70.1           The evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was advised to those present. 

70.2           The Chair welcomed Councillor R E Garnham, the Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel, to the meeting and indicated that he would be providing an update at Agenda Item 7.

71.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W Awford (Chair) and M G Sztymiak.  There were no substitutions for the meeting.

72.1           The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2012 and took effect from 1 July 2012.

72.2           There were no declarations of interest made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2017.

73.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2017, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

To determine whether there are any questions for the relevant Lead Members and what support the Overview and Scrutiny Committee can give to work contained within the Plan.

74.1           Attention was drawn to the Executive Committee Forward Plan, circulated at Pages No. 12-15.  Members were asked to determine whether there were any questions for the relevant Lead Members and what support the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could give to the work contained within the plan.

74.2           A Member questioned what changes were envisaged in respect of the report on the Joint Core Strategy allocation of affordable housing item, due to be considered by the Executive Committee at its meeting on 15 March 2017.  The Chief Executive indicated that a written response would be provided following the meeting.  With regard to the Economic Development and Tourism Strategy which was being taken to the Executive Committee on 26 April 2017, a Member raised concern at the derogatory portrayal of Tewkesbury and its facilities, particularly within the High Street, by the BBC during a recent interview.  The Chief Executive confirmed that he was aware of the interview and Officers had been surprised at its tone.  He explained that the Communications team met regularly with local media and this was something which would be discussed as part of that process.  In response to a Member query, assurance was provided that the Economic Development and Tourism Strategy would be brought to the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, prior to consideration by the Executive Committee.

74.3           It was

RESOLVED          That the Executive Committee Forward Plan be NOTED.

To consider the forthcoming work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

75.1           Attention was drawn to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2016/17, circulated at Pages No. 16-19, which Members were asked to consider.

75.2           The Head of Corporate Services drew attention to the pending items, set out at Page No. 19 of the report, and advised that a report would be brought to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 21 March 2017 to establish a Working Group to undertake the review of the Borough News and to approve Terms of Reference for the review.  It was subsequently

RESOLVED          That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2016/17 be NOTED.

To receive an update from the Council’s representative on matters considered at the last meeting. 

76.1           Members received an update from Councillor Rob Garnham, the Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel, on matters discussed at the last meeting of the Panel held on 3 February 2017.

76.2           Councillor Garnham advised that the main focus of the meeting was the setting of the Police precept, however, it had begun with the confirmation that the Chief Constable, Suzette Davenport, was retiring after four years with the force.  The Police and Crime Commissioner would therefore be starting the process for recruiting a new Chief Constable; it was noted that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s manifesto stated that Gloucestershire would have its own Chief Constable so sharing with another area would not be possible.

76.3           Councillor Garnham advised that a comprehensive report had been provided by the Chief Executive giving information on crime statistics, collaboration and complaints.  It was of particular note that, in November 2016, Avon and Somerset Constabulary had contacted Gloucestershire Constabulary to state that it would not be proceeding with any further service transformation collaboration on the basis that the current programme was not sufficiently broad enough to achieve the financial savings it required.  Collaboration would still continue on major crime investigations, specialist operations and the firearms training centre.  With regard to emergency services collaboration, and the potential for Police and Crime Commissioners to take over the running of the Fire Service, the Gloucestershire Police and Crime Commissioner had attended a meeting with the County Council where he had been informed that there was nothing to discuss as the County Council was happy with the current arrangements.  The Police and Crime Commissioner had highlighted that the government had written to all Police and Crime Commissioners stating that they must lead this agenda – not the Fire Service or County Councils – and, therefore, this issue would be revisited.  In the government’s view, simply stating that the status quo was the preferred choice was not sufficient justification.  Members were informed that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s office had shared its delivery plans for 2017; these were the oversight plans that would be adhered to in order to deliver the Commissioner’s six strategic priorities.  It was stressed that more detailed plans were discussed with each of the six leads who would be making presentations to the Police and Crime Panel in due course. 

76.4           Councillor Garnham reiterated that the Police and Crime Panel meeting in February was required to scrutinise the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposed budget which it was able to accept without comment; make comments upon; or, ask the Police and Crime Commissioner to reconsider.  It was noted that the government had imposed tight constraints this year and Police and Crime Commissioners had been told that the direct resource funding, including precept, would be protected at flat cash levels assuming that precept income was increased to the maximum, within the referendum limit.  In effect, this meant that the Police precept proposed had to be 1.99%; the Chief Constable supported this proposal which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To receive an update from the Council’s representative on matters considered at the last meeting. 

77.1           Members received an update from Councillor Mrs J E Day, the Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee, on matters discussed at its last meeting held on 10 January 2017. 

