Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Coulton and Mrs Woollard.

Councillors Michael Green and M Tomlinson declared personal interests in item 5, as members of Lancashire County Council. Councillor Otter declared personal interest in item 5, as a member of Lancashire County Council and of its Pensions Committee. Councillor K Jones declared a personal interest as an elected governor of the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Councillor Martin declared a personal interest in items 5, 6, & 7 as an employee of Lancashire County Council. All were able under the Code of Conduct for Elected Members to take part in the discussion and voting thereon.

Further to min. no.24, the Chairman stated he had raised the matter of Delegated Decision 795 with the Chief Executive and received an assurance it would not happen again.
RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
The minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.
?

The committee considered the list of matters arising from the last and earlier meetings. It agreed to remove them from the list, except:

12/08/14 - Scrutiny Review of External Communications - Final Progress Report ? min. no.13 (6 ? e-learning) ? to clarify whether this had actually been actioned.

It was agreed that the committee informally discuss further the following with the appropriate Cabinet member:

12/08/14 ? Scrutiny Review of Health Inequalities - Progress Report ? min. no.15 (2).

23/09/14 ? Worden Park Vision Plan ? min. no.21 (2-7).
?

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Mrs M Smith (Leader of the Council) and Councillor Hughes (Cabinet member for Strategic Planning & Housing) and Denise Johnson (Director) to the meeting.

The Leader explained that whilst she sat on the City Deal Executive, the project was largely within Councillor Hughes? portfolio. These were lengthy documents, including a working plan which contained timescales, delivery commitments and milestones. They were comprehensive documents covering a 10 year period. It was emphasised that this was only the first year. Over the last few months, there had been quite a lot of infrastructure activity in South Ribble. There had been highway works in Whitestake and on Penwortham Way, with minimal disruption and delivered on track. The City Deal project involved a lot of planning and co-ordination, and it was hoped that the improvements from the next works in South Ribble would be evident.

The Chairman confirmed the committee?s overwhelming support for the City Deal project (the only show in town). An ambitious project for South Ribble and Lancashire projected to create employment opportunities and deliver additional housing over the 10 year period. The committee was fact finding, and was interested how the project would be taken forward and the measuring of progress with milestones and outcomes. The Chairman referred to work programmes at Appendices 1-4 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2014/15. Councillor Mrs Smith commented that she understood the current works were scheduled to be completed in October/November 2014, whilst other larger aspects would not be for some months, but were on track. Councillor Hughes added that this council had a close working relationship with the county council and a number of highway works associated with the City Deal had started. Primarily were the county council already owned and/or had access to the land. This would develop as it gained permission to access/work on more land. It was a sign of commitment and not waiting for everything to be in place before starting the project.

The Chairman was keen to know how progress would be measured and monitored for any slippage. The Leader indicated that the City Deal Executive only met quarterly and received progress updates on aspects of the project against the timescales/milestones. She added that the Director frequently attended meetings on the project and was confident that if there was anything not on track it would be known. The Director added that there were regular monitoring reports sent to the government. These contained information on sites and highway sites with progress against milestones. These were also seen by the Executive Committee and the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership (LEP).

The Chairman referred to the governance arrangements on page 7 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2014/15 appeared complex and not particularly easy to identify who was accountable for what. The Leader indicated that Edwin Booth chaired the City Deal Executive which included representatives from the three original councils plus the LEP. She confirmed that the governance arrangements covered all aspects and some fed into each other. Whilst the City Deal Executive only met quarterly, the other bodies/working groups below met more frequently and drove the project. The Leader accepted it was a complicated system but the governance arrangements were fairly tight with the City Deal Executive taking an overview producing a statement once a year. Whilst all fed into this, it was not overloaded and appreciate it was a 10 year committee. Councillor Mrs Smith commented that of the 20 projects that had entered the same City Deal tranche from around the country, the City Deal in Lancashire was the only project to be signed. This brought together a collection of bodies including the Home & Communities Agency (with its land bank) and ensuring that monies stayed in the area and were not transferred to Whitehall.

The Leader commented that the next schemes in the project were being mapped out. The Director added that the next plan would be for a three year period. This would involve feeding through the governance arrangements, shaped by the projects team and projects board and signed off by the City Deal Executive. There was a lot of work and discussions yet to take place, including what should be included for the next three years, such as highways and/or see something in the communities.

