A meeting of the OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL (SERVICE DELIVERY AND RESOURCES) will be held in COUNCIL CHAMBER, PATHFINDER HOUSE, ST MARY'S STREET, HUNTINGDON, PE29 3TN on TUESDAY, 6 JANUARY 2004 at 7:00 PM and you are requested to attend for the transaction of the following business:-
A G E N D A
1. MINUTES (Pages 1 - 6)
2. THE COUNCIL'S PRIORITIES (Pages 7 - 16)
3. COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: PEER CHALLENGE AND SELF ASSESSMENT (Pages 17 - 68)
4. PERFORMANCE MONITORING (Pages 69 - 74)
5. STUDIES
(a) THE TOURISM INDUSTRY IN HUNTINGDONSHIRE
(b) LEISURE CENTRES STRATEGY (Pages 75 - 78)
(c) HUNTINGDONSHIRE CAR PARKING STRATEGY (Pages 79 - 104)
6. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL - PROGRESS (Pages 105 - 110)
7. BEST VALUE - PROGRESS (Pages 111 - 112)
8. HUNTINGDONSHIRE AREA HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE SCRUTINY PANEL (Pages 113 - 118)
9. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 - FORWARD PLAN (Pages 119 - 126)
10. SCRUTINY (Pages 127 - 136)
Dated this 23RD day of March 2004
Chief Executive
Please contact A Roberts, Democratic Services Officer, Tel No 01480 388009 or if you have a general query on any Agenda Item, wish to tender your apologies for absence from the meeting, or would like information on any decision taken by the Committee.
DELETE IF NOT APPLICABLE Agenda and enclosures can be viewed on the District Council’s website – www.huntsdc.gov.uk
Agenda Item 1
HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES of the meeting of the OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL (SERVICE DELIVERY AND RESOURCES) held at Council Chamber, Pathfinder House, St Mary's Street, Huntingdon, PE29 3TN on Tuesday, 2 December 2003
PRESENT: Councillor K Reynolds - Chairman
Councillors Mrs M Banjeree, E R Butler, J E Garner, D A Giles, A Hansard, M G Rainer, J M Souter, Mrs N F Wagstaffe and J S Watt
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence from the meeting were submitted by Councillors Mrs C A Godley and D Harty
57. MINUTES
Subject to the inclusion of the words, “in order to monitor the Council’s performance,” the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 4th November 2003 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
58. PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Consideration was given to a report by the Head of Policy (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) which summarised progress with the implementation of Best Value Service Improvement Plans and the Council’s performance against the Best Value Performance Indicators. It was intended in future to use the later as part of a comprehensive performance management system to inform the Council’s policy making.
With regard to the implementation of the Service Improvement Plans, Members commented that it was desirable for the summary of the report to contain anticipated completion dates and clearer descriptions for each identified improvement. In response the Head of Policy undertook to include both in reports to future meetings together with a summary of achievements made.
In discussing the performance indicators Members expressed their intention to monitor selected aspects of the Council’s performance on a monthly basis. In addition, they requested that the quartile in which the Council fell for each indicator was reported. Having examined a number of indicators in detail the Panel selected the following formal entering at each meeting
(i) the percentage of invoices for commercial goods and services which were paid by the authority within 30 days of such invoices being received by the authority
1
(ii) the number of working days/shifts lost to sickness absence
(iii) average time for processing new benefits, claims (days)
(iv) average time for processing notification of change of circumstances (days)
(v) percentage of renewal claims processed on time
(vi) percentage of cases for which the calculation of the amount of benefit due was correct on the basis on the information available for the determination of a sample of cases checked post determination
(vii) the percentage of recoverable overpayments (excluding Council Tax benefit) that were recovered in the year
(viii) percentage of the total tonnage of household waste arisings which have been composted
(ix) the number of kilograms of household waste collected per head
(x) cost of waste collection per household
(xi) planning cost per head of population
(xii) domestic burglaries per 1000 households. Local authorities to set local targets
(xiii) vehicle crimes per 1000 population
(xiv) the percentage of authority buildings open to the public in which areas are suitable for and accessible to disabled people (xv) the number of types of interactions that are enabled for electronic delivery as a percentage of the types of interactions that are legally permissible for electronic delivery
(xvi) the percentage of standard searches carried out in ten working days.
RESOLVED
(a) that the report be received and
(b) that the progress of the Best Value Performance Indicators listed above be submitted to all future meetings.
59. HUNTINGDONSHIRE CAR PARKING STRATEGY 2004 TO 2016
With the aid of a report by the Head of Environment and Transport the Panel reviewed a draft Car Parking Strategy for Huntingdonshire to 2016 (copies of which are appended in the Minute Book). The
2 Strategy took account of growth and demand, the needs of town centres, charging policies and the Council’s land use and transportation responsibilities. Members were informed of the extent of the public consultation that had been undertaken to date, which included the use of a questionnaire to solicit public views on the Strategy.