77.2           Members were advised that one of the agenda items had related to mental health in Gloucestershire and the Committee had been pleased to welcome representatives from the 2gether NHS Foundation Trust, the Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group (GCCG), the Council and the Police to the meeting to engage with Members on this important issue.  It was clear that there had been a real culture change in the way in which mental health services were commissioned and provided.  The structure had changed from one of containment and sanctuary, to one of hope and recovery; from a legacy of exclusion to one of aspiration and action to ensure inclusion.  The understanding of mental health illnesses had greatly improved, with significant investment in learning from experience and developing knowledge; a good example of this was the establishment of the Severn and Wye Recovery College which empowered people to become ‘students of their own recovery’.  It was noted that the Mental Health Acute Response Service was co-located with the Police at Waterwells and worked closely with the Ambulance Service.  Police Officers had benefitted from their proximity to health professionals in terms of advice and accessing health records and care plans to inform decisions when people were in crisis.  The Committee had also heard about the pilot schemes that were in place to better support children and young people, in particular the Stroud Schools project.  There had been, and continued to be, a lot of activity to remove the stigma that had been associated with mental health; the Committee fully supported this work and, in support of this principle, some Members had chosen to share their own experiences.

77.3           Councillor Day went on to advise that the Committee had been pleased to receive the End of Life Strategy and agreed with its aim to make sure that the highest quality end of life care services were available to all who needed it.  It had been particularly good to hear that time had been taken to speak with families about their end of life experiences, both good and bad, and that this feedback had influenced the development of the strategy.  In its consideration of the GCCG performance report, the Committee had noted that the concerns remained in relation to the 62 day cancer target and Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT), and the GCCG continued to work through the associated action plans to address these issues.  The concerns regarding ambulance response times would be looked at in greater detail at the Committee’s meeting in March.  Members had been disappointed that there seemed to be no improvement in performance against the non-emergency patient transport service delivered by Arriva Transport Solutions Ltd.  There had been a frank exchange of views with the GCCG and, although it had been made clear that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

To conduct the annual review of the effectiveness of the Council’s involvement in the Gloucestershire Health, Community and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee in order to authorise payment of the Council’s contribution to the running costs for the forthcoming year. 

78.1           The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 20-23, asked Members to consider the effectiveness of the Council’s continued involvement in the Gloucestershire Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee and, subject to the Committee being satisfied that value for money was being achieved, Officers be authorised to make the payment of £2,500 from the Council’s base budget as its 2017/18 contribution to the Gloucestershire Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

78.2           In response to Member queries, clarification was provided that it was an annual contribution and, if the Council did not make the payment it would not be represented on the Gloucestershire Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  It was subsequently

RESOLVED          That Officers be authorised to make the payment of £2,500 from the Council’s base budget as its 2017/18 contribution to the Gloucestershire Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To consider the current position in respect of enviro-crimes and the actions being taken to tackle the issues. 

79.1           Attention was drawn to the report of the Interim Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 24-30, which gave an update on the progress that had been made in respect of tackling enviro-crimes and the position regarding the recruitment of an Environmental Warden to work across the borough, in partnership with Town and Parish Councils, to reduce enviro-crime.  Members were asked to consider the report.

79.2           The Interim Head of Community Services advised that, in July 2016, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered a report detailing the Council’s approach to addressing the increased level of enviro-crime across the Borough.  It was noted that responsibility for enviro-crime sat with the Council’s Environmental Health team and Ubico cleared fly-tips on the Council’s behalf.  Since the last report there had been notable activity and progress in dealing with enviro-crimes and some of the recent achievements were set out at Page No. 26, Paragraph 2.1 of the report.  Particular attention was drawn to the successful prosecution of a householder whose waste had been fly-tipped by a contractor who was not a registered waste carrier.  In addition, One Legal was considering several investigation files in connection with separate fly-tipping offences.  Fly-tipping warning signs had been erected within Sandhurst, where this had been a particular problem, and a joint project was also being carried out with the Police in that area.  Members were informed that an application had been made to use two of the community safety partnership cameras to gather evidence to tackle fly-tipping in Sandhurst and Coriander Drive, Churchdown where a multi-agency project involving the Council, Severn Vale and the Police had also been initiated.  Officers were working with an anti-fraud specialist at Cheltenham Borough Council on techniques for gathering evidence from information that was found within fly-tips and how to trace it back to the perpetrator.  The Interim Head of Community Services also pointed out that there was a multi-agency review across the county in respect of the approach to abandoned vehicles. 

