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.

(Director of Governance). To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

It was reported that Councillor H Whitbread was substituting for Councillor B Rolfe and that Councillor J H Whitehouse was substituting for Councillor B Surtees.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 19 December 2016.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last Committee meeting held on 19 December 2016 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Director of Governance) To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview and Scrutiny Committee members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an Overview and Scrutiny Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub-Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee, or Joint Sub-Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an overview and scrutiny meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

(a)          Councillor D Dorrell declared a non-pecuniary, non-prejudicial interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of his son attending Epping Forest College.

·         Item 6 – Scrutiny of external organisations - Epping Forest College.

(b)          Councillor G Mohindra declared a non-pecuniary, non-prejudicial interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being the Chairman of the Board of Governors for Epping Forest College.

·         Item 6 – Scrutiny of external organisations - Epping Forest College.

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report and undertake appropriate external scrutiny of Epping Forest College.

The Chairman introduced the recently appointed principal of Epping Forest College, Saboohi Famili, who had been invited to address the committee on the recent Ofsted report (January 2017) on its ‘inadequate’ judgement of the quality of its local further education facilities and services.

Ms Famili started by saying she was happy to be sharing the plans of the college to move forward from their current situation. She had been appointed to this post in September 2016, and within five weeks they had an Ofsted visit, resulting in an ‘inadequate’ marking. The reasons for this were mainly because of lack of scrutiny of the situation and the lack of scrutiny from the governors to ensure that the problems were addressed. At this time we had also self assessed as inadequate and Ofsted had merely confirmed this assessment. She was pleased that one of the strengths identified by Ofsted was that the new leadership had accurately identified the problems that they faced.

As a result of this judgements they would now have more regular visits from Ofsted setting out the Ofsted support in the year to come and then will carry out another major inspection in 12 to 15 months; so they were looking to next April to have full inspection to prove that the college had moved away from being an inadequate organisation.

The inspectors came back on 26 January and their unofficial comments were that they were very impressed at the speed and progress that had been made and that the college was addressing the issues. She was pleased with the support she had received from both the District Council and Essex County Council safeguarding officers during this time and she was confident that the issues reported were addressed.

Part of the improvements was down to change in management and governance. She was delighted that Councillor Mohindra was now the Chairman of the Board of Governors and in the short period he had been in the chair he had invested a large amount of time in understanding the context of the problems of the college and the improvements needed.

The college was also involved in the government’s area reviews of the larger colleges and we were recommending that we remained as a stand alone organisation while we still had these problems.

Presently our actions plans, as noted by Ofsted, have clear milestones and achievement of impacts. They are living documents that are regularly updated. We also engage with our learners and have monthly forums where we share problems and tap into the talents of the young people because it was their college and we need their help to take the college forward.

The culture of the college has radically changed it no longer has the mood of despair and disappointment; and with the help of my colleagues we are turning the college around. There was still a long way to go as it cannot be changed overnight but there was a confidence that we can turn it around and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

(Director of Governance) To consider any matter referred to the Committee for decision in relation to a call-in.

Officers were aware that a call-in was in the process of being made and this will be circulated (as a supplement) as soon as it had been submitted to Democratic Services.

The Committee noted that two representatives of the call-in, the Portfolio Holder and the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny had held a review of the call-in on the Cabinet Decision (C-054-2016/17) Waste Management Policies; specifically policy 10 on the supply of waste and recycling services to land registered on the Local Land Property Gazetteer.

At this meeting the lead signatory of the Call-in expressed her concerns on part 10 on the waste and recycling services. The Portfolio Holder noted the concerns and agreed that a discrepancy had been highlighted by the call-in and that he would take this back, consult with appropriate officers and revise the policy and report back to the members of the call-in on what action he would take. The two call-in representatives were asked if they were content with this plan of action and they declared that they were.

RESOLVED:

It was agreed that this call-in had effectively been withdrawn and that the Portfolio Holder would review the policy and report back to the participants of the call-in and to a suitable meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on his findings.

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

The Director of Neighbourhoods introduced the report on the quarter 3 performance of the Key Objectives Key Action Plan 2016/17. The Corporate Plan was the Council’s key strategic planning document, setting out its priorities over the five-year period from 2015/16 to 2019/20. The priorities or Corporate Aims were supported by Key Objectives, which provided a clear statement of the Council’s overall intentions for these five years. The Key Objectives were delivered by an annual action plan, with each year building upon the progress against the achievement of the Key Objectives from previous years.

It was noted that there were 49 actions in total for which progress updates for Q3 were as follows:

·         Achieved or On-Target:                        26 (53%)

·         Under Control:                           13 (27%)

·         Behind Schedule:                        4 (8%) 

·         Pending:                                                  6 (12%)

Total    49 (100%)

The meeting went through the action plan page by page.

Aim (i), key objective (i)(a) - (2)  progress for delivering savings – Councillor Sartin noted that was on target – was this right as it was also down as not yet due. Councillor Chris Whitbread said that as this related to the budget, it was a job that had been done. Councillor Sartin noted that this was for quarter 3 not 4 but noted that is was bound to the budget.

