Agenda and minutes
PDF 61 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Jisa Prasannan or Huma Younis
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from David Wood, Colin Taylor and Graham Ellwood.
Nick Harrison substituted for David Wood.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 16 January 2013
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. 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 (15 March 2013). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (14 March 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.
|
|
|
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 informed that the Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) had responded to an item bought to Select Committee on 16 January 2013. It had been agreed that where the Communities Select Committee feel the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) should be challenged on an issue, there should be a method by which this can be bought to the attention of the PCP. To support this process the Panel has agreed that a standing item be added to future agendas of the PCP to allow formal consideration of any matters referred from the Communities Select Committee, or the Local Committees of the Boroughs and Districts. A response to the item had also been received from the office of the PCC. The Committee agreed to note that both responses were satisfactory.
2. The Committee was asked to note that consideration of the cultural services strategy had been postponed until after the elections as the strategy was still being drafted.
3. The Chairman informed the Committee that the item looking at the recommendations for Epsom & Ewell and Reigate & Banstead emergency response cover had been added to the agenda given the interest on the issue shown by the Committee at its last meeting.
4. The Chairman asked Members of the Committee to let the Scrutiny Officer know of any items they would like considered for the Forward Work Programme for the coming year. The Committee was asked to note a list of possible future items for scrutiny in 2013/2014 included in the papers.
Recommendations:
None
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
A response is included following recommendations made to Cabinet on 5 February 2013. Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. It was noted that a Cabinet response to the Select Committee’s recommendations on Extracting Value from Customer Feedback had been received.
2. It was noted that the Cabinet generally welcomed the Committee’s recommendations. The Head of Customer Services would be addressing the Committee’s recommendations in a report to Cabinet in September 2013. The Committee agreed to continue monitoring this issue very closely and for it to be added to the Forward Work Programme.
|
|
|
SCRUTINY OF FINALISED MID TERM FINANCIAL PLANS AND EXISTING DIRECTORATE STRATEGY
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets
Following the Directorate-level allocation of budgets agreed by Council at its meeting on 12 February, Select Committees are invited to review the distribution between services within their remit and make recommendations (as appropriate) to the Cabinet when it considers the Medium Term Financial Plan on 26 March. The Select Committee are also invited to review the existing directorate strategies relevant to their remit with an opportunity to confirm if they are still valid and/or recommend new areas forinclusion for when the revised strategies are drafted. This report sets out financial information and Officer commentary to assist the Select Committee in drawing up its recommendations.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Yvonne Rees, Strategic Director for Customers and Communities
Mark Irons, Interim Head of Customer Services and Directorate Support
Russell Pearson, Head of Fire and Rescue, Chief Fire Officer
Peter Milton, Head of Cultural Services
Ian Treacher, Trading Standards Policy and Operations Team Manager
Jane Last, Programme Manager and Lead Manager for Community Safety and Partnership
Kay Hammond, Cabinet Member for Community Safety
Liz Lawrence, Head of Policy and Performance
Andy Tink, Senior Principal Accountant
Toby Wells, Deputy Head of Youth Support Service
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman outlined that prior to the County Council considering the budget in February 2013, the Communities Select Committee had a budget workshop in November 2012 to help understand key budget pressures, proposed allocation and spend within the directorate and input into the thinking at this stage. Now the County Council have agreed to the proposed budget, the Select Committee are being given a detailed account of the MTFP, to give Members the opportunity to discuss any issues they feel need to be drawn to the attention of Cabinet. The Chairman also explained that the Committee were considering the Customer and Communities Directorate priorities which were in the process of being refreshed.
2. The Strategic Director for Customers and Communities explained how the Directorate priorities for last year had been revisited in order to see what was still relevant and where there was room for improvement when considering draft priorities for 2013/14.The priorities had been revisited, taking account of changes at the local and national level. The Strategic Director informed the Committee that she understood the need for both the Directorate and the Council to respond to such changes in order to have a comprehensive set of priorities going forward.
