Meeting documents

To approve the minutes of the Services Overview Committee held on 13 June 2018.

The minutes of the Services Overview Committee held on 13 June 2018 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 

There were no declarations of interest.

The Committee considered the 28 day notice and decided that there were no additional items to be added at this time.

RESOLVED

To note the 28 day Notice for Cabinet

The Chairman asked that item 9 on the agenda be considered first and the Committee agreed.

The Committee received a report which considered the implications of the Privacy Impact Assessment review of the CCTV provision in Chiltern and sought Cabinet agreement on the future CCTV monitoring arrangements and potential costs.

Thames Valley Police were exploring the opportunities to reduce long term costs by relocating the CCTV monitoring to the Milton Keynes hub. This was presently monitored at the Wycombe CCTV control room. The proposals suggested by TVP was for users of the proposed MK control hub to be charged a share of the capital costs based on a per camera rate. For the Council based on the current 42 CCTV cameras this would incur a one off cost estimated at £60,000 and an annual revenue contribution of approximately £30,000.

The review recommended that the existing camera systems detailed in appendix 2 of the report were refurbished with new digital cameras that would ensure high quality images were produced and further recommended that the cameras as detailed in appendix 3 be de-commissioned. The review also recommended that a mobile CCTV system is procured to allow monitoring of temporary crime and disorder hotspots not covered by CCTV.

Members expressed concern over the locations recommended for the decommissioning of cameras, particularly in Chesham and identified that the public perception was that visible cameras reduced crime. It was explained that the mobile cameras would likely be placed in and around Chesham at crime hotspots to counteract any loss of existing cameras.  Members were in agreement that refurbishment of the cameras in appendix 2 of the report was needed to ensure good quality images could be captured, supported a move to the MK hub and agreed that mobile cameras would be a good deterrent to crime.

All Members of the Committee were in favour of using CCTV in the District and supported the upgrade to digital cameras.  It was also accepted that mobile units could be more effectively used.  None of the Members wanted a reduction in camera units in their area.  It was also considered that as Chesham had a higher level of crime, it should have a higher number of cameras and this was currently not the case.

Members considered that cameras had an important function as a deterrent and to reassure the public, whether or not they were working.

Councillor Rouse informed the meeting of the decisions of the Healthy Communities PAG on 8 October 2018.  They had agreed to the move to the MK hub, acknowledged that the data being received from current cameras was inadequate, but were concerned about Chesham and wanted more time to discuss positioning and the number of cameras.

Councillor MacBean reported from Informal Cabinet that the matter had been discussed at length, that the council was working with the Police and they considered that Members needed to be more closely involved in the decision process.

The Committee did not support the removal of any of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

The meeting considered the Performance Report for Quarter 1 2018-19.  It was noted that most of the performance indicators were on target, with only one priority 1 performance indictor missed.  This related to major planning applications decision performance within 8 weeks.  It was expected that these would soon be back on target however.

Sickness absence targets were discussed, although on target, it was hoped that the level would be lower but it was noted that there was a small number of long-term sickness cases.  The meeting was reassured that the situation was being proactively managed.

The heavy workload of food hygiene inspectors was noted and it was asked whether sufficient publicity was given to premises with poor hygiene to discourage others.  It was advised that he “Scores on the Doors” scheme had been used successfully as an incentive to businesses and for those that were failing, the Council tried to help the businesses keep their standards up.

The performance of the Waste contract was also discussed due to the number of containers missed and the use of agency staff.  It was advised that there were regular meetings with the Waste contractors and there was expected to be significant improvements by the next quarter.

RESOLVED

To note the Performance Report for Quarter 1 2018-19.

Following the initial draft presented last year, there had been a delay in consultations due to the new white and green papers that led to new legislation and guidance.  The revised draft was now attached in the appendix, following a 6 week consultation.  This was a joint strategy that was being presented to both Councils for adoption.

It was noted that homelessness was still an issue and the Council planned to work on prevention and meeting its obligations whilst the pressure increased following welfare reforms and the introduction of universal credit in the district.

With regard to Chalfont St Peter it was asked whether another provider of affordable accommodation could be found following the slowness of Paradigm to complete maintenance on properties.  It was advised that Chiltern worked with many housing associations but Paradigm was the landlord and owner of the properties concerned.

The Bucks Choice lettings scheme had been jointly operated with Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe District Councils since 2009.  The allocations policy; how to prioritise and who qualifies, had been revised in 2014.  Following case law, ombudsman decisions and legislative changes including the Homelessness Reduction Act, a draft revised document had been prepared for consultation.  It would be a formal 6 week public consultation and then a final version of the policy was to be adopted by the four district councils.

The Members of the Leisure Working Group had recommended that the proposed development be renamed the Chiltern Lifestyle Centre to reflect the wider range of facilities to be offered by the centre. 

Some relocation of play facilities was required ahead of the proposed development and the meeting was advised that it was intended that the younger children’s play area would be maintained by the appointed leisure provider.

District wide public information events had been carried out and currently 1,250 responses had been received, of which 86% were in favour.  The operator tender process would identify the income payable to the Council.  The management income and final build cost estimates would be known before final decisions were made in June 2019.

Members raised the following concerns about the project:

1.     That there had been inadequate consideration of the options available to use existing facilities.

2.     No other alternatives had been considered.

3.     Anticipated usage levels may be overestimated.

4.     The effect on the other facilities in Chesham and Chalfont St Peter that were currently successful hadn’t been taken into consideration.

5.     Bucks County Council withholding support for the library.

6.     Too many contractors being consulted.

7.     Risk of Operator “get out” clauses.

It was advised that a review of the Chiltern Pools had been commissioned and would be reviewed by Resources and Services Overview Committees. A report to mitigate any risk to Chesham and Chalfont St Peter Leisure Centres would also be reported Resources and Services Overview Committees.

The previously reported structural survey of Chiltern Pools identified significant failings limiting the future life of the Chiltern Pools.  Alternative sites had been sought within the District but this was the best location.  The final decision would not be made until the final business plan considered the income to the council, the cost of borrowing and the build costs.

It was generally agreed that the name was not right but to avoid further debate, it was agreed that this could be taken as a working title or project name.

With regard to the cost to council taxpayers, it was advised that the intention was that the income from the centre would pay for the loan.

There was also a reminder that the current operator’s contract ended in 2020 which was fast approaching so there was a deadline to work to.