Agenda item

To consider the Revised Corporate Plan Delivery Plan 2020/21.

Councillor Reeve, as Portfolio holder for the Economy and Investment, summarised the report. He said that the Corporate Plan 2020 – 2024 had been adopted by Full Council in February 2020. Cabinet had approved the Corporate Plan Delivery Plan (CPDP) in May 2020 and it had been acknowledged that the plan had to reflect the situation the Council found itself in, which had been constrained by the impact of Covid-19. The revised CPDP had been brought back to Scrutiny Committee but should be reviewed in the light of an overriding caveat that the public health emergency would take priority in the use of resources. He said that the elements of the Council’s Corporate Plan in the left hand columns of the document were not up for amendment. The intention was to take this Delivery Plan to Cabinet in October 2020 and then performance update would be considered by GAP Committee in February 2021. He said that the Council’s overriding priorities were the public health emergency and financial sustainability.

The Chair detailed the history of the CPDP and explained that previous meetings of this Scrutiny Committee had expected rather better of the document. He also referred to the Chief Executive’s cover report Paragraph 12 that stated “the reason for the call-in was: ‘because the Corporate Delivery Plan is insufficient insofar as it is, inter alia, not measurable, lacking in both quantified and timed outcomes. It therefore requires further development to meet these good governance standards. The plan should also demonstrate aspirational outcomes achievable in normal times and should not solely be downplayed by current uncertainties caused by the Covid- 19 pandemic.’ “

Councillor Sell said that he agreed with what the Chair had said. He said that some progress had been made but that the document lacked specifics and details of how to measure outputs. He was concerned about deliverability and understanding what was meant by success. He gave the Watford Council Delivery Plan as a good example of a vision and SMART targets.

In response to a question from Councillor Sell, Councillor Reeve explained the process of compiling the CPDP that involved input from Portfolio holders and officers working up elements of line items and then discussing them with Cabinet through the Joint Executive Team.

Councillor Dean said that he had circulated an annotated version of the document with around 60 suggested amendments that he was happy to take off-line. He highlighted the following issues:

·         Page 125 Item 2a- he said that date changes were needed,

·         Page 126 Item 2c- he had some suggestions for the member development programme,

·         Page 133 Item 5- he hoped this was realistic and not just in grand isolation,

·         Page 134 Item 5f- he said this did not reflect urgency and the need to get involved in the local economy,

·         Page 134 Item 7a- he said the wording suggested delay.

At 9.10pm the Chair asked the Committee whether they were content to continue as the meeting had passed the two hour mark. The Committee consented.

Councillor Reeve said that he had taken note of the comments made by Councillor Dean and that they would be considered.

Councillor Lavelle highlighted some significant changes that the Council had already implemented. Members then discussed the role of Scrutiny Committee in relation to reviewing the CPDP.

Councillor Hargreaves said that he had looked at the Watford Council Delivery Plan and considered it to be all aspirational. He said he was surprised that it was being held up as a good example.

Councillor Lees responded to Councillor Dean’s comments about Housing issues and indicated that there might be a short delay due to the pandemic. She said there were dates set for every strategy as to when they would be published and delivered.

CouncillorStorah referred to the term ‘Interim Planning Policy guidance’ highlighted on Page 130 items 2c and 2d. He considered that there was no scope for this and that it could possibly be replaced through reference to Supplementary Planning documents. He said he would contact the Assistant Director - Planning to discuss.

Councillor Driscoll said that he had no problems with the document as it was live and he would expect to see many changes particularly in light of the pandemic.

The Chair said that he considered the document to be an improvement but was not as good as it could be. He said there was not information in respect of success indicators and there was a lack of quantification and numbers. He would also have hoped to have seen a greater number of KPI’s and Service standards.

The Chair referred to the Chief Executive’s cover report Paragraph 14 in respect of Covid- 19 numbers increasing significantly. He asked for clarification as to whether this was the case in Uttlesford.

The Chief Executive said that we had experienced a significant increase which had meant that Uttlesford had been rated as Red in terms of the Public Health England Exceedance report, starting from a very low base. Increases had also been seen across Essex but Essex was doing much better than the rest of the country. In the latest report Uttlesford had been shown as Green having had 26 cases in the past 7 days but we had previously been shown as Red for several weeks running.

Councillor Reeve re-affirmed that he would look again at the points made by Councillor Dean, particularly about how to measure success. He said that Councillor Dean had criticised some of the wording on the left hand column on the document but that had already been approved as part of the Corporate Plan and would not be revisited again until February 2021. He said that he recognised that the Economic Development Strategy would require additional resources and that he would look at Councillor Storah’s comments about Interim Planning Policy guidance. He said that he questioned the value of making substantial changes at this time and recognised the Chair’s comment that the document had improved.

CouncillorCoote thanked Councillor Reeve and said that the Scrutiny Committee needed to remain impartial and not broken down into political allies.

CouncillorLeCount commented that the district had a low percentage of Covid- 19 cases.

The Chief Executive said that recent increases had started from a very low base and that she did not want any complacency but for people to remain alert. She referred to the Essex County Council slogan of “Let’s Keep Essex Open”.

Councillor Lees said that she agreed with Councillor Coote about the need not to fall into political stances in the Scrutiny Committee. She also said that she would look at the points made by Councillor Dean and would address those in respect of her own portfolio.

The Chair said that it was right for the elected main party to implement their manifesto but that Scrutiny was about delivery and the governance of delivery.

Councillor Dean highlighted two further items requiring clarification:

·         Page 141 Item 2d- he said that fourth column does not address the main problem of implementing programmes to reduce single-use plastics.

·         Page 142 Items 4a and 4b- he said that these items suggested that there were no apparent intentions in respect of taking action on dealing with pollution and that nothing was happening.

He thanked Councillor Reeve and Councillor Lees for taking note of his comments and would be happy to have further dialogue off-line.

Councillor Driscoll said that in respect of Councillor Dean’s second point, the Climate Change Air Quality Sub-Committee was currently looking at suggestions about taking strong action on dealing with pollution.

The Chair thanked the minute taker and closed the meeting at 9.50pm.