Rother District Council

Transcription

1 Rother District Council OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMIHEE l8april2ol6 Rother District Council Minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held at the Town Hall, Bexhill-on Sea on Monday 18 April 2016 at 5:30pm. Committee Members present: Councillors I.G.F. Jenkins (Chairman), G.C. Curtis (Vice-Chairman), A.K. Azad, Mrs M.L. Barnes, R.K. Bird, G.S. Browne, J.J. Carroll (ex-officio), S.H. Earl, RV. Elliston, K.M. Field, Mrs B.A. George, T.W. Graham, B. Kentfield, D.B. Oliver, P.N. Osborne, J. Potts, C.J. Saint and G.F. Stevens. Other Members present: Councillors C.A. Clark, Mrs J.M. Hughes and M.R. Watson. Advisory Officers present: Executive Director of Resources, Service Manager Finance and Welfare, Service Manager Community and Economy, Service Manager Corporate and Human Resources, Neighbourhood Services Manager, Contracts Manager (in part) and Democratic Services Manager. Also present: Katy Thomas, Team Manager Economic Development East Sussex County Council, Stephen Frith, Commercial and Technical Support Broadband Delivery UK, Stacey King, Regional Partnership Director BT Group South East and 2 members of the public. OSC15/48. MINUTES The Chairman was authorised to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 14 March 2016 as a correct record of the proceedings. OSC15/49. APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs S. Hart, Mrs S.M. Prochak, E.K.L. Rowlinson and the Executive Director of Business Operations. OSC15/50. (5) SUPERFAST BROADBAND ROLL-OUT The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Katy Thomas, Team Manager Economic Development of East Sussex County Council (ESCC), Stephen Frith, Commercial and Technical Support of Broadband Delivery UK and Stacey King, Regional Partnership Director of BT Group South East who proceeded to give a presentation and general overview on the roll-out of Superfast Broadband across the Rother district. ESCC had appointed BT as their delivery partner to help ESCC roll out faster broadband over three years until mid The 34m project 1

2 was being funded by ESCC, central Government, through their delivery arm Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) and BT and was essentially an infrastructure investment programme. The funding was being used in areas that were too expensive for the private sector to upgrade, and comprises both rural and urban Exchanges in the County every Exchange in East Sussex was included. The current project would cover an area of 660 square miles and over 66,500 premises. The project would not physically connect users to fibre broadband but would provide the technology through which residents and businesses could contract with retail suppliers of their choice to buy broadband services, in the usual way. During the presentations the following key points were noted: ESCC the Government Targets for UK superfast coverage were 90% by 2016, 95% by 2017 and 100% access to 2mbps by 2015; ESCC s plans for the Rother District were investment in all exchange areas (some local authorities were only investing in some); target coverage 35% at the end of Contract 1 (June 2016) and a further 1,200 premises covered by end of Contract 2 (end December 2017); the roll-out plan for Contract 2 was currently unknown but would be published as soon as possible, probably towards the end of July; whilst some infrastructure may appear to be in place, connection to the cabinets may be some time after; and as at 31 December 2015, commercial coverage was complete (63%); project coverage 36% (over target); overall Superfast coverage 85.5% and superfast coverage in the project area 76%. BT four out of five people in the UK could access superfast broadband (more than 23 million via BT s network); BT had committed to work with the UK Government, local government and devolved administrations to get to 95% of the UK; in East Sussex there was 96% fibre coverage (87% in Rother), 479km fibre laid, 332 fibre cabinets, 10 Fibre to the Premises clusters and Fibre to the Remote Node pilot; BT was innovating to go further and faster with superfast broadband and was looking at a range of new technologies to provide the service and other ways of trying to address problems, particularly in the hard to reach rural areas; and in areas that were outside existing programmes and plans communities could approach BT who would provide a free, no obligation quote for delivery of a superlast broadband service; the community funded 50% of its contribution at contract signature, and 50% upon completion. Following the presentation, Members had an opportunity to put forward questions and the following points were noted during the discussion: the speed of connection was dependent on the distance between properties and the serving fibre cabinet; this was because fibre was 2

