Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hastrick.  In the absence of Councillor Hastrick, Councillor Ahsan Khan, the Vice-chair, chaired the meeting.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2017 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2017 were submitted and signed.

To consider any executive decisions which have been called in by the requisite number of councillors.

It was noted that no executive decisions had been called in.

Report of the Head of Community and Environmental Services

There will be a presentation from the operator of Orbital Community Centre.

The Leisure and Community Section Head informed the scrutiny committee that this item formed part of the rolling programme of presentations from the organisations operating the community centres. 

Orbital Community Centre – One YMCA

A video was shown highlighting the different groups at the community centre and the activities available. 

Bernie Harewood gave a presentation setting out information about the community centre; covering

·       Operational information about the centre

·       Usage of the community centre, including footfall increases since 2013

·       User groups, including Oxford Study circle, the U3A, Herts NHS Trust

·       Activities – exercise and dance, education, social/meetings, health awareness, cafés and worship

·       User information – ethnic diversity, age, gender and address profile

The Chair noted that there had been no financial information included in the presentation.

Bernie Harewood informed councillors that the organisation received funding from the council and also raised income through the bookings it received.  She advised that she could provide the scrutiny committee with this information. 

Following a further question later in the meeting, the Leisure and Community Section Head advised that the organisation received £70,000 annually through the current commissioning framework.  This was a management fee to the YMCA for running the venue.  The organisation decided on how to use the venue.  He explained that the end of year report would be presented to the scrutiny committee at its November meeting.

Councillor Williams thanked the representatives for their presentation and he had enjoyed the video showing some of the different user groups.  He stated that his daughter attended ballet classes at the venue.  He said that Bernie was excellent she took control and looked after everyone.  There was a great atmosphere at the centre.  He asked how the Butterfly café was settling in and for the biggest challenges she envisaged for the future.

Bernie Harewood explained that the Butterfly café had started in June.  It had moved from Hemel Hempstead.  It was on its way to becoming a successful organisation.  They were planning events for the summer holidays.  The crèche was a wonderful facility for the area.  It was bringing additional footfall, particularly during the quieter summer months at the centre.

Bernie Harewood said that the biggest challenge for Orbital Community Centre would be if the funding was taken away.  The centre would likely struggle.

Following a question about publicity, Bernie Harewood advised that marketing had never been robust at the centre.  The Oxford Study Centre’s arrival had changed the dynamics of the centre.  People often found out about activities by word of mouth.  There were repeat bookings.  More weekend parties would be welcomed.  The centre was located in a tight knit community which was very supportive of the community centre.  She added that a new manager had started who would be developing a marketing strategy.

Bernie Harewood explained that the centre did not offer discounts for local residents, however it did offer a loyalty rate for regular user.  There was also a charity rate for charitable organisations.  The NHS Trust benefitted from this rate.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Report of the Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications

The report outlines the council’s approach to the setting, reporting and monitoring of performance information within the context of its overall performance management framework and in particular its key performance indicators.

The scrutiny committee received a report of the Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications which explained the council’s approach to the setting, reporting and monitoring of performance information. 

The Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications gave a presentation about performance management, providing a definition and setting out the background to the performance management framework.  She advised that indicators could be changed or updated in order to respond to business needs and priorities.  She stated that councillors had a central role in understanding the indicators, setting them and monitoring their performance.  They could also challenge whether the targets were sufficient or the indicators would improve the quality of service for residents.  The council aimed to benchmark against other authorities where possible.  She posed the councillors several questions for them to consider.

The Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications confirmed that the council did not have a performance measure related to the number of parking tickets issued.  Legally the council was not able to do this. 

Councillor Asif Khan said that there needed to be openness about performance levels.  He commented on Watford Community Housing Trust and their response to the task group’s recommendations.  He noted that the Trust’s priorities had changed.

The Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications responded that sometimes it was easy to identify problems, but the solution could take some time before it was seen to be working.  However, she acknowledged his comments about openness. 

