Apologies for absence had been received from Mr P Sell.

The Chairman introduced Mr Baugh, the new clerk to the Committee.  The Chairman paid tribute to Mr James, the previous clerk, who had recently left the authority after 39 years of service in local government in Herefordshire.  The Committee acknowledged Mr James’ professionalism and wished him well for the future.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

There were no named substitutes.

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

No declarations of interest were made.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2013 were received.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2013 be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

To consider suggestions from members of 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.)

The Chairman invited suggestions from members of the public in attendance at the meeting.

•        Referencing the ‘Open Book Review’ report to Cabinet on Thursday 20 June 2013, Ms K Rogers suggested that the Committee look at the quality of services that, it had been claimed, would benefit from the proposals.  The Chairman said that the suggestion would be reviewed and a response provided.

•        Referring to the Council’s part in the ownership of Hereford Futures, Mrs E Morawiecka said that she had provided substantial documentation to the Council about errors that had been made in statutory and public documentation and suggested that these communications be circulated to the Committee.  The Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer said that the Committee could request a report on this subject matter.  The Chairman considered this to be an appropriate way forward.

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

(Questions are welcomed for consideration at a Scrutiny Committee meeting so long as the question is directly related to an item listed on the agenda.  If you have a question you would like to ask then please submit it no later than two working days before the meeting to the Democratic Services Officer.  This will help to ensure that an answer can be provided at the meeting).

Questions had been received in advance of the meeting on the following items:

Item 7, Local Development Framework: three questions from Mrs E Morawiecka, one question from Mrs J Morris, four questions from Ms V Wegg-Prosser, and two questions from Mr R Stow.

Item 8, Council Budget 2013/14 - Update: three questions from Mrs E Morawiecka and one question from Ms K Rogers.

The questions, together with written responses from officers, were circulated at the meeting and are appended to these minutes.

The Chairman thanked the members of the public for their questions and invited a supplementary question from each, it was not expected that answers would be provided at the meeting but written responses would be provided in due course.

Local Development Framework

·                Mrs Morawiecka did not consider that a satisfactory response had been provided to her question 1 a), the question being ‘As a result of the consultation on the draft Core Strategy and the responses received, has Herefordshire Council corrected any of the omissions identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan?’  Mrs Morawiecka clarified that the omissions were detailed in the narrative above her question.

·                Mrs Morris and Ms Wegg-Prosser were not present at the meeting.

·                Mr Stow, also linking to question 1 a), re-iterated the key elements of his question (9) ‘Why did the Council consult on the Core Strategy without providing evidence of the economic viability and deliverability of the necessary infrastructure, as required by NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) paragraph 177?’ and given the absence of timings.

Council Budget 2013/14 - Update

·                Mrs Morawiecka noted that the response to question 11 referred to the ‘Your Community, Your Say’ consultation in 2012, rather than 2013, and questioned whether the authority was working a year behind on those consultations.  In response, the Chief Officer: Finance & Commercial said that some of the consultation undertaken in 2013 had been taken into account but it would feature further when the authority looked at the next Medium Term Financial Strategy.

·                In response to a further question from Mrs Morawiecka about the response to question 12, the Chief Officer: Finance and Commercial said that when presenting information at budget setting the authority compared budget against budget not against actual expenditure, although this was available within the financial system.

·                Ms. Rogers commented on Herefordshire’s ageing population, the supplementing of underfunded care by family members, and the underfunding of adult social care locally and nationally.  She asked whether Members and officers were aware of the impact that the proposed cut to baseline fees would have on families.

RESOLVED:  That

a)         That the questions and responses circulated at the meeting be noted; and

b)        Further written responses be provided in response to the supplementary questions following the meeting.

To outline the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy (draft) consultation process and set out the responses received in response to the consultation undertaken between 4 March and 22 April 2013.  This report does not detail the content of the Core Strategy itself.

The Cabinet Member Environment, Housing and Planning (hereafter ‘Cabinet Member’ in these minutes), introduced the report and made the following comments:

1.       Further to the report provided to the 11 February 2013 meeting, this report updated the Committee on the consultation process undertaken and representations received to the consultation on the Herefordshire Plan - Core Strategy (draft).

2.       There had been a huge effort by the officer team to turn this information around, culminating in the publication of the survey of results.  This comprised over 650 pages of reproduced comments, including both electronic submissions and transcribed free text submissions.

3.       Councillors were thanked for their part in the process, particularly for engaging with people during the consultation and for their input post consultation.

4.       Members of the public were thanked for getting involved in the consultation process and for their contributions.

5.       There had been seven consultation stages undertaken since 2007 and feedback had been taken on board at each stage.

