COMMUNITY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
RECORD OF MEETING HELD ON 19 SEPTEMBER
2007
Present:
Councillor T E Ankers (In the Chair);
Councillors D H D Charlesworth, S Conquest, C
Goff, M Grant, G Griffiths, R Jones and S J S
Mottram
Officers in Attendance (for whole or
part):
Paul
Goodwin
Assistant Director - Accountancy and Audit
Kirstie
Hercules
Local Strategic Partnership Manager
Bernadette Hurst
Assistant Chief Executive –
Community Development and
Social Policy
Vikki Jeffrey
Head of Housing
Diane Moulson
Democratic
Services Officer
Keith Pickton
Head of Leisure Operations
In Attendance (for whole or
part):
Councillor J K Hatfield
Portfolio Holder
for Finance
Councillor R Westwood
Portfolio Holder for
Neighbourhoods
Apologies:
Councillors D Bebbington, J D Bratherton, J
Lewis and M A Martin
16. DECLARATIONS OF
INTEREST
No Member declared any personal or
prejudicial interest in respect of any item of business on the
agenda.
17. WHIPPING
DECLARATIONS
In accordance with Paragraph 18 of the
Performance and Overview Procedure Rules, Members were invited to
declare in respect of items where the whip had been applied.
No such declarations were made.
18.
RECORD OF MEETING
AGREED: That the record of the meeting
held on 18th July 2007 be approved as
correct.
19. BOARD
BUSINESS
19.1 Board
Meeting – 20th September 2007
The Committee was invited to identify those
Board reports on which it wished to comment.
19.1.1
Housing Green Paper – “Homes for the Future: More Affordable, More
Sustainable”
The Head of Housing outlined for the Committee
the content of the Housing green paper, which proposed measures to
increase the supply of homes, increase the standard of homes built
and make homes more affordable. The paper also looked in
detail at the following -
· Supply
and demand
· Design
· Planning
system
·
Infrastructure
·
Sustainability
· Social
housing
· Mortgages
· Skills required
amongst housing professionals
· Training
· Availability of
land
· Working with
partners/housing associations to build on land
The provision of social housing would be the
main investment area. 40,000 units would be required across
the country and it was anticipated that Cheshire would make a bid
for this funding. However, as the delivery vehicle for the
initiative would be local authorities, further consideration was
required as to how this would apply to those Councils such as Crewe
and Nantwich which did not hold its own housing stock.
19.1.2
Post Office Closures
The threat of closure of a significant number
of post offices across the UK had been anticipated for some
time. As an announcement in respect of the proposals
affecting Cheshire was expected to be released ahead of the next
scheduled Board meeting, the report outlined the mechanisms which
would be put in place to enable the Council to respond.
Whilst the Board’s defence of post offices was
supported by the Committee, a Member commented that it (the Board)
should not react negatively to the proposals without examining
whether any of the proposed changes could be of benefit to the
community.
19.2
Provisional List of Board Items (Board’s Forward
Plan)
The Committee made no comment on the
provisional list of Board items for 15 November 2007 and 3 January
2008.
20.
RESPONSES/REFERRALS FROM THE BOARD OR COUNCIL
The Committee noted that there were no
responses/referrals from the Board or Council on this
occasion.
21.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Educational attainment had been discussed by
the Committee at its meetings in February and July 2007, with
Members expressing concern at what appeared to be low attainment
levels and declining trends for certain local schools. The
Committee had concluded that the discussion would be more effective
if both an Executive Member (Cheshire County Council) and an
officer were in attendance.
An invitation to attend a meeting of the
Committee had been extended to the appropriate County Council
officers and Members. County Councillor David Rowlands had
responded to confirm that he or County Councillor Shirley Harris
would be in attendance on 14 November. He also confirmed that
arrangements had been made for three officers (Linda Brown, Mark
Parkinson (Principal Manager) and Sue Jackson (Principal Adviser)
who had responsibility for data) to attend the meeting. In
addition, a Head Teacher representative from each of the Crewe and
Nantwich Education Improvement Partnerships (EIP) would be
approached to outline the strategies being adopted by those EIPs to
raise standards.
22.
NON-RESIDENTIAL CARE – IMPACT OF CARE CHARGE INCREASES
As a result of the Committee’s decision to
include into its work programme a review of “the impact of care
charge increases upon users of the service locally (non-residential
care i.e. home and day care, transport and meals)”, an
invitation had been extended to County Councillor Lynn Hardwick and
Cathy Reynolds (County Manager – Business Support). No
response had been received and the Committee was asked to indicate
how it wished to proceed.
Members expressed their disappointment that
no progress had been made but AGREED that the
review be retained in the Committee’s work programme. The
Local Strategic Partnership Manager offered to liaise with the
County Council to move matters forward.
23. FINANCIAL
MONITORING
The Committee received the report of the
Executive Director, Treasury and Corporate Support which provided
information in relation to actual expenditure and income in the
current financial year for the period 1st April to
30th June 2007. The Assistant Director
(Accountancy and Audit) explaining to Members the main variances
compared with profiled budgets and responded to questions
raised.
24. WORK
PROGRAMME
24.1 Grants
Allocation
The Chairman had submitted a scoping brief
outlining the grounds for a review of the procedure associated with
small community grants. The Committee was invited to consider
whether it wished to include the review into its work programme
and, if it was minded to agree, nominate three members to sit on
the Task Group proposed.
AGREED: a) That a
review of small community grants be incorporated into the
Committee’s work programme; and b) that Councillors Charlesworth,
Lewis and Mottram be appointed to the Task
Group.
24.2
Neighbourhood Renewal
A small working group had been appointed by
the Committee to undertake this review and an initial meeting had
been held, attended by officers and one of the appointed
members. Given the wide ranging scope of this subject, the
discussion had attempted to define specific areas for
consideration.
It was perceived that there were matters
which affected areas dominated by older housing that were not
experienced by other communities, and which physical renewal alone
could not address. It was proposed, therefore that the review
should seek to obtain the views of residents living in these areas
to ascertain the quality of life experienced, both positive and
negative. However, to achieve this, some form of research
would need to be carried out.
The Committee accepted the initial findings
of the Group and supported further work being undertaken; the
Members’ appointed to the Working Group re-affirmed their
commitment to the process.
24.3
Leisure Charges Increases
A Member of the Committee had been
approached by a third party regarding an increase to the hourly
rate charged for the exclusive use of Crewe Pool which had caused
hardship for the Group he represented. The Member had
completed a scoping brief for the Committee to consider which had
been reproduced on the agenda for the benefit of Members.
The Head of Leisure Operations confirmed
that the current charge for exclusive use of Crewe Pool was £55 (a
rise from £50), however assistance was available to qualifying
groups experiencing hardship to seek additional funding. Of
the 28 hours a week the pool was given over to club/group use, only
two groups had reduced their hours subsequent to the rise but it
was unclear whether this had been a contributing factor.
Alternative approaches were discussed and
the Head of Leisure Operations confirmed that Groups could choose
to share the hire cost of the pool if they consented to sharing
pool space but for most, exclusivity was a key factor. The
cost of hire was considered to be competitive and Members were
reminded that the fees and charges were reviewed annually to ensure
this continued to be the case.
The Member was satisfied with the response
given and no further action was
required.
25. NEXT
MEETING
14 November 2007
…………………….
Chair