Agenda and minutes

Any apologies for absence that have been received will be noted at this point.

The Chairman welcomed all to the meeting. Apologies had been received from Mr Graham Hicks and Caroline Neville.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 14 June 2016 and 5 July 2016. To consider progress against recommendations made to Cabinet and Council.

The minutes of the last meetings held on 14 June 2016 and 5 July 2016 were discussed. Mrs Jones provided an update on the recommendations made at the meetings.

·         Minute 85 Housing and Planning Portfolio - Mr Ransley raised three bullet points where information had been promised but not yet provided to the committee. Mrs Jones undertook to follow up on this. Mr Shaxson requested that information on the South Downs National Park meetings be circulated to members.

·         Minute 86 Chichester in Partnership Plan 2016-17 – Council agreed that a £10k funding reserve be made available in order to attract match funding to support new or existing projects with proven benefits to vulnerable residents that would otherwise fail for lack of short term funding.

·         Minute 95 Chichester BID – a report on the council’s future support for the BID would be brought to a future meeting of the committee; this is dependent upon the outcome of the vote for its continuation.

·         Minute 96 Chichester Vision – Mr Oates will raise the issue of access to and from the city and speed of the rail journey from London to Chichester in communications with a number of stakeholders in discussion about the Vision.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of 14 June 2016 and 5 July 2016 be approved as a correct record.

The Chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances are to be dealt with under the agenda item below relating to Late Items.

There were no urgent items.

Members and officers are reminded to make any declarations of disclosable pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests they may have in respect of matters on the agenda for this meeting.

Mrs C Apel declared a personal interest in respect item 9 due to her position as Trustee of Stonepillow.

The procedure for submitting public questions in writing no later than 12:00 on Monday 12 September 2016is available upon request to Member Services (the contact details for which appear on the front page of this agenda).

One public question had been received but it was agreed this would be taken under the next item as it related to Southern Water.

Representatives from Southern Water have been invited to make a presentation to the committee and to answer questions prepared by the committee and sent to them in advance of the meeting. The committee is requested to consider this information and to raise any further comments or recommendations in order that the Council continues to achieve positive engagement with Southern Water in relation to plan-making and determining planning applications.

The committee considered a report by Mr M Allgrove and Mr T Whitty (copy attached to the official minutes) which included at Appendix 1 Southern Water’s (SW) response to questions set by the committee.

Mr P Kent, Environment & Wastewater Strategy Manager, and Mrs B Rhead, Stakeholder Engagement Manager (Sussex), both of SW, attended to answer questions.

A number of questions had been received in advance of the meeting (copy attached to the official minutes). Mr R Seabrook, a member of the public, was asked to read his questions and officers and SW representatives responded as follows:

·         Queried the formula for averaging headroom – Work on assessing dry weather flow is undertaken on a three year average; sometimes SW may use a four year average if the weather has been particularly wet. The Chichester Water Quality Group which involves the council, Environment Agency (EA), Natural England and SW has taken a view that because of the region and its weather patterns it is probably fairer to take a seven year average to calculate headroom. SW doesn’t want to operate a treatment works which is under capacity and which will not produce high quality effluent which would subsequently put SW at risk of prosecution. When there is a storm event the excess flow goes into the storm tanks; when the storm abates this flow will go into the treatment works and out with the effluent.

·         Delays in discharge notification - On release of discharge into the harbour SW notifies the Harbour Board and they have a system for disseminating the information. SW are looking at producing the data in a user-friendly format to be made available to the Harbour Board to load onto their website for all to access. Users would not necessarily look at the SW website for this information.

·         Discrepancies in discharge notification – An amendment was suggested to the question to reflect a 346 ‘minute’ (not hour) discharge. On this particular occasion there was no release into the harbour and therefore it doesn’t appear on the records. The data has been passed on to EA and they are satisfied.

·         Is telemetry unreliable? SW try to work in real-time as much as possible; it is better to notify in error than not at all.

Mr Oakley had put forward to the committee a number of questions to give an idea of the incidents around the Tangmere area:

·         Queried the framework SW use to enter into agreements with developers which is separate to the planning process - The developer may gather background data and approach SW to ask if there is capacity in system to build houses. SW, through contractors, would do a desktop exercise to say yes or no, with conditions attached, so the developer has some evidence that he can discharge to the sewerage system. SW then seeks a restriction on any planning approval to the effect  that the developer can't build or occupy the first tranche of properties until it agrees a discharge route for the waste water.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

The committee is requested to consider the future options for the Choose Work Project as set out in sections 5 and 6  and to make recommendations to Cabinet about the future direction and funding of the project.

The committee considered this report (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mr Oates and Ms Loaring from CDC and Gary Edwards from DWP attended  presented the report.  Mr Oates provided an update on inaccuracies in the report as follows:

·         Page 1, Exec Summary, the second sentence across lines 2, 3 and 4 should read: “This project was set up by Chichester in Partnership as part of its ‘Getting people into Work Strategy’ in 2012, and has delivered 187 work placements helping 94 local residents back into work, with an estimated saving to the public purse of £772,586.”

·         Page 2, section 4.3, line 8 – delete 25% and replace with 47%

·         Page 2, section 4.3, line 9 – delete 23 persons and replace with 44 persons

·         Page 2, section 4.3, line 11 – delete £8,956 and replace with at least £8,219

·         Page 2, section 4.3, line 12– The final sentence should read: From 2013 to date, the project has cost in total £130,367.25. 189 work experience placements have been delivered and 94 persons are now in employment, Page 4, section 6.2.1, line 2 – delete £114,000 (£38,00pa) and replace with £120,000 (£40,000pa)

·         A corrected table at section 3.1 (page 4) of the Evaluation was circulated (copy attached to the official minutes).

