Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“This meeting will be webcast live to the Internet and will be archived for later viewing. Copies of recordings may be made available on request.

By entering the chamber’s lower seating area you consenting to becoming part of the webcast.

If you wish to avoid being filmed you should move to the public gallery or speak to the webcasting officer”

The Chairman reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

(Director of Governance) To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

There were no substitute members for this meeting.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 10 February 2015.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 February 2015 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Director of Governance) To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

There were no declarations of interest made pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct.

To receive a presentation from the County’s representative from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHs).

The Chairman welcomed Chris Martin (Integrated Commissioning Director (West)) and Christina Pace (Commissioning Lead, Essex County Council) to the meeting. They were representing the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and were there to give a presentation on the joint re-commissioning of emotional well being and mental health services for Children and Young People in Southend, Essex and Thurrock.

The Committee noted that the current services were delivered by a range of different organisations operating under multiple contracts, causing issues about access and consistency.

Now with national government plans to put in more funding, their new service model will be based on needs assessment and feedback from consultation with service users and partners. This highlighted the need for more integration and clearer access routes to services, especially for vulnerable people and for the consistency of the quality of service.

They were jointly commissioning one integrated service for the whole county for targeted and specialist mental health services. Any specialist services were to be integrated with this one service in order to meet demand and to support this universal service. There would be a single point of access for all referrals to the service, including self referrals. The services would be community based and available in each area. They would focus on identifying and treating young people who need CAMHS services as early and effectively as possible.

There would be a focus on outcomes, the new service to demonstrate how young people’s outcomes would be improved and to enable young people to set their own goals for improvement. Young people would be engaged each step of the way, in developing models, evaluating bids, in feedback on their experiences of treatment and in influencing service development.

There would be a single point of access with a single contact number. There would be better and clearer pathways into the services needed; a more holistic support service. There would be 24/7 access to the crisis services and a community based intervention service. There would also be consistent advice and training for all their partners.

The new style services provided should provide improved emotional wellbeing, and resilience and self-esteem for children and young people, their families and carers. It would provide easier access to services with a timely response.  Families and carers would be appropriately supported; and there would be reduced inappropriate use of A&E to access mental health services.

They hoped to evaluate the final bids by the end of May and identify the successful bidder. From June to November they would be working with the successful bidder of the new service, the commissioners and the stakeholders to plan the transition to the new service. By November 2015 they would be ‘going live’ with the new service.

It was noted that a new national taskforce had recently made recommendations on improving mental health for children and families and nationally, an additional £1.25 billion investment over a five year period was set out in the budget. CAMHS were uncertain how any future government  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Committee reviewed the Cabinet’s progress in relation to their key objectives for the third quarter of 2014/15. They noted that the Corporate Plan was the Council’s key strategic planning document, setting out it’s priorities over a four year period from 2011/12 to 2014/15.  Updates of the Corporate Plan were published annually, to reflect objectives for each year of the plan period against the achievement of objectives for previous years.

They noted that a range of key objectives for 2014/15 was adopted by the Cabinet in April 2014. Progress in relation to individual actions and deliverables was reviewedby the Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on a quarterly and outturn basis. And, at the end of the third quarter of the year it was noted that:

(a)     47 (87%) of the individual deliverables or actions supporting the key objectives had either been completed or achieved, or are anticipated to be completed/achieved in accordance with in-year targets.

(b)     5 (9%) may not be completed or achieved by year-end, and

(c)     2 (4%) are currently on-hold as a result of external factors.

Councillor Sartin asked about undertaking a consultation on gypsy and traveller site licences; would this create any problems with the traveller community. She was told that the director of communities would get back to her about this.

Councillor Sartin also wanted to know if the problems had been resolved on the outsourcing of the Out of Hours Call Handling Service. The Director of Neighbourhoods, Mr Macnab, said that they were in an ongoing dialogue with the provider. He noted that there had been significant improvement lately and would check with communities for an update.

Councillor Chambers asked about the new strategy of the Clinical Commissioning Group, adopted in April. Was this still on track? Mr Macnab said that it was still on track and should be published soon.

