Meeting documents

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2016 were confirmed and signed.

To receive a presentation from Andy Battye (Head of Operations) and Mark Ainsworth (Director of Operations) of the South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.

The Committee received a presentation from Andy Battye (Head of Operations) and Mark Ainsworth (Director of Operations) updating Members on the Ambulance Service’s performance and challenges faced throughout the year.

Mr Battye explained to the Committee the differences between Red 1, Red 2 and Red 19 calls, and how Nature of Call was used to flag the highest priority calls, to aid with efficiency in dealing with calls. The Red 1 performance had improved since the previous year by 9%, with a demand increase of 5.71%. Performance of Red 2 was shown to be within a 1% improvement on the previous year, with a demand increase of 28.51%.

The nature of the challenges faced by the Ambulance Service were explained to the Committee, and included changes to the Healthcare Professional Emergency Response Model, Hospital Delays, distances to be covered within South Bucks, and financial pressures in relation to contract negotiations. The Ambulance Service highlighted that actively participating in recruitment and retention schemes.

The Committee were provided with details on the Community and Co-responders scheme, which are developing at a swift rate, growing from 9 to 31 schemes in 18 months. These were seen to alleviate pressure from the Ambulance Service, with designated local response, or crewed dynamic response vehicles.

Members were pleased to hear that the SCAS had received a rating of good from the Care Quality Commission, and after questions and answers, thanked both Andy Battye and Mark Ainsworth for their time and effort.

To consider report of Head of Sustainable Development.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee were asked to consider and comment on a report that would be received by the Joint Committee on 12 October, in order that the views of the Committee be taken into account when the Joint Committee makes its decision on the Green Belt Preferred Options consultation stage of the emerging Joint Local Plan.

The Principal Planning Officer précised the process, detailing that the open consultation between January and March 2016 had informed the scope of the Joint Local Plan, and indicated that the views of the Committee would form an integral part of the process going forward.

The comments and views expressed by members are summarised below:

·         Tactics from Central Government could be seen as scaremongering

·         Any imposition by Central Government could lead to political fallout and damage

·         A reluctance  to see the process progressing without further information on how representations would be judged

·         The Council has no choice but to proceed with the Local  Plan process and undertake consultation in accordance with government requirements

·         Questions raised at the start of the plan process had still not been answered adequately, including issues around how sites were put forward for development by Officers. Without a thorough understanding of this,  the Joint Local Plan process could not be fully supported

·         Concern was expressed about the Iver Heath Fields proposal. It was felt any development would weaken the land at The Clump, breaking the green belt entirely. The land was noted to be a frequently-used public space and amenity, which fell entirely within the Colne Valley. Officers were asked to take these concerns into consideration and that red flag be raised in relation to this particular site.

·         That HEDNA overstates needs and requires revisiting as a result of which it can be demonstrated that there is little or no need to build on Green Belt.

·         Even if the Council brings forward these options, there is every indication that there is not even adequate, let alone satisfactory, sustainable funding available to establish and maintain what might be required in terms of infrastructure development.  In particular Bucks County Council and NHS England have no funds available for this and one off grants/Section 106 payments /or CILs  will be inadequate.

·         That in the crowded Home Counties the proposals would detract from central government's avowed intention to regenerate the economies of the Midlands and the North whilst causing irrevocable damage to the environment and home owners’ asset wealth in the south.

·           It is a folly to continue to use taxpayer money in the development and pursuit of this planning policy process until we know whether or not it is the intention of the Minister for CLG to abolish this council following Bucks County Council's application for the establishment of a unitary council. If this means a delay in, or failure to deliver a new Local Plan, then so be it.

·           It is doubted whether central government has the time, resources or inclination to take over the process from South Bucks as flagship  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To consider the report of the Interim Director of Services.

The Committee received a report detailing the findings of the Audit Review of Planning Enforcement arrangements, alongside the actions being taken to address areas of weakness.