Members discussed a range of issues relating to car parking, including future levels of demand, on street parking, the economic impact of parking policies in towns, income and expenditure, enforcement and the rapid transit system. At the conclusion of the debate on this matter the Panel decided to reserve its comments to the Cabinet on the Strategy pending the receipt of further information on the responses of the police to the questionnaire.
RESOLVED
That a further report be submitted to the next meeting on the findings of the public consultation exercise.
60. POST OFFICES
(a) POST OFFICE NETWORK AND SERVICES
The Panel received and noted a report by the Head of Administration (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) on the initiatives introduced and other recent developments relating to the Post Office Network and services.
(b) CCTV IN RURAL POST OFFICES
Consideration was given to a report by the Head of Environment and Transport (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) recommending the Cabinet to delete the budget for the monitoring of CCTV systems in rural post offices. The budget had been established to monitor CCTV systems following the completion of the study on the Post Office Network and services by the former Overview and Scrutiny Panel (External), however, as there had been no uptake it was proposed that the facility be withdrawn
RESOLVED
That the Cabinet be recommended to delete the existing MTP budget for CCTV for rural post offices in 2002/03 and in subsequent years.
61. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL - PROGRESS
Members received and noted a report by the Head of Administration (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) detailing action taken response to recent discussions and decisions taken by the Panel.
With regard to the study on the rural economy and services in Huntingdonshire it was agreed that representatives of the Ramsey
3 Area Partnership Forum should be invited to attend and participate in the debate when the matter was considered.
62. BEST VALUE REVIEW - PROGRESS
Members were acquainted by means of a report by the Head of Administration (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) with the progress of the Best Value Review that fell within their remit.
Central Services Manager reported that the Comprehensive Performance Assessment had delayed the housing to meet external and local need/demand and that once further work on the balanced housing review and on the “compete” element had been completed that the review would be submitted to the Panel
63. HUNTINGDONSHIRE HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE PANEL
The Panel received and noted the Minutes of the meeting of the Huntingdonshire Area Health and Social Care Scrutiny Panel held on 14th October 2003.
64. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 - FORWARD PLAN
The Panel considered the current Forward Plan of key decisions scheduled for consideration by the Cabinet (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) which had been prepared by the Leader for the period 1st December 2003 to 31st March 2004.
Members reiterated their concerns that the inclusion in the Plan of new items, which prevented them from being scrutinised prior to determination and of the absence of background documents. Consequently the Chairman was authorised to write to the Leader of the Council drawing his attention to these matters.
In order to pursue the study on emergency planning Members requested that the report entitled Emergency Planning Procedures be submitted to the Panel prior to its consideration by the Cabinet.
65. SCRUTINY
In scrutinising the 38th Edition of the Decision Digest, Members raised the following queries
Recycling collections – In response to a query by Councillor J M Souter the Central Services Manager undertook to forward to him the report that had informed the Cabinets decision on this matter.
Garden Waste Trial and Options for Service Implementation – Arising from a number of questions relating to this matter Central Services Manager undertook to ascertain why the Panel had not been consulted as a matter of course prior to the decisions outlined being taken.
Office Accommodation – In response to a query by Councillor J M Souter the Chairman informed him that the information he required could be obtained from the intranet.
4 The Budget: 2004-2009 Medium Term Plan – Councillor J S Watt suggested that advertising on wheelie bins should be considered if the Council’s Waste Strategy and Recycling Policy are reviewed.
Councillor K Reynolds Chairman
5 This page is intentionally left blank
6 Agenda Item 2
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL (SERVICE DELIVERY & RESOURCES) 6TH JANUARY 2004
OVERVIEW /SCRUTINY PANEL (PLANNING AND FINANCE) 13TH JANUARY 2004
THE COUNCIL’S PRIORITIES (Report of the Chief Officers Management Team)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an opportunity for Members of the Panel to comment on proposals to update the Council’s ‘Corporate’ Plan. Closely linked to this is the development of a Comprehensive Performance Management Framework (CPMF) to provide a more effective means of using information to deliver services and particularly to ensure that the Council’s objectives are achieved.
2. BACKGROUND
Council Plans and Priorities
2.1 The Council adopted Huntingdonshire 2000+ in 1999 as a corporate plan which set out its vision and objectives for Huntingdonshire. In 2001 this was updated following extensive consultation around the production of ‘Shaping the Future of Huntingdonshire’, a Local Agenda 21 Strategy and a Community Plan. Subsequently the Council adopted a series (17) of Medium Term Objectives (MTOs) to bridge the gap between the long-term vision and operational and service plans.
2.2 The MTOs have been used to help determine the allocation of resources and have been cascaded into service plans and down to the key performance area of individual Officers - both of which have helped to ensure that the services we deliver meet the Council’s overall objectives.