Councillor Martins commented that it was important that the indicators drove performance.  He asked if the management used the information to improve performance. 

The Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications advised the scrutiny committee that the results were presented to Leadership Team.  Improvements were being considered about the future management of the results.  One suggested way forward was to hold performance clinics, with the Head of Service and relevant officers being asked about the results.  This may help management to identify any issues earlier.  Heads of Service also discussed the performance results with their relevant Portfolio Holder.

Councillor Watkin, Portfolio Holder for several services, said that he always asked officers why they had certain indicators and whether they were the right ones.  The Customer Service Centre had changed the way it interacted with the community.  The performance measurements may need to change.  The performance information helped inform portfolio holders and enabled them to work with their services.

Councillor Dhindsa referred to the presentation of the data.  He felt that sometimes it could be confusing, although recently it had improved.  He also felt the council needed to be more open about the information.  Councillors wanted to see improvement.  Targets needed to be realistic and regularly reviewed.

The Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications acknowledged the councillor’s comments about the presentation and said she had tried different ways.  She was happy to listen to any other suggestions.

Councillor Williams commented that for those performance indicators performing well or above their target, there should be an explanation if targets had not been increased.

The Head of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Report of Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications

The report shows the results for the key performance indicators identified for Watford Borough Council’s in-house services for the end of year 2016/17.

The scrutiny committee received a report of the Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications setting out the end of year results for the council’s key performance indicators.

The Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications referred to the results of the performance indicators for planning.  These results were an example of where the service was performing well above the target.  Members may wish to ask why it was set at 90% or whether the target could be more challenging.  Planning performed well against benchmarking information.  She advised that targets were set by the Head of Service. 

The Customer Service Section Head informed the scrutiny committee that the Customer Service Centre received nearly 100,000 contacts each year.  36,000 of these were face to face in the Town Hall.  The indicators were based on standard contact centre performance measure.  However, the world was changing and the quality of service was important not just the volume of users.  The number of visitors was split across a range of access channels, including online which was steadily increasing.

Following a question from Councillor Martins about the calls to Revenues and Benefits not being included, the Customer Service Section Head explained that the service used the same telephone system but the data was collated separately via the service’s own contact centre. 

Councillor Martins felt it was important that service’s information was monitored.  He said that people needed to understand what was happening in the service.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the scrutiny committee that Revenues and Benefits performance indicators were monitored by Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel.  However it was noted that the scrutiny panel did not receive information about the service’s response times for calls.

The Head of Housing explained each of the Housing performance indicators and set the context for the targets.  He informed the scrutiny committee how officers were able to calculate the expected number of affordable homes that would be completed in the year.  It was closely tied to the number of developments in the town.  Officers would attempt to do more to attract external grants that could be used for developing affordable homes in the area.  It was expected that in the coming five or ten years there would be a lot more developments that would provide further affordable homes.  This was particularly due to the regeneration developments to be progressed in the town.

Following a question about the 35% requirement for affordable accommodation in new developments, the Head of Housing advised that some authorities set a higher percentage.  However officers realised it was necessary to be sensible and did not want to put off developers if the percentage was too high.  It was a balancing act.  It may be possible to review the required percentage.  He explained the different levels of affordable homes.  Social rent was 60% of the local market rent.  Affordable rent was 80% of the local market rent. 

In response to a question about the target of 90 affordable homes completed within the year, the Head of Housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Report of the Deputy Managing Director

This report sets out the delivery timeline and shows how the recommended projects fit in with the existing work programme of the Design and Conservation Team.

The scrutiny committee received a report of the Deputy Managing Director which included a delivery timeline showing how the task group’s recommendations could fit in with the existing work programme.

