Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cleaver and Desai. Councillor Naylor also submitted his apologies as he was elsewhere on council business.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Councillor Cutkelvin declared for the avoidance of doubt that in respect of item 8, Transforming Neighbourhood Services Programme – South Area, she had had contacts with various groups, and in particular groups that used the Linwood Centre and she had submitted a letter of representation (which had been included in the report).  Councillor Cutkelvin added that she had been advised that she did not need to vacate the chair for this particular item of business.

The Minutes of the previous meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Committee held on 6 February 2014 have been circulated, and Members will be asked to confirm them as a correct record.

Members were asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 13 March 2014.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 13 March 2014 be confirmed as a correct record.

Minute Item 93: General Fund Budget 2014/15 to 2015/16

The Chair confirmed that a minute extract from the meeting was shared at the Overview Select Committee on 13 February 2014.

Minute Item 94: Impact of Welfare Reform

The items as agreed had been added into the commission’s work programme. These included:

·         Representatives from the Job Centre Plus had been invited to the next meeting.

·         An item on Food banks would be discussed at the next meeting.

·         A site visit to the new customer service centre would be arranged in the near future.

The Chair also reported that there had been changes to the Fareshare scheme in that they were only able to provide a more limited range of food from April 2014. Assistant City Mayor Russell (Neighbourhood Services) advised that the organisation was struggling to meet the increased demand for its service and the city council were working as an authority to seek ways of providing support. She expressed concern that this would be a crucial issue if the changes went ahead as proposed.

Minute Item 95: Census Data Analysis

It was reported that the census ward data had not been sent out to all councillors. The Chair asked for this to be checked.

Minute Item 96: Equalities

The Chair confirmed that following concerns expressed by the commission, information relating to the Employees’ Groups had been amended on the council website.

The Monitoring Officer will report on the receipt of any petitions submitted in accordance with the council’s procedures.

The commission heard that just prior to the start of the meeting a petition from the Saffron Community Health Alliance in relation to the proposed closure of the Linwood Centre had been presented to the Assistant City Mayor for Neighbourhood Services.  The petition would be submitted into the council system for processing.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations and statements of case submitted in accordance with the council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no questions, representations or statements of case had been received.

The Director of Care Services and Commissioning submits a report that provides an update on the progress and development of the community legal advice service. The Commission is asked to note the report and make any observations and comments.

The Director of Care Services and Commissioning submitted a report that provided an update on the progress and development of the community legal advice service. The City Operations Director gave a presentation on the service and a copy of this is attached at the back of the minutes.

Members discussed the attendance figures at the outreach centres in the wards and the Operations Director explained that she could provide figures for the centres to show which were most attended and least attended.  She added that they were trying to refer people from the main office to an outreach centre if there was one in their ward. If a particular centre did not appear to attract the expected number of people, it might be necessary to re-consider locations and session times. All locations for the outreach centres were checked with the ward councillors; however further feedback on appropriate locations would be welcome.

The Operations Director was asked to take into account that members of the public in deciding where to go for advice were not constrained by ward boundaries (they may not even know which ward they lived in), but might chose a venue that was most convenient.

Members commented that information relating to the cost of phone calls to the 0844 numbers was not included on the website and they felt that this information should be there. The Operations Director responded it was probably because the different providers had different charging tariffs; however she would look into this.

The Chair referred to the logging system for calls received and remarked that it would be useful to have a breakdown of the queries raised by members of the public, if this was not too time consuming. The Operations Director stated that she could provide a breakdown of queries relating to multiple issues if it would be useful.

RESOLVED:

                        that the report be noted.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services submits a report that provides an update on the developments taking place in the Community Services section following the implementation of the organisational review.  The Commission is asked to note the report and make any observations and comments.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report that provided an update on the developments that were taking place in Community Services following the implementation of the organisational review.

The Head of Community Services explained that nine Community Engagement Officers had been recruited and were already making a positive impact. An update on their work would be brought to a future scrutiny meeting.  In addition there would be a report updating on the findings of the scrutiny review into Partnership Agreements.

There was some discussion on the community centres usage figures. Members heard that currently the figures included everyone who came into the centre; this included staff and members of the public calling in with a query. This system did not accurately reflect the level of community use of a centre and there was a need to monitor the level of usage by groups rather than by footfall. It was anticipated that as a result of the work of the Community Engagement Officers, there would be more community groups meeting in the centres. The Chair remarked that the Overview Select Committee would probably want to consider some of the statistics and she requested that officers ensure that the method for compiling statistics was consistently applied across all areas of the city.

A query was raised as to whether all the groups within the partnership arrangement were receiving their payment on time. The Head of Community Services explained that there had been a delay but this was being addressed.

Members discussed the changes to the fees and charges and heard that the new system of paying in advance was helping to reduce the amount of arrears. The Chair referred to the paye.net system and asked about the uptake of the scheme since it had been introduced. The Head of Community Services explained that he did not have that information to hand but he would forward it to her.

The Chair requested more contextual information in the report, in particular for members of the Overview Select Committee who might not be fully familiar with all the issues (for example the key access system).

