now complete. Item 6 on the programme, to review the strategic direction of Epping Forest College, was now going to take place in July 2014.

Housing Scrutiny Panel

The chairman had nothing further to add.

Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel

The Vice Chairman in the absence of the Chairman had nothing further to add.

Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman had nothing to add on the work programme, noting that there was a further meeting scheduled for 15 April 2014.

Planning Services Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman noted that their last meeting had been cancelled due to having only one item of business which was on the agenda for the meeting tonight. Normally they would consider the Local Plan, but the Local Plan Cabinet Committee had not met recently.

Councillor Watts noted that this was the second time that the Panel had been cancelled. As the Local Plan was number one on our risk register, this should be scrutinised. Perhaps O&S should establish a Task and Finish Panel to review this. As chairman of the audit and Governance Committee he thought this appeared not to have been managed.

Councillor Wyatt noted that although two meetings had been cancelled they did have an extra meeting added into their schedule. So in effect only one meeting was not held.

Councillor Bassett, the Portfolio Holder for Planning Services, noted that it was important that the Local Plan had taken all issues raised into consideration and then to take them to a full Cabinet meeting to make decisions so that any decisions could be made at an open meeting that was webcast and was able to be called in. He was always available to answer any questions and noted that the “duty to co-operate” was very heavy on the council now.

Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman noted that they had held their last meeting and had introduced a red/amber/green system to identify performance and improve the way they handled scrutiny of performance management.

Reserve Programme

Mr Hill noted that two PICK forms had been sent out to members but neither had been returned as yet.

Between now and July we will let the public know how they can contact us with any suggestions.

Members should also let us know if they have any suggestions.

(Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel – Councillor J Philip) this report was considered by the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel on 18 March. A revised report to this Committee will follow.

In the absence of the Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel, the vice chairman, Councillor Watts took the Panel through their report reviewing the Council’s Petition Scheme. This was last considered in September 2012. Since then the Localism Act had repealed the previous provision to have a petition scheme.

In reviewing this document again it was noted that some sections of our scheme required some attention.

He noted that in section (7) of the re-drafted scheme officers had tried to provide clarity on how petitions were dealt with related to the amount of support they received. No petitions had ever met the threshold for debate at either Overview and Scrutiny or Full Council. Whilst the Panel believed that the threshold levels were appropriate, the original provisions that envisaged allowing petitioners to seek officers to report at an Overview and Scrutiny had never been requested. Experience has shown that petitioners were interested in issues, not their management and in any event, this threshold had never been reached.

The Panel were therefore of the view that dealing with petitions over 1200 should require a Portfolio Holder to prepare a report to the full Cabinet for a decision. Such decisions would be open to call-in should Overview and Scrutiny wish to give them consideration. They also suggested that it should be open to the Portfolio Holder to decide to treat a smaller petition in this way should he/she so choose.

They had also suggested that the receipt of petitions were notified to ward members to ensure that local councillors were aware of received petitions. They had also asked that officers ensure that all petitions were subject to commentary in portfolio holder reports to Council as envisaged by the recent Overview and Scrutiny Review. They had also made minor changes to clarify timescales for response to petitions.

On consideration, the Committee wanted petitioners who had garnered enough signatures (1200) to have it considered at a Cabinet meeting, to have the same right to address that Cabinet meeting as petitioners had to address a Council meeting and be given five minutes to present their petition before it was discussed by the Cabinet. This was agreed by the Committee and added to the recommendations.

It was noted that under section 7 of the Operating Standing Orders that it be noted that it should read that petitions between 20 but fewer than 1200 signature (and not 2400 as wrongly printed) be considered by the relevant Portfolio Holder.

RESOLVED:

(1)        To recommend to the Council to approve the redrafted Council petitions scheme;

(2)        That, the proposed revised website information on petitions be noted; and

(3)        That, petitioners who had garnered enough signatures (1200) to have it considered at a Cabinet meeting, have the same right to address that Cabinet meeting as petitioners had to address a Council meeting and be given five minutes to present their petition before it was discussed.

(Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel – Councillor J Philip) this report was considered by the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel on 18 March. A revised report to this Committee will follow.

Councillor Watts introduced the report dealing with a review of the new procedures for dealing with members questions without notice at Council meetings. This stemmed from a PICK form from Councillor Philip.

The public interest justification on the Pick Form for this review was as follows:

            “The current system of questions without notice at full Council leads to a sense of disorganisation.  The juxtaposition of questions on reports and questions on other matters leads to many occurrences of questions being identified by the Chairman only to find that their questions are for the other Section.  This gives a bad impression to members of the public, present and watching on webcasts.”

Officers reviewed other Essex authorities and what arrangements for member questioning they operated and reported back to the Panel.

The Panel took note of the concerns expressed on the “Pick” form regarding confusion which can arise between questions without notice on any subject and questions on the written reports which are submitted to each Council meeting by Cabinet members and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The evidence given by the current Chairman was helpful and confirmed that this issue needed to be clarified.

Currently, 20 minutes are allocated at each Council meting for questions without notice. The Constitution was silent as to how the 20 minutes were to be utilised.  In practice, successive Chairmen of the Council have tended to divide the 20 minute session into two parts:  the first part dealing with questions on written reports, and the second part with open questions on any subject. It was noted that confusion can arise between the two ten minute periods.

The Panel proposed that the time allocated should be used to take questions on reports or on other matters entirely in any order.  They thought this would make the operation of this part of the meeting easier for Chairmen of the Council and clearer for other Councillors.  They had also gone a stage further by proposing that the 20 minutes should be increased to 30 minutes.