The Director gave an overview of the general management arrangements involving the work schedule and milestones, keeping the Cabinet member informed, monitoring progress through the project team and feeding into the City Deal Executive. If anything was off track it would be flagged up. Meetings/discussions with interested groups and partners were held weekly or more often. These relationships had matured after the City Deal had been signed. Whilst not stating there had been no snags the Director confirmed that the project was progressing well against the milestones. The Cabinet member for Strategic Planning & Housing added that the project had started at a pace faster than things could happen which would be sustained whilst the three year plan was developed. This grouping of bodies had been pulled together in a relatively short period. It was a good homogenous group that wanted to move forward. The LEP kept an eye over the project. The system would evolve over time, as would the roles of this committee and the Governance Committee. He asked that if it was felt there was something missing then make comments/suggestions. As this was the first project, there was no other model.

The Leader confirmed that the project relied on the accelerated delivery of housing development over the 10 year period. Whilst the council was currently receiving a lot of planning applications she would make sure the council had the resources to cope with the work. The Director added that there had been a review/re-structure of the service which had reviewed current posts/vacancies and workloads and created new posts. There had been an up skilling in the service. The planning enforcement had been strengthened to ensure it had the capacity to deal with the additional development. Also housing?s strategic links with planning had been strengthened. The Leader added that when implementing the review of the council?s senior management, if needed monies would be made available to create posts lower down in the organisation.

The Cabinet member responding to an enquiry if there was a penalty if this council fell behind delivering its share, commented that the City Deal bodies were not identified individually.

Councillor Mrs Smith in respect of how guaranteed was the New Homes Bonus (NHB) if the government changed its mind or there was a new government, commented that there had been discussions earlier in the process around ?what happens if?. Government Ministers had a vested interest in the City Deal. She accepted that in May 2015 the NHB could disappear (done its job), the council had been conscious of this and taken a leap of faith. If NHB disappeared there would be more discussions with government, it had signed for a 10 year plan. The council and partners were committed to the plan and would press for an exemption.

The Leader responding to an enquiry regarding dialogue with health service providers commented that the City Deal process had always tried to be as inclusive as possible. The accelerated housing development would have an impact on health and educational services in Preston and South Ribble. The South Ribble Partnership had discussed this at length. As indicated earlier the next three year plan would not be solely infrastructure but also look at community aspirations. There would be discussions with all partners affected, including the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust. The Director added that the City Deal accelerated the provisions of the Local Development Framework (LDF). As part of that process health bodies were consulted, such as Chorley & South Ribble Health and Well Being Partnership, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust, Lancashire Care and local Clinical Commissioning Groups. Discussions were ongoing how to progress and take forward the accelerated provisions of the LDF.

In respect of the City Deals impact on schools and the shortage of places in South Ribble, the Leader indicated that education had not been part of the original City Deal plans but there had been subsequent discussions. The Director added that education had been identified and discussions were developing with the county council but were as yet not resolved. Councillor Mrs Smith added that the City Deal put together infrastructure and housing and how that was funded with subsequently what the community wanted. Over the next three years what communities would receive would come to light with monies through the NHB and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) but the cost of schemes such as to dual Farington Bypass was enormous.

Referring to the ?11m for education infrastructure, the cabinet member commented that discussions between South Ribble, Preston and the county councils were still at a relatively early stage. The City Deal compressed the original 15 year forecast into 10 years and it wold provide monies to do that. Land was allocated for new schools in the local plan and budgets needed to be compressed to align with the City Deal programme and whilst there might be issues these would be discussed as a group.

The Leader confirmed that the concept of a Central Park had grown out of this council?s desire to create a green swathe in the centre of South Ribble protected from becoming housing land. The Central Park would not be attended to like a traditional park such as Worden Park, and it was not included in the City Deal as it was something this council had wanted to do. It had no financial impact on the City Deal. Councillor Hughes added that the Central Park had to be established in the context of the local plan and in planning law. Councillor Mrs Smith commented that the council had sought external expertise and consultation would be held, the council was committed to the concept which might take 15 years (more or less).

