Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year. 

43.1          It was proposed and seconded that Councillor J W Murphy be elected as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.  Should that motion fall, it was proposed that Councillor P N Workman be elected as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That Councillor J W Murphy be elected as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.

43.2          It was subsequently proposed that Councillor K Berliner be appointed as Vice-Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.  Should that motion fall, it was proposed that Councillor P N Workman be elected as Vice-Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That Councillor K Berliner be appointed as Vice-Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.

When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the visitors’ car park at the front of the building and await further instructions (during office hours staff should proceed to their usual assembly point; outside of office hours proceed to the visitors’ car park). Please do not re-enter the building unless instructed to do so.

In the event of a fire any person with a disability should be assisted in leaving the building.   

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

45.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor G J Bocking.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

46.1          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.

46.2          There were no declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2021.

47.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2021, 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.

48.1          Attention was drawn to the Executive Committee Forward Plan, circulated at Pages No.18-24.  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. 

48.2          The Head of Corporate Services advised that he had reported to the Executive Committee that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be reviewing the Digital Strategy and the Social Media Policy and Guidelines prior to them being taken to Executive Committee for approval and that had been welcomed by the Committee.  A Member drew attention to the Spring Gardens Regeneration Phase 1a Report which had been added to the pending items section of the Forward Plan in September 2019 and he asked when this was likely to come forward.  In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that, at the last budget setting, the project had been put on hold for two years due to the costs involved in the next stage and, although discussions had taken place with MACE around how to take it forward, a timeline had not yet been established.  Another Member noted that the Parking Strategy Review appeared twice in the pending items section but was also scheduled to be considered by the Executive Committee at its meeting in March 2022 and he asked for clarification thereon.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the Parking Strategy Review Working Group had met for the first time this year on 29 September 2021.  Now there was a clear way forward, he was in a position to establish a revised timetable which was likely to include the draft strategy being taken to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in January 2022 and the Executive Committee in March 2022 for approval; once the timetable was confirmed, the Executive Committee Forward Plan and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme would be updated accordingly.

48.3           It was

                  RESOLVED                That the Executive Committee Forward Plan be NOTED.

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

49.1          Attention was drawn to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2021/22, circulated at Pages No. 25-32, which Members were asked to consider.

49.2          The Head of Corporate Services indicated that, following the request at the last meeting, the Social Media Policy and Guidelines had been added to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme for the meeting on 23 November 2021.  In response to a Member comment regarding the Agenda for the meeting on 11 January 2022, the Head of Corporate Services advised that, whilst there were only three items due to come forward, this included the Council Plan Performance Tracker and COVID-19 Recovery Tracker which tended to generate a lot of questions so he felt there would be enough for Members to discuss.  Another Member questioned when the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would see the proposals for the budget and the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the budget proposals originated at Transform Working Group and were then taken to Executive Committee and Council for approval.  Should Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee wish to input into the budget setting process, their opportunity would be through Council, or any seminars prior to that.  A Member queried when the Update on Local Policing Arrangements, which was currently included in the pending items section of the Work Programme, was likely to come forward and the Head of Corporate Services undertook to check this following the meeting.

49.3          It was

RESOLVED           That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2021/22 be NOTED.

To receive an update from the Council’s representative on matters considered at the last meeting (28 September 2021). 

50.1          Attention was drawn to the report from the Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel, circulated separately, which gave an update on matters discussed at the last meeting of the Panel held on 28 September 2021.

50.2          The Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel advised that this was the first substantive meeting since the election of the new Police and Crime Commissioner and he reminded Members that the role of the Police and Crime Panel was to scrutinise the actions and decisions of the Police and Crime Commissioner; part of the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner was to hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of his functions.  Accordingly, the Council’s representative clarified that he was able to take back questions from the Committee to the Panel around how the Police and Crime Commissioner was doing his job.  At the meeting on 28 September, the Police and Crime Commissioner had given a commentary on his activities since taking up his role and the areas he would like to focus upon.  Whilst it was early days, the Council’s representative felt there was a greater desire to engage with the Police and Crime Panel and the public and he indicated that a number of public meetings had already been held within Gloucestershire.  The Police and Crime Commissioner’s new manifesto included recruiting an additional 300 Police Officers across the force which would be achieved by reallocating some of the existing budget.  He also intended to focus on the failure of the interface with the public, for instance, the wait time on 101 calls was unacceptable and a detriment to the public’s perception of the Police.

50.3          There had been a lively debate about E-Scooters and Members were informed that a trial was currently being run in Cheltenham and Gloucester with Zwings; as part of that, the E-Scooters could only be used on the road and were speed restricted.  The E-Scooters involved in the trials contained chips which enabled them to be closely monitored.  The Panel had recognised that E-Scooters were probably here to stay but concerns were raised about riding on pavements or in a dangerous manner and multiple people riding on the same scooters etc.  The feedback from the Police and Crime Commissioner had been that there was no abdication of responsibility on the part of the Police and, if there were misdemeanours, they would be pursued.  The Council’s representative indicated that he was aware of E-Scooters from his role as a County Councillor and the popularity of the scheme had resulted in it being extended.  The main issue was capacity as the E-Scooters had to be left in certain designated locations where they could be recharged and serviced.  Another item that had been discussed was the future of the mounted Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner had advised that he had not reached any firm conclusions as yet.  In the Police and Crime Commissioner’s view, the previous Police and Crime  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

To receive an update from the Council’s representative on matters considered at the last meeting (15 September 2021). 

51.1          Attention was drawn to the report from the Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee, circulated at Pages No. 33-34, which gave an update on matters discussed at the last meeting held on 15 September 2021.

