Agenda for Overview and Scrutiny Panel on Monday, 9th May, 2022, 1.30 pm
Venue: Council Chamber, Fenland Hall, County Road, March PE15 8NQ
Contact: Niall Jackson
Member Services and Governance Officer
Items
No. |
Item |
OSC47/21 |
Previous Minutes. PDF 216 KB
To confirm and sign the minutes
of the meeting of 7th March 2022.
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting of 7
March 2022 were confirmed and signed.
|
OSC48/21 |
Update on previous actions. PDF 167 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 Wicks
expressed the view that the figures provided for the Levelling Up
funding were disappointing compared to the needs in Fenland and
stated that £24,000 seemed awfully low based on the need of
the area. Councillor Mason agreed with Councillor Wicks point and
informed the panel that he had recently written to the MP stating
that the levelling up funding was not at the level it should be and
stated that he would be following this up with the MP. Councillor
Count noted that they had been provided with a technical answer but
that it would be useful to get a comparator against the
neighbouring authorities such as Cambridge City and
Huntingdonshire. Councillor Booth identified that they had only
listed one fund in the response which did not provide the full
picture and agreed that a fuller response with comparators would be
more useful. He stated that he was hopeful that this could be tied
in with the visit from the Mayor. Councillor Miscandlon supported
the points stating that it would be useful to know what the
neighbouring authorities were receiving and stated that the
levelling up fund was supposed to make areas level.
|
OSC49/21 |
Progress on Housing Enforcement Policy PDF 3 MB
To receive an update on
progress on the Housing Enforcement Policy that has been in
operation since July 2018.
Minutes:
Members considered the update
on the progress on Housing Enforcement Policy. Dan Horn, Jo Evans and Councillor Hoy were
welcomed to the meeting.
Members asked questions, made
comments and received responses as
follows:
- Councillor Miscandlon
thanked the team for their report stating that it was very
comprehensive and deserved merit.
- Councillor Booth made
the point that Members had previously asked to receive tracked
change documents and wanted officers to continue doing so. He
stated that the principles on when to take enforcement action may
be more useful as one appendix at the back for presentation as they
seemed to be repeated throughout the policy.
- Councillor Hoy
outlined the changes that had happened across the service in the
past few years and how this was reflected in the policy. She
informed the panel that they now have a different way of working
after employing a further two officers through funding from
controlling migration and that these new officers had been utilised
for door knocking and taking action
which had helped improve housing standards. Councillor Hoy
explained that most of the work had been focused on Wisbech as this
had been where the funding had been allocated and where the most
work was required and that despite the fund running out they had wanted to keep the officers on and that
this had been a reason behind introducing fining. She explained
that the fines had been aimed at individuals who were breaking the
law and needed to be fined and that the profits from this had then
been used to fund the service, with the new approach working well
with several fines having been served with no issues or problems.
Councillor Hoy stated that they had not been served when they had
not needed to be and that all tribunals had been successful up to
date, with the team having all done a great job and she wanted to
thank them for this. She explained that one big change had been the
introduction of energy performance certificates and that they can
now fine landlords that do not have these in place. Councillor Hoy
informed the panel that the role of the Empty Homes Officer was
also now reflected in the policy, with the policy having proven
successful and hoped that it would continue to be.
- Councillor Hay stated
that there was a team visiting households as part of the Ukrainian
hosting scheme and asked whether this was impacting on the
day-to-day work. Jo Evans explained that there had been around 30
visits so far and that Housing Officers had done extra hours
outside of work for this so it had not
impacted their normal role. Dan Horn explained that costs for the
work being undertaken would be recovered from the Government
scheme.
- Councillor Miscandlon
asked whether there had been an increase in overall inspections due
to Covid and whether the inspections were random or intelligence led. Jo Evans informed him
that they worked using both but that they prioritised intelligence
from organisations ...
view the full minutes text for item OSC49/21
|
OSC50/21 |
Culture Strategy PDF 121 KB
Thanks P?? To
receive an update on the progress made in developing a Creativity
and Culture Strategy and further progress since adoption of the
Strategy.
