Agenda and minutes

Any Member who is substituting for another Member should so indicate, together with the name of the relevant absent Member.

The following substitution was declared:

Councillor Sarah Stamp for Councillor Susan Glossop.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Simon Brown, Terry Buckle, Susan Glossop, Andrew Speed and Clive Springett.

Councillors Patrick Chung, and Wayne Hailstone were unable to attend.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2016 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2016, were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to put one question/statement of not more than 3 minutes duration relating to items to be discussed in Part 1 of the agenda only.  If a question is asked and answered within 3 minutes, the person who asked the question may ask a supplementary question that arises from the reply.

A person who wishes to speak must register at least 15 minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to start.

There is an overall limit of 15 minutes for public speaking, which may be extended at the Chairman’s discretion.

Simon Harding, a resident of Church Walks, Bury St Edmunds asked a question in connection with Item 5 on the agenda “Suffolk Local Policing Review”. 

Would the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommend Council to seek from the word go the advice and recommendation of Suffolk Constabulary as regards the upgrading of Suffolk Road Safety Officers deemed necessary to satisfy road safety requirements at the two entrances off Fornham Road into the planned West Suffolk Operational Hub at Hollow Road Farm, Fornham.

In response, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee stated that as no preferred site had been identified as yet for any West Suffolk Operational Hub, and indeed no decision had been taken following the recent consultation about whether there would be a single shared hub let alone where it would be, this question was not currently relevant. If the council does decide to go ahead with a West Suffolk Operational Hub then I am confident that road safety would be part of the development of any planning application for a specific site.

[Time allocated for this item is one hour]

Appendix A: OAS/SE/16/003 – (Suffolk Local Policing Review)

The Police and Crime Commissioner, Tim Passmore and the Chief Constable, Gareth Wilson have been invited to the meeting to give a presentation on the Suffolk Local Policing Review (SLPR) with a particular focus on its implications for the west of Suffolk, and to answer questions from the Committee.

[Councillor Frank Warby arrived at 4.50pm during the consideration of this item]

The Chairman of the Committee welcomed Tim Passmore (Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)) who had been invited to the meeting to give a presentation to Members on the Suffolk Local Policing Review.  He was accompanied by Gareth Wilson (Chief Constable) and Supt Andrew Manson (Local Policing Commander for the West). 

The PCC opened his presentation by thanking the Committee for the invitation.  The PCC informed the Committee that Suffolk was one of the safety counties to live in, in the UK and he wanted this to continue.  He then set out the reasons for the review, which covered the following areas:

·         Strategic direction and budget;

·         Managing demand;

·         Partnership working;

·         Protecting victims and vulnerable people;

·         Commissioning and grants;

·         Innovation;

·         Tackling new forms of crime; and

·         Preventing and reducing crime.

The policing review was not solely financial.  It was about the Constabulary responding to the changing nature of crime, with resources being located according to demand. The revised policing model for the county would be divided into nine localities, each led by an Inspector, who would oversee the work of the 18 Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT) across Suffolk and emergency response officers within their area.  (5 SNT located in west Suffolk).  Three Superintendents would oversee this work, being responsible for the East, West and South of the County.

As part of the reallocation of resources from urban to rural policing, a rural crime team had been located in Stowmarket to cover the west of Suffolk.  Three extra PCSO’s had been appointed to carry out a liaison role in schools right across the county.  Thirty more police officers had been recruited/funded to focus on protecting vulnerable people and support the county’s cyber-crime investigations and a new motorbike team in Bury St Edmunds.  

Working more effectively with partners both locally and regionally was also key in providing efficiencies across the public sector and the Constabulary was committed to furthering joint ways of working in partnership.

The Chief Constable informed the Committee that resources had been increased, which included the launch of a new Road Policing Team on 9 March 2016, to cover the west of the county, based in Bury St Edmunds to deal with speeding. New technology had been introduced such as body worn videos providing clear evidence; automatic number plate recognition and a new website to enable local community interaction.   

Supt Andrew Manson (Local Policing Commander for the West), informed Members that a response base would still be located in Bury St Edmunds, with reduced opening hours; and the Haverhill front desk would be closed due to the decrease in footfall, but would still be used by police officers as a response base.

Members discussed the presentation in detail and asked a number of questions of the PCC, Chief Constable and the Local Policing Commander, to which comprehensive responses were provided.  In particular discussions were held on the following:

(1)     Police stations: The PCC reassured members that no police  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Report No: OAS/SE/16/004

The Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance has been invited to the meeting to give a short presentation/account of his portfolio and to answer questions from the Committee.

As set out in the Council’s Constitution, at every ordinary Overview and Scrutiny meeting at least one Cabinet Member would be invited to attend to give an account of his or her portfolio and answer questions from the Committee.  Therefore, to carry out this constitutional requirement, members were asked to consider the responsibilities of the Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance, who had been invited to the meeting.

