Agenda and minutes

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

There were no questions from members of the public or the press.

Councillor Whelbourn introduced the report which set out the findings and recommendations of the review group.

Councillor McNeeley attended the minute for consideration of this item, as Chair and representative of the Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Panel (Councillors Falvey, Havenhand and Lakin had submitted their apologies).

The Review Group - Councillors Whelbourn, Austen, Lakin, McNeely and Pickering, undertook an intensive five week period of interviews and consultation from a wide range of organisations, partners, Members and officers. Questionnaires were also given to members of the public at three Area Assemblies, three co-ordinating groups were visited and interviewed, all Area Chairs contributed and partners such as the Primary Care Trust and Parish Councils were interviewed.

It was important in the review to acknowledge the expectations in the recent White Paper which had received royal assent as the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act. There were many community empowerment commitments and the White Paper promoted community and neighbourhood engagement. It argued that involving citizens and communities in local decision-making led to better service provision and stronger, more confident communities. 

The findings of the review were that progress had been made, but there were some specific areas that needed addressing.  Overall, it did not seem clear that there was a consistent, shared vision on what role Area Assemblies were meant to play and how co-ordinating groups fit into the Council’s decision making structure. The terms of reference for co-ordinating groups and Area Assemblies were not in the Council constitution and there was not wide knowledge of their existence. There was clarity needed on where Area Plans fit into the Council planning process, including their relationship with the Local Area Agreement, Compact and Sustainable Community Strategy.

Recommendations included a review of the terms of reference for Area Assemblies and co-ordinating groups to establish a shared understanding of their purpose. There also needed to be a clear referral route for complex or recurring issues from Area Assemblies into the Council structure. In terms of the co-ordinating groups they have all developed differently, but the review group felt there needed to be a more open and transparent process to the election of community representatives onto the groups.  In terms of the Area Assemblies the review group felt that, in line with the White Paper, there should be the consideration of larger devolved budgets with at least a one year notice of planning, preparation and support. If the idea of devolved budgets was endorsed they should occur incrementally.

The Scrutiny Panel’s discussion included the following issues:-

- obtaining good practice about Area Assemblies from other local authorities and sharing that good practice with all seven Area Assemblies;

- devolved budgets for Area Assemblies;

- ensuring that the public were able to participate in the Area Assembly process and meetings – and that change could be seen to be happening;

- ensuring that the issues identified by Area Assemblies were properly considered by the Council’s Executive and that the Area Assemblies would have the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Consideration was given to a report submitted by the Principal Policy Officer and the Principal Community Involvement Officer concerning the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28) which received Royal Assent on 30^th October 2007. The provision in the Act, to involve local people, builds on the objectives set out in the Local Government White Paper “Strong and Prosperous Communities”. In addition to the “Best Value” guidance, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Association have published a joint report “An Action Plan for Community Empowerment: Building on Success”, which sets out twenty-three action streams to be piloted with a number of authorities. A summary of these actions was included in the report submitted.

The Scrutiny Panel noted that the Government has recently published a consultation paper on the new “Best Value” guidance, which will be the subject of a further report to Elected Members.

Members also received a briefing paper about the new duty for local authorities to involve the public, which was included within the Act and which would come into force on 1^st April 2009.

Resolved:- (1) That the report be received and its contents noted.

(2) That further reports be submitted to this Scrutiny Panel about:-

(a) the detailed guidance consultation and specific proposals in relation to these for implementation in Rotherham; and

(b) the operation of and timescales for the workstreams relating to the twenty-three actions; the report shall indicate the level of priority being afforded to each of the actions and whether any organisations or persons external to the Council shall be involved in the workstreams.

(3) That this Scrutiny Panel recommends that the ‘Our Future’ Groups be requested to consider the implications of the twenty-three actions streams.

Consideration was given to a report submitted by the Assistant Chief Executive, Legal Services, concerning the Legal Services performance indicator suite which was under revision with a view to being rationalised.  The revised suite of Local Performance Indicators (LPIs) was appended to the report submitted, with all LPIs having current status green.

