Agenda and minutes
PDF 48 KBVenue: The Council House, Burcot Lane, Bromsgrove. View directions
Contact: Michael Carr Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
apologies for absence Minutes: No apologies for absence were received.
|
|
|
Declarations of Interest and whipping arrangements Minutes: No declarations of interests or whipping arrangements were received.
|
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the Overview Board held on 1st September 2009 were submitted.
RESOLVEDthat the minutes be confirmed as a correct record.
|
|
|
The Communications Strategy Review 2009 Additional documents: Minutes: The Overview Board considered a report of the Assistant Chief Executive on the 2009 Communications Strategy Review of the Council. The Baord was asked to consider any immediate recommendations for its further development for submission to the Cabinet on 4th November 2009 and to identify the key linkages of the strategy to the proposed Scrutiny Board Task Group on Improving Residents’ Satisfaction.
The Assistant Chief Executive introduced the report and summarised the development and review of the Communications Strategy. He explained that the Communications Strategy had been originally written in 2006 and was reviewed annually. He noted the link between the Communications Strategy and the Improving Residents’ Satisfaction Task Group due to be considered by the Scrutiny Board. He was of the view that the Communications Strategy would help to further improve residents’ satisfaction and noted that although residents’ satisfaction needed to be further improved it was not very low when compared to other councils’ performance in this area.
Questions and comments were received from Members of the Overview Board. It was recognised that the Communications Strategy of the Council could be even further enhanced if there were resources available but that this was not possible in the current financial context. The Assistant Chief Executive indicated that the implementation of the strategy was a “long game” of delivering the key messages to residents through stealth and cost effective targeted delivery mechanisms.
It was highlighted that Bromsgrove (BDC) and partner agencies ran stalls in town centres focused around popular events and there was a Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT) information bus, which engaged directly with residents in community centres. It was pointed out that elected councillors also have a role in engaging in a two way dialogue with residents and building a positive relationship with the public. It was proposed that more focus be given on communications to local neighbourhoods, including communities outside the town centres, including schemes such as the stalls at popular community events and similar initiatives to the BDHT bus, to ensure that BDC communications reached all sections of the community across the District.
The Assistant Chief Executive pointed out that a lot of the complaints received by members of the public were built on misinformation, and were often satisfied through a proper dialogue and corrective information. The Executive Director of Services pointed out that a lot of communications work was defensive in nature, responding to bad press or incorrect information.
The idea of a “fridge magnet” or other handy, easy to read quick reference guide summarising the key contact numbers for Council services was considered, but it was thought that the costs would not offer value for money. It was nevertheless pointed out that the advertising of key dates of events and services (e.g. refuse collections dates) would be very useful for many residents.
It was proposed that there should be delivery mechanisms to relate key messages to local residents at key times of the year, e.g. when residents received their Council Tax bill. The Assistant Chief ... view the full minutes text for item 33. |
|
|
Implementation of the Civil Parking Enforcement proposals Minutes: The Head of Street Scene and Community updated the Overview Board on the implementation of the Civil Parking Enforcement proposals and the agency agreement with Worcestershire County Council. He advised that a proposed agency agreement had been sent to the County Council and that the Council was awaiting a response. The agency agreement governed the way in which funding and income generation from parking enforcement worked. When an agreement had been reached with the County Council over the agency agreement, BDC would be able to put together a business case for parking enforcement in the District. It was anticipated that that this would take about 12 months, taking into account the negotiations over the agency agreement with the County Council, putting together a business case and rolling out the service provisions.
Questions and comments were received from Members of the Overview Board to the Head of Street Scene and Community. He was asked how many other district authorities in Worcestershire had followed a similar path, to which he responded that he knew of four that had and two that had not. He felt that the problem with the current arrangements was that they were ambiguous in some important respects as to the responsibilities of the County Council and this could be very costly to the District. Members were informed that it was necessary to reach an agreement and clarification on the allocation of responsibilities and the resultant costs so that a proper robust business case could be put together.
The Head of Street Scene and Community was also asked if he had communicated with the other authorities that had reviewed their agency agreement with the County Council. He replied that he had and that the BDC needs from such an agreement had been identified. Advice had been taken from other district authorities on the prospects for income generation, but there was a need to have an agency agreement that suited the particular needs of BDC. The business case would run over a 5 year period and it was anticipated that after 3 years BDC should anticipate a return on its investments.
In response to a query as to whether the parking enforcement strategy was District wide, the Head of Street Scene and Community responded that it was, but that the town centres were inevitably the focus of much of the parking enforcement measures as these areas were where the problems were.
