Agenda and minutes
PDF 136 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Jisa Prasannan or Andrew Spragg
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Mike Bennison, Graham Ellwood, David Ivison and Colin Taylor.
Margaret Hicks substituted for Mike Bennison and Simon Gimson substituted for David Ivison.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 14 NOVEMBER 2012 & 21 NOVEMBER 2012
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: There were no declarations of interests. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (10 January 2013). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (9 January 2013). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions.
|
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
To provide feedback from Cabinet on issues and comments raised by the Communities Select Committee at its meetings on 14 November 2012 and 21 November 2012.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key Points Raised During The Discussion
1. It was noted that three responses had been received. These responses were in regards to: the Cultural Services Public Value Review (PVR), The Community Partnership PVR, and the Call-in meeting on 14 November 2012 of the decisions pertaining to investment in a proposed Magna Carta Visitor Centre.
2. The Committee welcomed the comments made in the Cultural Services PVR Cabinet response.
3. The Chairman outlined that there were still concerns regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Localism Task Group and the relationship this shared with the Community Partnerships PVR. Further details were provided when the Committee reviewed its Recommendations Tracker.
4. The Committee was provided with an update with regards to the proposed Magna Carta Visitor Centre. The decision had been taken by Surrey County Council not to invest £5 million. This decision had been made following a consideration of the business case, and the current financial pressures faced by the County Council. The Committee was informed that the Council was still committed to celebrating the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta.
5. Members welcomed the decision not to invest in the proposed visitor centre. The view was expressed that the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta was important, and that there would be no wish to constrain innovative approaches to how this anniversary is celebrated in Surrey.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was asked to note that the scrutiny of Trading Standards’ Annual Report item had been deferred from March in the Forward Work Programme (FWP). This item would be brought before Committee following the May 2013 elections. The proposals for the Cultural Services Strategy had been added to the FWP as an item for 21 March 2013.
2. The Chairman informed the Committee that a discussion had been held at the Council Overview & Scrutiny Committee (COSC) regarding the Community Partnerships PVR recommendations, and that there were still concerns that the recommendations made by the Localism Task Group were not being fully considered. The Chairman of the Communities Select Committee and the Chairman of COSC would meet with the Leader and the Cabinet Member to discuss these concerns. An update would be provided to the Committee following this meeting.
3. The Committee was informed that the outstanding recommendations in relation to the Fire & Rescue Advisory Group (FRAG) had been completed. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety had shared information regarding FRAG with the Communities Select Committee, and the Members’ Reference Group had been disbanded.
Recommendations:
None
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Select Committee Next Steps:
None. |
|
|
SCRUTINY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND THE ELECTION OF A POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR SURREY
Additional documents: Minutes:
Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Gordon Falconer, Senior Manager, Community Safety, Customers & Communities.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman outlined that the report on the scrutiny of the Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) had been requested following the election of a Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Surrey. Under the current legislation the County Council had a responsibility to scrutinise the CSPs on a regular basis. This had been undertaken by the Communities Select Committee on previous occasions, through an annual meeting with the relevant partners to examine the CSPs. The Select Committee would then issue recommendations following this meeting. The election of the PCC had meant that some consideration would need to be given as to the role the PCC and Select Committee shared in scrutinising the CSPs. However, the requirement for the Committee to scrutinise CSPs continues.
2. The Committee was informed that the report had set out a number of proposals about how the scrutiny arrangements around the CSPs could be carried out in the future. The Chairman explained that following the report he had requested a further note from Democratic Services with more specific recommendations. This note was shared in the meeting and is included as an appendix to the minutes.
3. The Senior Manager for Community Safety, Customers & Communities informed the Committee that the PCC’s office had been approached for comment on the report, and the following response was received:
“We would share the view you reflect throughout – i.e. that the scrutiny landscape is complex, that we would want to avoid confusing the lines of accountability of the various parties and, where possible, reduce duplication of effort. The PCC has received a number of invitations already to borough/district O&S committees. However, our view is that the formal route of scrutiny is through the Panel and that any concerns from O&S Members could be fed through their panel representative, Leader, Chief Executive or CSP.
It will be interesting for us to hear the outcome of the committee’s discussions and whether they choose to invite the PCC. Another option might be to co-opt the PCC to the committee (which is permitted in the legislation) so that he could play a role in scrutinising the CSPs. “
4. The Chairman expressed the view that although having the PCC as a co-opted member of the Communities Select Committee was an interesting approach, it would present a conflict of interests if the Committee wished to call the PCC as a witness in relation to the CSPs.