3. The Committee was briefed by the Strategic Director on the priorities for 2013/14.The key differences for 2013/14 included removing delivery of the Olympic experience but still recognising the lasting impact of the Olympic legacy. Although the Public Value Review (PVR) for the Directorate has come to an end, the Directorate would continue to look for improved effectiveness and efficiencies. The Committee was informed that the Directorate had refined the Customer Services priorities in order to increase resident engagement and drive forward Customer Services excellence. The Strategic Director expressed the view that the Health agenda was significant when considering the priorities for 2013/14. The Strategic Director also noted that domestic abuse remained in the priorities and was an issue the Committee may wish to consider more closely.
4. Members queried what Services were doing to improve resident engagement, The Interim Head of Customer Services and Directorate Support explained how the Service had adopted a new framework. When considering the framework the Service had placed an importance on trying to understand who the customer was and training staff so they were better aware of this. The Customer Excellence Standards framework tests organisations to see whether they meet the required standard put in place. If organisations meet this ... view the full minutes text for item 82/13 |
|
Purpose of report: Policy Development and Review
Cabinet is due to make a decision about changes to the emergency response cover in the boroughs of Epsom & Ewell and Reigate & Banstead on 26 March 2013. The Communities Select Committee is asked to review and endorse the proposals. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Russell Pearson, Head of Fire and Rescue Service, Chief Fire Officer
Ian Thomson, Area Manager - Operational Assurance, Fire & Rescue
Sarah Mitchell, Strategic Director for Adult Social Care
Kay Hammond, Cabinet Member for Community Safety
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman of the Committee introduced the report, stating that the public consultation regarding the changes to the emergency response cover in Epsom & Ewell and Reigate & Banstead had been undertaken. A report with recommendations had been produced by officers which will be taken to Cabinet on 26 March 2013 for a decision.
2. A Member of the Committee raised concerns over the public consultation, which they felt had not been conducted thoroughly enough. A Member expressed the view that there had been a lack of publicity around the consultation. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety stated that originally the consultation period was to end in February 2013. However, because the need to engage with the public was a high priority and as there was a high level of interest in this matter, this was extended to March 2013. Drawing upon the Consultation report, the Cabinet Member for Community Safety explained how the public had been consulted extensively through a number of different arenas including surveys and public meetings.
3. The Head of Fire and Rescue Service added that the timetable for the consultation and proposed changes were a direct result of West Sussex Fire and Rescue Authority’s decision to relocate their fire engine at Horley and terminate their agreement to provide cover in that area.
4. A Member of the Committee raised concerns over where the second fire engine in Epsom & Ewell and Reigate & Banstead would be located. The Head of Fire and Rescue explained how a number of sites were under consideration. Meetings were taking place with the Property team to discuss proposed sites but legal issues meant the process was taking longer than expected. The Head of Fire and Rescue stated that the service was committed to keeping Members informed of proposed locations for the new fire stations.
5. Some Members commented on the length of the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) which accompanied the report. Some felt that the Assessment was very long and questioned the amount of officer time which had been spent putting the EIA together. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety stated the importance and critical nature of EIAs under statutory guidance.
6. Some Members of the Committee raised concerns over the number of residents who may be at higher risk in a fire situation as a result of the proposed changes and queried the accuracy of some of the data in the EIA. Questions were also raised over the links between areas of deprivation and higher fire risks. The Head of Fire and Rescue commented that every effort had been made to compile accurate data for the EIA. The Head of Fire and Rescue agreed to invest resources in capturing any issues that may have been missed. ... view the full minutes text for item 83/13 |
|
|
SCRUTINY OF THE SURREY YOUTH JUSTICE STRATEGIC PLAN
Purpose of report: Policy Development and Review
The Youth Justice Strategic Plan is produced annually to meet the Council’s obligations under the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 and is submitted to Cabinet for approval. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Toby Wells, Deputy Head of Youth Support Service
Kay Hammond, Cabinet Member for Community Safety
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Deputy Head of Youth Support Service introduced the report and explained the ‘Restorative Justice’ approach. The approach looks at working with those directly affected by crimes, rather than going through the legal justice system. The approach can be quicker and enables the victim to better understand what has happened to them. Rather than excluding the offender, the approach brings them back into the community. The ‘Restorative Justice’ approach has reported greater levels of satisfaction by victims and lower levels of reoffending.
