BOROUGH OF POOLE
SERVICE PROVISION SCRUTINY AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
24 FEBRUARY 2005
The meeting commenced at 7.00pm and concluded at 8.35pm
Present:
Members of Committee:
CouncillorAllen (Chairman)
CouncillorBurden (Mayor) (Vice Chairman)
CouncillorsBelcham, Brooke, Eades (substituting for Councillor Clements), Gregory (substituting for Councillor Adams), Mrs Hives, Pethen, White and Wilson.
1.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adams and Clements, (with the above substitutions).
2DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following Members declared personal (non-prejudicial) interests.
Councillors Allen and Belcham, as members of the PHP Management Board.
3.MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2005 were submitted for approval.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2005 be approved and signed as a true record.
4.SENIOR MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
In relation to this item, the Chairman read out a statement from the Chief Executive:-
“the matter, which was raised under confidential business at Council on 14 December 2004, is still not resolved. The Chief Executive continues to liaise with the nominated group of Councillors and will report to this Scrutiny Committee as soon as a resolution is clear”.
RESOLVED that the above be noted.
- SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
Bernie Topham, Policy Director, gave a brief introduction to the Report, which provided Members with a Summary of Performance across the Service Units in their area, using the outturns from the Best Value Performance Indicators for 2003/04 for the Borough of Poole, and compared these with the top and bottom quartile performance for Unitary Authorities across the Country. The report also provided Members with a summary of the half yearly performance of Service Units for 2004/05.
The Chairman expressed concern that a number of Best Value Indicators had been deleted and questioned why this had happened, and questioned what had taken their place in order to make performance comparisons in the future as this was an extremely part of the Scrutiny Committee’s function. He also questioned whether the Authority could set their own local indicators. The Committee were advised that the Best Value Indicators that had been deleted, had been done so by the Audit Commission and were advised that Officers would undertake to carry out some work with the relevant Service Unit Heads regarding such areas with a view to reporting back to this Scrutiny Committee on the concerns expressed by Members.
In relation to BV106, “Percentage of New Homes Built on Previously Developed Land”, the Chairman stated that their needed to be better clarification regarding this issue and in connection with this, a Member made reference to recent discussions at the Local Economy Overview Group regarding this Performance Indicator, where it was stated that it was felt that the description of this Indicator was incorrect and the view was expressed that there should be a Local Indicator on real brownfield sites and not infill sites. Officers undertook to take these comments on board.
This Scrutiny Committee supported and endorsed the decision made by the Local Economy Overview Group.
In connection with the Best Value Performance Indicator regarding the percentage of employees retiring on grounds of ill health as a percentage of the total workforce, a Member stated that “absolute” numbers were required here in order to make this meaningful.
With regard to BVPI109B, “Percentage of Planning Applications determined in line with the Government’s new Development Control Targets to determine 65% of minor applications in 8 weeks”, a Member raised a concern at the position whereby decisions would be being sought before the statutory consultation period had expired. Members concurred with this view, stating that it was extremely important that the “right” planning decisions were made and it was felt that this matter warranted further scrutiny by this Committee. Officers undertook to investigate this further.
A Member requested further information on the timescales involved in reaching the target of “85” with regard to BV165, “The Percentage of Pedestrian Crossings with Facilities for Disabled People.” Officers undertook to provide this information direct to the Member concerned.
A Member stated that it would be useful for this Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the methodology behind what projects were selected for inclusion within Transportation’s Capital Schemes. Officers undertook to investigate this further.
A Member questioned how the implications of BVPI4, “The percentage of those making complaints satisfied with the handling of those complaints” was being addressed by this Authority. A Member advised the Committee that this was being dealt with through the Customers First Project.
RESOLVED that the Committee note the information contained within the Summary of Performance Report and the areas (as detailed above) be identified as areas for further consideration.
6.ANNUAL AUDIT MANAGEMENT LETTER
The Chairman commenced by stating that he had requested that this Scrutiny Committee consider the Audit Commission’s Annual Audit and Inspection Letter (2004). He introduced Chris Rockey, Audit Manager (Poole), who had been invited to attend this meeting for this item.
Chris Rockey, Audit Manager (Poole), commenced by stating that this was a positive Audit Letter which covered the CPA Improvement Report and also described the conclusions and significant issues arising from the Audit Commission’s recent Audit and Inspection work at Poole.
Members considered the Annual Audit and Inspection Letter in detail and made particular reference to the following areas:-
- Striving for Excellence – the five Excel Projects seen as key to this (Customer First, Full Sail Ahead, Schools for the Future, Poole Connects and Pride in Poole).
- Housing ALMO Inspection – success at “three star” rating, which meant that the Council would receive £8.75M additional capital funding to improve the quality of its homes.
- Good budgetary control measures in place.
- Risk Management – need for further development in this area.
(The Chairman made reference to the Risk Management Training Session for Members, due to be held on 8 March 2005 and encouraged as many Members as possible to attend this important session).
In relation to the above, a Member confirmed that the Council had now adopted a Risk Management Strategy as part of its Project Management Framework.
A number of Members raised concerns regarding the comments made within the Annual Audit and Inspection Letter regarding local transport. The Chairman advised that he had held an informal discussion with the relevant Portfolio Holder who would welcome this Scrutiny Committee addressing these issues/concerns further.
Therefore, it was proposed and seconded that a report be presented to the next meeting of this Scrutiny Committee, explaining further the local transport concerns contained within the Annual Audit and Inspection Letter. On being put to the vote, this was CARRIED.
RESOLVED that
(i)the comments made by Members be noted and actioned accordingly; and
(ii)a report be presented to a future meting of this Scrutiny Committee on the local transport issues/concerns raised within the Annual Audit and Inspection letter with a view to establishing the preferred way forward in effectively addressing these issues.
7.URGENT BUSINESS
Old Orchard
The Chairman referred to an issue that had arisen at a recent meeting of the Planning Committee regarding the Old Orchard site. He stated that Members had been given specific advice regarding a particular interest in the site and had then received further information to the contrary. In order to address this matter, it was suggested that this Scrutiny Committee scrutinised the “process” that led to the Officer recommendation at Planning Committee regarding the Old Orchard site. On being put to the vote, this was CARRIED.
RESOLVED that the above be noted and that this matter be reported to a future meeting of this Scrutiny Committee.
CHAIRMAN
1