To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor PJ Watts.

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

Councillors PA Andrews and RI Matthews declared personal interests in agenda item 7: Local Development Framework and Local Transport Plan as members of the Council's Local Development Framework Task Group

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 7: Local Development Framework and Local Transport Plan as the matter related to decisions made when he was a member of the Executive.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2011.

RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2011 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

There were none.

To consider an overview of performance against the Joint Corporate Plan 2010-13 for the first nine months of 2010-11.

The Committee considered an overview of performance against the Joint Corporate Plan 2010-13 for the first nine months of 2010-11.

The report to Cabinet on 17 February was appended.

The Policy Officer presented the report.  He highlighted that of the 77 indicators where data was available in this quarter 52 were on track to achieve the target.  He referred to a number of areas set out in appendix 2a to the report where performance was ahead of target and a number of areas set out in appendix 2b to the report where performance was behind target.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         Performance against HPS.3.2: the percentage of initial assessments for children's social care carried out within 7 working days of referral (NI 59) was discussed.  The Policy Officer commented that a new model of working had been introduced in the relevant team and improved performance was forecast.  Members requested a breakdown of performance against this target to seek assurance that the target was not being missed by a substantial margin in individual cases.

·         Concern was expressed that performance against target HPS.2.3: average weekly rate of delayed transfers of care from hospitals/100.000 population aged 18 or over (NI 131), continued to be behind target.  The Policy Officer commented that whilst performance was behind target it had improved in the last quarter and that trend was expected to continue.   Members recognised that considerable thought had been given to this issue and that improvement measures had been put in place.  It was proposed that the Health Scrutiny Committee should include an examination of the effectiveness of these measures later in the year.

·         The difficulties being faced by 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training were discussed noting that provisional performance against the target HPS.3.4: the percentage of 16-18 year olds who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) (NI 117) showed a worse picture than in the previous year.  The Policy Officer commented on action being taken to improve the monitoring of training undertaken by this cohort.  He added that performance for 2009/10 against this target had been in the upper half of authorities.  The national data would not be available until later in the year.

Whilst recognising that the national economic climate was a key factor, Members urged Cabinet to encourage efforts to improve the situation of this group to ensure that everything was being done that could be done.  It was also requested that a briefing note be circulated showing how the Council’s performance compared with other authorities when the national data was available.  

·         The commentary in relation to target HPS.2.1, 4.3 and 4.6 the number of alcohol-related admissions to hospital/100,000 population (NI 039) referred to an “alcohol needs assessment” being undertaken.  It was suggested that the County was awash with alcohol and that the problems it caused were well known.  Action including a comprehensive education programme was required now.

·         The Cabinet Member – Environment and Strategic Housing informed the Committee that a considerable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To consider the forecast financial position for both revenue and capital to 31 March 2011 and provide an update on Directorates’ recovery plans instigated to address projected overspends.

The Committee considered the forecast financial position for both revenue and capital to 31 March 2011 and an update on Directorates’ recovery plans instigated to address projected overspends.

The report to Cabinet on 17 February was appended.

The Head of Financial Services presented the report.  She highlighted that the overall budget position for 2010/11 showed a projected £2.2m overspend, approximately 1.5% of the revenue budget. Recovery plans were in place but the full benefit of these might not take effect in the current financial year.

The most significant overspend related to Integrated Commissioning. The availability of additional government funding to NHS Herefordshire was being investigated with £800k potentially available to support social care.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         That there had been no indication that the Government was planning to make additional funding available to authorities under the Bellwin Scheme in recognition of the additional costs incurred as a result of the severe winter weather.

·         Questioned about slippage in the capital programme, the Head of Financial Services stated that action had been taken to try to ensure that external funding for schemes was not lost.  Members requested that every effort be made to ensure that this was the case.

·         Members reiterated concerns about the seemingly perpetual overspend on the Integrated Commissioning budget and emphasised the need to ensure that the additional funding made available in the 2010/11 budget was used effectively.

·         It was noted that questions had been received from the public about the land charges budget.  The questions and answers were circulated to the Committee as set out below.

Q "Please tell us how the Council have calculated the £70k impact to income for the Landcharges section stated at point 52 under Major Budget Exemptions"

A The loss of income has arisen from the abolition of the Personal Search statutory fee. The loss was calculated by identifying the number of searches by the statutory fee of £22.00.

Q "Please tell us when the impact assessment covering Landcharges income (stated at point 54) will be completed and where may we see the details"

A  An exercise has taken place to deliver a new price list for the CON29 questions, the process is now to gain approval for these new tariffs in readiness for the new financial year.

RESOLVED:   That officers be requested to make every effort to ensure that external funding granted for capital schemes was not lost.

To consider Cabinet’s recommendations to Council on the preparation of the Local Development Framework and arrangements in respect of the Local Transport Plan.

(Councillor PJ Edwards declared a prejudicial interest in this item and left the meeting.)

Councillor WLS Bowen (Vice Chairman) in the Chair.

The Committee considered Cabinet’s recommendations to Council on the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF) and arrangements in respect of the Local Transport Plan (LTP).

The report to Cabinet on 17 February was appended.

A number of questions had been received in addition to those appended to the report.  The questions and answers prepared by officers were circulated at the meeting and are appended to these Minutes.

The Chairman thanked the public for submitting questions.  However, he emphasised that the purpose of this particular meeting was to discuss Cabinet’s recommendations to Council on the timing of the preparation of the LDF and LTP, not the detail within those two documents as currently drafted.  He therefore proposed to refer the questions to Cabinet to be taken into consideration as part of Cabinet’s deliberations.

He also proposed that the scrutiny function should review the LDF process later in the year.

The Director for Sustainable Communities, the Planning Policy Manager and the Transportation Manager presented the report.

The Cabinet Member – Environment and Strategic Housing commented that he considered the Council had followed the correct process in preparing the LDF and welcomed scrutiny of it.

In response to a question the Director for Sustainable Communities commented that while landowners may well be considering their options, he was not aware of any negotiations by the Council to acquire land along the line of the relief road proposed in the LDF.   Some land had previously been acquired some years ago by the former Hereford and Worcester County Council when an eastern bypass route had been under consideration.  He undertook to provide a briefing note to Members. 

RESOLVED:

(a)  That Cabinet’s recommendation to Council on 17 February as set out below be supported:

(i)                 the Local Development Framework timetable be revised as set out in the table at paragraph 11 of the report to Cabinet;

(ii)               the linkage between the Local Development Framework and Local Transport Plan, and the consequent impact on the Local Transport Plan timetable be noted;

(iii)             the existing Local Transport Plan 2 be adopted as the Council’s interim Local Transport Plan3 pending finalisation of the Local Development Framework submission;

(b)       to recommend that the whole Local Development process be scrutinised and reviewed by the scrutiny function at the appropriate time having regard to the Local Development Framework timetable as approved by Cabinet; and

(c)        that the questions from the public submitted to the Committee be referred to Cabinet to be taken into consideration as part of Cabinet’s deliberations on the Local Development Framework.

To consider the Committee’s work programme.

The Committee considered its Work Programme.

It was noted that a report on affordable housing was scheduled to be submitted to the March meeting,

RESOLVED:  That the work programme as amended be approved as a basis for further development.