2. Members of the Committee expressed their satisfaction with the ‘Restorative Justice’ approach and the work of the Youth Support Service. Some Members went onto say that although the Youth Support Service was providing support for young people from the age of 13they felt intervention was needed at a younger age. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety explained that 4 years ago Surrey had a fragmented Youth Service, but all the services had now been integrated into a Youth Support Service. The Committee was informed that the Youth Support Service had a Youth Engagement Scheme in place which aimed to prevent offending at a young age. Local Committees also had the opportunity to put money into schemes which aim to prevent offending at a young age.
3. The Committee raised a question as to how the Restorative Justice Approach links into the Surrey Police Crime Commissioners ‘zero tolerance’ agenda. The Deputy Head of Youth Support Service commented that the Police Crime Commissioner’s approach was not to ignore bad behaviour but to challenge it where necessary. It was commented that the Restorative Justice approach was about challenging bad behaviour and challenging why crimes were committed in the first place and what could be done to prevent these from happening in the future.
4. The Deputy Head of Youth Support Service recognised that parenting was a factor in young people offending. The Youth Support Service was looking into risk and protective factors, for example alcohol abuse and further investing in youth groups.
5. Members raised concerns over lower level offending statistics for young people in Surrey, especially in regard to anti-social behaviour. TheDeputy Head of Youth Support Service stated that a great deal of Government focus and resource was being put into anti-social behaviour. There were more concerns over adults receiving Anti Social Behaviour Orders rather than young people.
6. Members of the Select Committee raised concerns over the branding of the ‘preventative service’ for young people and the negative connotations this had and whether or not this could be rebranded as a ‘support service’. The Deputy Head of Youth Support Service made note of Members’ comments and explained that this would be something the Service would consider to change in the future.
7. The Committee recognised that Surrey had one of the lowest levels of offending in the country but ... view the full minutes text for item 84/13 |
|
|
THE GOVERNANCE OF SURREY'S COUNTY SPORTS PARTNERSHIP
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
To inform members about the review of Surrey’s County Sports Partnership and seek views on the opportunities for future development to secure best use of resources at a sustainable cost to the Council. Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Martin Cusselle, Head of SOLD (Surrey Outdoor Learning and Development)
Campbell Livingston, Partnership Manager- Active Surrey
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. On 12 July 2012, the Communities Select Committee was briefed on the purpose of Surrey’s County Sports Partnership (CSP) and asked for a further report addressing the Council’s future governance options for sport in Surrey.
2. Members of the Committee commented that it had been suggested in the previous report provided to the Committee that Surrey’s CSP wanted to move towards independent governance, while the current report to Committee suggested retaining the hosting arrangement by Surrey County Council. The Head of SOLD said the team had been doing work nationally and with stakeholders, to look at the benefits of independent governance arrangements. Overhead costs had been estimated at £50,000 -£60,000 for the CSP to run independently, and this had informed the decision to remain under the governance of the Council. The Head of SOLD informed the Committee that Sport England were the prime funding body and any overhead costs and capital required for change would need to come from them.
3. Members of the Committee raised concerns over the new Executive Board that had been set up to oversee the CSP’s performance. The Head of SOLD commented that 9-10 people sat on the board, with representatives from SCC, strategic groups in Surrey and 5 open places which would be open for election. People who sat on the board would be elected or chosen through a skills based approach. The intention of which would be to involve a wider range of stakeholders. The Committee asked for further detail regarding charitable body status and whether this would be a future possibility. The Partnerships Manager for Active Surrey commented that taking on charitable status would utilise more staff time thereby reducing frontline delivery, but also recognised that taking this approach could increase sponsoring opportunities.
4. Members of the Committee commented on the £150 million ‘sports premium’ funding for primary schools which would provide all schools with 17 or more primary aged pupils a lump sum of £8000 plus a premium of £5 per pupil per year. The Committee asked Officers if they had any influence on how these funds could be used. The Partnership Manager for Active Surrey stated the plan going forward would be to approach Primary Phase Councils and directly approach schools with information on the various options available to schools such as teacher training, buying in coaching providers or sharing of resources between schools.
5. The Committee questioned whether Option A was the unanimous view of the Review Group and whether the CSP had an alternative plan if for example the Council could not continue with its current hosing arrangements. The Head of SOLD confirmed there was 100% support from the Executive Board and stakeholders for Option A, and that that Option A did not prevent the CSP from choosing Option B or C in the future.
6. The Committee ... view the full minutes text for item 85/13 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Minutes: TBC |