Councillor Mrs Smith confirmed that the City Deal had not affected this council?s relationship with Chorley BC. The Cabinet member referred to the Joint Planning Advisory Committee which consisted of South Ribble, Chorley and Preston councils and the county council. It had been decided to invite Chorley (non-voting) to City Deal so it was aware of activity.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that
1. Councillor Mrs M Smith (Leader of the Council) and Councillor Hughes (Cabinet member for Strategic Planning & Housing) and Denise Johnson (Director) be thanked for their attendance and responding to the committee?s comments and enquiries;
2. the committee acknowledges that this is an exciting project affecting South Ribble and the wider Central Lancashire area;
3. as the project develops
a) the committee will liaise with counterparts at Preston City Council and Lancashire County Council; and
b) there will be areas the committee will want to monitor, such as the impact/progress/success of schemes and overall governance arrangements;
4. the committee welcomes the comments that impacts on health and education provision/services will be taken into consideration as the project develops; and
5. the committee looks forward to being involved as the project progresses and develops over the next 10 years.
?

Councillor Mrs M Smith (Leader of the Council) remained present and was joined by Susan Guinness (Head of Shared Financial Services) and Ian Parker (Director (Monitoring Officer)).

The Leader was pleased to present the mid-year report (April-September 2014) which it was hoped the committee found clearer, briefer, more punchy and easier to read. She felt it was a very positive report, which included in respect of efficiency targets the council was moving in the right direction, there was investment in streetscene, the parks? Green Flags had been retained and the creation of a new Central Park which would hopefully soon be at the planning stage. The Chairman agreed it was easier to read. Although he referred to an earlier comment and requested the next Corporate Plan contained a SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) approach to measurements. He also agreed that it was a positive report in terms of the Top Twelve listed on pages 3/4.

In respect of a reduction in the number of fixed penalty notices issued and successful prosecutions, the Leader felt it was not just the provision of more litter bins or sweepers but also there had been a significant reduction in the number of complaints to Gateway. The council had continued to push education very hard which included giving talks in schools. It was sometimes found that people had a mind-set change. She felt the borough was getting better but there was still scope for improvement. Enforcement would be used as and when felt appropriate and/or necessary. Councillor Mrs Smith confirmed that there was always more that could be done to educate and increase people?s pride in their area etc. Further thought could be given to a new campaign using the council?s Forward newspaper more effectively (such as emphasising where successful).

The Leader also commented that whilst there might have only been one article in the last four issues of Forward, the newspaper?s editorial group considered articles submitted by the council?s service areas (such as to highlight a topic/change or meeting a statutory requirement). There was no reason litter could not be featured again, but not too often to become repetitive. Councillor Mrs Smith was happy to discuss this topic (litter and the cost) at the next Forward Editorial meeting. She was also open to look at the feasibility of a joint campaign with such as the parish councils and the use of Twitter.

Regarding affordable housing, Councillor Mrs Smith stated that whilst the council might grant a development planning permission containing affordable housing, it had no control of when those properties would be built. The chairman commented that it was anticipated there would be 400 properties over the next 10 years. The Leader added that whilst the council generally looked for 30% of properties to be affordable on a development of 14 properties or more, sometimes a site might just contain affordable housing. The council?s Planning Committee had recently granted planning permission to a few sites containing affordable housing. She added that it had been extremely difficult to achieve the target during the recession and at this stage with the City Deal felt that the target was not necessary.

The Leader in respect of the production of a health strategy (topic 11 on page 4) commented that the council was not the health authority (this was the county council) to take this forward. Although the Director of Public Health had commented that South Ribble did more than it needed to. The council took any responsibility with health very seriously. It was understood the strategy?s five year plan was on the Chorley & South Ribble Clinical Commissioning Group?s website. It was offered to send a copy to the committee to see how it might want to take the matter forward.

The Leader confirmed that whilst a possible tenant for the Civic Centre had previously been identified discussions were still on-going and reflected in the rental income shortfall. The building was still being marketed but she was unaware of new interest.

The Cabinet member for Strategic Planning & Housing (in the audience) responded to comments about the Building Control fees deficit. Whilst this had reduced over last few years, the main problem had been a lack of development (planning applications and constructing buildings). The council had trimmed the service and tried separate partnership arrangements with both Chorley and Preston councils. The shared service aspect was the management post the other officers were South Ribble staff. It was noted that the market was steadily changing and optimistic the deficit would reduce further.