The report stated that there were no national performance indicators for Legal Services. During the past two years, Legal Services had developed a suite of LPIs against which to monitor its own performance. This information had been subject to challenge at performance clinics and was also reported to Elected Members on a quarterly basis. Rationalisation of the suite of LPIs was based on the need to provide more meaningful and relevant performance information to management, Elected Members and Client Directorates and to establish a number of indicators to be compared against other Local Authorities.

Discussion took place on the need to review and revise the LPIs continually, to ensure that challenging targets are established.

Resolved:- That the Scrutiny Panel notes the rationalised list of Legal Services Local Performance Indicators (LPIs) and the performance of these LPIs.

The HR Manager, Strategic Human Resources, presented the submitted Quarter 2 report on the performance of Corporate Health Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) (Corporate Health Indicators) monitored and reported on by the Chief Executive’s Directorate and the Local Performance Indicators (LPI) owned by the Chief Executive’s Directorate.

The report set out Quarter 2 performance in respect of national and local targets.

Overall there were eight measurements against six national BVPIs which the Chief Executive’s Directorate was charged with reporting on.  BVPI 11 had three targets to meet.

Attached as an appendix to the report was a summary of performance against BVPIs.

Of the eight measurements, five were categorised as green stars, one as amber circle and two as red triangles (categorisation in accordance with PerformancePlus). The categorisation is based on comparison between quarter 2 actual figures and the end of year target.

Discussion and a question and answer session ensued covering the eight nationally-set Best Value Performance Indicators together with the eight local performance indicators measured and reported on by Strategic Human Resources.

Particular attention was given to the range of successful interventions in sickness absence and the number of M3 Managers attending management development centres.

Resolved:-  That the performance of the key Corporate Best Value Performance Indicators and Local Performance Indicators be noted.

Consideration was given to a report submitted by the Asset Manager, Environment and Development Services which provided an update on the Council’s agreed way forward to address the Local Government White Paper October 2006, the Quirk Review Findings, the Government‘s Response to the Quirk Review, the Community Assets Fund, the proposed Comprehensive Performance Assessment and Comprehensive Area Assessment requirements and the Development of Area Asset Management Plans.

Reference was made to the earlier consideration of these matters by the Regeneration and Asset Board, at its meetings held on 11^th July 2007 (Minute No. 16) and on 23^rd October 2007 (Minute No. 47).

Included with the report were documents about:-

i) the Council’s agreed way forward with the development of one integrated comprehensive strategy and implementation programme;

ii) the community and area asset management plans quality criteria and production methodologies (including property asset review);

iii) proposals for updating the Council’s land and buildings records and actions for dealing with requests for transfer of assets.

The Scrutiny Panel debated the following issues:-

- community and area asset management plans and the proposed pilot scheme to take place in Maltby;

- the need for clear timescales for the pilot scheme – although the difficulties of establishing a firm timescale were acknowledged;

- involvement of Ward Councillors in dealing with requests for the transfer of assets (reference to Minute No. 17 of the meeting of this Scrutiny Panel held on 19^th July 2007 and Minute No. 44 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Communities and Involvement held on 12^th November 2007);

- the capacity of the voluntary and community centre to manage and operate land and property assets

- the process was currently being managed within existing budgets;

- the need for close liaison between the Environment and Development Services and the Neighbourhoods Directorates.

Resolved:- (1) That the Council’s agreed way forward, as detailed in the report and in the three appendices, be noted.

(2) That this Scrutiny Panel affirms its earlier view, as expressed at Minute No. 17 of the meeting of this Scrutiny Panel held on 19^th July 2007, that Ward Councillors shall be included at the beginning of the process for dealing with requests for the transfer of assets.

(3) That this Scrutiny Panel shall monitor the progress of the community and area asset management planning pilot scheme which is to take place in Maltby; the Asset Manager, Environment and Development Services shall submit a progress report on the pilot scheme to this Scrutiny Panel in six months’ time, or earlier if there are significant developments to report.

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of the Democratic Renewal Scrutiny Panel held on 18^th October 2007 be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

The Scrutiny Panel noted the minutes of the meetings of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee held on 28^th September 2007, 19^th October 2007, 9^th November 2007 and 23^rd November 2007.

The Scrutiny Panel noted the minutes of the meeting of the New Arrivals Working Party held on 21^st November 2007.