5. Members stated that they felt the PCC was active in his role and praised his engagement with the community. However, it was felt that there needed to be a lapse of time to see how the processes embedded in respect of the relationships between the various bodies involved in CSPs. The creation of the PCC’s Police and Crime Plan would create a greater clarity over the strategic direction of the PCC and its relationship with the CSPs. The scrutiny ... view the full minutes text for item 70/13 |
|
Purpose of report: Policy Development and Review
The second action plan in support of the Public Safety Plan is currently under consultation. This process includes a review of the 2 year action plan for 2011-13 and also the proposals for a 3 year action plan from 2013-16. This report provides an overview of progress against the first action plan and also details the intended actions and targets for the second action plan.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None. However, Simon Gimson informed the Committee that he was a member of the Fire & Rescue Advisory Group (FRAG).
Witnesses:
Gavin Watts, Area Manager Operational Development Paul Carey-Kent, Senior Finance Manager, Change & Efficiency Sarah Mitchell, Strategic Director for the Fire & Rescue Service
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman of the Select Committee observed that there were concerns that a number of the savings outlined in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) were considered “red risk” by the Fire Service. It was explained that these savings were reliant on a number of changes related to shift-patterns and the movement of resources. The question was raised as to how these savings would be made if the changes could not be made.
2. The Strategic Director for the Fire & Rescue Service explained to the Committee that the savings required of the Fire Service presented a challenge in the current economic climate. However, there was work being undertaken to look at how the Service could operate differently. This included a number of opportunities for income generation but also considered new skills and career development paths for staff.
3. The Committee was informed by officers that the Public Safety Plan and the savings it outlined were predicated on a number of changes in relation to shift-patterns and properties, these changes were in the process of being implemented and were considered time-critical. The intention was to ensure that the on-call contracts were finalised by the end of the year, and this would allow for the implementation of the whole-time duty system. The Committee was told that the Fire Brigade Union was supportive of the changes.
4. The Strategic Director expressed the view that any changes within the Fire Service relied on a successful relationship between the Service and its staff, and that they were looking at how Fire Services in other authorities had managed change in order to find effective ways of implementing the proposals.
5. The Committee was informed that various innovations were being considered in relation to income generation. It was felt that the partnership with the Isle of Wight Fire Service had proven successful, and work was currently in place to consider how collaborative partnerships could assist with making savings in areas such as procurement. The Committee raised a question regarding the potential income generated from delivering training. Officers informed the Committee that the possibility of this was being explored and would be developed in the future.
6. The Senior Finance Manager, Change & Efficiency outlined that the savings set out in 2012-2017 MTFP had not been met due to issues with the timing of the changes required. However, it was the case that these had been reviewed for the 2013-2018 MTFP. The Committee was informed that the plan had taken into consideration the key drivers in making future savings and the revised plan had a realistic set of expectations around when savings would be achieved. This included phasing the property savings over three years, and ensuring that ... view the full minutes text for item 71/13 |
|
|
EXTRACTING VALUE FROM CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
Purpose of report: Overview of Customer Services.
This report describes how customer feedback is captured; how it is shared with stakeholders; how it is used by Customer Services; and its potential for improving service delivery, informing policy and strategy and new ways of delivering services that align with customer expectations.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Mark Irons, Interim Head of Customer Services and Directorate Support
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was presented with a report outlining how customer feedback was currently gathered and used by Customer Services. The Chairman introduced the report by saying that he was concerned that the report indicated that customer feedback was not being used regularly in policy development. The Committee went on to discuss this and expressed support for using customer feedback within policy development. It was highlighted that it was an invaluable resource and that it could be used to inform a wide number of initiatives.
2. The Interim Head of Customer Services stated that the Customer Service Excellence Framework was intended to take a more systemic approach to using customer feedback. It had been implemented in Shared Services and the response from officers had been positive, saying that the framework provided a useful means of ensuring customer feedback was being used regularly.
3. The Committee discussed the Contact Centre’s role in collecting and responding to customer feedback. One Member stated that residents had reported that they felt they were being kept from speaking directly with the relevant officers. The view was expressed that more could be done to track and feedback on complaint resolution, particularly when Members were acting as a mediator. It was stated that part of the work around the Customer Service Excellence Framework would ensure that the complaint resolution information was being captured and fed back more effectively.
4. The Committee discussed the need to ensure that complaints data was being regularly scrutinised. It was felt by the Committee that any such form of scrutiny should be undertaken in a public forum. It was highlighted that complaints data is shared with Members via a quarterly report available on the Member’s Portal.
Recommendations:
a) that this report should be drawn to the attention of the Cabinet to consider the appropriate course of action to address the highlighted concerns.
The Cabinet may wish to consider:
i. how the Council could be better shaped to ensure customer feedback is routinely used in policy design and service delivery;
ii. in line with the Leader’s initiative “Think Councillor, Think Resident”, what arrangements could be put in place to assure Members and residents that public concerns are being noted and used by the Council; and
iii. periodically examining customer complaints and feedback at Cabinet meetings.
b) That Customer Services undergo the evaluation process to achieve the Customer Service Excellence Standard as outlined in their report.
