Agenda and draft minutes

Sue Hayden addressed the meeting as Chair of the Uttlesford branch of Unison; a copy of her statement has been appended to the minutes.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Equalities thanked Ms Hayden for the points she had made and said they would be considered. He said:-

·       The first priority was to protect the workforce and provide value for money to residents.

·       The Council would work alongside Unison and staff to deliver the service.

The Chair asked that the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Equalities provided a detailed reply to Ms Hayden in writing in due course.

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

There were no apologies for absence or declarations of interest received.

To consider the minutes of the previous Scrutiny Committee meeting and for the Task and Finish Group to consider the minutes of their meeting on Tuesday 2^nd April 2024.

The minutes of the Scrutiny meeting held on 13^th February 2024 were approved as an accurate record.

The minutes of the Task and Finish Group held on 2^nd April 2024 were approved as an accurate record by the membership.

To receive the updated Cabinet Forward Plan.

The Cabinet forward plan was noted.

The Chair drew the meetings attention to the following items:-

• Blueprint Uttlesford update.
• The Procurement of Housing Repairs, Maintenance and Capital Improvements provision from 2025.
• An update on the car park charges. He said that there had been some public concern expressed due to a lack of information about the changes. 

The Chair said that these items were going to Cabinet on Thursday 18^th April 2024. 

To receive the Scrutiny Work Programme.

The Scrutiny Work Programme was noted and had been completed for this year.

The Director of Corporate Services said that an initial draft for 2024/25 would be circulated shortly and would be discussed at the next Scrutiny Committee in June.

To receive feedback from Councillor Donald following her visit to Walden Place.

The Chair said that this agenda item related to concerns raised at a Full Council meeting regarding arrangements at Walden Place, and in particular refurbishment works that were being carried out.  This had been referred to Scrutiny by Councillor Coote.

Councillor Donald gave an update to the meeting following her visit to Walden Place in February. She said that during her visit she had spoken to residents and the Construction Site Manager and could find no reason for the complaint. She said that the residents spoke highly of the Contractor and said that they had been kept informed and were looking forward to the benefits of the refurbishment.

Councillor Coote said that the complainant did not live at Walden Place. He said that the public speaking protocol needed to be investigated as he could have answered the concerns on the evening of the meeting. He said that it had been a waste of time to involve the Scrutiny Committee.

The Chair said that if the public speaking protocol needed to be changed within the constitution, then that would need to be taken up with the Chair of Full Council.

In response to a question from a Member, Councillor Donald said that the complaint had been answered and the resident offered a visit to Walden Place.

She said that there was no need for any follow-up.

The Chair said that this item was closed and would not be referred back to Council.

To consider the Operational Resilience Task and Finish Group Final Report.

Councillor Criscione and Donald introduced the report.

Councillor Criscione said that the Council had accepted that mistakes had been made and had apologised to residents and businesses. He said that the aim of the Task and Finish Group was to investigate the issues and bring forward a plan for the future. This had been done and the recommendations were set out in the report. He said that this was not an exercise in apportioning blame.

Councillors Criscione and Donald thanked everyone who had taken part in the Task and Finish Group and in the compilation of the report, including the other Members of the Task and Finish Group, (Councillors Driscoll and Sell), and to Officers and the Chief Executive.

The Chair added his thanks and said that the report was a comprehensive document that was open and transparent.

Councillor Sell as a Member of the Task and Finish Group added some comments, he made the following points:-

·       He remained an advocate for the use of an independent person to provide an overview of the process.

·       The Task and Finish Group was set up to find potential solutions and he was pleased that the risk register now had clear accountability through the Chief Executive.

·       Care should be given to the language within the report to ensure it did not contain Council jargon, which would not help with transparency.

·       He suggested a Cabinet question time item be considered for future meetings.

·       There had been a degree of complacency, but he was pleased that Portfolio Holders were becoming more engaged with Officers.

The Chair said that for the record Councillor Sell had raised concerns about the Waste Service in October last year.