Councillor Wixley asked about the reference made to the Pyrles Lane Nursery Site. It was of interest as it was in his ward. Was there an update on this? He was told that there were still ongoing discussions around the points of concern that were raised around the original application, such as the density in car parking and outstanding issues around access.  This was still being worked on. When we have a definite resubmission we would let the ward members know.

RESOLVED:

That the progress in relation to the Key Objectives for 2014/15 for the third quarter of the year be noted.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel, Councillor Sartin, introduced their report on the review of the operation of the Planning Committees and their Terms of Reference. This had originated from a PICK form that initially went to the Planning Services Scrutiny Panel and then on to the Constitution Scrutiny Panel, when they looked at the following matters:

(a)  The operation of the speaking arrangements and deadlines for submission of material to planning sub-committees; and

(b)  The terms of reference of the Planning Sub-committees and the District Development Control Committee.

The Committee noted that the arrangements had not been substantively reviewed since 2006.

This revised Article sets out the membership of the committees, responsibility for functions, terms of reference and participation and site visits rules. In particular it sought to draw a clear line between the main bulk of applications dealt with at area level and those which would be considered, either directly, or by reference, by the District Development Management Committee (renamed as part of these proposals).

The changes would also bring clarity to the role of the Chairman in controlling the business at the meeting, particularly for speakers. It was considered by the Panels that these rules should be implemented in advance of the completion of the Constitution Review to allow a period of operational experience to be undertaken with a check in 2016 to make sure that they were still appropriate.

The Committee debated the merit of having such a dogmatic statement as “Councillors may not retract a signed notice or seek to join the Subcommittee by signing a notice until the next Annual Council Meeting”. Would this be too constraining for members? They noted that this would not stop a new councillor, elected at a by-election from taking up their place on a sub-committee and would really only affect Area Plans South members. If a Councillor did not sign up to be a member on a planning sub-committee at the beginning of the year and then wanted to join half way through, would this be because of a specific application? It was all a matter of perception. Members accepted that it was a simple clearer system especially for the residents, and it had been in operation for a number of years and had not caused any problems.

The Committee discussed the proposal that ‘major’ applications (as defined by DCLG guidance), where the council was the landowner, should go to the District Development Management Committee (DDMC). Councillor Angold-Stephens said that in principle all applications should go to the appropriate sub-committee and could see no reason it should go directly to the DDMC. Councillor Philip noted that DDMC was covered by pro-rata rules and was properly represented. It showed the seriousness that applications like this were to be treated. Councillor Murray wondered if major applications should not be seen to be treated differently from other applications, especially if the council was the landowner.

Councillor Wixley wondered what the significance was in the change of name  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel, Councillor Sartin, introduced their report on the review of the Council’s complaints scheme. It was noted that council current scheme had four stages. The investigation of a complaint at each stage was undertaken by the following:

Step 1 - Manager of the service area concerned.

For example: Benefits Manager; Housing Options Manager, Principal Planning Officer, Waste Manager.

Step 2 - Director, or more usually, an Asst. Director.

Step 3 - Complaints Officer on behalf of the Director of Governance (responsible for the Compliments and Complaints scheme) and the Chief Executive.

Step 4 - Member Complaints Panel

The Local Government Ombudsman has previously expressed surprise that EFDC had a four stage complaints procedure. No other Councils in Essex, and virtually no other Councils across the country, have as many stages or offer a final review by Members.

However, the last step 4 review was some years ago and over time had been rarely used.

In 2006, the Local Government Ombudsman introduced what has become known as the 12 week rule.

The Ombudsman takes the view that Councils should be able to complete every stage in their own complaints procedure within 12 weeks of their first receipt of the complaint. If a Council was unable to do so, the complainant has the right to bypass any remaining stages in the Council’s complaints procedure and instead take their complaint to the Ombudsman.

However, the current design of EFDC’s complaints procedure made it impossible to complete all four stages within 12 weeks for the following reasons.