With regards to the workings of parking enforcement, Members were informed that most of the parking restrictions were already in place, including signage and road marking. It was noted that the County Council were ultimately responsible for highways and therefore restriction measures on the highway.
During the discussion it was suggested that there was a need in some wards for residential parking and that consideration should be given for the introduction of residential parking schemes in some parts of the District. In response, Members were informed that when the agency agreement had been agreed it would be possible to ... view the full minutes text for item 34. |
|
|
Verbal update on progress of the Older People Task Group Minutes: This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Overview Board.
|
|
|
Forward Plan of Key Decisions 1st November 2009 to 28th February 2010 Minutes: Members of the Board gave consideration to the Forward Plan which referred to the key and non-key decisions which were due to be made by the Cabinet during the period 1st November 2009 to 28th February 2010. The Chairman asked Members of the Board if they wished to consider any items from the Forward Plan.
Some items from the Forward Plan were considered but it was clarified that those items were already scheduled on the Scrutiny Board Work Programme.
|
|
|
Anticipated reports due to be considered by the Cabinet from March 2010 Minutes: Members of the Board gave consideration to the anticipated reports due to be considered by the Cabinet from March 2010.
|
|
|
Report from the quarterly meeting between the Leader and Chairman of the Overview Board Minutes: The Chairman gave a verbal report back to the Board on a recent meeting between the Chairmen of the Overview Board and the Scrutiny Board and the Leader of the Council. The Chairman reported that the Leader was very positive and generally very encouraged by the approach taken so far by the Overview and Scrutiny boards and that the Leader had been highlighted the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) as a potential area for scrutiny. It had been agreed with the Leader that the LSP was an important body for Overview and Scrutiny as it brought together local partnerships and local organisations, including the council and that Overview and Scrutiny could play an important role in improving the effectiveness of partnership working. The Chairman reported that the Chairman of the Scrutiny Board had also briefed the Leader on the progress and anticipated timescales for the scrutiny investigation into Hot Food Takeaways, which was due to report to the Scrutiny Board on 24th November 2009. |
|
|
Overview Board Work Programme 2009-2010 Minutes: Members of the Board considered a report of the Head of Legal, Equalities and Democratic Services on the Overview Board Work Programme 2009-2010. The report presented the new Overview Board Work Programme arising from the Overview and Scrutiny Work Planning Workshop held on 6th October 2009 and outlined the process and rationale for the Overview and Scrutiny Work planning process for 2009-2010. The Chairman introduced the report, outlined the process that had been followed to develop the work programme and explained that the topics selected and prioritised by all Overview and Scrutiny Members had been allocated between the Overview Board and the Scrutiny Board. The topics for the Overview Board were listed in priority order on the updated Overview Board Work Programme for final agreement.
The Chairman invited the Board to identify any key evidence, witnesses or site visits they would like to include as part of the Overview Board investigations, so that this could be planned out. The Bromsgrove Planning Policy topic was discussed and the Executive Director of Partnerships & Projects explained that the planning peer review group was due to report within about a fortnight. It was considered that it would be a good idea to receive the report of the peer review as evidence to consider this topic and to invite a member of the peer review group to attend the Overview Board. The Executive Director of Partnerships & Projects explained the peer review process and advised that four representatives from the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) had visited the Council from 13th – 15th October to review the planning service. Their brief included; the relationships with elected councillors, the relationships with customers and the interpretation of policy. This was not an inspection but a detailed independent review. The review body would report back and deliver recommendations that would inform an action plan. It was also suggested that members of the Planning Committee also be invited to the Overview Board when it considered this topic on 5th January 2010. It was explained that this topic had been linked to licensing because many of the same issues were perceived to be involved in relation to licensing.
The proposed Task Group topic on Community Involvement in the Democratic Process was discussed. The Head of Legal, Equalities and Democratic Services explained that this topic could include some important duties of the council including the duty to promote local democratic arrangements, the duty to involve residents, consultation on the new executive arrangements and options and Democracy Year running up to the 2011 elections. It was reported that the Head of Legal, Equalities and Democratic Services was due to meet with the proposed Chairman of the Task Group on 11th November 2009 to advise on the technical and operational aspects of the topic and the approach for the Task Group investigation. It was suggested that the voice of the general public / local residents should somehow be considered as part of the evidence for this topic. Councillors Mrs J. M. L. ... view the full minutes text for item 39. |
|
|
Overview Recommendation Tracker Minutes: The Board considered the Overview Board Recommendation Tracker, a report to monitor implementation progress against recommendations approved by Cabinet. The Board noted those recommendations that had been reported as implemented.
|