51.2          The Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee advised that the main focus of the meeting had been on the future of the High Street with presentations being delivered by the Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Retail and High Street Sector Group and Chief Commercial Officer for Maybe* (a platform intended to help companies and bodies increase their digital influence) and Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Community and Economic Development Manager giving two different perspectives.  Other items had included an overview of the Local Growth Fund Programme and the project review of the Gloucester Transport Hub for GFirst LEP; Gloucestershire COVID-19 economic recovery planning; an update from the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Joint Committee; and the Executive Director’s report on countywide issues. 

51.3          A Member questioned what was being done to tap into the levelling up funds which were available; money was available for areas of significant deprivation and he would not like to see Gloucestershire miss out.  Another Member noted that the future of the High Street item had focused very much on the market towns and he asked whether it was possible for the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee to look at the smaller High Streets in villages which would also benefit from regeneration. The Council’s representative undertook to raise both of these issues with the Committee and it was

RESOLVED          That the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee update be NOTED.

To consider the annual summary of formal complaints 2020/21 to gain assurance that complaints are managed effectively. 

52.1          The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 35-52, provided a summary of complaints received during 2020/21.  Members were asked to consider the annual summary to gain assurance that complaints were effectively managed.

52.2          The Corporate Services Manager advised that the report outlined the formal complaints received between March 2020 and April 2021 and was based on the complaints framework which was introduced in 2016.  The framework had been reviewed in early 2021 and a new, improved framework incorporating comments and compliments was introduced in May 2021 and would be used for the 2021/22 report.  Members were informed that 183 complaints had been received during the period, 144 of which had been handled under the formal complaints procedure with the remaining 39 deemed to be service-level complaints handled through a separate process, e.g. noise complaints, missed bin collections, anti-social behaviour reports.  Of the 144 formal complaints, despite the difficult circumstances which Officers were working in due to the pandemic, 84% had been answered in time with 41% found to be justified and 43% partially justified.  In line with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman guidance, Appendix 1 to the report provided a breakdown of the complaints as outlined at Page No. 37, Paragraph 2.2 of the report.  Around half of the complaints related to waste and recycling; however, this was a very high profile service with around four million collections per year so the number of complaints was actually quite low in that context.  The bulk of the other complaints related to other high profile, customer-facing services such as revenues and benefits, planning and grounds maintenance.  When the complainant was unhappy with the original response, the second stage was to refer the complaint to an independent Head of Service for investigation.  The stage two complaints process had been temporarily suspended at the beginning of the financial year to enable Heads of Services to be redeployed on COVID-19 response activities; despite this, during 2020/21, a total of 12 stage two complaints were received and the outcomes were set out at Page No. 38, Paragraph 2.4 of the report.

52.3          Members were advised that the outturn figures were input through LG Inform, the Local Government Association (LGA) database which included a benchmarking tool, on a quarterly basis.  In March 2020, the LGA had deferred its benchmarking exercise so outturn figures were not available for comparison against other local authorities during 2020/21.  The Corporate Services Manager advised that, in previous years, the Council’s outturn figure had always been very low compared with others.  During 2020/21, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman had determined nine complaints relating to Tewkesbury Borough Council, the details of which were set out at Page No. 39, Paragraph 5.2 of the report and in the letter attached at Appendix 2 to the report.  In terms of lessons learnt, the Corporate Services Manager went on to explain that the majority of complaints were around customer care and a perceived lack of customer focus.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider the options available to the Council in terms of the use of mobile surveillance equipment for fly-tipping investigations and to note that option 2, as set out at Paragraph 3 of the report, will be trialled for a six month period with the results of the trial being reported back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to inform a final recommendation to the Executive Committee on the way forward.

53.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 53-58, which set out the options available to the Council in terms of the use of mobile surveillance equipment for fly-tipping investigations.  Members were asked to consider the options and to note that option 2, as set out at Paragraph 3 of the report, would be trialled for a six month period with the results of the trial being reported back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to inform a final recommendation to the Executive Committee on the way forward.

53.2          By way of background, the Principal Environmental Health Officer explained that several communities within the borough had experienced unacceptable levels of fly-tipping over the last few years, despite an increased level of enforcement and prosecution of offenders.  There seemed to be two main issues: the vast majority of fly-tips reported to the Council did not contain evidence indicating the provenance of the waste and fines in court tended to be very low and often less than would be incurred from a Fixed Penalty Notice.  One option available to the Council was to use mobile surveillance equipment in order to obtain evidence and he advised that some Councils had achieved custodial sentences off the back of CCTV footage due to the brazen nature of the offences captured on camera.  There were a number of different choices in terms of the type of surveillance the Council could undertake.  The first option was to use completely covert cameras; these were trail cameras which would be totally hidden in bushes or trees at the site.  The main disadvantage was that this was fully covert surveillance which was a highly specialised activity, so Officers would need a lot of training, and it required an application to court under the Regulatory Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).  Members were advised that there was potential to capture footage of innocent third parties so there would be a significant reputational risk to the Council if covert surveillance was not undertaken properly and in accordance with the relevant legislation.  The second option was to use covert cameras with their presence advertised by signage; this did not require a RIPA application and would still allow good evidence to be captured.  The third option was to use overt cameras which were not concealed.  This method had been used in hotspots across the borough and had been effective as the overt nature of the cameras did act as a deterrent; however, this reduced the ability of the Council to obtain sufficient evidence to achieve successful prosecutions.  In addition, this was a more expensive option as the cameras needed to be installed by the supplier each time they were relocated.  On balance, Officers considered that option 2 was the most appropriate in terms of the opportunity to obtain quality evidence without the risks associated with a fully covert scheme.  It was therefore intended to undertake a trial for a six month period which would be funded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.