Aim (i), key objective (i)(b) - (2) commence Phase 2 of the Council Housebuilding programme – Councillor Sartin noted that this was marked as ‘achieved’ but also as the ‘works continue’. The Director of Neighbourhoods said that this related to a point in the original programme that was marked as achieved.

Aim (i), key objective (i)(c) – (3) Estates colleagues to include use of the in-house building control service in their standard negotiations – Councillor Sartin asked why this had not been achieved. The Director of Neighbourhoods said this may be due to the fact we had received further legal advice which we were investigating; he would take this on advice and report on the position at quarter 4.

RESOLVED:

1)         That the Committee reviewed the  Q3 progress in relation to the Corporate Plan Key Action Plan for 2016/17 and commented on any actions arising from the Key Action Plan for 2016/17, that required in-depth scrutiny or further report on current progress.

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

On 19 December 2016 this Committee received a presentation from Officers from the London Underground (Transport for London) on aspects of the Central Line and other underground services. During this meeting they had promised to provide updates on various topics that had been brought up at the meeting. This report contained the latest information they had provided for us.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the recent updates received from TfL on various matters that they had undertook to provide further information on.

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

The meeting received an update on their previous request to Essex County Council Highways, to attend a meeting to respond to any concerns in respect of local Highway services and infrastructure.

The County Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, Councillor E Johnson had now advised the committee that it could raise relevant questions of members and officer of the County by using any the means listed below:

a)         If members wish to submit detailed questions, the County Council will ensure the provision of a comprehensive written response to such matters;

b)         A delegation from the Committee could attend County Hall on a Tuesday during February or March 2017 (from 12.00 midday to 1.00pm) to raise appropriate matters with the Cabinet Member;

c)         In the medium term, as a process of education and engagement with districts and parishes, Essex Highways are about to start the roll-out of a programme of engagement to discuss issues, where members have an opportunity to understand the service and ask questions (it is suggested that Epping Forest could be one of the earlier districts to receive a visit in the schedule).

These options were presented to the committee and their views sought.

Councillor Murray noted the difference in the approach of the College that had a bad Ofsted report and the Highways service that were one of the poorest services and did not want to be scrutinised. We would like them here to be scrutinised. What were our County Councillors doing to improve our service?

The Democratic Services Manager noted that officers had made repeated efforts to get them to attend as had the Chairman of the Committee. He also noted that under option ‘c’, county was about to pilot this with two authorities in Essex during March and was then willing to offer us as the first choice after this.

Councillor Bedford asked if the Council could use the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act to elicit answers from County, but he was warned against using this as a tool by the Council’s FoI officer, Mr Tautz.

Councillor Chris Whitbread said that he appreciated the problems with this. It was important to have a face to face meeting with highways and would recommend that we had a delegation (option ‘b’) and that he would be happy to attend.

Councillor Stallan agreed with Councillor Whitbread and also proposed that we ask our County Councillors to attend the meeting.

The Chairman asked members of the committee to indicate by show of hands if they were in favour of option ‘b’ arranging a delegation to go to County Hall. A majority of members were in favour of this. The Chairman noted that we would only be given an hour’s slot.

Councillor Wixley was not sure about having a delegation and would like to know what happens to any complaints made about the highways.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse noted that the Highways Panel’s budget had been cut back and so it had lost its influence.

The Director of Neighbours, Mr Macnab  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

The Chairman noted that the meeting arranged with Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust had been cancelled at short notice as a result of ‘operational pressures’. The Trust has now confirmed that their Chairman and Chief Executive would both now attend in the new municipal year and has provisionally arranged to come to the June 2017 meeting.

The County Council’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) had undertook its own scrutiny of PAH’s improvement plans at its meeting on 8 February 2017. Councillor Gadsby is an ECC appointee to this committee and was also representing the views of Epping Forest District Council.

Councillor Gadsby provided a short report, attached to these minutes, on the deliberations at the HOSC meeting.

Councillor Mohindra informed the committee that PAH had been given permission to do an outline business case for future use of the site. Central Government has not give them enough funds to move to a new site. At present PAH were looking to different methods to bridge the funding gap and may be coming to Local Authorities with this.

Councillor Patel noted that there was a 20% vacancy at PAH. The hospital needed a stable staff team, how were they going to address that 20% vacancy. Councillor Mohindra noted that they were looking to ‘beef up’ their research programmes and had about 200 research programmes going on within the hospital, which was good and added that the staff there now were safe.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse noted that the hospital was running at a 95 to 99% capacity. No service could be run at this capacity for any length of time. PAH also runs part of the St Margaret’s in Epping, which was important on the financial side, the service provision side and maybe one of the options to take some pressure of PAH was to boost the community side at St. Margaret’s. Did this come up in the discussions and if not we should take an interest in it. Councillor Mohindra said that the actually land was owned by NHS Property rather than the Trust. And, the reason for the high occupancy was that there was no beds available in social care or nursing homes.