The Planning Policy Section Head and the Urban Design and Conservation Manager explained how the recommendations would fit into the timeline and some of the work that would be required to meet the recommendation.  For example the Article 4 directions had a time consuming process.  Every property had to be listed and photographs taken.  This aided enforcement.  Discussion would need to take place with the Development Management team.  Officers would be given additional training and would only need to approach specialist officers for the more complex cases. 

Councillor Martins, who had chaired the original task group, thanked the officers for the timeline.  He said that Watford was changing and the aim was to preserve conservation areas before they changed too much.  The programme showed a proper plan of action.

RESOLVED –

that the timeline and approach set out in the report and Appendix 2 be agreed.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review the latest edition of the Executive Decision Progress Report and consider whether any further information is required.

The Scrutiny Committee received the latest edition of the Executive Decision Progress Report for 2017/18. 

RESOLVED –

that the updated report be noted.

Councillor Hastrick, the Council’s appointed representative to the County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee to provide an update.

As Councillor Hastrick had sent her apologies for the meeting, it was agreed she would be asked to forward a written update about the recent Joint Health Scrutiny Committee.  The Committee and Scrutiny Officer added that she would circulate the link to the minutes as soon as it became available.

RESOLVED –

1.      that Councillor Hastrick be asked to provide a written update on the last Joint Health Scrutiny Committee.

2.      that the Committee and Scrutiny Officer circulates the link to the minutes.

Since the last Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Budget Panel has met on the following occasion –

·             Tuesday 27 June 2017

The minutes are available on the council’s website.

The Chair of Budget Panel, Councillor Asif Khan, to provide an update to the scrutiny committee.

Councillor Asif Khan, chair of Budget Panel, advised that the panel had met on 27 June 2017.  The minutes were available on the internet.  He welcomed any questions from the scrutiny committee.

Since the last Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel met on the following occasion –

·             Tuesday 4 July 2017

The minutes are available on the council’s website.

The Chair of Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel, Councillor Tim Williams, to provide an update to the scrutiny committee.

Councillor Williams, chair of Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel, informed the scrutiny committee that the panel had met on 4 July.  He also referred the scrutiny committee to the minutes on the internet and welcomed any questions.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer to provide an update on the membership of the Community Safety Partnership Task Group. 

The scrutiny committee to confirm the task group’s membership.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the scrutiny committee that following the last meeting she had contacted all those councillors who had been nominated to the Community Safety Partnership Task Group.  Councillor Martins had agreed to withdraw his nomination.  The scrutiny committee was asked to approve the Task Group’s membership, comprising –

·             Councillor Amanda Grimston (Chair, as agreed at the previous meeting)

·             Councillor Stephen Bolton

·             Councillor Stephen Cavinder

·             Councillor Jagtar Singh Dhindsa

·             Councillor Mo Mills

·             Councillor Glen Saffery

·             Councillor Richard Smith

RESOLVED –

that the Community Safety Partnership Task Group comprises the following –

·             Councillor Amanda Grimston (Chair)

·             Councillor Stephen Bolton

·             Councillor Stephen Cavinder

·             Councillor Jagtar Singh Dhindsa

·             Councillor Mo Mills

·             Councillor Glen Saffery

·             Councillor Richard Smith

The scrutiny committee is asked to review the current version of the work programme and consider any additional areas councillors wish to scrutinise.

The scrutiny committee received a draft work programme for 2017/18.  It had been updated following the last meeting.  Members were invited to contact the Committee and Scrutiny Officer with any further suggestions.  The scrutiny committee was informed that Revenues and Benefits was scrutinised by Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel; however financial aspects were likely to be scrutinised by Budget Panel.  If members had any suggestions on that subject they could contact the Chair, Councillor Williams or the Committee and Scrutiny Officer. 

RESOLVED –

that the work programme be noted.

·             Thursday 28 September 2017

·             Thursday 26 October 2017 (For call-in only)

·             Thursday 23 November 2017

·             Thursday 28 September 2017

·             Thursday 26 October 2017 (for call-in only)

·             Thursday 23 November 2017