Minutes:
Members considered the update on the Culture Strategy. Phil
Hughes, Jaime-Lea Taylor and Councillor
Boden were welcomed to the meeting.
Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as
follows:
- Councillor Booth raised his concern that Councillor Seaton was
not present as portfolio holder. He reminded the Panel that
Councillor Mrs French was absent at the last meeting and stated
that it was concerning that the appropriate portfolio holders were
not attending. Councillor Boden explained that Councillor Seaton
had a legitimate medical reason preventing his attendance at the
meeting. Councillor Booth accepted this but reiterated the need to
make the appropriate efforts to attend when possible.
- Councillor Yeulett questioned where Fenland District Council
stood in the Culture Strategy and asked who was responsible for the
overall delivery. Phil Hughes stated that it was not
Fenland’s job to deliver and that the role was to facilitate
a network and link people together. Councillor Boden explained that
there was not a top-down approach to imposing culture on Fenland,
referring to previous comments made at the Combined Authority which
described Fenland as a cultural desert and exclaimed that Fenland
did not need culture imposed on the area. He stated that the aim
was to encourage the growth of the current culture and for
facilities to become more available. Phil Hughes informed the panel
that Jaime-Lea was a local person and that the Arts Council were
simply working as facilitators alongside Jaime-Lea.
- Councillor Miscandlon stated that he was encouraged by the
expansion of the team and that it was heartening to see that
Fenland were facilitating the growth of culture.
- Councillor Hay stated that there had been a visit from the Arts
Council and a meeting with Wisbech Town Council, with as usual all
the focus being on Wisbech and asked whether the other market towns
were represented. Councillor Boden explained that there had been
two meetings with one focused on Wisbech and another in March which
covered the other market towns and rural areas. Councillor Hay
informed them that Chatteris Town Council had known nothing about
this and had not been given the chance to participate. Councillor
Mason noted that Jaime-Lea had stated that she would be happy to
organise a meeting with Whittlesey Town Council and that this would
no doubt expand to the other areas if they approached her. Phil
Hughes explained that Jaime-Lea and the Cultural Steering Group
were all working together and if Councillors knew of any
organisations in their areas they should get in contact with that
group. Councillor Mason asked how they would get in touch and Phil
Hughes commented that he would provide the details after the
meeting.
- Councillor Wicks asked for clarification on the way forward
questioning whether Jaime-Lea would be the point of contact for all
organisations wanting to organise events and asked whether she
would be the focal point for details of what will be out there for
them. Jaime-Lea stated that this was the intention, explaining that
they currently had a group ...
view the full minutes text for item OSC50/21
|
OSC51/21 |
Commercial Investment Strategy and Investment Board Update PDF 236 KB
To provide an update to the
Overview and Scrutiny Panel of the work of the Investment Board
from April 2021 to March 2022.
Minutes:
Members considered the
Commercial Investment Strategy and Investment Board Update. Peter
Catchpole, Councillor Boden and Councillor Tierney were welcomed to
the meeting.
Members asked questions, made
comments and received responses as follows:
·
Councillor Mason recognised that things had slowed
down recently but it would be interesting to know what developments
were likely to proceed in the next year. Councillor Boden replied
that he could not give a definitive answer to that question as
opportunities crop up unexpectedly, the Council had to be prepared
to move quickly on the internal evaluation and with external
assistance for assurance when making any decision to move forward.
He informed the panel that they had agents to notify them of new
opportunities when they present themselves. In terms of planned
development over the following year, Councillor Boden advised they
were developing the Elms in Chatteris followed by the Nene
Waterfront in Wisbech and explained that both projects were being
pushed forward together. He stated that lots of the preparation
work had already been completed and that they were moving forward
on these developments.