The Assistant Director Economic, Environment & Cultural Services (hereafter ‘Assistant Director’ in these minutes), made a number of points, including:

i.        The Core Strategy had been produced with environment and habitat information and the recently-completed consultation process was the last of the traditional open rounds of public consultation.

ii.       This report provided an early opportunity for Members to see the comments which would considered in detail at Cabinet on 4 July 2013 and Council on 19 July 2013.

iii.      The importance of ‘soundness’ was emphasised as this underpinned the Plan and would be a key consideration for the independent Inspector.  It was noted that the requirements for Development Plan Consultation were set out in Regulations 18 and 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

iv.      Subject to Cabinet and Council approval, there would be formal publication of the Plan and representations invited for the Inspector to consider.

v.       The most recent elements of the consultation were set out in the report.

vi.      Pie-charts were provided in the report, based on statistics from the consultation.

vii.     There had been 1,428 responses to the survey and this was consistent with expectations for this stage of the Plan.

The Vice-Chairman suggested that, for the efficient transaction of business, discussion on the item be structured as follows: the report itself; consultation process; responses detailed in the report; summary; and recommendations.

The Vice-Chairman noted that the work programme for the Committee had anticipated responses to consultations on both the Core Strategy and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) at this Committee meeting.  Clarification was sought as to why this was not the case, alongside commentary on the implications of decoupling the Core Strategy from the CIL.  In response, the Assistant Director advised that:

a.       The authority had a statutory responsibility to produce a Local Development Framework.

b.       The authority had an option whether or not to bring forward a CIL charging levy and had decided to do so.

c.       The industry model was that any CIL ran a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a presentation on the latest position concerning the Council Budget 2013/14.

The Committee received a presentation on the latest position concerning the Council Budget 2013/14; the presentation had been circulated in advance of the meeting and published as a supplement to the agenda on the Council’s website.

The Chief Officer: Finance & Commercial made the following principal points:

1.       There had been no change in the Council’s net budget of £150.296 million.

2.       The Chief Executive had conducted a review of all service delivery plans.

3.       It had been identified that a service specific grant of £3.8 million had remained in the budget as an income line, despite it being included in the direct grant from government.

4.       The Council’s Internal Auditors, KPMG, had undertaken a review of the net budget position and had concluded:

•        the treatment of the £3.8 million grant had no impact on the overall net budget agreed by Council in February;

•        greater level of detail in budget papers to Cabinet and Council may have helped identify duplication;

•        high level of control of 2013/14 People’s Service budget evident;

•        formal sign-off of Hoople budget information required;

•        lack of stability in senior management in Social Care may have had a historic impact on financial control; and

•        Council took timely action to resolve issue and give assurance that budget soundly based.

5.       Although there had been more detail than in previous years, the duplication of the grant had not been obvious because grant income information had been presented as an overall total in the budget information.

6.       It was accepted that there was a need for greater clarity in the working relationship between Hoople financial services and the Council’s retained finance function.

7.       It was noted that senior management turnover in Social Care had reduced levels of corporate knowledge.

A Committee Member said that assurances had been provided about Social Care in the past but the departure of key staff could undermine stability very quickly; it was suggested that some of the issues might have arisen from changes to statutory posts under the previous government.  He added that recruitment difficulties could be compounded by the outcome of the recent Ofsted inspection.  The Chairman noted that stability was a key issue going forward.

The Head of Finance - People’s Services continued the presentation, key points included:

i.        The review of the service delivery plans had identified a net gap of £7.4 million in People’s Services.  Work had been undertaken to mitigate risks and identify additional savings, with People’s Services recovering internally all except £2.8 million of the budget pressure.

ii.       Attention was drawn to the Directorate Budget Control Totals slide which showed movements, including the transfer of Environmental Health and Trading Standards service from the People’s Directorate to the Places and Communities Directorate, and revised budget for each Directorate.

iii.      An overview was provided of the chronology of the Adult Social Care budget.  It was reported that the Adult Social Care budget presented in February 2013 was based upon September 2012 client activity and expected growth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider the Committee work programme.

The Chairman commented on the recent publication of the ‘Understanding Herefordshire 2013’ report which would inform the future development of the Work Programme.

A Committee Member said that some of the terminology used in Council documents was unclear and it was suggested that a briefing paper be prepared to explain the nature of core, critical, discretionary, essential and statutory services.

The Vice-Chairman said that a report arising from the work of the Task and Finish Group on the Community Infrastructure Levy would need to be added to the Work Programme.

A Member in attendance suggested that the Committee could review the executive responses to the Local Development Framework report following Cabinet on 4 July and in advance of Council on 19 July 2013.  The Chairman said that consideration would need to be given to the value that could be added, as there would be no clear purpose if Members were broadly satisfied with the adequacy of the data presented.  The Vice-Chairman reminded the Committee of the undertaking given by the Cabinet Member at the 11 February 2013 meeting to provide the ‘executive’s response to any issues raised’.

The next scheduled meeting: Monday 8 July 2013 at 10.00am.

The meeting of General Overview & Scrutiny Committee scheduled for Monday 8 July 2013 was subsequently changed to Tuesday 16 July 2013 at 2.00 pm in the Council Chamber, Brockington, 35 Hafod Road, Hereford.