Agenda and minutes

(Head of Research and Democratic Services)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

None reported.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). 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.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs M Sartin declared a  general personal interest by virtue of being one of the Council’s Member representatives on the Epping Forest Local Strategic Partnership. She declared that her interest was not prejudicial and she would remain in the meeting.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs J H Whitehouse declared a general personal interest by virtue of being a member of the Epping Forest Learning Partnership. She declared that her interest was not prejudicial and that she would remain in the meeting.

Attached.

Noted.

Attached.

Noted.

(Joint Chief Executive (Community)).To consider the attached report.

Together with this agenda, Members of the Panel should also have received a separate pack containing the following documents. Members will need to bring these to the meeting for consideration.

(i)         A copy of the Local Area Agreement for Essex;

(ii)        A copy of a Local Area Agreement organisation chart produced for the Local Strategic Partnership which shows the four blocks of the Local Area Agreement, which priorities they include and how the Local Strategic Partnership is currently managing them. Some changes may come about now that the Children’s and Young Persons Strategic partnership (CYPSP) has been adopted as the 8^th strand of the LSP.

(iii)       A copy of a letter received from the County Council Chief Executive.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting, Mr Richard Puleston, Head of Community Planning and Regeneration, Essex County Council who was present to report on the current situation regarding the Local Area Agreement (LAA) for Essex.

The Panel had before them a report detailing the 5 LAA priorities that EFDC had agreed to focus on. They also had a copy of the LAA agreements itself, a copy of a LAA organisation chart produced for the LSP and a letter received from the County Council Chief Executive.

In his presentation (entitled ‘ A LAA for Essex – the six month review and ‘refresh of Year 1) Mr Puleston explained that the LAA was a means to join up funding streams at a local level by bringing a number of local public sector partners around shared targets and objectives. The LAA was a mixture of national and local performance targets. The Essex LAA was signed in March 2006.

He advised that the agreement comprised 14 priorities and 68 targets covering key outcomes and stretched outcomes for which on attainment a reward would be made available. He reported that the value of this grant for the County totalled £38 million. He advised that a discussion was needed to determine how this funding was to be distributed.

Structure

He advised that the agreement was centred on four blocks covering Children and Young People, Safer and Stronger Communities, Healthier Communities and Older People and Economic Development. In terms of the steering arrangements, the agreement was led by the Essex Partnership Steering Group. Underneath this sat the Executive Group which was a strategic group and included District Chief Executives (one per area), Strategic Health Authorities, Primary Care Authorities, the voluntary sector, police, fire and the leads of the four blocks, where in his opinion most of the ‘real work’ was carried out. There was a District Council representative on each of the four blocks. The twelve Essex LSP ‘owned’ the agreement and were closely linked to this structure.  Existing county wide structures were used to deliver the block targets to avoid any overlap in work.

Mr Puleston advised that the County was currently looking at the structure of the Essex Partnership to see whether it was still ‘fit for purpose’. It was recognised that the body needed to comprise a membership which represented the wide range of local partners and involved all partnerships in the delivery of the LAA, the Community Strategy and two-tier Authority working. Work was being undertaken on these issue by some of the local Chief Executives. There was no specific deadline for this re-organisation. The process would however need to address the need to develop a sustainable community strategy which it was envisaged should be a ‘bottom up document’.

Performance Management

Mr Puleston outlined the LAA Performance management Framework for action planning, co-ordinating resources and monitoring and reporting progress. The framework was made up of three levels. The first comprised target lead/contributes, the second was the block partnerships, the individual partners and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To receive feedback from Councillor Mrs Penny Smith on the LSP training course run by the East England Regional Assembly on 3 October 2006.

It was noted that Councillor Mrs Smith had recently attended an LSP training session run by the East of England Assembly. In view of her unavailability, it was agreed that this item be deferred for consideration at a time when she was available to report her views to the Panel.

To consider the attached notes of the following conferences: 

·                     New Local Government Network LSP Conference 2006 – Shaping the future of Local Services (14 June 2006)

·                     Local Government Association Conference – Local Strategic Partnerships – Ready to Govern? (14 July 2006)

To assist Marina Sheriff (Community Strategy and Partnership Manager) and Chris Overend (EFDC Policy and Research Officer) will be present to report and answer questions.

The Panel considered the notes of the following conferences:

(a)        New Local Government Network LSP Conference 2006 – Shaping the future of Local Services (14 June 2006)

(b)        Local Government Association Conference – Local Strategic Partnerships – Ready to Govern? (14 July 2006)

Marina Sheriff (Community Strategy and Partnership Manager) and Chris Overend (EFDC Policy and Research Officer) who attended the meetings reported feedback and ask Members to comment on the layout and the recommendations of the report. It was noted that a full report on the issues had been circulated earlier in the year.

In relation to paragraph 5.3, (Youth councils and interfaith forums) it was suggested that the LSP would work with the EFDC Youth Officer when appointed and the Children’s and Young Persons Partnership with which a lot of work had been carried out.

In relation to recommendation 6.3 Marina reported that discussion was now taking place with Jacky Fuller to see how the LSP VCS representative could be more involved in the LSP and make recommendations.

It was reported recommendation 6.4 (that the LSP should continue to develop its relationship with GO- EAST, the regional LSP network, Essex County Council and the Essex Partnership) was already being implemented.

It was suggested that the Panel could take a proactive approach to the review and make comments on the future of the LSP before the consultation paper was published.  The Panel questioned the implications of EFDC taking on the leadership of the Partnership and how this would differ from chairing it. At the moment Epping Forest College chaired the LSP. The former would involve taking a direct lead over the LSP. At present most partners would suggest that EFDC lead from the back and its role was to encourage and support the body. The Panel felt that these present arrangements worked well and that it should be maintained. The Panel were keen to ensure that the ‘feeling of equality’ between the partners was not disrupted. Representatives attended meetings at the moment as they appreciated the work of the LSP and the value they could add to the process. The suggestion in the emerging guidance that agencies would be under ‘a duty to co-operate’  would need to be given consideration.

The Panel thought that the notedswere very useful and supported the format. It was noted that the LSP had also considered these issues and also supported the format and content.

TBA

The Panel considered its terms of reference to consider which items still needed to be addressed and noted that these would be given consideration at the next meeting of the Panel. 

The Chairman undertook to report on the work of the Panel to the next LSP Steering Board meeting to keep them up to date.

It was agreed that the next meeting would aim to draft a report and would be held on 15 November 2006 at 2.00 pm. It was also agreed that a further meeting bearranged for 11 December 2006 at 7.30 pm.

ACTION:

Democratic Services to circulate arrangements for future meetings as indicated to the all Panel Members and put item in bulletin.