2.3 Over the past six months or so a review of Huntingdonshire 2000+ and the Medium Term Objectives has been developing in response to a number of influences —
♦ To support the Community Strategy — The Council is under a duty to produce a Community Strategy with its Partners. The Community Strategy sets out a long term ‘Partnership’ vision for Huntingdonshire to ensure sustainable development which promotes the economic, environmental and social well being of the area. The Community Strategy
7 replaces ‘Shaping the Future of Huntingdonshire’ and as a Council we need to ensure that we are supporting the achievement of the Strategy and that our corporate plans reflect the contribution the Council has to make to this aim.
♦ Comprehensive Performance Management — As part of our work to develop a Comprehensive Performance Management Framework it became clear that there was a need for more clarity about the Council’s ambitions and objectives.
♦ Prioritisation — While there is no evidence to suggest that the number of MTOs have detracted from our ability to deliver a broad range of improvements and developments we have experienced some difficulties in prioritisation. This view has been supported by external views, including that emphasised in the recent Peer Challenge.
2.4 Based on the recent consultation exercises around the development of the Community Strategy and other research and data such as the ‘quality of life’ survey, the Council has a better understanding of the subjects which local people consistently have told us how important to them.
2.5 The Council operates in a complex environment and has to achieve a broad range of outcomes which will improve the lifestyles of people who live or work here or visit Huntingdonshire to help deliver our ambitions. To reflect this, the following vision has been proposed:
Huntingdonshire, where —
♦ we make the most of the opportunities which come from growth; ♦ our local people can realise their potential; ♦ we balance our social economic and environmental needs; and ♦ our quality of life and well-being are envied.
2.6 This vision supports the main themes of the Community Strategy -
♦ continued economic success; and ♦ opportunity for all; ♦ protecting and enhancing our environment.
2.7 Based on this vision and our research, a set of six priorities are proposed —
♦ safe and active communities; ♦ a healthy population; ♦ a clean green and attractive environment; ♦ a strong and diverse local economy; ♦ housing which meets local needs; and ♦ accessible services and transport choices.
8 2.8 It has been suggested that, as far as the District Council responsibilities extend, these priorities are significant contributors to ensuring a good quality of life for local people. In these circumstances it has also been suggested that it would not be productive to try to rank these six priorities as such but that through effective target setting, based on current baselines and analysis of local need, we will be able to demonstrate prioritisation.
Comprehensive Performance Management
2.9 Most Councils recognise the importance of performance management. It is the area identified consistently for improvement as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) process. During the CPA work to date, the Audit Commission have identified that —
♦ in Councils that are good at managing their performance, staff and Councillors have a shared understanding of the Council’s priorities; and
♦ Councils with high levels of focus pay attention to their own priorities and stick with them, rather than being diverted by the latest “big idea” or short-term crisis.
2.10 The Council have recognised the need for a limited number of performance measures that would enable Members and managers to have confidence that our priorities are being met and provide a clear indication that the needs of local people are being satisfied.
2.11 The recent Peer Challenge, part of the CPA process, recognised that “there are elements of performance management culture in place and the Council is in the process of addressing identified weaknesses”.
2.12 To help to address the “weaknesses” within our performance management system, we have adopted and adapted the “balanced scorecard” methodology as our approach to performance management. This draws together existing elements of our systems and enables us to examine performance from a number of perspectives rather than a single historical, usually financial, view. The framework will also allow the identification of trends and achievement of targets to give an early indication of whether we are likely to achieve the results that we want and can therefore take some remedial action.
2.13 The balanced scorecard tries to make sense of a lot of measures by grouping them together under the following headings -
Member satisfaction Are we well managed and achieving our strategic goals?
Public or customer Are the public and our customers satisfied and satisfaction are we meeting their needs?
9 Internal business process What we must excel at?
Learning and growth What people, systems and procedures do we need to have in place to ensure achievement?
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 The attached schedule draws together the suggested vision and priorities together with a range of measures which will form the basis of the revised corporate plan and comprehensive performance management framework. It forms the basis for the development of a new Corporate Plan and Members’ views on this are sought at this early stage.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Huntingdonshire 2000+ ) Community Strategy for Huntingdonshire ) available from the Head of Policy Comprehensive Performance Management Programme )
Contact Officer: Ian Leatherbarrow, Head of Policy (01480) 388005
10 Corporate Plan: Our Vision and Priorities
Growing Success
Vision
Huntingdonshire, where —
• we make the most of the opportunities which come from growth; • local people can realise their potential; • we balance our social, economic and environmental needs; and • our quality of life and well-being are envied.
11 Overall Priorities
To achieve this vision we have six priorities, which we need to achieve.