Action by: Nigel Bartlett-Twivey
Actions/Further Information to be Provided:
None.
Select Committee Next Steps:
None. |
|
|
OUTCOMES-BASED FUNDING FOR VOLUNTARY, COMMUNITY AND FAITH SECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE IN SURREY
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Mary Burguieres, Lead Manager for Policy and Strategic Partnerships, Policy & Performance
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games
Present:
Lavinia Sealy, Chairman of the County Council
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee queried whether all the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector (VCFS) infrastructure groups listed within the report had service level agreements in place with Surrey County Council. It was confirmed that this was the case.
2. The Committee raised a question as to the processes in place to address issues when outcomes were not being delivered against the performance frameworks in place.
3. It was recognised that the tripartite nature of the funding of VCFS groups required a common performance framework to be agreed by the three partners: Boroughs & District Councils, NHS Surrey and Surrey County Council.
4. The Committee was informed that a single set of outcomes and measures were in the process of being developed. These were being shared with the VCFS infrastructure organisations to ensure they are achievable. It was indicated that mergers would be a possible way of managing concerns about performance.
5. The Chairman of the Council praised the report particularly in respect of the level of consultations undertaken. She expressed some concerns regarding the next financial year, the Compact and its current level of funding. It was also highlighted that there was a need to reflect the different ways VCFS groups worked and engage more with partners. Officers informed the Committee that NHS Surrey had confirmed that they would maintain their level of funding in 2013/14 without any changes.
Recommendations:
That the outcomes-based approach to delivery of VCFS infrastructure in Surrey for 2013-14, which has been developed in discussions with the Portfolio Holder, the VCFS and partners, be endorsed.
Actions/Further Information to be Provided:
None.
Select Committee Next Steps:
The Communities Select Committee will receive a performance report on the implementation of the new VCFS framework in September 2013. |
|
|
OLYMPIC GAMES COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND LEGACY
Purpose of report: Policy Development and Review
The Select Committee is invited to consider the Cost Benefit Analysis of the work undertaken by Surrey County Council before and during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
This will be followed by a brief presentation and discussion on the legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Surrey. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest:
None.
Witnesses:
Rhian Boast, Programme Lead for Legacy Susie Kemp, Assistant Chief Executive
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games
Key Points Raised During the Discussion:
1. The Committee was invited to provide comments or raise any questions they may have in relation to the Olympics Cost Benefit Analysis report. It was queried what methodology had been used to calculate the figures in relation to generated income. It was outlined by officers that this was based on an industry-wide standard that had been used to calculate generated income for a number of other major sporting events in the UK. It was confirmed that the figures took into account what had been invested by the County Council.
2. Members asked whether the estimated staff costs included the costs of redeployment of staff from pre-existing roles. The Committee was informed that the figures in the report were for additional and short term staff, and overtime costs for staff working on the event day. The view was expressed that it would be difficult to quantify the comprehensive staffing costs for the games across the organisation.
3. Some Members raised concerns over the impact of the Olympics on the Council’s services, with particular reference to Highways and the delivery of its work programme. The Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games highlighted that the Council had made a commitment to deliver the Olympics events as part of their “business as usual”, and had done so with the limited resources available to worldwide recognition. It was also highlighted that the games were delivered in Surrey within budget, and had proven to be a big success. The Committee was informed that any outstanding highways works planned for 2012/13 were either underway or due to be undertaken, and had been budgeted for.
4. The Committee was delivered a presentation on the Olympic legacy and how Surrey County Council was intending to develop it. It was highlighted that the public response to the Olympics had been very positive, with over 500 resident’s providing feedback. Of these 500 responses only 4 were complaints. The Committee heard that a number of residents wished for Surrey to host similar events more regularly. Officers explained to the Committee that Surrey County Council intended to develop a strong lead in developing the Olympic legacy for the county with partners.
5. The Committee was informed that some key areas for improvement had been identified. These included a need for a greater co-ordinated focus between the different sectors involved, and a greater clarity as to the common objectives for those sectors.
6. The Committee heard that amongst the objectives for securing an Olympic legacy was developing Surrey’s economy, particularly its rural economy, encouraging a greater focus on health and well-being, seeking to host similar major events in the future, build vibrant communities, and focus on Surrey’s cycling infrastructure.
7. Officers outlined the intention to raise the profile of countryside tourism and the Surrey brand. It was ... view the full minutes text for item 74/13 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10am on 21 March 2013. Minutes: The Committee noted that the next meeting would take place on 21 March 2013 at 10am.
|