Investigations at Steps 1, 2 and 3 usually each take around 3 - 4 weeks to complete. So, by the time a Step 3 review has been completed, the 12 week time limit was already fast approaching. But if a complainant remains dissatisfied and requests a further review, it takes a further 7 - 8 weeks to organise a meeting of the Step 4 Member Complaints Panel.

It has therefore become routine that complainants have to be advised that, because it will not be possible to offer them a Step 4 review within the 12 week time limit, they now have the right to bypass Step 4 and instead take their complaint to the Ombudsman.

If members agree to the removal of the Step 4 Panel, consequential amendments will be required of the Constitution.  It was therefore appropriate that this was reported to full Council at its April 2015 meeting in order that changes can be taken into account by the Appointments Panel in May 2015.

Councillor Murray noted that another option would be not to change the procedure as he thought that complainants should have a choice to either go to the ombudsman or to a member panel. This would look like we were taking their rights away.

Councillor Wixley noted that he had chaired a Complaints Panel in 2010 and Mr Hill noted that there had been one other in 2012. The last Complaints Panel meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

To consider, comment on and  agree the attached Terms of Reference for the newly appointed Grant Aid Review Task and Finish Panel. Also attached is their work programme for information.

The Committee noted the draft Terms of Reference of the newly established Grant Aid Review Task and Finish Panel and that this new Panel would not finish their work in this municipal year but would continue on into the new year.

RESOLVED:

That the Terms of Reference for the Grant Aid Review Task and Finish Panel be agreed.

(a)          To consider the updated work programme

The current Overview and Scrutiny work programme is attached for information.

(b)          Reserve Programme

A reserve list of scrutiny topics is required to ensure that the work flow of OSC is continuous.

OSC will ‘pull out’ items from the list and allocate them accordingly once space becomes available in the work programme following the completion of existing reviews.

Members can put forward any further suggestions for inclusion in the reserve list either during the meeting or at a later date.

Existing review items will be dealt with first, then time will be allocated to the items contained in the reserve work plan.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Committee noted their work programme to date and that the North Essex Parking Partnership was due to attend their next meeting.

The Committee discussed the recent problems faced by the Barts Health NHS Trust and whether it would be appropriate to ask them to an Overview and Scrutiny meeting to explain the new procedures they have put in place to remedy their situation. They agreed that the Chairman should write to the Director of the Barts Trust and invite them to the June meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and if possible to have an interim report at their April meeting.

Scrutiny Panels

Housing Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman of the Housing Scrutiny Panel noted that they had their last meeting of the year tomorrow night.

Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman of this Panel noted that they were continuing to work through their review of the constitution and that they would continue this work in the new municipal year as a working group.

Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman of the Safer Cleaner Greener Panel noted that they would have their last meeting on 28 April when they should have Thames Water in attendance.

At their last meeting they had received a presentation on drainage and flooding in our district from the Council’s Drainage Team who were doing a really good job for our district.

Planning Services Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman of the Planning Services Panel noted that next year, in their new guise, they would hope to have more on the Local Plan.

Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman of the Finance Panel noted that they have held their last meeting on 10 March and had finished the majority of their work programme.  They had noted that sickness absences had increased and would be monitored regularly from now on. He also noted that commercial rents were behind their set target. There had been numerous successful IT projects carried out in the last year such as the new telephone system and the introduction of mobile working.

Task and Finish Panels

Scrutiny Panels Review Task and Finish Panel

This was now completed and had reported to the last meeting of this committee.

Grant Aid Review Task and Finish Panel

This had now begun their meetings and their Terms of Reference were at this meeting for agreement by this committee. This Panel will now carry over into the new municipal year when they would look at the CAB and the VAEF.

Youth Engagement Task and Finish Panel

This had now got six members and two Youth Councillors, and would be holding its first meeting at the end of April.

To review the Cabinet Forward Plan (Key Decision List) on a meeting by meeting basis.

The Committee noted the Cabinet’s Forward Plan for March 205. They had no specific items that they wanted to consider.