The Head of Sustainable Development informed Members that those steps that could be applied to the service immediately had been applied, but that many of the actions would not be fully integrated until the Planning Shared Service review had been undertaken and implemented.

During discussions, the Committee submitted the view that the flowchart within TIAA’s report was a suitable starting point for Officers, Members and residents in terms of understanding the Enforcement process, but suggested that timescales be added to the Council’s own flowchart, leading to greater clarity of the expected service levels. It was clarified that within Planning Enforcement, a flowchart already existed and that the addition of timescales would emerge from the implementation of the Planning Shared Service review reflecting the resources available.

It was therefore RESOLVED by the Committee that the report be noted.

To consider the report of the Head of Sustainable Development.

The Committee considered a report containing details of Planning Performance for the period 1 April 2016 – 31 March 2016, set out within 4 tables:

·         Table 1 - Determination of planning applications: this showed 97.88% of applications having been determined within 8/13 weeks, or with an agreed extension of time, and 15.9% of applications refused.

·         Table 2 - Applications determined by planning committee or under delegated powers:  detailed that 3.5% of applications had been determined by Planning Committee, and 96.5% had been determined under delegated powers.

·         Table 3 - Determination of appeals:  24.2% of appeals had been allowed when dealt with under delegated decision, and 40% allowed further to Committee decision to refuse permission contrary to officer recommendation.

·         Table 4 – Complaints: the complaints referred to the Ombudsman numbered 7. The Head of Sustainable Development updated the Committee, by advising that none of the 7 complaints were upheld.

The Committee, after discussing the figures within the report, RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider report of Director of Resources.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee received a report containing the annual review of the committee at South Bucks, as part of the Authority’s annual assurance process. 

Members noted that Appendix A, attached to the report, summarised the work of the Committee for the financial year 2015/16 in table format which showed that the Committee’s work provided a good coverage of the Council’s service areas. Key themes included performance, finance, service planning and policy development, and reviews of specific topics.

After comments on the report, the Committee RESOLVED that the report be noted and used to provide supporting material for the Annual Governance Statement.

To consider report of Acting Chief Executive.

Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee received a report outlining the performance of Council Services against indicators and service objectives during Quarter 1 of 2015-16.

Members were able to note from the report that of the total 42 PIs, 9 were seen to be off-target (5 of these priority PI), with further detail of these within the two detailed performance tables accompanying the report:

·         Appendix A – Priority indicators Q1 2016-17

·         Appendix B – Quarterly corporate performance indicators Q1 2016-17

The working days lost due to sickness was shown to be off-target due to seven cases of long-term sickness absence. Four of the off-target Healthy Communities PIs related to housing, linked to the national increase in demand for temporary accommodation and lack of affordable housing, and this was something the Committee had discussed before. The Resources PI Speed of processing was off target due to changes of circumstances for HB/CTB claims and is expected to improve in Q2, with a general trend of lower performance during the first part of the year. The Percentage of calls to the ICT helpdesk resolved within agreed timescales was off target due to an increase in workload caused by single network migrations at the same time as reduced capacity within the service. Within Environment, Household refuse collections, number of containers missed per month was off target due to vehicle breakdowns and PDA issues.

The Committee therefore RESOLVED that the Performance Report be noted.

To receive the minutes of the Committees held on:

The minutes of the meetings of the Bucks Health and Adult Social Care Select Committee of the 14 June, 21 June and 26 July 2016 were noted.

To receive the minutes of the Committees held on:

The minutes of the meetings of the Bucks Children’s Social Care and Learning Select Committee of the 5 July were noted.

To note the work programme timetable.

The work programme was noted by the Committee.  The Chairman requested that Farnham Park be added to the agenda for the next meeting, to receive an update on performance, changes made, and how the asset would fit with the Council’s Leisure objectives, and improving the financial viability of the Farnham Park operations.

Members also asked for an update at the next meeting on the Strategic Asset Review work being undertaken.

None.