Safe and Active Communities Healthy Population Clean, Green and Attractive Environment Strong and Diverse Economy Housing that Meets Local Needs Accessible Services and Transport Choices
Corporate Plan: Our Vision and Priorities
WHAT MEMBERS WANT TO SEE
AIMS OUTCOMES Lagging Measure Leading Measure Good reputation • Strong positive reputation with • CPA rating • Customer satisfaction the government, partners, • Ratio of Positive to negative press public and the media coverage Fair Council Tax • An appropriate level of council • % of public who are satisfied • Consultation (trade off) completed tax for the level of services with level of council tax for • Expected level of satisfaction provided services provided based on consultation • Number of districts with lower council tax than ours Services that meet • Public believe local needs are • % of public who believe local • Number of complaints made about local need met effectively need is being met the level of service • % of Service Plan targets met
12 Corporate Plan: Our Vision and Priorities
WHAT THE PUBLIC AND OUR CUSTOMERS WANT TO SEE
AIMS OUTCOMES Lagging Measure Leading Measure Safe and Active • Low crime & fear of crime • % of people who think they • % of people who think there Communities • High community involvement live in a safe community are enough places to go & • Low level of poverty • % of people who think they things to do • Places to meet & things to do live in an active community • Number of crime related stories reported Healthy Population • Healthy lifestyles • Years of premature life loss • % of HDC activities • Personal safety • All causes mortality completed from Community rate/100,000 population Strategy • % of people who think they are • Life expectancy at birth healthy Clean, green, • A clean district • % of people who think we have • No. of environmental attractive • Low level of pollution and landfill a clean, green and attractive complaints environment • High energy efficiency environment • Environmental assessment 13 • Appropriate Bio-diversity (basket of measures). • Development of Brownfield sites Strong & Diverse • Residents with skills appropriate • % of people unemployed • Number of jobs by sector Economy to local job market and area. • Appropriate business enterprise • No. of VAT registered • Appropriate commercial businesses by sector and development area • Low out-commuting • Relevant rural economy • A healthy rural economy assessment (basket of • Competitive market towns measures to include start- ups, post offices, diversification, etc) Housing that meets • Sufficient affordable housing • % of identified needs that • Number of units built per local needs • Sufficient well maintained housing have been met year stock • % of units built per year • Opportunities for the vulnerable to which are affordable units live independently • A low level of homelessness • Appropriate new housing Corporate Plan: Our Vision and Priorities Accessible services • Services located to match • % people satisfied with • % of Customer First targets and transport customer needs access to services and met choices • Services that are socially inclusive facilities • % LTP high-level objectives • Transport opportunities that meet • % people satisfied with for Huntingdonshire met local needs transport choices Value for money • Self-financing commercial • % of service users who feel • Number of users of “commercial” services they get value for money commercial services services • Subsidies for identified users
14 Corporate Plan: Our Vision and Priorities THE PROCESSES AT WHICH WE MUST EXCEL
AIMS OUTCOMES Lagging Measure Leading Measure Effective • Statutory requirements met • % of parish councils who feel • Number of key policy Community • Clear direction and priorities they are actively engaged decisions informed by Leadership • Effective external political • No of planning decisions made consultation relationships by HDC that go against parish • % of budget allocated to • Effective political process council recommendations non-statutory priorities • % of public aware of council’s priorities Service • Improved service quality • Net improvements in • No of processes reviewed Improvements • Improved service effectiveness performance against service & improved • Improved service efficiency plan objectives • Acquire appropriate discretionary funding Effective • Strong relationships which • No of partnerships achieving • Number of partnerships Partnerships deliver better services targets with clear outcomes and 15 • Low level of risks associated with targets agreed partnerships • Benefit from partnership opportunities Effective • Sound financial and resource • % of employees who feel • % or number of budgets Management management motivated and service plans linked to • Effective project management • No of scorecard outcomes scorecards • Motivated employees who achieved • % employees who feel contribute to corporate goals their contribution to • Effective comprehensive corporate goals is performance management recognised framework • Effective prioritisation and allocation of resources Manage • Clear appreciation of what we • % of the public with an • % of actions in Expectations can do with resources available accurate expectation of what Communications plan • Recognition of our successes we are going to deliver completed • Clear understanding of local needs. Corporate Plan: Our Vision and Priorities WHAT WE MUST LEARN & GROW
AIMS OUTCOMES Lagging Measure Leading Measure Employees and • Employees with the • % of employees with right • % training & development plans up to Members with the appropriate competencies competencies date, identified and delivered right competencies • Members with the appropriate • % of Members with the appropriate • % roles where competencies have (skills, experience, competencies competencies been identified knowledge) • Succession Planning Innovation and • A culture which encourages • No innovation awards • % of employees who feel their Improvement new concepts to be embraced internal/external managers encourage and the status quo to be improvement/innovation (staff survey) challenged Key Behaviours • Celebrate success • Proportion of employees with a • Number of employees and members Valued • Understand Local Needs high score in culture survey who know key behaviours Share & Use • An organisation that learns • No of life event classifications • Number of services linked to CMS Knowledge from experience where databases are automatically and CRM • Joined up working updated • 16 • ICT infrastructure that links % of queries that can be dealt with the organisation at first contact •
Agenda Item 3
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL (SERVICE DELIVERY & RESOURCES) 6TH JANUARY 2004
OVERVIEW /SCRUTINY PANEL (PLANNING AND FINANCE) 13TH JANUARY 2004
COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: PEER CHALLENGE AND SELF ASSESSMENT (Report by Head of Policy)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Members with an opportunity to discuss the final report by the Peer Challenge Team as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) process and specifically to provide an opportunity to comment on the latest draft of the self-assessment document.