(Director of Governance) The Cabinet’s forward plan of key decisions is reviewed by the Committee at each meeting, to provide an opportunity for scrutiny of specific key decisions to be undertaken over the period of the plan.

Wherever possible, Portfolio Holders will be in attendance at meetings of the Committee to present their forthcoming key decisions, to answer questions on the forward plan and to indicate where appropriate work could be undertaken by overview and scrutiny on behalf of the Cabinet.

The Committee considered the Cabinet’s Key Decision List for February 2017. They noted that it was still a legal requirement for local authorities to publish a notice in respect of Key decisions that it proposed to make at least 28 days before that decision was made. The Committee were invited to identify any particular issues which were of concern.

Environment Portfolio

The Portfolio Holder for the Environment reminded the Committee that Bobbingworth had been a nature reserve for some time and was well worth a visit. He noted that the current contract for machinery for this site had now come to an end.

(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 developed as required, to ensure that the work flow of overview and scrutiny is continuous. When necessary, the Committee will allocate items from the list appropriately, once resources become available in the work programme, following the completion of any ongoing scrutiny activity.

Members can put forward suggestions for inclusion in the work programme or reserve list through the adopted PICK process. Existing review items will be dealt with first, after which time will be allocated to the items contained in the reserve work plan.

(c)          New Work: PICK Form

Decision Required:

To consider the attached PICK form submitted by Councillor Patel concerning the Council’s Transformation Programme. Members are asked to consider how they would like this work dealt with. Would they like it to be considered by this Committee or go to an existing Select Committee or to set up a Task and Finish Panel.

(a)  Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Committee considered their work programme and noted the progress to date.

Item 3 – Scrutiny of Highways services - a way forward had now been identified at this meeting.

Item 5 – Corporate priorities and key decisions – will go to the first meeting of the new municipal year, in June.

Select Committees

Communities Select Committee

Councillor Patel asked why item 32, the review of the CCTV action plan had a question make next to it. The Democratic Services Manager said that he would find out.

*Subsequent to the meeting it was noted that the CCTV Strategy and Action Plan was reviewed in 2015/16 and the new Strategy runs up to 2022. This item has therefore now been deleted from the work programme.

Governance Select Committee

Councillor Janet Whitehouse asked about item 11, the petitions scheme and what was happening about it. The Democratic Services Manager replied that now the Council had a new Customer Services Manager, they would be looking at the scheme and would report back to the Select Committee early next year.

(b)  Reserve Programme

Noted that items 1, 2 and 3 will be worked into next years work programme.

(c)  New Work – PICK Form

The Committee noted the PICK form proposed by Councillor A Patel and supported by Councillor S Kane. Councillor Patel introduced the form and gave the background and reasons for his proposal to scrutinise the Council’s Transformation Programme. He suggested that a Task and Finish Panel be set up to review the current activity around the Transformation Programme.

Councillor S Kane noted that the Transformation Programme was a long term body of work not really suited to a short sharp review by a Task and Finish Panel. He suggested that his Resources Select Committee would be the ideal vehicle to scrutinise the programme on a long term basis.

Other Councillors thought that it may be suitable for a Task and Finish Panel to look at this but it was eventually agreed that it should go to the Resources Select Committee. Councillor S Kane the Chairman of the Select Committee said that he was happy to incorporate this piece of work into his work programme and thought to start with a one item special meeting to establish terms of reference and other parameters. It may then be useful to establish a sub-group to continue looking at this on a long term basis. Councillor Patel was happy for the work to go to the Resources Select Committee.

RESOLVED:

That the work suggested by the PICK Form to review the Transformation Programme be given to the Resources Select Committee to scrutinise on a long term basis.

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

The Committee noted that the Government’s Communities and Local Government Committee had launched an inquiry into overview and scrutiny in local government. The aim was to consider whether overview and scrutiny arrangements were working effectively and whether local communities were able to contribute to and monitor the work of local authorities.

The inquiry will examine existing overview and scrutiny arrangements and consider what changes may be needed to ensure local decision-makers are better held to account.

The Committee agreed that officers should respond to the inquiry being undertaken by the Communities and Local Government Committee. The closing date for the receipt of a written submission was 10 March 2017. It was agreed that the response should be agreed by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that the text should be put in the Members Bulletin for information.

RESOLVED:

(1)  That a reply should be sent in response to the Government’s Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into overview and scrutiny in local government; and

(2)  That the response should be agreed by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the text published in the Council Bulletin.

(Director of Governance) To receive questions submitted by members of the public and any requests to address the Committee.

(a)       Public Questions

Members of the public may ask questions of the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee at ordinary meetings of the Committee, in accordance with the procedure set out in the Council’s Constitution.

(b)       Requests to address the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Any member of the public or a representative of another organisation may address the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on any agenda item (except those dealt with in private session as exempt or confidential business), due to be considered at the meeting.

It was noted that there were no public questions or requests to address the committee.