Agenda and minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Members were asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on the agenda.  None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the committee held on 21 September 2010.

RESOLVED:That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 21 September 2010 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the committee’s remit can do so.  The deadline for registering is Monday 17 January 2011 at 5.00pm.

There were no registrations to speak under the council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Mike Ryan – Director LDU York – York and North Yorkshire Probation Trust will give a presentation on “Contribution to Safer York”.

The following documents are attached in support of the presentation:

• Handouts from presentation (Annex A)
• York and North Yorkshire Probation Trust Annual Report Summary 2009-10 (Annex B)

Members were informed that the representative from the York and North

Yorkshire Probation Trust was unable to attend the rescheduled meeting but would be pleased to deliver a presentation on “Contribution to Safer York” at a future meeting.

RESOLVED:That the Probation Service Presentation on “Contribution to Safer York” be deferred to the next meeting.

The Chair of SMC will be in attendance to learn about the Scrutiny Committee’s views on the effectiveness of scrutiny generally in York and specifically on the success of ongoing changes and improvements to current scrutiny practices.   This will help SMC in its efforts to improve the experience of scrutiny at work in York.

The Chair of Scrutiny Management Committee explained that he was attending scrutiny committee meetings to seek the views of Members as to their experiences of scrutiny with a view to looking at how scrutiny could be improved in the future.  A report would be presented at the next meeting of the Scrutiny Management Committee. 

Members made the following comments:

·        Scrutiny could be made to work more effectively.

·        There were issues regarding the resourcing of scrutiny and yet it was noted that the scrutiny budget had an underspend of £15k.

·        After a scrutiny topic had been registered there was too long a delay before a review was undertaken.  The process was too complicated and this was a barrier to effective scrutiny.

·        Recent improvements to scrutiny processes, including the revised topic registration arrangements, were acknowledged.  There was, however, still more that could be done to streamline procedures.

·        Insufficient action was taken on the recommendations arising from scrutiny reviews.

·        Scrutiny was too topic based – more should be done to hold the Executive to account.

·        There should be more pre-decision scrutiny.  Executive papers should be presented to SMC prior to them being considered by the Executive.  Members could make a useful input at that stage. The calling-in procedures could still be implemented if appropriate.

·        The agendas for scrutiny committee meetings were too focussed on monitoring reports and other data.  This left little time to consider other issues.  It appeared that items were sometimes included on scrutiny agendas because they were not within the remit of any other committee.

·        Scrutiny topics needed to be timely and relevant – it was useful if they were linked to specific projects that officers were carrying out, for example the review of the Customer Feedback Policy.

·        Task Groups were too restricted by the remit for the review, this meant that they were unable to respond to issues that came to light during the process of carrying out the review.

·        Members of scrutiny committees did not always feel that they were making a difference or that their time was being well spent.  This could be very frustrating.

The Chair of SMC thanked Members for their contributions and stated that they would be included in the report that would be presented to SMC on 28 February 2011.

The Director of Communities and Neighbourhoods suggested that it might be useful for the committee to hold a meeting at which the Assistant Directors could update them on the work that would be taking place during the year ahead.  Members would then have the opportunity to decide whether there were particular polices or pieces of work in which it would be useful for them to have an input.  This would also help with planning the committee’s workload.

This report provides update performance information on the North Yorkshire Police Policing Pledge local performance indicators and Safer Neighbourhood Team Priority Settings.

Members received a report that provided update performance information on the North Yorkshire Police Policing Pledge local performance indicators and the Safer Neighbourhood Team Priority Settings.  It was noted that the pledge was to be replaced by service standards.  The Public Attitude Survey would no longer be carried out but there would be other methods of consultation in place.

Members queried the figures in Appendix A, specifically those relating to Clifton and Bishopthorpe.  Officers agreed to look into this matter¹.

Members were informed that there was to be a policing restructure and that this would be reflected in future reports.

Members were asked if they would wish a representative from North Yorkshire Police to attend future meetings.  They agreed that this would not be necessary unless there were specific issues that the committee wished to raise. 

RESOLVED:            (i)            That the report on North Yorkshire Police performance be

                                    noted.

(ii)That the committee receive a briefing on the new police structures².

(iii)That a representative from North Yorkshire Police not be required to attend all meetings of the committee.

REASONS:            (i)            To ensure that the committee was informed of North

                                    Yorkshire Police performance.

(ii)To enable the committee to have an understanding of the revised policing structure.