3 connected to the new fibre cabinet (DSLAM) and then the signal was carried over the existing copper lines back to the premises. Speeds slow down over long copper lengths and, so, some premises would unfortunately not be able to benefit immediately from the fibre upgrade; through the new contract signed in June, BT would be working to overcome some of these issues in order to improve speeds; it was acknowledged that with a Government target of 95% coverage for superfast broadband there was an inevitable 5% across the UK who would never receive an upgrade due to the complexities of location and business case; Members who represented rural areas of the district expressed concern at the current poor service which effected the rural business community as well as residents and was one of the most common complaints made to them; improved communication with communities as to when they could expect an improved service would be helpful; coverage to industrial estates on the Hastings fringe were also considered poor; the outcome that was going to be achieved for East Sussex would be the second best in the whole of the UK it was a wide and complicated project and would take time to roll-out; BT Openreach was a completely separate company to BT and sold the open retail network to any service provider such as Talk Talk, Sky etc.; BT were not treated any differently than other providers; rural residents with a poor or non-existent service felt that they were already financially contributing through ESCC which in turn was being spent on a solution which would provide other residents with superfast broadband; and businesses were relocating out of East Sussex to areas where there was already good superfast broadband connectivity; improvements needed to be made quickly to ensure that businesses started up and remained in East Sussex. Stacey King, Regional Partnership Director of BT Group South East invited Members to contact her, via , with any queries or questions that they would like followed up. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chairman thanked the representatives from ESCC, Broadband Delivery UK and BT for attending the meeting and providing a comprehensive presentation. RESOLVED: That the presentation on the roll-out of Superfast Broadband be noted. (Councillor Earl declared a personal interest in this matter in so far as he was an elected Member of East Sussex County Council and in accordance with the Members Code of Conduct remained in the room during consideration thereof). OSC15/51. (6.1) CALL-IN AND URGENCY PROCEDURES The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Business Operations on the Call-In and Urgency Procedures. In accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Rule 17 (b) of the Constitution, 3

4 the operation of the provisions relating to call-in and urgency was monitored annually through a report submitted to full Council via the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC). The Call-In procedure was the mechanism by which the Council s OSC could challenge decisions made by the Executive that were not yet implemented. Thirteen Executive meetings had been held during the period of the report from 9 March 2015 up until 15 February The OSC had found it necessary to call-in only one Executive decision for further scrutiny and no decisions, within the approved budget and policy framework had been deemed and resolved as urgent. Members agreed that the call-in procedure was working satisfactorily in principle and it was therefore not considered necessary to amend the procedure. RESOLVED: That the report be noted and recommended to Council. OSC15/52. (6.2) PUBLIC CONVENIENCE CLEANING SERVICE Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director of Business Operations on the Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract. The current Public Convenience (PC) Cleaning Contract, jointly procured with Hastings Borough Council (HBC) and Eastbourne Borough Council (EBC), ended on 31 December There were currently 30 units on the PC cleaning schedule with a current annual provision of 183,900, an average spend of some 6,000 per unit. Whilst there was no specific provision for contract extension under the current Conditions of Contract it was recommended that an extension of the existing contract up to and including 31 March 2017 was made, subject to agreement with the existing Contractor, to avoid the difficult handover time/date of 00:00 on 31 December2016. The prospect of managing the cleaning service in-house had been considered but the necessary supervisory infrastructure and overheads and consumables made this difficult and value for money was better sourced in the open market; the Council had previously made significant savings and received an improved service when the service was originally outsourced. The private sector had options to run the Council s Contract alongside others to generate economies of scale, not only in management and labour, but also in providing consumables, fleet and equipment. It was noted that the current contractor managed the service by employing the labour force direct within the main towns / contract areas so that there was a responsive, local service. It was proposed therefore that the service was procured through open tender that would give a wide range of providers, including social enterprise, community interest companies and community groups as well a small and medium sized business and the larger operators, the opportunity to be considered. It was recommended that procurement of the services under contract was undertaken by the East Sussex Procurement Hub (ESPH). 4