The Panel had noted from the Constitution that there was nothing that either permits or disallows supplementary questions in respect of those asked without notice.  The Panel thought there was a need for clarity on this point and proposed that supplementary questions should not be allowed. If supplementary questions were allowed, there was a risk of creating further time pressure with fewer Councillors being able to raise questions in the first place.

Finally, the Panel felt that the remaining provisions of the 2007 Protocol should be adopted in the Constitution.  This covered matters such as the Chairman’s discretion to extend the 30 minute period by up to a further 10 minutes if needed and to ensure that questions from all political groups and independent members are dealt with in the order in which they were put and, so far as is possible, dealt with at the Council meeting.

Councillor Murray proposed that the 30 minutes should be divided equally between questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

The Committee is asked to consider whether they are happy with the draft report (attached) and to make amendments where necessary. Any comments should be submitted to Democratic Services by Monday, 7 April 2014 for inclusion in the final version. 

The final report will be submitted to the next meeting on 1 July 2014 for endorsement and then on to the nearest Full Council meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider and comment on the draft O&S Annual Report for 2013/14.

The Committee considered the draft Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report. They noted that they could submit any comments to Democratic Services by the end of April 2014.

Councillor Murray said that it was a good report especially the pages covering Housing Scrutiny and was pleased with the case study chosen. He thanked the members of his Panel for their input during the year and also the members of Democratic Services for their help and support.

Councillor Angold-Stephens proposed a vote of thanks be given to Mr Hendry for writing the report and this was endorsed by the Committee.

RESOLVED:

(1)  That the draft Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report for 2013-14 was noted; and

(2)  That the final version of the report be given final approval at the July meeting.

The recent Overview and Scrutiny Review Task and Finish Panel recommended that this Committee consider the Cabinet Forward Plan, Key Decision List instead of reviewing the Cabinet agenda for their next meeting. This is attached for your consideration.

The Committee is also asked to consider if they wish to receive the Forward Plan on a meeting by meeting basis or Quarterly.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    To review the Cabinet’s Forward Plan (Key Decision List); and

2.    To consider if this Committee would like to receive the Forward Plan on a meeting by meeting basis or on a quarterly footing.

The Committee reviewed the Cabinet’s Forward Plan for March 2014. They were asked if they had any thing that they wished to raise and if they wished to have the Forward Plan on a meeting by meeting basis or on a quarterly basis.

The Committee noted that the Leisure Service Review needed to be added to the forward Plan as it was not listed at present and that for now the Forward Plan should go to each meeting.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That the Leisure Service review be added to the Forward Plan; and

(2)          That the Forward Plan be brought to each meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(Director of Planning Services) To consider a draft response to a consultation by East Herts Council..

Ian White, the Forward Planning Manager introduced the report on the consultation of the Draft Plan from East Herts Council. The consultation would finish on 22^nd May 2014. The Draft Plan was intended to be read as a whole and there were no set questions as part of the consultation – views were being sought on the whole document. The Plan, once adopted (assumed to be in 2016), would cover the period 2011 to 2031 and set out a framework for guiding sustainable development in the district. It was a high-level, strategic policy document and would be supplemented by more site specific and detailed publications, including Supplementary Planning Documents.

It was noted that East Herts had an area of 184 square miles and was predominantly rural with the five market towns of Bishop’s Stortford, Buntingford, Hertford, Sawbridgeworth and Ware providing a range of services to the surrounding rural area. The southern third of the district was within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The towns of Harlow, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City all abut the district boundary and there was pressure for expansion of all three into East Herts. There were also substantial cross-boundary influences from Cambridgeshire and Essex.

There was likely to be a need for at least 15,000 additional dwellings between 2011 and 2031 – i.e. about 750 new dwellings per year, which the Draft Plan acknowledged as being “very challenging”. There will be a shortfall of about 1,100 houses in the period 2011 to 2016, which would be addressed over the remaining 15 years of the Plan. Para 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required Local Plans to identify (and update annually) a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against the agreed needs with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

The Draft Plan therefore acknowledged a housing requirement of at least 4,321 dwellings in the first 5 years after adoption (i.e. 2016 to 2021) comprising (i) 3,750 based on projected needs for 5 years; (ii) 365 towards compensation for the anticipated shortfall in the period 2011 to 2016; and (iii) 206 to allow a 5% buffer.

In the remaining period of the adopted Plan (i.e. 2021 to 2031) housing needs would be met at three “Broad Locations for Development”. These were (a) north and east of Ware; (b) east of Welwyn Garden City; and (c) the Gilston area (i.e. north of Harlow). These are strategic areas where East Herts Council accepted the principle of development but where further research and testing was needed.

A separate chapter in the Draft Plan on the Gilston area advised that it would continue to be physically separated from Harlow and that development in that area would contribute to the needs of East Herts from (i) unmet housing needs in Bishop’s Stortford and villages in the centre and east of the district; (ii) under-delivery elsewhere in the district; and (iii) reducing pressure for incremental housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

The Chairman took the opportunity to thank all the members of the Committee, the Panels and all the officers for all their hard work over the last year enabling the scrutiny element of the council to function smoothly and efficiently. He especially thanked Mr Willett for all his hard work and guidance over the years, noting that this would be his last meeting; this sentiment was heartily endorsed by the entire meeting.

Councillor Murray took the opportunity to thank the Chairman, Councillor Morgan, for his good work over the last year.