Agenda and minutes
Venue: The Thornton Room - Ground Floor, West Offices (G039). View directions
Contact: Robert FIintoft
Webcast: video recording
Declarations of Interest
At this point, Members are asked to declare:
· any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests
· any prejudicial interests or
· any disclosable pecuniary interests
which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.
At this point, Members were asked to declare any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, prejudicial interest or any disclosable pecuniary interests which they may have in respect of business on the agenda. None were declared.
To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2019.
Resolved: that the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 9 September 2019 be approved and signed by the Chair as an accurate record.
At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Friday 11 October 2019. Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the remit of the Committee.
To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.
Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings
Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be filmed and webcast, or recorded, including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts or, if sound recorded, this will be uploaded onto the Council’s website following the meeting.
Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting. Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.
The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present. It can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809.pdf
It was reported that there had been two registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme. However, one speaker has now sent their apologies and cannot attend the meeting. The remaining speaker had registered to speak on Matters on Committees Remit.
Councillor Claire Douglas (City of York Council) spoke about the role of a Social Value approach to procurement in CYC and other large buying institutions in York. Councillor Douglas recommended to the Committee a potential scrutiny topic around the importance of the Council’s Social Value Policy and if it could be embedded more effectively to see improvements in areas such as tendering, planning, and creating good jobs in York.
The Chair thanked Councillor Douglas for her contribution and highlighted that the Committee would take her comments into consideration during Item 6 of the agenda, as part of the Committee’s Work Plan.
The purpose of this report is to update the Customer and Corporate Services Scrutiny Management Committee on the approach to Project Management across City of York Council and present an update on the Council’s Major Project portfolio.
The Head of Programmes and Smart Place provided an update on the Council’s approach to Project Management, and presented an update on the Council’s Major Project Portfolio. The Committee were updated on the training and support given to Project Managers and how projects are monitored. The Committee was asked to note and consider the project approach and the project information provided, as well as the information published monthly on the open data platform.
Before the Head of Programmes and Smart Places answered Members’ questions, the Chair noted that the item would attract a lot of questions that the Head of Programmes and Smart Places would potentially be unable to answer without the specific Project Manager being present. In these instances the Committee were assured that questions would be noted and answered outside of the meeting.
In answer to members’ questions regarding major projects and Red, Amber, Green (RAG) rating system for projects, the Head of Programmes and Smart Places stated that:
· Big projects will most likely have their own Project Manager, but this does not mean that a Project Manager will not potentially have more than one project ongoing;
· Project Sponsors can vary depending on the project management structure but will often be the Corporate Director;
· Officers responsible for setting the RAG rating of a project are experienced enough to correctly score projects;
· The Council aims to involve public participation in projects in the discovery phase at the start of the project, and highlighted the work undertaken in the Castle Gateways project as a strong example of public engagement;
· Oversight does not necessarily change if a project changes RAG rating, because the risks are known within the team before the rating is determined;
· That the RAG scoring cannot be perfect and recognised questions on why certain projects do not make the list. However, it was stated that there is a scoring system and a project must meet the threshold to be included on the Corporate Highlight Report.
Members discussed their concerns about oversight of the RAG rating being determined by a Project Sponsor that would be required to answer why a project is an Amber or Red. The Head of Programmes and Smart Places highlighted that the importance is the detail of the risks that are overseen by the Corporate Management Team (CMT) themselves not necessarily the RAG colour assignment. However, the Head of Programmes and Smart Places did recognise Member concerns regarding public perception if they do not agree with a colour rating assigned to a project.
Members listed a number of current projects and questioned the current rating as being Green, such as the Older Persons Accommodation Phase 2 due to risks being reliant on external parties outside the Council’s control. Members considered monthly reports for scrutiny committee’s and including the breakdown of the 11 elements that make up a RAG rating being included, but agreed they did not want to intrude on the work of Audit and Governance Committee. The Head of Programmes and Smart Places confirmed ... view the full minutes text for item 30.
This report provides Members with a six-monthly update on the work of the Report of the Chair of Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee.
Members considered a report that provided them with a six-monthly update on the work of the Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee.
The Chair of the Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee gave an update and confirmed the Committee had received:
· Reports from various officers, including around Housing Services new ICT project that could overlap between Health & Adult Social Care Policy & Scrutiny Committee, Customer and Corporate Services Scrutiny Management Committee, and his own Scrutiny Committee.
· Briefings on the various service areas under the Committee’s remit, giving the Committee a greater understanding of the role the Council and its partners play in the field of housing and community safety;
· An update from the Executive Member for Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods;
· The draft Housing Delivery Program Design Manuel before it was presented to the Executive in order to provide comments and were joined by a number of external ‘experts’.