Councillor Mrs Smith acknowledged the current Capital Programme underspend commenting some spending was phased, subject to timing or work in progress and some tender came back lower than expected. The council would not spend monies it did not need to. She was confident that the majority of the programme would be spent by the end of the year. The Director (Monitoring Officer) added that events/circumstances often changed after creating a profile for a replacement, such as advances in technology that were not available at the start that enabled savings.
Responding to an enquiry about a possible threat to non-statutory services, Councillor Mrs Smith referred to the high cost of leisure services. The Leisure Partnership still a number of years to go and the council worked very closely with its partner and had managed to produce efficiency savings and lower the cost of leisure. The council?s vision of a Central Park was also non-statutory but was felt to be important (health & wellbeing/feeling better). The council budgeted to retain those services it felt were really important.

In respect of efficiency found from the senior management review and capacity to deliver priorities, the Leader referred back to earlier comments and that two senior managers had retired and those remaining had had their roles re-defined. The subsequent efficiencies were then available to increase capacity lower down the organisation and gave freedom to re-design/re-structure service areas to meet challenges, such as from City Deal.

The Director (Monitoring Officer) responding to an enquiry about the ?20,000 under achievement of efficiencies in legal and democratic services, stated that whilst legal had been reviewed, democratic services would not be reviewed until after the forthcoming borough and parliamentary elections.

The Leader confirmed that during the remainder of the year (6 months) there were still opportunities to improve the efficiencies. The Director (Monitoring Officer) added it was felt this could include the projects for administrative support, ICT and base budget review.

Councillor Mrs Smith confirmed the council had an excellent record in delivering efficiency savings whilst not having a crystal ball of future eventualities. However, the council constantly looked at different ways of working, always looking at achieving efficiencies. Every post was reviewed when it became vacant. The council was not expecting a favourable financial settlement in 2015, if there was a budget gap, it would need to look at further efficiencies and had good reserves which it could use to balance the budget at the end of the day.

The Director (Monitoring Officer) confirmed that the transitional employee budget saving had been key and given the council the scope/leeway to look elsewhere and enabled democratic services to be left at its busiest time.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that
1. Councillor Mrs M Smith (Leader of the Council) and Susan Guinness (Head of Shared Financial Services) and Ian Parker (Director (Monitoring Officer)) be thanked for their attendance and responding to the committee?s comments and enquiries;
2. the committee welcomes the good progress being made and the forecast for the remainder for the year;
3. the committee requests in future that the Corporate Plan contains SMART targets with more robust indicators;
4. the committee recommends a joint publicity campaign to keep the borough tidy, using such as the Forward newspaper and social media;
5. the committee requests that the referenced Health Strategy be presented to a future meeting;
6. the committee looks forward to the Building Control deficit to continue to decrease;
7. the committee requests careful monitoring of progress of items/expenditure in the Capital programme to minimise underspend; and
8. the committee welcomes the efficiencies achieved to date and anticipated further efficiencies being achieved during the remainder of the year.
?

(a) Update on Scrutiny Review of Drainage and Flooding ? there would be a further meeting before the task group?s report was finalised.

(b) Update on Scrutiny Review of Welfare Reform ? would meet tomorrow and intended to present its report to the next meeting of the committee.

(c) Update on newly created Task Groups: Ageing Population and Road Casualties & Deaths
- Ageing Population - would meet on Friday
- Road Casualties & Deaths ? the county council?s scrutiny committee had declined to be involved in the review

(d) Verbal update on Lancashire County Council's Health Scrutiny Committee ? the Chairman confirmed he attended the recent meeting on 7 October 2014 whose discussions had included public health actions to address the economic downturn.

(e) Member feedback on meeting and training attended on behalf of the committee ? the Chairman had attended a meeting of the NW Strategic Scrutiny Network, whose discussions had included appointment of chairman and vice-chairman and receiving a talk from Greater Manchester?s Police & Crime Commissioner.

(f) Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Plans
The committee noted its Forward Plan. In respect of the Cabinet Forward Plan, the Chairman stated that for the meeting to be held on 5 November 2014, he had been consulted on and agreed to, the item relating to Corporate Personal Computer (PC) Replacement now being exempt from press and public.
?