5 Both HBC and Wealden District Council (WDC) had indicated their interest in becoming parties to the Contract, and at the time of preparing the report, WDC was on the point of clarifying its requirements but HBC was still in the process of considering options. The proposed extension period would enable HBC to finalise its position. EBC had decided to make its own arrangements with regard to PC and building cleaning and was not participating in any proposed tender. It was noted that as the Council s current policy of devolving a number of rural PCs to local communities was on-going, it was accepted that there may be a medium term commitment to maintaining public access to PCs until transfers and disposals were finalised. There would be a need to amend the cleaning schedules as and when units were devolved, rationalised or added. It was proposed to include provisions within the Conditions of Contract to amend the number of units on the Contract in a fair and equitable manner. There was no reason why arrangements could not be made for parish councils to pay the Council s contractor and retain any devolved PCs within the Contract Specification. The existing Specification (attached at Appendix A to the report) provided for each unit receiving a scheduled cleaning visit, either once, twice or three times a day, according to levels of use, with additional works to maintain standards during peak visitor periods at Camber and Rye. It was noted that the Specification had been amended to reflect the removal of Ticehurst and Broad Oak Park conveniences, following devolvement and additional cleans for Bexhill conveniences located at Channel View East, East and West Parades, Egerton Park and Devonshire Square due to an increase in visitor numbers. Some Members were disappointed at the current state of repair I condition of the public toilets but recognised the budget constraints and the wear and tear that the toilets were subjected to on a daily basis. It was noted that there was no requirement to have hot running water within public conveniences. The impact of the proposed uplift in service standards in Bexhill was expected to increase the Contract price by an estimated 8,000 to 11,000 per year. However, this would be offset by the reduction of the two transferred units by an estimated 6,000 per annum leaving the total estimated increase in the order of 5,000 per annum before other cost pressures, such as the national minimum wage and staffing costs were taken into consideration. It was recommended that the proposed new Contract ran for a period of five years from 1 April 2017, if the proposed extension was agreed, to 31 March 2022 but with the option to extend up to a further two years to 31 March This was considered to be realistic minimum period for Contractors to invest in suitable fleet, plant and equipment to enable competitive bids to be submitted. RESOLVED: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommends to Cabinet that the: 5

6 1) existing Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract with Specialist Hygiene Services Limited (SHS) be extended to 31 March 2017; 2) specification at Appendix A to the report for a new Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract commencing on 1 April 2017 be approved; and 3) Executive Director of Business Operations, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Resources and Value for Money, be authorised to enter into a procurement to secure public convenience cleaning services, in partnership with Wealden District Council and Hastings Borough Council as appropriate, and to return to Cabinet at a future meeting for approval to award the Contract. OSC15/53. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR (7.1) ENGLAND S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS - CONSULTATION RESPONSE Members gave consideration to the report of the Executive Director of Resources that set out the Local Government Boundary Commission for England s (LGBCE) draft recommendations for Rother District Council (RDC) and East Sussex County Council (ESCC). In order for the Council to meet the consultation deadline of 16 June 2016, it was necessary for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) to consider the recommendation of the Boundary Review Steering Group (BRSG) which had met on 5 April and recommend to Cabinet and full Council this Council s response to the consultation. The LGBCE had supported and recommended all of RDC s proposals as submitted in November 2015, save for minor amendments in relation to Hurst Green, Ticehurst / Salehurst and Robertsbridge, and Battle, Netherfield and Whatlington / Battle and Teiham, as detailed in the report. The BRSG had however recommended that the two proposed Battle Wards be renamed to North Battle, Netherlield and Whatlington and South Battle and Telham to define the areas more effectively. The BRSG had expressed some concern at the LGBCE s draft recommendations for consequential changes to parish electoral arrangements for Battle Town Council and lcklesham Parish Council; it was considered that the proposed changes (the merger of existing parish wards) took little regard of what worked locally and could be divisive for communities who felt underrepresented. A copy of lckelsham Parish Council s response to the consultation had been received and was circulated to all present; Councillor Mrs S. Hart had also requested, via the Chairman, that the OSC give due consideration to this matter, in her absence. It was noted that if Battle Town and Icklesham Parish Councils wished to retain the existing warding patterns they would need to respond to the LGBCE direct. RDC s position on the proposed warding arrangements for the District Wards had been agreed by the Council in November and as the LGBCE s draft recommendations were based almost entirely on the 6

