Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Coulton, K Jones and Mrs Woollard.

Councillor M Tomlinson declared a personal interest in item 4 on the agenda because in his capacity as a County Councillor he was Lancashire County Council?s representative on the South Ribble Partnership.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.
?

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting, Claire Foreman (Partnership Chairman) and Howard Anthony (Partnership Manager). It had been a good year with numerous successes. Monies had been made available to community groups which had acted as leverage to bring in addition funds. The partnership had concentrated on small but high impact programmes. The report indicated their size and geographical spread. The partnership?s work was guided by the sustainable community strategy which was focused on five key priorities as shown on page 6 of the report. Also identified were the partnership?s priorities which included; impact of the City Deal, supporting the voluntary, community and faith sector (VCFS) and, Health: Care Close in the Home. Information on the key projects (south ribble VCFS network, better together in the home and,
co-location) was on page 12 of the report. In respect of the VCFS the partnership had recently appointed a support officer. The partnership chairman and manager subsequently responded to enquiries from the committee.

In respect of the make-up of the partnership, the partnership chairman commented that whilst BAe had involved along time, private sector members tended to be fluid and prefer something tangible to talk about and/or be involved in. For example the local skills and employment curriculum on page 16 of the report would dovetail into the Lancashire Economic Partnership but required a lot of private sector input. The core private sector membership was small but others were brought in when needed such as on project groups where their expertise could be used. The partnerships structure was shown on page 7 of the report.
Concerning partnership projects, the chairman confirmed that outcomes should be sustainable and were monitored using a BAe model. Using data from such as the NHS, education and the council, possible projects were identified where it was felt there was need/gaps. The partnership had previously had 27 priorities but needed to be able to deliver so there were now 3. These were assessed, such as how they were aligned to the partnership?s aspirations, updates were provided on how progressed using green/red faces. If necessary the strategic board would take appropriate action to get the project on track.

The partnership chairman confirmed that when a project was completed the return was not necessarily money. Whilst not specific, the partnership sought projects to be sustainable. The Home Project which provided funds to provide small home repairs sought to find mechanisms so this could be mainstreamed. Also, in respect of people falling at home, 75% were referred to an ambulance/hospital and the project was to reduce admissions. The project had reduced referral by 90% and now the NHS felt it was worthy of funding (prevention rather than a cure). The target of a 50% reduction on hospital admissions had been exceeded and now sustainability funding was being sought from the NHS/Ambulance Service.

Referring to the City Deal, the partnership aimed to ensure that City Deal delivered real benefit to local people, provided access to education, skills and employment with a strong vibrant community.

The partnership chairman commented that the partnership did not currently identify person(s) that might have fallen through gaps in service provision. A person currently needed to have had a service or some form of contact. The partnership manager commented a project group would be looking at the committee?s work on social isolation and loneliness.

It was confirmed that the partnership worked with the council?s my neighbourhood forums and at officer level they were closely aligned. As the partnership manager was in the same service area as the council?s community works team. There was always room to improve and the partnership was more than willing to work with the forums.

In respect of the community bids fund projects the partnership manager commented it was difficult to assess the impact of providing smaller amounts of funding. Although it had found those struggling to access ?100s and had difficulty completing the partnership?s form. On a rolling basis the aim was to improve/increase access with smaller amounts of funds available. It often then gave a gateway for those groups to apply for other sources of funds, ultimately bringing money into the borough. It was not felt there was an impact that the external officer funding post had ceased. That individual was now the manager who could still help with funding bid. He in turn was now assisted by the VCFS support officer.

It was confirmed that the partnership had embraced the use of social media (such as facebook/twitter) and this had raised its profile. Social media had enabled it to reach those people it would not normally engage with. The use of social media was growing and the partnership felt it would benefit.

The partnership chairman confirmed that since the completion of the south ribble cycling project, the scheme was still operational, albeit there might not be the mechanism to replace the cycles. Completed projects whilst no longer actively supported tended to be monitored for a further 12-18 months.