Members discussed the loss of housing from Right to Buy against the ability to replace them from new housing building. The Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee have discussed pausing or challenging Right to Buy, while there is precedent in Scotland this is considered difficult. The Committee is currently considering requesting that the council retains receipt of sales, to prevent a loss of revenue from properties sold from Right to Buy.
Members asked if there had been an impact on people going into arrears as a result of moving to Universal Credit, as the payment is direct to the individual and no longer to the housing association or landlord? The Chair of the Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee confirmed that they had not looked into this, however, they could look into this and provide an update. The Assistant Director Customer & Digital Services noted that rent arrears are reported as part of the impact of welfare benefits to the Executive on a six monthly basis, the next report is due in December.
The Committee Chair raised concerns about the cost of temporary CCTV camera instalment due to the Council’s current contract. It was discussed which scrutiny committee could best consider this issue. The Head of Civic and Democratic Services noted that this could be connected to the wider contract and so would be best placed with CSMC.
Members thanked the Chair of the Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee for his update.
i. That the update be noted.
ii. That the Chair will discuss with the Head of Civic and Democratic Services the correct channel for the Temporary CCTV issue to be taken.
Reason: To keep the Committee updated on the work of the Housing and Community Safety Policy and Scrutiny Committee.
To consider the committee’s draft work plan for the municipal year 2019-20.
The Chair presented a draft work programme for the 2019/20 municipal year. The Chair recognised the length of the list, and wanted the Committee to consider if anything was missing from the draft work programme and what areas were of significant interest to the Committee to pursue.
The Chair noted an interest to see more involvement from external experts be incorporated into the Committee meetings where appropriate. He also noted that HR, Resources, and Wellbeing is not currently on the list as this currently has a report returning to the Committee and is presented every six months. The Chair also stated that on the Potential Work Streams list Information Governance should have been named Information Management.
Members discussed the work stream list and were advised by the Head of Civic and Democratic Services to seek several overview reports to define what the work will focus on. The Chair agreed with this approach and stated that it could lead to recommending pieces of work to other scrutiny committees, after the overview report, where this is applicable to do so. Members focused on:
· Sustainable Procurement Policy and the social value in disinvestment (disposing of assets) and how decisions are made.
· Diversity and barriers to entry for being an elected member in York, taking into account the current lack of diversity amongst scrutiny chairs and how to engage with non-elected members about the barriers to entry to widen participation in the conversation.
· Budget setting and how other authorities in and outside of the UK approach the decision of setting a budget, and how is this feed into from officers at lower levels and frontline staff to CMT.
· How the Council has around forty individual brands in the city and if it would be better to present these more clearly as being Council services to the public.
· If there is currently the resources to enforce decisions made at the Area Planning Sub-Committee.
Resolved: That the following work items be discussed between the Chair, Scrutiny Officer, and Head of Civic and Democratic Services to determine a timescale for the work before being added to the Work Plan:
i. Overview report of Council motions covering the last four years;
ii. Overview report on added value in procurement;
iii. Deciding scrutiny topics is deferred to chairs and vice chairs meeting;
iv. Overview report on member engagement, post January Numeration Report;
v. Public engagement meeting involving My Future York to be undertaken by the Chair and Vice Chair;
vi. Overview report on Budget Setting;
vii. Information report on information management.
viii. Information report on corporate branding;
ix. A topic raised by the Area-planning Sub Committee on how planning enforcement is working be referred to the Economy and Place Policy and Scrutiny Committee.
Reason: To ensure that the Committee has a planned programme of work in place.
This report provides Members with details of new petitions received to date, together with those considered by the Executive or relevant Executive Member/Officer since the last report to the Committee.
Members considered a report providing them with details of new petitions received to date, together with those considered by the Executive or relevant Executive Member/Officer since the last report to the Committee.
The Chair noted an update on the current report process for petitions that was asked to be considered in the previous meeting on the 9 September 2019. The Assistant Director Legal and Governance has recommended to the Chair, that when the constitution is reviewed that amendments be made so that Respark Petitions no longer come to this Committee for monitoring. Instead Respark petitions will be sent to either the Executive Member for Transport or the Council Highways team depending on the content of the petition.
The Chair also highlighted that Petition 138 could be included as part of the overview report on added value in procurement, members agreed to this proposal.
i. That the report be noted.
ii. That Petition 138 on City of York Council paying the living wage, be incorporated into the overview report on added value in procurement.
Reason: To ensure the Committee carries out its requirements in relation to petitions.