(iii)To ensure effective use of officer time.

This report, from the Safer York Partnership, presents information on performance on the Community Safety Plan.

Members received a report that presented data on performance in respect of the Community Safety Plan.  Members’ attention was drawn to the identified priorities.

It was noted that cycle theft continued to be a key issue.  Officers gave an update on the work that was taking place to tackle this problem. 

Members were informed that a new Community Safety Plan was being prepared and should be available for the next meeting.

Referring to NI 47, Members requested a breakdown of the data in respect of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents.  Officers confirmed that data was available that could identify whether the accidents occurred on main roads or estate roads and that it would also be possible to specify whether the accidents involved motorcycles, cycles or pedestrians¹.

RESOLVED:            That the report be noted.

REASON:      To ensure that the committee is informed of performance in implementing the Community Safety Plan.

This report presents an overview of performance at Quarter 2 2010/11 for environmental and regulatory services managed from the Communities and Neighbourhoods Directorate.

Members received a report that presented an overview of performance at Quarter 2 for environmental and regulatory services managed from within the Communities and Neighbourhoods Directorate. 

Members noted that the significant exceptions related to waste management (NI192,193) and fly-tipping (NI196).   Officers stated that it was not clear why there was an upward trend in fly-tipping and gave details of the investigative and enforcement work that was taking place.   Members noted that this year’s targets of 48.1% for recycling and 51.1% for landfill were unlikely to be achieved but that there had been an overall reduction in waste collected and landfilled. Members suggested that local manufacturers should be approached to seek their support in reducing the amount of packaging for their products.  The approach could be made through the LSP Economic Development Partnership as well as by making direct approaches to the companies concerned.

Officers, referring to the forecast overspend figure detailed in paragraph 4 of the report, stated that because of an overspend on the winter maintenance budget, the predicted overspend for the portfolio had now increased further.  Action was being taken to outturn within budget by the end of the financial year.

Officers were asked about the action that was being taken in respect of the projected shortfall in income from Commercial Waste activities. They explained that, although income targets had not been met, the service continued to make a profit.  A review was to be undertaken to look at issues including the pricing structure and reasons why some potential customers were using other providers.

RESOLVED:That the financial and performance position of the portfolio be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with budgetary and performance monitoring procedures.

Members are asked to consider a topic registration form that has been submitted in respect of CCTV.  A supporting short presentation will be given by officers from CYC Network Management.

Members considered a topic registration form that had been submitted in respect of CCTV. 

Councillor Alexander detailed the reasons why he had submitted the topic registration.  He explained that he had not included civil liberties within the topic area, as he had understood that a topic registration on this issue had been recently rejected.  He did not, however, have any objection to this aspect being considered, should the committee wish to include this issue in the remit of the review. 

The Chair clarified that the topic registration form that had previously been submitted by Councillor Vassie had not been rejected but that the committee had agreed that a scrutiny review on the effectiveness of CCTV in York should not take place at that time. It had been noted that North Yorkshire Police Authority were undertaking a review of the costs and effectiveness of CCTV provision across the North Yorkshire police force area. 

Officers gave a presentation which provided an overview of City of York CCTV system in operation.  Members were informed that the system had three key uses:

·        Traffic management

·        Car park management

·        Crime and Disorder

Details were given of how the system worked, the hardware used, the staffing and support that was in place and the system’s potential to be developed in the future.  Examples were shown of how CCTV had been used to record specific incidents in the city.   Members noted that bodies such as the York and North Yorkshire Safer Communities Forum were also looking at issues in respect of CCTV.

Members agreed that it would be worthwhile for a scrutiny review of CCTV to be carried out and that its remit should include issues that had been identified on the topic registration forms submitted by Councillor Alexander and Councillor Vassie.

RESOLVED:            (i)            That the Chair, Vice-Chair, Councillor Vassie and

                                    Councillor Alexander meet to:

·        Consider the topic registration forms submitted on this issue and identify issues to be included in the draft remit for the review.  The draft remit would then be considered by the committee.

·        Draft answers to the final five questions detailed on the topic registration form. The draft answers would then be considered by the committee.

(ii)That information on the Police Authority review of CCTV be presented at the next meeting.

REASON:            To progress a scrutiny review on CCTV.

Members are asked to consider the committee’s workplan.

Consideration was given to the committee’s workplan.

RESOLVED:            That the workplan be noted.

REASON:            To progress the work of the committee.