1.2 The Peer Challenge
The Peer Challenge is an important part of the CPA process and the report of the Challenge Team will be used by the Audit Commission in reaching a judgement on the Council. The peer challenge process was carried out by SOLACE Enterprises, an accredited organisation, over three days in early November. The Challenge Team comprised Tony Du Sautoy. a SOLACE Enterprises facilitator; Glen Sanderson, Conservative Group Leader at Castle Morpeth District Council; and Graham Jeffs, Chief Executive of Mendip District Council. The Peer Challenge concentrated on the ‘Corporate Assessment’ element of the CPA and provides us with an external view of the Council’s strengths and development needs. The report of the Peer Challenge Team has been used extensively to revise and refine the CPA self-assessment document.
1.3 The Self-Assessment approach
The methodology for undertaking the CPA recognises that the District Council has a key role to play in shaping the assessment, which ultimately will be made by the Audit Commission. The self-assessment document is the starting point of the process. In October, Members were given opportunity to comment on an early draft of a self-assessment. This draft has been developed over the last two months or so, particularly in relation to the response received from the Peer Challenge Team and information emanating from other assessments of District Council which have now been completed.
17 Members are reminded that the Cabinet will consider the revised self- assessment at its meeting on 29th January 2004 and that the final submission has to be made to the Audit Commission by no later than 13th February 2004. The CPA inspection starts on Monday 29th March and it is anticipated that the Audit Commission judgement will be issued in mid-July.
2. CONCLUSION
The Council’s Self Assessment of its performance will be an important part of the CPA exercise and the views of Members of the Panels would be important in ensuring that the assessment is both realistic and robust.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Self Assessment Guidance for District Council’s April 2003 produced by the Audit Commission Peer Challenge of the CPA Corporate Self-Assessment 28th November 2003 issued by SOLACE Enterprises Ltd
Contact Officer: Ian Leatherbarrow, Head of Policy (01480) 388005
2
18
Huntingdonshire
District Council
Peer Challenge of the CPA Corporate Self-Assessment
28 November 2003
Tony du Sautoy, SOLACE Enterprises Facilitator Glen Sanderson, Conservative Group Leader, Castle Morpeth District Council Graham Jeffs, Chief Executive, Mendip District Council
19 2
Contents
Contents ...... 2 Background ...... 3 The Huntingdonshire Peer Challenge Process ...... 4 What is the Council seeking to achieve?...... 7 Theme One: Ambition ...... 7 Theme Two: Prioritisation ...... 8 Theme Three: Focus ...... 9 How has the Council set about delivering its priorities? ...... 10 Theme Four: Capacity ...... 10 Theme Five: Performance management ...... 13 What has the Council achieved/not achieved to date? ...... 14 Theme Six: Achievement (service quality)...... 14 Theme Seven: Achievement (improvement) ...... 14 Theme Eight: Investment ...... 15 What does the Council plan to do next? ...... 16 Theme Nine: Learning ...... 16 Theme Ten: Future plans...... 17 Process, content and deliverability of the Self-Assessment ...... 17 Process ...... 18 Content...... 18 Deliverability...... 19 The Council’s response to the Peer Challenge ...... 19 Conclusion...... 20
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 20 3
1. Background
1.1 In October 2002 the Audit Commission published its proposals on the methodology to be adopted for carrying out comprehensive performance assessments (CPA) for district councils, which was piloted in ten “pathfinder” authorities. It was subsequently decided to carry out a second piloting stage, this time for the district councils in one county. A number of amendments were made to the draft methodology in the light of this piloting, but now that it has been finalised one of the central elements remains a self-assessment to be challenged by peers.
1.2 The Audit Commission’s intended aims of peer challenge are to:
• Provide an objective, robust and managed external challenge to the self assessment; • Encourage thinking about strengths and areas for improvement; • Contribute to producing a strong and forward looking improvement plan.
A number of different approaches and organisations, including SOLACE Enterprises, have been accredited by the Audit Commission to provide the requisite peer challenge.
1.3 The SOLACE model involves a chief executive and leader working with a facilitator for three days plus a follow up “Challenge Event” the following week. This model has been specifically designed for providing peer challenge rather than being an adaptation of an existing model and meets the Audit Commission’s requirements for peer challenge:
• Using credible peers who understand the working of a district council; • Peers must be independent from the council; • The peer team must be communicated to and acceptable to the council; The peer challenge must cover the four top level corporate assessment questions; • The peer team must provide written and verbal feedback to the council.