Following reference to the partnership?s financial sustainability, the partnership chairman
Referred to page 9 of the report. She indicated that if nothing was done the partnership budget would end in March 2017. Whilst the partnership might look at different ways of working/attracting income, it accepted that this date was getting much closer and it needed to look at this more seriously. If the partnership ceased after this date residents would see less pieces of work (projects) carried out, standards of the current reduce. However, the partnership chairman reminded those present that initially the partnership had started with no funds but still undertook projects. There was a view that the partnership need not be too concerned but funding/income had enabled the partnership to do more. The purpose was to bring together a interested people to address a particular gap/need/problem.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that
1. Claire Foreman and Howard Anthony be thanked for their attendance;
2. The committee commended the report and the answers to the committee?s questions;
3. the committee asks to be kept updated on the Co-Location Project;
4. the committee is interested in the Health Care Close to Home project and requests a report/information on the partnership?s targeting of non-users of services;
5. the committee also commended the partnership?s work and progress over the last 12 months; and
6. the committee feels the partnership should further consider and plan as a priority its future financial sustainability
?

Councillor Mrs M Smith (Leader of the Council) and Ian Parker (Director of Corporate Governance & Business Transformation) attended to present the report and responded to comments/enquiries from the committee. The report outlined the council?s performance from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015 against its Corporate Plan (measures of success/targets/key actions), budget and financial performance and risk management. This showed how the council was performing to ensure it was delivering on the key things that matter to the borough and ensure it continued to improve.

The Leader was pleased to present another positive report which included 20/22 key targets achieved, 88% resident and 98% customer satisfaction with the council, continued investment in frontline services, level of council tax frozen for fifth year and efficiency targets had been achieved or exceeded. The borough was now starting to see benefits from the City Deal and the potential added value over the next 10 years. The council had recently completed the procurement under budget (?600,000 pa) of a new waste management partner which went operational on 15 June. The council was making good progress on the creation on the new Central Park. Councillor Mrs Smith referred to Appendix A (page 1, key target 3) and that the figures for this target was still not available. The council?s level of sickness absence was pleasingly at its lowest figure (6.06 days). It was hoped that the two outstanding key targets would be rectified.

Following on from the committee?s comment last year, there was a request that when the corporate plan was reviewed/updated it be more SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound). Also that scrutiny had an opportunity to feed into the process.

The committee was advised that the percentage satisfaction figures were based on those people who had contacted the council (for whatever reason) through its contact centre (Gateway). These were rolling figures compiled and monitored monthly, which could be audited.

In response to the committee?s enquiry relating to the achieved target about 3* national food hygiene rating scheme, it was informed that this target was aspirational.

In respect of the revised lower target of 80% for the waste service the committee was advised this was because as previously mentioned the council had a new partner delivering this service from June 2015.

The Leader commented that the figures relating to community safety were the responsibility of the Community Safety Partnership. Whilst some figures such as burglary might increase, there were quarterly meetings with the police who had no concerns about community safety in South Ribble.

Councillor Mrs smith clarified that the support provided to businesses (Appendix 1, page 2, target 8) was in a number of ways. It could be website access economic development leaflet, breakfast meetings, businesses come together/networking, start-up meeting (sponsored by Leyland Hotel), information on available premises, and giving advice on assistance to get business going.

The Leader confirmed that the council would be taking a more aggressive approach to the letting of vacant corporate assets. She added that the responsible Cabinet member (Finance & Resources) was planning to move this forward. She understood there would be quite some marketing in forthcoming months.

Whilst the target for delivering affordable housing was exceeded, the Leader commented that the council?s delivery had been affected by the recession and reduction in the level of house building. Which was despite a target policy of 30% of development sites being affordable houses. She was pleased to report that over the last 12 months granted planning permissions should deliver a further 200 affordable houses. The council was actively working on increasing the number of affordable units on the Hulmes Mill site. There was currently a lot of activity in the borough but not over the previous 12-18 months. Other sites that were being progressed were the former Gas works site, Lostock Hall and Wesley Street Mill, Bamber Bridge, which were large development sites. The council was reliant on the house builder. Although accepting this, this council was reportedly the 2nd worse in Lancashire for the delivery of affordable housing and it was wondered what other district councils in the county had done to deliver more.

