To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor JP French (Cabinet Member - Corporate and Customer Services).

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a personal interest in agenda item 7: Smallholdings Estate Policy and Working Practices because a relative farmed one of the smallholdings.

Councillor RH Smith declared a personal interest in agenda item 5: Integrated Performance and Finance Report as a Council appointee to the Board of Herefordshire Housing Ltd.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

There were no suggestions from members of the public.

To note the Council’s 2007 Comprehensive Performance Assessment and direction of Travel statement issued by the Audit Commission on 7 February.

The Committee was informed of the Council’s 2007 Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) and Direction of Travel statement issued by the Audit Commission on 7 February.

The report to Cabinet on 21 February was appended to the report.

The Corporate Policy and Research Manager (CPRM) presented the report.  He reported that, as predicted in the Integrated Performance and Finance Report presented to the Committee in February, the Council’s overall CPA score, relating to performance up to the end of March 2007, had fallen to 2*.  The reason for this was the fall in the rating for Housing from 2* to 1*.  He drew attention to the table in the report showing star ratings by government office region.

The Audit Commission’s assessment of the Council’s direction of travel was that the Council was improving adequately.  The CPRM referred to the Commission’s summary quoted in the report, noting that it gave a mixed picture.  On the positive side, it stated that, “Performance has improved in most priority areas”, which was an improvement on the 2006 judgement that overall service levels had been maintained.    He also highlighted the references in the summary to improvements in Children’s Services, Adult Social Care and tax collection and benefits administration.  On the negative side, the summary referred to increased costs in collecting waste and limited progress on the Council’s business transformation programme.  He noted that value for money overall was described as reasonable, but that this was not measured consistently across the Council.  The inspectorates had developed some non-mandatory performance indicators for value for money that were being considered by officers.  He also mentioned the Commission’s reference to the significant weaknesses  that the Council had identified in the governance of ICT, which also noted that plans to address them had been agreed.

He drew attention to the table in the report showing direction of travel assessments by government office region.

He advised that the key to improvement was to continue to steadily improve performance against the performance indicators and to ensure the delivery of improvement plans, including those involving joint work with the Primary Care Trust, to improve value for money and to strengthen internal control arrangements.  If this was done, he considered that the Council should be well-placed for the Commission’s 2008 assessment, published in early 2009, to judge the Council’s direction of travel to be “improving well”.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         The report had stated that the change in rating of the performance of the housing service did not represent a deterioration in performance but was a result of a one year change in the selection of indicators used by the Audit Commission.    It was asked how the assessment of other authorities’ Housing Services had been affected by this change.   The CPRM said that there was a mixed picture.  When the CPA had been introduced the assessments had been made on the basis of performance against performance indicators and an inspection.  The Council’s Housing Service had been given the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

To consider the Council’s performance for the first ten months – to the end of January - against the Annual Operating Plan 2007-08 and national performance indicators used externally to measure the performance of the Council; partnership performance for the first eight months – to the end of November -  in delivering the Local Public Service Agreement, Local Area Agreement and Herefordshire Community Strategy; and performance against revenue and capital budgets and corporate risks, and remedial action to address areas of under-performance. 

(Councillor RH Smith declared a personal interest.)

The Committee considered the Council’s performance for the first ten months – to the end of January - against the Annual Operating Plan 2007-08 and national performance indicators used externally to measure the performance of the Council; partnership performance for the first eight months – to the end of November -  in delivering the Local Public Service Agreement, Local Area Agreement and Herefordshire Community Strategy; and performance against revenue and capital budgets and corporate risks, and remedial action to address areas of under-performance. 

Performance against Performance Indicators

The Corporate Policy and Research Manager (CPRM) presented this section of the report.

He reported that the number of red (not on target) Council-led indicators from the annual operating plan had increased from 23 to 25 since the last report.  The number of indicators marked green (on target or met target) had increased from 24 to 27. 

Referring to the 7 red indicators relating to teenage lifestyle he said that some proxy indicators had now been developed and were awaiting approval by the Children’s Trust.  Once approved these could be used in-year in 2008/09.

He noted that there had been an increase in social worker turnover which had implications for performance against target HC 89b (completion rate of initial assessments of children in need within 7 days of referral) and said that intensified efforts were being made both to retain and recruit social workers.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made. 

·         Concern was expressed that the number of red Council led indicators from the annual operating plan continued to rise.

·         It was suggested that the fact that the teenage lifestyle indicators had still not been signed-off suggested poor management of the process.  The CPRM said that local authorities generally were finding it challenging to develop robust performance management processes for partnerships. The Comprehensive Area Assessment preparation programme provided for the effectiveness of current arrangements to be reviewed.