7 Council s submission, the Council could only endorse the recommendations in respect of the District Ward boundaries. RESOLVED: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommends to Cabinet that the following response be made to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England s consultation on the new electoral arrangements: Rother District Council (RDC) welcomes the publication of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England s draft recommendations in respect of RDC electoral arrangements which in the main reflect the submitted RDC proposals and accepts the suggested amendments to the warding pattern proposals in respect of Hurst Green and Ticehurst and Salehurst and Robertsbridge and Battle. In order to define the areas more effectively, it is recommended that the names of the proposed two new Battle Wards be renamed as follows: North Battle, Netherfield and Whatlington; and South Battle and Telham RDC is also supportive of the proposals to the East Sussex County Council divisional boundary changes in relation to those within the RDC boundary. OSC1 5/54. (8) DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL Members received the draft Annual Report to Council as submitted by the Chairman, Councillor Jenkins. In accordance with Article 6, Paragraph 6.3 (d) of the Constitution, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) was required to report annually to the Council on their workings and make recommendations for future work programmes and amended working methods, if appropriate. The report covered the period from June 2015 through to the end of March 2016 and gave examples of the various subjects that the OSC had considered during this period as well as the in-depth scrutiny reviews that had been conducted. The Chairman thanked his Vice Chairman, Councillor Curtis and all fellow scrutiny Members for their contributions over the last 11 months. The Chairman hoped that should he be re-elected as Chairman, he would like to see more people called as witnesses to scrutiny who had a connection and experience of the issues being debated, the intention being to get a more rounded result and recommendation to Cabinet; this may result in agendas being less full; this was acknowledged and agreed by the Members present. Members were reminded that the informal annual work programming meeting had been arranged for Wednesday 25 May at 2pm and all non-executive Members had been invited to attend. At this meeting Members would give consideration to the items they wished to see 7

8 included within the Work Programme and to consider these with the Strategic Management Team and Service Managers in attendance. Both non-group Members Councillors Clark and Watson thanked the Committee for allowing them the opportunity to participate in the work of the Committee, either through inclusion on a working group or through attendance at meetings, even though they were not appointed to the Committee. Members had also benefitted from the provision of some good external overview and scrutiny committee training events throughout the last year and Members were keen to ensure that further enhancements were made to the scrutiny function as a result. RESOLVED: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee s draft Annual Report, be approved and recommended to Council. OSC15/55. (9) WORK PROGRAMME Consideration was given to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee s (OSC) Work Programme; in light of the informal annual work programming meeting taking place on Wednesday 25 May, no amendments or additions thereto were made. RESOLVED: That the Work Programme, as attached at Appendix A, be agreed. CHAI RY1AN ThrfIeeting closed at 7:16pm OSCl6O4l8jh/Ija 8

9 25 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Appendix A DATE OF COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME SUBJECT TIMINGS. Annual Work Programme 10 mins Monday Year End and Fourth Quarter Progress Report 13 June 2016 for the Annual Performance Plan mins. Housing Needs for Single Occupancy 20 mins Monday Car Parking issues across the district Sussex 60 mins 25 July 2016 Police [Minute OSC15/32 23 November2015] First Quarter Progress Report for the Annual 20 mins Monday Performance Plan September 2016 Revenue Budget and Capital Programme 20 mins reference from Cabinet, if any Monday Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016/17 to 20 mins 17 October /20 Revenue Budget and Capital Programme 20 mins Monday reference from Cabinet, if any 28 November 2016 Second Quarter Progress Report for the 20 mins Annual Performance Plan Monday Draft Revenue Budget Proposals mins 30 January 2017 Key Performance Targets 2017/18 40 mins Crime and Disorder Committee: to receive a 30 mins Monday report from the Community Safety Partnership 20 March 2017 Third Quarter Progress Report for the Annual 20 mins Performance Plan Call-in and Urgency Procedures 10 mins Monday Draft Annual Report to Council 10 mins 24 April 2017 Revenue Budget and Capital Programme 20 mins reference from Cabinet, if any ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chargeable Services Beach Hut Site Licences [Minute OSC15/43 14 March 2016] Corporate Plan Projects Update Leisure and Recreational Areas across the District [Minute OSC15/06 8 June Pest Control Service 2017 [Minute OSC1 5/36 January 2016] Tourism and Regeneration effects of budget reduction [Minute OSC15/06 8 June 2015] 9

10