Councillor Mrs Smith confirmed that progress was being made with the respective parties concerning the Gas Works site which need the completion of The Cawsey. In hindsight, the infrastructure should have been in place before development was permitted. It was hoped the City Deal would assist in taking this forward. In respect of the Wesley Street Mill site, the Leader commented that there were about four land deals that needed to be completed contemporaneously. It was hoped outstanding matters could be resolved fairly quickly. The council wanted to be able to complete these sites and move forward.

In respect of dog fouling, the figures for prosecutions (Appendix 1, page 9, key action 5) were not felt to reflect what members saw in their areas. The Leader was amazed that some people were so irresponsible and still allowed their dogs to foul. The council was looking at this. In particular enforcement had been identified as a key priority for this year?s business transformation work programme.

Whilst an under spend of ?500,000 was welcomed in the short term it was quite significant on an overall budget of around ?12M. The Leader confirmed that the savings were largely one-offs and was sure the Governance Committee would scrutinise the budget in detail. The council had a history of dealing on the way with one-off issues such as VAT and Iceland. The business rate retention levy was also a significant figure to be paid to government. In respect of the latter, this ?250,000 was against a business rate collection figure of ?38M. It was very difficult to forecast this and an increase in collection had resulted in the government?s levy. This levy was catered for in the council?s reserves. The Leader commented that the financial information provided to the committee was basically intended for the Governance Committee and had been provided to aid consideration of the year end performance report.

In respect of the preserved right to buy receipts (?1.056M) the Leader stated that the council was looking how this might be utilised such as possibly the Hulmes Mill site. There had been a number of schemes previously looked at but the builder had eventually taken over and this money had not been used.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the committee thanks the Leader and the Director of Corporate Governance & Business Transformation for their attendance and answering the committee?s questions;
2. the committee congratulates the Council on its performance during 2014/15 and the significant efficiencies achieved;
3. when available the committee looks forward to receiving the waste and recycling figures for 2014/15;
4. the committee asks in respect of the revised Corporate Plan
a) that it is SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound); and
b) that it is presented to the committee at draft stage.
5. the committee welcomes the Leader?s assurance and update that a new strategy is being developed to fill the council?s empty property assets;
6. the committee requests this council learns from other councils in Lancashire to try and increase the amount of affordable housing,
7. the committee requests an update be provided on the land acquisition at Wesley Street Mill;
8. the committee welcomes the news that enforcement activities are being reviewed in this year?s business transformation programme and requests more detailed information on dog fouling incidents; and
9. the committee looks forward to receiving an update on the future use of the preserved right to buy earmarked receipt and that it be involved in the council?s development of options and solutions.
?

The committee received the Cabinet member for Regeneration & Leisure?s responses to the committee?s Scrutiny Review of Drainage and Flooding.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the committee appreciates the responses by the Cabinet member for Cabinet member for Regeneration & Leisure to the review?s recommendations.
?

The Chairman informed the committee that this item had been withdrawn and the Cabinet?s response would be presented at a future meeting of the committee.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the withdrawal of the Cabinet response to the Scrutiny Committee?s recommendations be noted and, looks forward to receiving Cabinet?s response to the recommendations.
?

a) Verbal update on Lancashire County Council's Health Scrutiny Committee ? Councillor Martin who had attended the recent meeting informed the committee that the discussion been largely about concerns about the NW Ambulance Service?s level of 999 responses below target. It was understood a large number of calls related to ?falls? and apparently many care home did not have a lifting policy for residents and used the ambulance service for this. Another issue was the amount of ambulance hours lost during patient handover at hospital. Member of the committee were reminded minutes of this meeting had previously been circulated.
b) Member feedback on meeting and training attended on behalf of the committee ? the Vice-chairman referred to the committee?s useful training session last week. She also mentioned that four members of the committee were scheduled go on a course for chairmen, which would be useful for task group meetings.
c) Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Plans ? the committee noted the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee Forward Plans.
?