The committee made the following comments:

·         Queried the reason for the lack of funding offered by partners – The housing associations referred to the project but hadn’t been around the partnership table, however they work on a wider basis now.

·         There has been an estimated saving of £777,000 on the public purse so unsure why the Department of Works & Pension (DWP) are not prepared to further fund this project.

·         Queried the meaning of ‘a more holistic and personal development approach’ – Some people need more ongoing support (training, coaching, confidence building, encouragement) and/or they may have low level mental health problems. Support does not cease and case workers are in continuous communication with work seekers using formal and informal contact.

·         Part of the scheme is engaging with employers to encourage them to offer placements

·         The project is a Chichester brand. It has no competitors. The council has started to create a market and is not limited as to who it can work with. Officers will approach the county council as there are links with the Think Family project. One other authority had approached us to use our brand but they were not going to deliver a sufficiently similar project so it was decided not to share it.

·         The project has helped mostly Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants however we are now being requested by DWP as part funders to help claimants on Employment Support Allowance (ESA) as well. These are people who may not be able to work due to illness or disability. The number of ESA claimants in the district is much higher than for JSA

·         Queried the cases coming forward, how long they had been unemployed, number of ex-offenders, etc – This was exclusively through the Job Centre  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

The committee is requested to note the findings of the Post Project Evaluation and to consider any comments or recommendations that it may wish to make.

The committee considered a report by Mr J Bacon and Mr S Hansford (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mr Bacon and Mr Hansford introduced the report and Ms Esther Quarm, Gypsy and Traveller Team Manager, West Sussex County Council attended to answer questions in relation to the management of the site.

The committee made comments including those that follow. It:

·         Queried the cost of running the site – All authorities contribute to the running of the transit site. The cesspit emptying costs were £15,500 per annum, electricity £3,500 and the total rent collected £17,000. This year there had been a surplus of £43,000 which it had been agreed would be held over as a sinking fund for future maintenance costs.

·         Travellers are well looked after by a number of agencies who visit the site.

·         The figures are high for 2016-17 in comparison to last year as the summer period is the main travelling period for travellers.

·         The total number of dwell days has gone down significantly from 611 in 2014/15 to 78 in the current year.

·         The average length of stay is roughly 6 weeks, although some families stay only a few days. DCLG guidance and regulations state that the maximum stay can be up to12 weeks.

·         Queried the reason why the transit site was not connected to mains waste – the Council did apply to Southern Water but connection to this site was refused due to capacity issues in the pipework. All foul water is emptied into two cesspits on site.. Following the discussion held with Southern Water earlier at agenda item 6 it was suggested that the council reapply to Southern Water for a connection at this site.

·         The number of encampments/lived-in vehicles was higher than last year. There has been an increase in van dwellers (homeless people who have chosen to live in vehicles).

·         Court appearances by Ms Quarm had reduced significantly since the introduction of the transit site, which had brought significant savings.

RESOLVED

1)      That the findings of the Post Project Evaluation be noted.

2)      That Officers approach Southern Water to ask that they reconsider a mains waste service connection at the transit site.

A recent scrutiny review into housing for care leavers has taken place across West Sussex authorities. The committee is requested to recommend to Cabinet that the recommendations set out in the Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group report in respect of housing for care leavers be endorsed, and that this Council’s response to the recommendations be approved and conveyed to the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Steering Group.

The committee considered the report in the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mrs N Graves informed the committee of the work of this joint scrutiny group. Mr R Dunmall and Mrs L Rudziak attended to answer questions.

The need for holistic working with care leavers and the need to plan ahead were discussed. This is in order that they adapt and thrive in their new environment. The Foyer currently takes 16-18 year olds and into adulthood to 25 if required. Planning policy would need to be taken into account in considering any future housing arrangements however this is dependent upon analysing need across the county in a partnership approach. Future monitoring arrangements had been suggested as one of the recommendations to ensure that there was a consistent approach across the county.

 RECOMMENDED TO CABINET

1)          That the recommendations set out in appendix 1 to the Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group report in respect of housing for care leavers be endorsed.

2)          That this Council’s response to the recommendations as set out in appendix 2 to the report be agreed and conveyed to the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Steering Group.

The committee agreed to set up a Corporate Plan Task and Finish Group in October 2016 to consider the Council’s performance mid-way through the year. The committee is asked to consider the attached Terms of Reference and scoping of the work for the Task and Finish Group and to confirm its members and Chairman.

The Terms of Reference for the Corporate Plan Task and Finish Group were agreed.

Mrs P Dignum, Mrs P Plant, Mr N Galloway and Mr S Morley agreed to take part on this group. It was agreed to seek one further volunteer from the wider membership.* Mrs Dignum was agreed as Chairman of the Group.

*Subsequent to the meeting, Mrs D Knightley confirmed that she wished to take part on this group.

Members are asked to consider the latest Forward Plan (attached) and to consider whether it wishes to enquire into any of the forthcoming decisions.

Mr Galloway raised a number of items for further involvement by this committee:

·         devolution (there will be wide member involvement in this issue)

·         Museum Options appraisal (on the committee’s work programme)

·         Review of Locally Defined Council Tax Discounts (*subsequent to the meeting it was ascertained that this issue was not raised earlier in the year when setting the committee’s work programme)