1.4 The SOLACE model sets out to test the robustness of three different aspects of the self-assessment carried out by the local authority, namely:
• The scope and rigour of the process adopted by the authority for producing its self-assessment (e.g. the extent of stakeholder involvement, the breadth and depth of information gathered, etc.);
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 21 4
• The range and honesty of the content of the self-assessment (e.g. is it comprehensive and does it appear a balanced document, addressing areas for improvement as well as successes?);
• The council’s capacity to deliver on the conclusions and address the areas of risk set out in the self assessment (e.g. looking at what progress has already been achieved in the areas where the need for action has been identified, the likelihood of progress being maintained, ownership of the assessment by the council’s leadership, the resources likely to be available, etc.).
1.5 The purpose of the SOLACE Enterprises’ model of Peer Challenge is to help the local authority to ensure that the final version of its self-assessment is as accurate a reflection of its current performance, achievements and future capacity as it possibly can be. As well as being designed specifically to provide peer challenge for CPA self assessment there are some other distinctive features of the SOLACE model including: • The emphasis placed on establishing a dialogue with the council; • The understanding that Peer Challenge is not part of the inspection • The emphasis placed on the flexibility of the challenge process, focusing on the specific circumstances of and issues facing a council.
2. The peer challenge process in Huntingdonshire
2.1 The peer challenge of Huntingdonshire District Council’s (“the Council”) self- assessment began during the week commencing 3 November 2003 when a provisional timetable of activities was drawn up and background documentation circulated to the challenge team.
2.2 The challenge team was also briefed for the process. The team was:
• Tony du Sautoy, SOLACE Facilitator • Glen Sanderson, Conservative Group Leader, Castle Morpeth District Council • Graham Jeffs, Chief Executive, Mendip District Council
2.3 On the evening prior to the three-day visit, commencing 10 November, the team met to prepare for the challenge process. In that preparatory meeting the team:
• Reviewed the Audit Commission’s proposed methodology for CPA for district councils and the SOLACE model for challenging the self-assessment element of that process.
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 22 5
• Reviewed the background information provided by the authority, including the self-assessment, the related evidence and the additional documentation requested by the SOLACE Facilitator
• Agreed lines of enquiry to be pursued during the visit and additional activities and documentation that was needed to gather information on these
• In the light of that agreement, reviewed and agreed adjustments to the provisional timetable of activities.
• Agreed a modus operandi for the process (e.g. team roles and responsibilities)
2.4 The team examined the top level questions and the ten key themes for CPA, but gave particular attention to the issues that appeared from the documentation to warrant particular focus. It was recognised by the team that three people working on site for three days could not look at absolutely everything in the same level of detail and that the process needed to be bounded in some way.
2.5 The themes to which particular attention was given were those of prioritisation and performance management. The latter was a theme which the Council had itself identified as a priority for improvement, whilst the former was selected as a result of reviewing the material in advance of the challenge.
2.6 The various methods that the team used to gather information included: • Face to face and telephone interviews with a cross section of stakeholders from inside and outside the authority (e.g. Leader, Cabinet Members, Opposition Leader, and other Councillors, Chief Executive, Directors and other senior managers, together with a number of external stakeholders) • Small group discussions (e.g. Front Line staff) • Facilitating a specially convened meeting of Scrutiny Chairs to discuss the performance of the Council, the self-assessment and the effectiveness of scrutiny • A “table dialogue” session involving structured discussion with a diagonal slice of staff from the authority. • Attending various meetings and events (e.g. an O&S Panel and a meeting of the Chief Officers’ Management Team (COMT)) • An e-mail asking for comments sent out via the Council’s intranet to all staff and all elected members, which elicited 17 responses. • A tour of the area to familiarise the team with the district
2.7 The team read more than 50 documents supplied by the Council in advance, submitted or requested on site. They recorded a total of 43 meetings, interviews and events during the 3 days on site. Throughout the process the team reflected back to the Council on a daily basis, through feedback to the Chief Executive and the Officer co-ordinating the process, what they thought they were seeing and learning. This provided the authority with an opportunity to steer the team to look at additional information if they thought that they had not been given quite the right message. It was also intended that this dialogue Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 23 6
would help to generate an ownership of the team’s feedback so that nothing would come as a surprise.
2.8 A week after the three-day visit the team returned to the authority to feedback the results of the information gathering process in a more structured way at a “challenge event”. The peer member was unable to attend as a result of a prior commitment, but had shared in the drafting of the presentation. This event was attended by: • The Council Leader • The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group • Councillors • The Chief Executive and Directors • Heads of Service and some other staff 2.9 The team’s aim was to make this Challenge Event as informal and as non- adversarial as possible, whilst ensuring the team had the opportunity to present their preliminary findings robustly. All findings were based on evidence taken by the team from documentation, interviews and observation. The Challenge Event was an important additional means of evidence gathering, and receiving valuable feedback on the preliminary conclusions.
