Venue: Council Chamber, Fenland Hall, County Road, March PE15 8NQ
Contact: Niall Jackson
Member Services and Governance Officer
Items
No. |
Item |
OSC42/21 |
Previous Minutes. PDF 143 KB
To confirm and sign the minutes
of the meeting of 7 February 2022.
Minutes:
The
minutes of the meeting of 7 February 2022 were confirmed and signed
subject to the following comments:
·
Councillor Booth referred to item OSC40/21 which
stated that more research needed to be conducted. He explained that
the point he was attempting to make was that the project was taking
a long time and that there were further stages to go
through.
|
OSC43/21 |
Update on previous actions. PDF 301 KB
Members to receive an update on
the previous meeting’s Action Plan.
Minutes:
Members considered the update on previous actions and made the
following comments:
·
Councillor Mason thanked Member Services for the
concise action list produced.
·
Councillor Miscandlon stated that the watching brief
item regarding updates from the CPCA on skills, employment and
apprenticeships was now complete and that any further updates would
now come to the Panel via Councillor Booth and himself.
|
OSC44/21 |
Update on CPCA Growth Service PDF 2 MB
To provide the Overview & Scrutiny Panel with a general
update presentation on Economic Growth activities between the
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) &
FDC and to provide a specific update presentation on the
CPCA’s Growth Service and the impact on Economic Growth in
Fenland.
Minutes:
Members considered the update on CPCA Growth
Service. Steve Clark, Richard Cuda, Ed
Coleman and Fliss Miller from the CPCA Growth Service were welcomed
to the meeting.
Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as
follows:
- Councillor Count asked what the CPCA were doing specifically for
Fenland? He identified that there was positive movement with the
weightings which would allow Fenland to feature higher and receive
more projects and recognised that Fenland had been awarded more
funding than some Council’s but less than others and argued
that Fenland required significantly more than anyone else in terms
of levelling up. Councillor Count stated that it would be helpful
to see what the overall effect it was having arguing that they were
not having the desirable effect as for Fenland to catch up with
other areas they must be number one for levelling up for years to
come due to the current deficit compared to other areas. He noted
that productivities for Fenland were £26 per hour compared to
the second lowest which was £33 per hour for Peterborough and
whilst the differences did not sound like much it still constituted
a 27% increase. Councillor Count expressed his surprise that all
programmes had a combination of Peterborough, Huntingdon and
Fenland as the other areas preform much better and asked why
Fenland had not been individually identified as needing further
assistance compared to the other areas? He acknowledged that there
was a vast proportion of work aimed at growth but asked what was
being done in other areas such as upskilling workers and questioned
whether the CPCA were looking at the possibility of growth through
removing people from the chain and implementing automation.
Councillor Count proceeded to clarify
that there was a lot of good work being undertaken but reasserted
that he wished to see more focus on Fenland. Ed Coleman explained
that the biggest challenge they faced in terms of food production
businesses was the perception they had of the growth services work.
He identified that they need to overcome the inherent stereotypes
of their service and develop relationships to enable them to
establish a foothold and informed the Panel that they needed to
place emphasis on local connections in years two and three. Steve
Clark explained that regarding investing in automation, they had
planned to have another stream of work around innovation funding
but informed the Panel that they were unable to fund this in the
overall package. However, he did state there was a possibility that
this could be added in the future and since the levelling up agenda
had evolved any new work streams would be likely to focus on
Fenland. Steve Clark stated that with the Community Renewal Fund
the Government had picked Fenland and Peterborough as the two
places and Huntingdon had been tagged. He informed the panel that
they had given grants for business to invest into new technologies
and automation through the agriculture scheme and that some
investments had helped with productivity but identified
...
view the full minutes text for item OSC44/21
|
OSC45/21 |
Transformation & Communications Portfolio Holder Update PDF 2 MB
This report sets out the Council’s
progress in delivering the Transformation and Communications
portfolio.
Minutes:
Members considered the Transformation & Communications
Portfolio Holder update.
Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as
follows:
- Councillor Miscandlon stated that the Council were currently
attempting to move services online and become fully internet
integrated but asked what they were doing for residents who either
had no access to the internet or did not wish to use the internet,
stating that he did not wish to see people left behind. Councillor
Tierney stated that this was an area that was important to him,
explaining that they were not doing away with the old methods of
communication and service and that they were keeping the
traditional routes open alongside moving to a greater online
presence. He stated that the Council were not trying to move
everyone online. Councillor Miscandlon agreed with this approach
but that the perception was that the
Council was becoming fully internet based. He was glad for the
confirmation that this was not the case as many of the older
generation do not wish to move online. Councillor Tierney responded
that he had a dual role as portfolio holder for IT and
communications and that whenever the Council do a press release
regarding this matter, they always assert that they will not be
leaving people behind.
- Councillor Mason explained that there had been a lot of pressure
on the local Council offices with residents calling in with all
sorts of queries. He explained that they were often directed to the
central number and asked what the process was from this point
onwards. Councillor Tierney explained that changes had been made so
that more could be done via the internet to reduce pressure on the
traditional routes and that they had also introduced new call
handling systems and software to help manage the way information is
handled so that fewer people are needed but they can work faster
and respond more quickly. Anna Goodall explained that the Council
went live with My Fenland in July 2021 which brought together teams
that had been customer facing under one umbrella, with the previous
system involving the customer having to interpret which service
they needed and then find the relevant number or email address for
that service whereas the new system required no interpretation as
there is now one central point of contact. She explained that as
part of the process they changed the job descriptions to make them
much more customer focused, eliminating single points of failure
and took full advantage of the enhancements in technology and the
digital process. Anna Goodall outlined the process for the panel
stating that the new process involved customers phoning in via the
01354 654321 number to access the contact centre where they can
then hold to get through to staff, with there now being two levels
of staff within the structure, including advisors and technical
officers. She explained that advisors deal with a wide range of
questions and can reply to any query relating to the Council to a
certain level and technical ...
view the full minutes text for item OSC45/21
|
OSC46/21 |
Future Work Programme PDF 192 KB
To consider the Draft Work
Programme for Overview & Scrutiny Panel 2021/22.
Minutes:
Members considered the Future Work Programme:
·
Councillor Mason made the point that the programme
had been extended for the following year and asked if members had
any comments on what had been included.
·
Councillor Miscandlon expressed the view that the
agenda for the meeting of 9 May 2022 seemed to be pretty full
with the Cultural Strategy and
Commercial Investment Strategy and Investment Board and asked
whether there was enough data available to fill the meeting.
Councillor Mason responded that they would not know until the day.
Councillor Booth stated that the Commercial Investment Strategy and
Investment Board would be the main topic of discussion with a
year’s worth of work to be covered. He said that the Cultural
Strategy is more driven by the Arts Council with Fenland District
Council acting as custodians and suggested that there may be less
to discuss on this item.
·
Councillor Miscandlon expressed the view that the
Housing Enforcement item would also be short as he doubted that
there would be much of an update. Councillor Mason stated that he
believed it would be quite a full meeting and that the agenda would
be left as it is.
·
Councillor Booth asked whether the Task and Finish
item would be to agree the terms of reference to allow them to move
forward. Councillor Mason confirmed that this was the
case.
|