To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Mrs A Fisher and Mr P Sell, statutory co-optees.

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

No substitutions were made.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2016.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.

To consider suggestions from the public on issues the committee could scrutinise in the future.

(There will be no discussion of the issue at the time when the matter is raised.  Consideration will be given to whether it should form part of the committee’s work programme when compared with other competing priorities.)

No suggestions had been received.

To note questions received from the public and the items to which they relate.

(Questions are welcomed for consideration at a scrutiny committee meeting subject to the question being directly relevant to an item listed on the agenda below.  If you have a question you would like to ask then please submit it no later than 5.00 pm on Wednesday 31 August to tbrown@herefordshire.gov.uk)

No questions had been received in advance of the meeting in relation to the following items.

To seek the committee’s views on the four year central government funding deal.

The Committee’s views were sought on the four year central government funding deal.

The Head of Management Accounting presented the report.  She commented that the Government was currently consulting on 100% business rates retention.  The impact of any change would become clearer by the end of 2016.  Some £28 million of savings remained to be delivered by 2019/20.  This was a challenging target, leaving to one side the uncertainty over business rate retention, noting that the Council currently received £6.9 million per year from the national redistribution of business rates through a top up grant.  The budget outturn was showing overspends for adult social care and children’s services in the current year but measures were in place to address the position.  Accepting the funding deal would offer certainty.  The risk of not accepting the deal was that the Council would receive a lesser financial settlement.

The Leader of the Council reinforced the point that the four year settlement did not take account of the proposals for 100% business rate retention.  He noted that funding considerations would need to be taken into account in considering the Council’s participation in the West Midlands Combined Authority.

The Director for Adults and Wellbeing commented that a number of grants relating to adults and wellbeing, such as the public health grant, were separate from the revenue support grant.  The proposed settlement did not have a significant impact for the service but did have some implications.

The Director of Children’s Services commented that the Council had been expecting to gain additional funding from the implementation of the national schools funding formula.  The implementation had now been delayed for a year.  In addition £1m of the Education Services Grant was to be withdrawn from the Council and academies, although the statutory duties which this grant is for have not changed.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·        It was asked if the Government had indicated whether the current 1.9% cap on council increases would remain in place and whether the permission to levy an additional 2% for adult social care as for 2016/17 would be continued. The Head of Management Accounting commented that the government had given no indication as to its approach on either of these points.  She added that the concern was that if the Council did not accept the deal it could be subject to further budget cuts.

·        Concern was expressed as to what the benefits of accepting the deal actually were in practice.  Paragraph 10 of the report noted that although labelled as guaranteed minimum grant funding the Government had reserved the right to change the settlement due to unforeseen circumstances.  In addition it was remarked that the Government had a track record of changing what was included within various grants adding to the uncertainty about the grant figures quoted in the report.

·        It was clearly implied that a decision not to accept the deal risked the Council being disproportionately penalised in its funding settlement.  However, conversely it was asked whether accepting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

To seek the committee’s views having regard to the outcome of public consultation, on a revised draft statement of community involvement.

The Committee was asked for its views on a revised draft statement of community involvement having regard to the outcome of public consultation.

The Team Leader Strategic Planning presented the report.  He commented that the document had not been updated for some 9 years and had been amended to reflect developments during that period, including increasing reliance on communicating online and not via post and hard copy documents, and new initiatives such as neighbourhood development planning, community right to build and neighbourhood development orders.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·        It was noted that there had been 48 responses to the consultation.  This compared with 38 responses to the consultation in 2007.  The view was expressed that this was a low response and in itself indicative of the council’s difficulty in communicating.  The focus on online communication was questionable given the number of people in the County who did not have internet access.  It should also be noted that two thirds of those who had responded to the consultation did not think that the consultation methods proposed would be effective.  There was considerable interest in planning matters, as demonstrated by the number of neighbourhood development plans being prepared, amongst other things.

·        The Team Leader confirmed that all Town and Parish Councils in the County had been consulted.  The Neighbourhood Plans team had included information on the consultation in their newsletter but had not contacted NDP planning groups individually.

·        The Local and Neighbourhood Planning Community Engagement Officer (LNPCEO) commented that she had produced a plain English version of the consultation document.  Proposals to generate greater engagement included utilising public places such as libraries various networks and support groups.

·        In response to questions, the Lead Development Manager commented;

·        With reference to P53 paragraph 10.16 there was no legal requirement for an applicant to involve the community in their application at pre-application stage.  However, the wording in that paragraph could be strengthened.

·        The council’s software should be used to update the consultation deadline following the placement of site notices.  He would issue a reminder to ensure that this was happening. 

·        He confirmed that care was taken to ensure that sufficient notices of an application were placed on and around sites.

·        It was suggested that the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Trust should have been a consultee given its strategic role.

·        In relation to the table of engagement methods at section 8.4 of the report it was suggested that consideration needed to be given to what communication resources were available to residents in different parts of the county and engagement methods tailored to address deficiencies.  The LNPCEO acknowledged that engagement methods needed to be area dependent given the varying quality of parish council websites and other resources.

·      A number of detailed comments on the text of the statement of community involvement were made and it was proposed that the following amendments should be considered by Cabinet (page numbers refer to the published agenda papers):

To consider whether to make any recommendations to inform cabinet’s consideration of the communication protocol for members which forms part of the communication strategy.

The Committee considered whether to make any recommendations to inform cabinet’s consideration of the communication protocol for members.

The protocol formed part of the communication strategy which had been considered by the Committee on 26 July and was the subject of a further report at the Committee’s request.

The cabinet member – economy and corporate services presented the report.  He commented that the protocols had been in place since 2010 and it was not intended that they should place restrictions upon members but that they should offer support.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made:

·        The Director – economy, communities and corporate read out a statement seeking to address the concern that greater clarity was required as to what was meant when a communication was issued or statement made purporting to be by “the council”.  This stated that it depended on the context and the role of the member. The revised protocol set out at paragraph 3.1 a range of different roles and the context in which members may speak ‘on behalf of the council’. In essence if a member had a formal role relative to the issue in question, they could speak on behalf of the Council otherwise they were speaking as an individual.  It was analogous to the position in Westminster where a cabinet member may speak on behalf of the government, the opposition had spokespersons who made the opposition response, select committee chairs spoke on matters their committee have looked at, and backbenchers (regardless of their political persuasion) spoke as individuals on general issues or as constituency members when it was a matter relating to their constituency.

Having considered this statement, it was considered that further clarification was still required.

·        In relation to Councillors use of social media the communications manager stated that there would be briefings for councillors and staff.

·        It was suggested that there was a need for further clarification on the following points:  the role of local ward members, the application and operation of paragraph 4.2, and paragraph 4.5 and that an additional paragraph should be added providing guidance as to how members should approach communications as a council appointee to an outside body.

RESOLVED:   That cabinet be recommended that further consideration be given to the following matters in relation to the communication protocol for members:

·        In relation to paragraph 3.1 of the protocol further clarification was needed on when it was appropriate to use the word “Council” in communications when referring to such matters as Council policy and when further distinction was needed between a decision taken at full Council and a decision taken by an individual cabinet member or an officer.

·        Paragraph 3.4 needed further clarification, in particular regarding the role of local ward members.

·        Paragraph 4.2 –greater clarity was needed on the application and operation of this paragraph.

·        Paragraph 4.5 also required consideration and clarification.

·       An additional paragraph should be added providing guidance on how members should approach communications as a council appointee to an outside body.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday 27 September 2016 at 10:00 am

The Committee noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting was Tuesday 27 September at10:00 am.