Councillor Criscione said that there was an independent element, as one of the neighbouring Councils was involved in supporting the wider operational resilience work. 

Councillor Bagnall said that there should be a second person with the relevant training and qualifications within the department. He said that this would significantly reduce the risk as the license could be transferred immediately into their name. He said it also gave the benefit of training to in-house staff and took away the added risk of being unable to hire a temporary member of staff with the relevant qualification.

Councillor Donald replied and said that:-

·       There was an action within the report that stated the need for alternative secondary provision.

·       The secondary provision could be using temporary staff with the relevant qualifications.

·       The Waste Service would be undergoing a broader organisational review and this would be considered in more detail.

·       This action was high on the recommendation list and would be followed up.

There was further discussion on this topic and the following points were made:-

·       The risk could only be minimised and not eliminated.

·       The recommendation for a secondary person would be noted but was an operational decision.

·       There was a period of grace provided to change the licensee.

·       A temporary member of staff could have been employed on day one but the pragmatic and  ...  view the full minutes text for item SC51

To consider the Climate and Biodiversity Action Plan.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change introduced the report. 

He asked that the Committee:-

• Noted the progress of the 2023/24 action plan.
• Noted the action plan for 2024/25.
• Provided comment on the Climate Action plan to pass onto Cabinet.

He thanked the Climate Change Lead Officer and the team for their work on the report.

He said that the overall Climate Change Strategy had not changed but the action plan for this year had been given a clearer, simplified structure and each action had been given a smart target.

Members commended the action plan and were pleased with the progress that had been made.

In response to questions from Members the following points were made:-

• All Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Air Quality grant funding for the anti-idling action had been withdrawn, this funding would have made it possible to extend the project throughout the district.  It was currently uncertain as to how and when this could now happen.
• There were currently no stipulations on where solar panels were sourced from within the Zero Carbon Communities Grant Scheme.  Due diligence is the responsibility of the grant beneficiary.  However, this could be investigated if there was an issue of slave labour being used to make a large proportion of panels coming from China.
• The current Home Upgrade Grant Scheme would be completed over a 2 year period and finished in March 2025.  The Council was part of a consortium delivering the grant scheme, and the Council’s responsibility was to promote the grant scheme to residents and encourage uptake.  There had been delays and the portal for referrals had opened much later than originally proposed.  Currently there were 55 referrals and of those 7 households were in the process of having measures installed to improve energy efficiency in their homes.   The data from the referrals was being looked at to see if the Council could help increase the number of referrals receiving retrofit installations, for example, residents needed to provide evidence on their household income which could be a barrier to proceeding further with the grant process, as this required a level of trust.  It was a complicated grant process and a member of the Environmental Services Team was now helping to support residents by visiting households to undertake evidence checks on household income.   
• The Carbon Management Plan was a top priority within the action plan.  It would be taken forward with the best available advice from representatives of Essex County Council and other external partners.

The Chair raised a concern in relation to the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund and the costs of on-going maintenance to heat pumps and the potential skills shortage. 

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Equalities and the Leader made the following points:-

• Although heat pumps were part of the works being carried out, the retrofit process needed to be considered as a whole.   The aim was to bring down energy costs for residents.
• A guarantee was made that the costs of resident’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item SC52

To consider the Local Plan Work Programme Update.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning introduced the report and said the purpose of the report was to:-

·       Provide Scrutiny with an update.

·       Provide a timetable for the process going forward and details of the plan’s progress towards regulation 19. 

·       To bring the attention of the meeting to the report from the Planning Advisory Service (PAS), and to note the risks identified to the timetable which was very challenging.

·       To note that the report from PAS indicated that the Council was on course for regulation 19, subject to approval through Cabinet and Council.

He said the timetable was in the report under appendix 3.  A clearer printable version of the timetable would be produced.

The Chair said that Scrutiny’s role was to be a guardian of the process, which had been delegated to the Committee by Full Council.    He said that the report from PAS was outstanding and was a testament to the professionalism of the team working on the Local Plan.  He said that for good governance and transparency there needed to be clear written documentation produced for the Local Plan Panel (LPP) and this had not been the case for the most recent meeting.