2.10 The results of the process outlined above, including the challenge event, are set out in the remainder of this report, which is structured as follows: Section Three: Feedback on the top level question What is the Council seeking to achieve? and the three themes that fall under this question namely:
Ambition Prioritisation Focus
Section Four: Feedback on the top level question How has the Council set about delivering its priorities? and the two themes that fall under this question namely: Capacity Performance management
Section Five: Feedback on the top level question What has the Council achieved/not achieved to date? and the two themes that fall under this question, namely: Achievement in service quality Achievement of improvement Investment
Section Six: Feedback on the top level question What does the Council plan to do next? and the two themes that fall under this question, namely: Learning Future plans
Section Seven: feedback on the three different elements for self assessment i.e.: The process by which it was produced Its overall content Its deliverability Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 24 7
Section Eight: The Council’s response
2.11 In making its comments the team sought to add value by concentrating on those areas where, as peers, they were able to identify issues that had not been fed back to the authority by other commentators. The team took care to note areas of strengths as well as areas for improvement. However, since the main aim of the challenge process was to stimulate improvement, comparatively more attention was given in the Challenge Event, as in this report, to explaining and evidencing the areas on which the team believes the Council should focus its attention. Inevitably, that emphasis tends towards highlighting evidence which the Council may see as negative, against the positive issues covered by the enumeration of the Council’s strengths. It is therefore important to repeat the conclusion stated by the team at the Challenge that the Council is seen by team as having more significantly more strengths than weaknesses.
3. What is the Council seeking to achieve?
Theme One: Ambition
Strengths: • In general terms, the Council is ambitious and proactive in using its considerable resources to improve services to the people living in the district. • It has produced a long term (15 year) Plan for the area in 1998, under the title “Huntingdonshire 2000 Plus”, the second edition of which was published in 2001. It articulates a four point vision for the community, supplemented by a vision of the Council itself and its core values. • Currently, the Council relies heavily on its medium term plan, which combines a robust financial strategy with no less than 17 medium term objectives. These form the basis for its expenditure decisions. • The Council has been active in developing a partnership culture generally in much of what it does, but recently through the Huntingdonshire Strategic Partnership. HSP, at the time of writing, is now about to publish its first Community Strategy. • Although the draft self assessment did not offer details about its awareness of the needs of its (admittedly small) ethnic minority population, subsequent information supplied to the team confirms that the Council is active in seeking to identify needs. • The Council has demonstrated effective community leadership not only through its stewardship of the Community Strategy, and its leadership of the Oxmoor SRB project, but also through its investment in the community, based on the wishes expressed in consultation.
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 25 8
Issues for discussion: • The team felt that, in spite of this range of plans, it was difficult to assess what the Council’s long term vision was. As the team was told “the Council is looking for a vision”. Statements of purpose can be perceived as being “generic” or bland, even though these were the result of responding to the wishes of the community. In reviewing its corporate strategy, the \Council should seek more clarity and better articulation. • In addition, the team were concerned about the number of medium term objectives. Virtually every comment on this issue within and outside the Council recognised that the scale and breadth of the Council’s ambition was too great. One manager told the team “there are too many objectives. We need five or six maximum.” It has to be conceded that the team found no evidence that the number had yet led to any apparent failures, but that approach was generally accepted as being unsustainable in the medium to long term. Theme Two: Prioritisation Strengths: • The Council has taken care to ensure that its priorities for service investment are based firmly in its medium term plan. Bidding for resources involves a standard format which requires that the objective of the bid refer to the objectives of the plan. The need to address the Council’s emerging re- examination of its numerous priorities in the light of new assessments of its long term finances has started to happen, albeit slowly. • The Council was able to demonstrate effective use of consultation and research to inform its priorities and investment decisions. This is apparent in the Community Strategy, the housing Needs survey, the Community Safety Strategy, and the Customer First Programme. One notable detailed example commended by the team was the rural exception sites. • Consequently, the Council has targeted resources into its priority areas in the current financial year; notable examples are the employment of Police Community Support Officers, green waste pilots, and investment in its “Customer First” proposals. Issues for discussion: • The number of priorities has been alluded to above. They run the risk of becoming a barrier to prioritisation. In effect, if there are too many priorities, then there are no priorities! A Councillor wrote to the team “My feeling is our ability to monitor and control is spread too thin across too many high profile projects”. • The Council has been able to increase its investment without yet having to face the challenge of determining its non-priorities and disinvestment; Whilst there is still scope to do this as it has the time to plan, the Council will need to meet the challenge of deciding what is not a priority as it comes closer to what it calls the “cliff”. That is the point when the reserves will no longer be available to fund service expansion or Council Tax levels.