79.3           In order to build on this success, further options were being explored and these were referenced at Page No. 27, Paragraph 3.1, of the report.  This included: further joint working with the Police; visits to other local authorities which had successfully reduced serious fly-tipping incidents to share knowledge; additional training for officers in the Environmental Health team in terms of serving fixed penalty notices and carrying out investigations; pooling resources across the Gloucestershire authorities to tackle fly-tipping; the potential adoption of provisions to introduce a Fixed Penalty Policy; and increased use of fixed penalty notices.  Members were informed that this was very much a work in progress; the new Head of Community Services would be taking up his role at the end of February and he would be looking to build on recent activity and develop a project plan which could be brought back to the Committee in future.

79.4           A Member questioned what progress had been made with One Legal in terms of its consideration of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

To receive an update and note the ongoing review of the county and local community safety and anti-social behaviour activities within the borough. 

80.1           The report of the Interim Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 31-39, provided an update on the ongoing review of county and local community safety and anti-social behaviour activities within the borough.  Members were asked to consider the report.

80.2           Members were advised that community safety was a statutory obligation for local authorities and the other responsible authorities – police, fire and rescue authority, probation and health – which worked together in Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) to: reduce reoffending; tackle crime and disorder; tackle anti-social behaviour; tackle alcohol and substance misuse; and tackle any other behaviour which had a negative effect on the local environment.  There were six separate CSPs within Gloucestershire which operated differently based on the challenges they faced, for example, urban areas had tended to develop and maintain more robust structures than rural districts where there was generally a lower incidence of crime.  Whilst there were common threads in terms of the national agenda, e.g. on issues such as anti-slavery and hate crime, there was inevitable fragmentation and inconsistencies across the county which made collaboration difficult.  A whole systems review of community safety across Gloucestershire had been commissioned by Leadership Gloucestershire in 2016 and a decision had been made in December 2016 regarding the need to rationalise the current complex arrangements across the county. The review had suggested three options: Option 1 represented a relatively minor change with six district-based CSPs remaining in place, but with regular forums for chairs to meet; Option 2 involved the establishment of a countywide CSP working closely with the six district-based CSPs; and, Option 3 represented transformational change with the six district-based CSPs merging to form an overarching county partnership with six district-based multi-agency forums allowing activities to be customised at a local level.  The Leadership Gloucestershire partners had considered the review and determined that the transformational change in Option 3 would best meet the community safety needs of the county and facilitate effective activities within the districts.

80.3           Within the Council, responsibility for community safety and anti-social behaviour was seen as a cross-cutting activity involving input from a range of service areas including Environmental Health, Community and Housing as well as other service providers such as the police, Families First and housing providers.  Reports of anti-social behaviour were generally low across the borough as a whole and community resilience had been built up through the Place Programme and preventative measures.  One weakness was the lack of a common reporting/monitoring system for anti-social behaviour across the service areas which prevented intelligence sharing and co-ordination of intervention activities across the borough.  The current delivery arrangements within the CSP in Tewkesbury Borough had not been considered in the context of the capacity changes within the local partner agencies and stakeholders. Securing attendance from the responsible agencies at the Tewkesbury Borough CSP had been problematic and there had been no attendance from the health and probation services for several years.  Those agencies no longer had structures that matched the district boundaries  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

To consider the progress made against the actions arising from the Peer Challenge and to agree that no further monitoring is required by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

81.1           The report of the Corporate Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 40-71, outlined the progress made in delivering the recommendations within the peer challenge action plan.  Members were asked to consider the report and to agree that no further monitoring be required by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the basis that the majority of actions had been implemented, or were being monitored elsewhere.

81.2           Members were advised that the Council’s peer challenge had taken place during November 2014 and the process had been an excellent learning opportunity for the authority, providing an external health check of the Council’s position and how it was set up to meet its future challenges.  Following the Peer Challenge, a formal report had been received, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, which summarised the findings of the team.  The report included a number of recommendations for further improvement and the Council had approved an action plan to progress those recommendations on 19 February 2015.  The action plan and a summary of progress in delivering the recommendations was set out at Appendix 2 to the report.  Since the last report to the Committee in July 2016, the majority of actions had been delivered.  Only two recommendations remained outstanding; Action 13 – review of the Constitution, and Action 15 – development of a Workforce Strategy.  The latter was virtually complete and, whilst it was yet to progress, the review of the Constitution had been identified as a significant governance issue within the Council’s Annual Governance Statement 2015/16 which was monitored by the Audit Committee on a quarterly basis.  As such it was recommended that future monitoring by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was no longer required.

81.3           A Member indicated that he was happy that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee no longer needed to receive the monitoring report, provided that the outstanding actions were being monitored elsewhere, but he asked that the Committee be notified when these actions were complete.  It was subsequently

RESOLVED           1.  That the progress made in delivering the recommendations within the Peer Challenge Action Plan be NOTED.

2.   That it be AGREED that no further monitoring be required by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, on the basis that the outstanding actions were being monitored elsewhere, but the Committee should receive notification when these actions had been completed.