The Chair received permission from the meeting to continue over the two-hour threshold.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and the Strategic Director of Planning made the following points in response to questions from Members:-

·       The last LPP had received a presentation from consultants which focused on Climate Change and therefore paperwork beforehand had not been possible.  The meeting had been supplemented by written material following on from the discussion and matters raised.

·       It was the intention to provide written paperwork in advance of  meetings going forward.

·       Topics would be revisited to allow for any feedback received to be considered and updated.

·       The Regulation 19 Consultation would be extended to 8 weeks in recognition of it taking place partially within the summer holiday, unfortunately there was no scope within the timetable to move it out of the holidays completely.

·       Third party meetings and the duty to co-operate would be documented.

·       Draft responses were being collated on the 1742 comments received, this required time and testing of ideas that could not be carried out in a public meeting forum.

·       All the comments made further to the Regulation 18 consultation had been published, the responses would be provided with the plan papers for governance in June.

·       The Parish workshop was only for those larger villages that had a small housing allocation to offer them the chance to take responsibility along with Planning to plan for their allocations.

·       By the summer it was hoped that there would be a regulation 19 plan in place which would begin to gain weight in decision making and with that plan a four year housing supply would also be released as part of the new arrangements put forward within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Housing requirements between April 2023 and April 2024 could be shared with the LPP but not published until  ...  view the full minutes text for item SC53

The Chair proposed the exclusion of the public and press and to move into Part ll. The meeting agreed unanimously.

AGREED: that that under section 1001 of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the Procurement of Housing Repairs, Maintenance and Capital Improvements provision from 2025.

The Interim Director of Housing, Health and Communities introduced the report and the additional document that had been circulated before the meeting and was appended to the minutes.

She said that at the Cabinet meeting held on the 9^th January 2024 approval had been granted to progress with the termination of the joint venture, Uttlesford Norse Services Limited (UNSL) and to put in place a new operating model.

She said that the preferred option was a mixed economy model which consisted of one contractor who would look after repairs, voids, planned maintenance and asbestos and individual contractors for the specialist services which included electrical, gas, fire and lift safety and water hygiene.

She said that the additional document provided gave a summary of the discussion and recommendations made at a recent cross party Members workshop and a tenants and residents panel meeting. 

In response to Members questions the Interim Director of Housing, Health and Communities made the following comments:-

• The majority of the Tenant Panel had selected the mixed economy model as the preferred option going forward.  They expected to be involved in the process of procuring contractors, which included the contract specification and meeting potential contractors in advance of the selection process.  Members would also be invited to this meeting.
• There would be a self-serve option online for residents to order a repair and book an appointment.
• TUPE regulations would be obeyed and this would be discussed with each member of UNSL. 
• In the mixed model the contact centre would be in-house.
• The Contractors would be procured for the full term of any agreement.
• Sub Contractors currently used by UNSL would be considered as one of the options. 
• In the mixed economy model, contractors would employ their own staff and the Council would have a contract management team to manage the contract.
• There would be provision in the contract for apprenticeships.

There was discussion around the various elements of the mixed economy model and the other options following the additional scoring matrix document that had been produced.

The following points were made:-

• The options were complex and it was difficult to compare and rank them without some elements being subject to professional judgement.
• The two elements of cost both start up costs and on going costs had not been split out but had been considered. 
• All eleven options had not been market tested as this would not be feasible. 
• The budget for the contract was £9m and approximately £450k would be spent on the management team function which had been missing from the UNSL contract.
• Delivering value for money to residents did not just mean accepting the cheapest option, there were other important factors.
• The availability of shared services had been tested.
• There would be a discussion of the process at the next Local Joint Panel.
• There was a clear idea of what each operating model would cost, however actual costs would not be known until the contract was out for tender.
• The Cabinet meeting later this week  ...  view the full minutes text for item SC55