Disappointment was expressed that despite frequent expressions of concern by the Committee the desired upturn in performance against the partnership targets was not forthcoming.

·         It was asked in relation to social worker retention and recruitment whether the Council was benchmarking with other authorities to see how they were coping with these issues.  The CPRM said that the Head of Safeguarding and Assessment was taking vigorous action to manage the situation but it was and would remain a difficult challenge, as it was for local authorities generally. 

·         It was noted that performance against indicator 83a HC - principal roads condition, had moved from amber (some progress/or data not yet available so not possible to determine trend) to red.  Concern was expressed by Members at the perceived condition of both principal and non-principal roads based on their personal observation.  However, noting that the target against the indicator for non-principal roads was on track to be exceeded it was proposed to formally record concern only about performance against the indicator on the condition of principal roads and highlight  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

To note progress against the action plan that was developed as the Authority’s response to the audit of its performance management arrangements in the autumn of 2006, and the associated communications action plan.

The Committee deferred consideration of this report.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Council’s policy on management of the smallholdings estate and invite any comments.

(Councillor PJ Edwards declared a personal interest.)

The Committee was provided with an update on the Council’s policy on the management of the smallholdings estate and invited to comment.

On 7 November the Committee had agreed that a full review of the management of the smallholdings estate be carried out and properly documented in one report, with particular reference to value for money for the whole of Herefordshire, and detailing the criteria for disposal and including maps showing the location of holdings.  The policy had subsequently been reviewed and updated and was being presented to the Committee for consideration.

The Head of Asset Management and Property Services (HAMPS) presented the report.  He drew attention to the amended target for capital receipts for 2008/09 and beyond to £1million per annum, net of approved expenditure on capital repairs.  He added that the current policy managed the estate on the basis of structured disposals of buildings and parcels of land and re-allocation of land to retained holdings.  The policy of structured disposal provided the Council with value for money by optimising the capital and revenue returns from the estate.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         It was noted that the revised and updated documentation addressed a number of points the Committee had raised in November. 

·         It was asked whether the net income of £140,000 was acceptable having regard to the estimated capital valuation of the estate.  Appendix 4 to the report indicated options for disposal based on vacant possession ranging from £18million - £43.2 million under the present policy of structured disposal of buildings and parcels of land and reallocation of land to retained holdings.

The HAMPS referred to the valuation of the estate, set out at section 8.2 of appendix 2 to the report, of £4.253 million.  This valuation was based on the nationally accepted instructions and guidance for the valuation of rented farms.  Section 9.2 noted a return in 2006/07 on capital invested of 10.3% gross (3.8% net of expenditure) with an estimated outturn for 2007/08 of 9.5% gross (4.3% net of expenditure).  The figures in appendix 4 were estimated sums that could be achieved by disposal dependent on which option for disposal was pursued.

·         It was asked whether the rental charges were realistic.  The financial information before the Committee suggested a weekly rental for a 50 acre smallholding of £81.73 a week.  This compared with a 3 bedroom house in Ledbury advertised at £81.70 a week.

·         It was suggested that there were instances of tenants sub-letting to contract growers.  There was concern that the risk that this would occur was increased given that there were a number of older tenants on lifelong tenancies who would retire as farmers.  This was in conflict with the aim of offering a ladder of opportunity.  This was unsatisfactory and needed to be investigated.

The HAMPS reported that modern tenancies did not permit sub-letting.  However, some of the older tenancy agreements did not contain a clause prohibiting sub-letting.

·         That the smallholdings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

To consider the proposed action plan to ensure that the Council, with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and its other partners, is well-placed for the new system of Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA).

The Committee deferred consideration of this report.

To consider a draft of the Council’s Corporate Plan 2008-11; and to offer comments for Cabinet to consider. 

The Committee deferred consideration of this report.

To consider a draft updated performance improvement framework for the Council, together with an associated two-year performance improvement cycle; and to offer comments for Cabinet to consider. 

The Committee deferred consideration of this report.

To note Cabinet’s response to the recommendations made by the Strategic Monitoring Committee following the call-in of Cabinet’s decision on the acquisition of the preferred technology to replace the current client systems used within both Adult Social Care and the Children and Young People’s Directorate and the Committee’s consideration of a consolidated report on the Herefordshire Connects programme.  

The Committee deferred consideration of this report.

To consider the Committee’s work programme.

The Committee deferred consideration of this report.