RESOLVED:

1)    that the commission  note the report and request that a further report be brought back to scrutiny in 6 months time;

2)    that data collection be clearer and more consistent; and

3)    that the report with information around the context of different schemes and usage figures be taken to the Overview Select Committee.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services submits a report that provides an update on the Transforming Neighbourhood Services (TNS) programme and the engagement and consultation that has been carried out in the south area of the city. The Commission is asked to note the progress made to date and provide any comments on the final proposals for the south area, prior to a decision by the City Mayor and Executive.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report that provided an update on the Transforming Neighbourhood Services (TNS) programme and the engagement and consultation that had been carried out in the south area of the city.

Councillor Russell, the Assistant City Mayor for Neighbourhood Services presented the report and the Chair invited Karen Pickering and Maria Cook to address the commission and give their views on the proposed closure of the Linwood Centre.

Karen Pickering explained her background and her involvement in the area and in particular with the Linwood Centre and made the following points:

·         Local people felt that they had not been adequately consulted concerning the change of use at the Linwood Centre.

·         There were only two options on the consultation document; it did not give people an opportunity to choose an option that they wanted.

·         People in the community had concerns about travelling to the Pork Pie Library; they felt it was not safe for them to access the building because of the traffic. Traffic calming would not change people’s perceptions.

·         The library was also on the top of a hill and difficult for people with COPD or disabilities to access.

·         Members of the community felt that the Linwood Centre could be retained for community use by adapting the building to have the access control system.

Maria Cook then addressed the commission and explained that she had run the community café at the Linwood Centre on a voluntary basis for the past 8 years; the café was popular and yesterday she had had 36 customers. All the profit made by the café went to community groups.  Ms Cook questioned whether there would be room for the café in the Pork Pie Library.

Assistant City Mayor Russell and the Director for Neighbourhood Services responded to the comments and queries raised and explained that there had been many opportunities for members of the community to give their views and people had been listened to. Attempts had been made to find solutions, however, for example, providing access control for part of the Linwood Centre would be problematic. The toilets were in a different part of the building and it would be difficult to ensure security. Shared use of the space would be unrealistic and not viable for workshop tenants. There would also be cost implications which would impact on the savings that needed to be made on the overall running costs, particularly staffing costs.

In respect of the Pork Pie Library, the commission heard that in terms of the current level of usage, there was sufficient space there to accommodate all groups from the Linwood Centre that would need space there. In respect of the concerns over road safety, following changes in traffic management, there had been significant reductions in the number of pedestrian accidents; however it was agreed that there was still a perception over road safety issues.

The Chair commented that whilst she fully understood the reasons for the review, she felt that there were options that could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submits a report that outlines the lessons learnt, final evaluation results, recommendations and next steps following the pilot of the Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project. The Commission is asked to note and comment on the evaluation findings, lessons learnt and recommendations.

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submitted a report that outlined the lessons learnt, final evaluation results, recommendations and next steps following the pilot of the Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project.

The Assistant City Mayor for Community Involvement, Partnerships and Equalities presented the report and explained that the pilot project had commenced over a year ago, initially with four wards, before a further 6 wards were included in the scheme.

The Project Portfolio Manager reported that the pilot scheme had received mixed reviews, though had been generally successful in relation to officer involvement.  The Ward Community Project had now transferred to fall within the remit of Community Services.

Members heard that all councillors had been encouraged to complete an evaluation form; these were attached in Appendix A of the report. The response had been mixed partly because the resources within the project team were limited. Members heard that a considerable amount of work had taken place on the ‘toolkit’ and the budget process had been streamlined.  The Head of Community Services reported that he would bring a report back to the scrutiny commission in the autumn.

The Chair expressed disappointment that one of the evaluation forms had been omitted from the agenda and subsequently been tabled at the meeting. She asked for this to be circulated with the minutes.

Members considered the report; their discussion included points as follows:

·         Concerns were expressed at the workload of the Neighbourhood Development Managers.

·         Concerns were expressed regarding errors in the community meetings’ publicity.

·         The Councillor Guide was considered to be useful  for some councillors.

·         The ward meeting patch walks would not be suitable for all the wards. Concerns were expressed that as a multi-agency approach, they required significant staff resources.

·         Some wards were better served with community facilities than others, which made it very difficult to move around different areas within the ward.

·         Some wards had no council facilities in which to hold community meeting.

·         The guidance for councillors was welcome; but every area worked differently and the final decisions in relation to the running of the meeting needed to rest with the ward councillors.  The Project Portfolio Manager agreed and responded that the Neighbourhood Development Managers’ and the Community Engagement Officers’ role was important because they would help to facilitate what the councillors wanted. One of the findings of the pilot project was that the wards were different and one model would not suit them all.

The Chair commented that the commission had previously expressed concerns that councillors’ expectations may be raised by the pilot project. Officers were asked whether they had met with the ward councillors involved in the pilot to ascertain whether their expectations had been met. Officers responded that the Neighbourhood Development Managers would be addressing this issue.

The Chair expressed concerns that if some of the ideas generated with the pilot ward councillors were to be introduced, the process of supporting the community meetings would be more labour intensive and she queried whether the Neighbourhood Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

The Scrutiny Commission is asked to receive the work programme 2013/14 for consideration and comment.

Members were asked to consider the scrutiny commission work programme.

RESOLVED:

                        that the work programme be noted.

The meeting closed at 8.00 pm