·
Councillor Mason noted that any investment had many
consultancy fees and asked where the Council stood regarding
consultancy. Councillor Boden explained that they were constrained
by being a public body despite having Fenland Futures Limited (FFL)
set up as a subsidiary company and commented that this required
them to go above and beyond what would be required by a purely
commercial organisation. He clarified that with the two projects
mentioned, there would be no external consultancy for a valuation
if they were undertaken commercially but due to the Council being a
public body, they were required to undertake this to show
accountability and transparency. Councillor Boden made the point
that with the transfer from the Council to its wholly owned
subsidiary there were Section 151 legal obligations which could not
be satisfied by using inhouse staff as it would not stand up to
scrutiny making the use of external consultants absolutely
necessary.
·
Councillor Yeulett asked whether they had made a
profit yet and, if so, how much it was. He also asked how they saw
the Investment Board’s activity progressing in the current
economic climate. Councillor Boden explained that in Council terms
they were not and never would be making a profit as they were not a
profit-making organisation and in terms of revenue, he informed the
panel that, as of yet, they had not started any development and so
were not producing any revenue. He explained that the company had
not yet completed its first year and had made no sales so there had
been no profit, it would show a loss in the first year and that
this was always the case for any development company. Councillor
Boden stated that the way that the Investment Board works and acts
was not affected by the economic environment and that only the
potential outcomes of the various opportunities would be affected
and whilst it was quite certain that there would be a
...
view the full minutes text for item OSC51/21
|
OSC52/21 |
Task and Finish Group – Portfolio Holder Report PDF 217 KB
To set out a proposal for a
cross-party scrutiny task and finish group to be
established.
Minutes:
Members considered the Task and Finish Group – Portfolio
Holder Report:
·
Councillor Mason explained that they were looking
for three volunteers to examine the KPI’s across the Council
and stated that the makeup of the group would be two Conservative
members to one independent in line with political proportionality.
There was a debate over whether task and finish groups had to be
politically proportionate and Amy Brown
informed the panel that whilst there was no requirement for the
group to be politically proportionate the Council worked on a basis
that these groups should be. There was a further debate about
whether the group should consist of five members with two
Independent Members wishing to be part of the task and finish
group.
·
It was resolved that the group would consist of 3
Members with the Conservative members being Councillor Connor and
Councillor Miscandlon and Councillor Hay acting as a substitute
where necessary. The independent members were left to decide who
would be the main member and who would act as substitute between
Councillor Booth and Councillor Wicks.
|
OSC53/21 |
Future Work Programme PDF 137 KB
To consider the Draft Work
Programme for Overview & Scrutiny Panel 2022/23.
Minutes:
Members considered the Future Work Programme:
- Members discussed the merits of bringing the Commercial
Investment Strategy and Investment Board back in six months due to
the nature and risk of the work that was being undertaken. It was
noted that both the October and December meetings were fairly
full and it was suggested that an
extraordinary meeting could be held in November. It was suggested
that the meeting be held in closed session as most of the material
was confidential and this would allow greater scrutiny from the
panel. Amy Brown informed the panel that any meeting can be held in
confidential session but that there was a preference to present the
information in a transparent way. The panel resolved to leave the
matter with Amy Brown to add something to the forward
plan.
- Councillor Miscandlon stated that the Local Plan was moving
forward and would be presented at Cabinet next week. Councillor
Booth noted that this was still only in the consultation phase
at the moment.
- Councillor Wicks suggested that it would be useful to invite the
other housing associations to a future meeting now that there were
more operating in the area.
- Councillor Booth stated that it had previously taken a while to
get a response from Anglian Water and noted that there had been a
lot of press recently regarding discharge into local rivers.
Councillor Connor pointed out that they had been fined the previous
week. Councillor Miscandlon reminded the panel that Anglian Water
were not required to come before the panel. Councillor Wicks stated
that the aspect of pollution had been raised at an IBD meeting that
morning and that it was clear that there was a lack of capacity
at the moment. He suggested that Anglian
Water needed to make a better effort at integrating with planning
to help prevent the problems caused by the right to connect.
Councillor Purser explained that the discharge and capacity
problems were not just a problem for Anglian Water as it had
recently been an issue across the Country. Amy Brown stated that
she would make enquiries for Anglian Water to attend a future
meeting.
|