Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Michael Gold and Councillor Stockley. Councillor Evans attended as a substitute for Councillor Stockley.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared.

None were received.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 7 January 2013 – attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2012 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings subject to the following amendment:

(i)                  That on the final page of the minutes it be recorded that: 

Some individual Committee Members did not share the officers confidence recorded above and raised their concerns regarding the position of Transport for London on the routing of buses through Twickenham.

This report provides details of the revenue and capital budget position for the Environment Directorate and Cultural Services to the end of Quarter three.

Report of the Director of Environment attached.

Appendices A, B, C, D1 and D2 attached.

The Director of Environment, Head of Finance and Performance and Councillor Morris were in attendance to present the report to the Committee. The Committee heard that the Quarter 3 report offered projections of an under spend for the year of approximately £1.5 million. Officers felt it would be possible to make more accurate projections of spending in future years.

The Committee were informed of a correction on page 8 of the agenda pack; the traffic and transport figure should have read -£81k.

Following questions raised and comments made the Committee heard the following views from officers:

(i)                  It was thought that the Pantry Service overspend was increasing despite the service shrinking because the overheads remained the same but the service was generating less revenue.

(ii)                Recycling levels appeared static partly because less packaging was used, therefore the residual waste figures should also be considered when assessing how the Borough was performing in terms of recycling rates.

(iii)               The overspend in the Development and Street Scene budget could be partly attributed to there being an allowance built into the budget for increased fees nationally. The Government decision to increase fees was deferred so the increased income could not be generated. The service had also encountered large out-goings for appeals costs. There would be a review of the Development Control Planning Service in the next year. However the Director of Environment was aware of Members sensitivities around the subject of planning and therefore would balance any cost savings against this.

Members discussed the figures for on and off street parking income and it was agreed that the Director of Environment would provide Committee members with a detailed explanation of these figures.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the report be NOTED.
2. That a detailed explanation of the figures for on and off street parking income be provided to Committee members.
3. That a more detailed explanation of the overspend of the pantry service be provided to Committee members.

This report provides details of the performance of the indicators and monitors the council priorities for the Environment Directorate, Cultural Services and Community Safety for Quarter Two.

Report of the Director of Environment attached.

The Director of Environment, Head of Finance and Performance and Councillor Morris were in attendance to present the report to the Committee.

The Committee considered the performance of the Environment Directorate, Cultural Services and Community Safety.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the action plans contained in the report be NOTED.

The Council’s corporate charging policy requires that fees and charges are reviewed annually. This report details the proposed charges for the Environment Directorate and Cultural Services 2013/14 for consideration as a result of the annual review.

Report of the Director of Environment attached.

Report of the Head of Culture and Service Improvement attached.

Appendices A, B, C and D attached.

The Director of Environment, Head of Finance and Performance and the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways were in attendance to present the report to the Committee. It was explained that the Environment Directorate would seek to increase discretionary fees by a minimum of 6.2 per cent for 2013/14 and that this was in line with principle set by Cabinet of charging for discretionary services and setting notional profit margins.

The Committee heard a representation from a local resident, Mr Eugene Bacot. Mr Bacot commented on and objected to the fees policy regarding verification of documents for residents receiving foreign passports.

The Director of Environment explained that charging for this service was in line with the Directorate’s need to reduce costs and improve income. Mr Chadwick had briefly explored whether other local authorities charged for this service and reported to the Committee that whilst some authorities did not, most did charge for this service.

The Committee commented on Mr Bacot’s representation and agreed that alternative options for the verification of foreign passports be explored as the cost may be reduced or mitigated by using an alternative means of verification.

Following questions raised and comments made Officers informed the Committee that it was not expected that the level of commercial waste charges would result in increased fly tipping, however this would be monitored. The Committee were also informed that allotment costs were increasing to fully cover the cost of the service.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That alternative means for the verification of foreign pensions be explored.
2. That the report be NOTED.

This report sets out the detailed revenue budgets for the Environment Directorate and Cultural Services for the financial year 2013/14, highlighting significant changes from the previous year.

Report of the Director of Environment attached.

Appendices A, B, C and D attached.

The Director of Environment, Head of Finance and Performance and the Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture. The Head of Sport and Fitness, Head of Arts and the Library Operations Manager were in attendance to answer regarding the Cultural Services budget. It was explained that although the Environment budget of £24.1m suggested an increase of £0.8m this was distorted by a transfer of funds between services, for example the transport budget and maintenance budget. The Environment Budget represented an overall reduction of just over £1m for the year.

The West London Waste Authority had requested a supplementary levy of £553k to support the 2012/13 budget and in order to plan for 2013/14 an additional £116k had been built into the Environment Budget with further provision earmarked from the waste reserve. Following a question from a member of the Committee it was explained that the Thames Landscape Strategy staff budget had been reduced through an agreed approach with partners. A project had reached completion and therefore a Project Officer was no longer required.

The Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture presented the Cultural Services budget and explained that although the budget states there would be an 8.8fte increase in posts, there would be an 11.33fte decrease in posts within the library services. Therefore there would be an overall reduction in staff in Cultural Services.

It was RESOLVED:

1.                  That the proposed budget be NOTED.

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the municipal year 2012-2013.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services attached.

Appendix A attached.

The Senior Scrutiny Officer explained that the next meeting would include Community Safety items and that members of the Committee were encouraged to attend the MOPAC public meeting at 8pm on 27 February to hear about changes to Policing in the Borough.

The Committee were asked to put forward items for the Work Programme and the following suggestions were received:

(i)                  To look at the impact of low carbon zones.

(ii)                To look into the overspend of Development Control.

It was RESOLVED:

(i)                 That a briefing paper on the council’s work with other Boroughs on low carbon zones be circulated to the Committee.

(ii)               That the idea of considering Development Control at the Committee be reconsidered as an option following the Development Control service review.

This report presents the results of the Council’s first annual Residents’ Survey, carried out between September and October 2012.

The Assistant Director for Commissioning Corporate Policy and Strategy and the Community Involvement and Research Officer were in attendance to present the report to the Committee. It was explained that interviews were conducted in relation to the size of the population in each area.

The Committee discussed the survey results and in response to questions raised and comments made were given the following views from Officers:

(i)                  The survey had cost £24 000 to conduct.

(ii)                Table 3.4.1 showed the services perceived as priorities for improvement and it was explained that respondents had been asked to fill this question in with their own ideas for which services should be improved. Therefore it was possible that some of the lower rated services had not been more frequently identified because individuals did not consider them to be the responsibility of the council and therefore did not include them on a council questionnaire.

(iii)               The results of the survey could be linked with documents such as the Highways Maintenance Programme.  Some of the broader figures could also be incorporated into the prioritisation programme.

Some Members expressed concern that some of the figures did not add up to 100 per cent and Officers agreed to provide a response to the Committee regarding this point. Some individual Members also expressed concern about how the data from the Residents’ Survey could be useful to the council. Officers felt that the results were useful in ensuring the right services were prioritised.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the report be NOTED.
2. That an email response be provided to the Committee regarding the figures that did not add up to 100 per cent in the Residents’ Survey.