Report No: OAS/SE/16/004, set out the overall responsibilities of the Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance, which were:

·         Business development / commercial

·         Cabinet management and support

·         Civic office (Mayor)

·         Democratic services (including member’s support)

·         Financial services (including audit)

·         Health and safety

·         Human resources (including payroll)

·         ICT

·         Learning and development

·         Legal services

·         Performance and risk management

·         Procurement

·         Scrutiny management and support.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance opened his presentation by thanking the Committee for the invitation.  He then set out the overall areas of responsibility (legal and democratic services, finance and performance and human resources); current priorities for human resources, legal and democratic services; ICT Plan; finance and performance challenges; finance and performance plan; Anglia Revenues Partnership Plan; future uncertainties and member development. 

Members discussed the presentation in detail and asked questions of the Cabinet Member and officers, to which comprehensive responses were provided.  In particular discussions were held on the future uncertainties regarding the Government legislation on the National Living Wage and its impact.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance for his informative presentation.

There being no decision required, the Committee noted the presentation by the Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance.

Report No: OAS/SE/16/005

The Committee received Report No: OAS/SE/16/005, which asked Members to review progress made against the West Suffolk Housing Strategy 2015-2018.

The draft West Suffolk Housing Strategy was considered in detail at a joint meeting with Forest Heath’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 23 July 2014 and was approved by St Edmundsbury Council on 23 September 2014 and Forest Heath’s Council on 8 October 2014.

The West Suffolk Housing Strategy included a series of ambitious objectives against which key actions and targets had been formulated.  These actions and targets were reviewed and, if necessary, amended, deleted or added to on an annual basis.  The Housing Service reviewed progress against the Housing Strategy actions on a quarterly basis.  The Housing Strategy grouped the objectives under the following headings:

·         Planning

·         Rural housing

·         Developers an providers

·         Private sector housing

·         Adaptations and improvements

·         Community

·         Energy efficiency

·         Land and resources

·         Homelessness

·         Efficiency and effectiveness; and

·         Care and support.

Attached at Appendix A to the report was a detailed update on progress as at the end of December 2015, against 40 objectives under the above headings.  The remainder of the report summarised each of the headings, key achievements to date and work underway and highlighted challenges and external factors impacting on delivery.

Members considered the report in detail and asked a number of questions to which the Cabinet Member for Housing and the Head of Housing provided comprehensive responses.  In particular discussions were held on the following:

(1)        Rural housing – Members felt that the inclusion of open market housing would destroy rural exception sites.  The Cabinet member stated that open market housing would be another tool that could be used to secure the viability of rural exception sites, but would only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.  Officers were also waiting on the outcome from the Housing and Planning Bill, with regards to whether exception site properties would be included in the right to buy..

(2)        Energy efficiency – Members suggested the insulation contractor be encouraged to promote to residents the potential benefits of installing insulation, which officers agreed to look into.

(3)        Land and resources – (Housing Development Company) – Officers advised that the Housing Company would have the first option on land owned by both Suffolk County Council and West Suffolk, unless it had been earmarked for something specific.

(4)        Care and support – (Gypsy and Traveller Transit sites) – Members were advised that the Public Sector Leaders Group would be looking at widening the criteria used to identify potential sites, and communicating to residents where the project had currently got to.  

The Cabinet Member for Housing complemented the housing staff on progress made to date on the West Suffolk Housing Strategy.

There being no decision required, the Committee:

(1)        Noted the progress made to date against the actions arising from the West Suffolk Housing Strategy 2015-2018;

(2)        Noted the challenges facing delivery of the West Suffolk Housing Strategy; and

(3)        Noted an update would be presented to the Committee in early 2017 in order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Report No: OAS/SE/16/006

The Committee received Report No: OAS/SE/16/006, which requested that Members peruse the Cabinet Decisions Plan for the period March 2016 to May 2016, for which it would like further information on or which might benefit from the Committee’s involvement.

The Committee considered the Decisions Plan and there being no decision required, the Committee noted the contents of the Decisions Pan.

Report No: OAS/SE/16/007

The Committee received Report No: OAS/SE/16/007, which updated Members on the current status of its rolling work programme of items for scrutiny during 2016 (Appendix 1).

Members were reminded to complete the Work Programme Suggestion Form when submitting future items for potential scrutiny.  This enabled suggestions received to be initially considered by the Committee at each meeting and if accepted included within its forward work programme.

Members noted that a an update report would be presented in early 2017 in order to monitor the delivery of the West Suffolk Housing Strategy.

Members considered the report, and there being no decision required noted the contents of the report and that