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 26 9
• For the same reason, the team was concerned that the availability of resources within the Council sometimes meant that the prioritisation of service investment was not as rigorous as it could have been. New bids require an identification of the medium term objectives supported or advanced by the proposal. The number of objectives and their breadth effectively means that almost any proposal can fit with one or more of the 17. Therefore, it seemed that sometimes the challenge is to find some cover for an initiative within the MTOs rather than to use them to drive a programme of service improvements in a coherent way. • The Council has been slow to respond to some specific national priorities, examples being the whole area of performance management, anti-fraud policy and a risk strategy. Although action is now being taken on all these, each required reminders from the District Auditor.
Theme Three: Focus Strengths: • As already stated, the Council has demonstrated that it can deliver service improvements through investment in accordance with its priorities, as shown by the budget decisions for 2003/4. It has a track record of achievement when an issue becomes prioritised, as exemplified by its impressive investment in community safety. • Although concerns have been expressed in this document about how rigorous prioritisation may be from time to time, there is no doubt that the Medium Term Plan has provided focus for the Council in developing its services. • The Council’s Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Panels work to forward plans which help to focus their work and offer an improved mechanism for focus on performance. As one Councillor wrote to the team “without a shadow of doubt, most of these changes have happened since we went to the cabinet style Council. The whole process is more focussed, with individual Councillors better placed to make important and well informed decisions”. • The Council already has high levels of staff performance appraisal in a system designed to focus the staff’s work into priority areas with linkages to service plans. • The Council has invested in systematic promulgation of what it does through community and business newsletters, “District Wide” and “Business Wide”. In addition, a business partner commented favourably on the “Riverside Breakfast Forum”. Issues for discussion: • The team was concerned that the Council did not seem to reinforce its vision and identity within the community as much as it could. The most obvious example was the complete lack of any corporate identification with the Council in the Leisure Centre visited.
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 27 10
• Performance information is collected and reported, but the team was not convinced that the Council had yet developed the culture of using such information to best effect. • The team considered the role of the Chief Officers’ Management Team in supporting focus. Although COMT does consider the Cabinet key decisions as an agenda of future challenges, there was no evidence that it had a forward agenda of addressing the future challenges for the Council. A more visionary approach to forward planning should therefore be considered by COMT. • Although the Council seems generally well structured to deal with its service responsibilities, there did seem to be some elements of functional allocation which might be reconsidered at the appropriate time. The Chief Executive commented that there was little to be gained from initiating structural change, which the team felt was an appropriate response. However, it is important that structures do not impede effective working, so some changes may be looked at when the opportunity arises. One example was the split between Tourism and Economic Development functions. At the end of the day, however, this is not an issue in which the team would seek to influence local decisions.
4. How has the Council set about delivering its priorities?
Theme Four: Capacity
Strengths: • The team was impressed with the excellent working relations between officers and members. One head of service wrote: “At the core of our performance is the positive culture of partnership and trust between our members and our employees.” Although some comment was made to the team that the Council was officer led, political leadership was actually very evident and the respective roles of both seemed settled and understood. • The Council has a stable financial position and massive reserves. This is a result of not only the transfer of its Housing stock, but also through its historic low spending and retention of reserves previously created. It therefore has opportunities to increase expenditure on its key priorities, which it is now doing to considerable effect. • The Council is well staffed, with appropriate skills • The team was particularly impressed with the Training and Development Strategy of the Council. Individual training needs assessed within the appraisal process were built into the annual programme, which had in turn clearly addressed the Council’ own need to develop its workforce. One employee told the team: “I went on the two-day manager’s course and found it to be one of the most useful courses I have ever attended”. What is more, the staff meeting confirmed that the programme was delivered as planned. Only one person could point to a training need which had not been met. • Member training and development also seemed focussed and relevant.
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 28 11
• The Council has also shown the importance it attaches to the staff through its range of personnel policies and procedures. • The Staff survey conducted by the Council, which reported while the team was on site, confirmed a strong message that staff like working for the Council, and that morale was excellent. One individual comment was “I have worked in five local authorities…I believe this is the best one.” The only area where reported views were less than the council would have hoped for was in relation to internal communications. The team, however, could not point to any significant gaps in this area. The Council has an effective intranet, newsletters, and team briefing. • The team was also pleased to note the low rates of sickness absence (6.7 days) and turnover (8%), which reflects in practical terms the positive messages of the staff survey. • Positive comment has already been made about the Council’s openness to partnership. The team met or spoke to a number of Council partners. Without exception, all confirmed that the commitment to open partnership was genuine and positive. “Partnership is happening because the Council wants it to happen, not just for the sake of it” was one partner’s comment. This is evidenced also by the real achievements made through partnership, such as community safety, and Oxmoor. • Another example is the work the Council has undertaken with Town and Parish councils. Inevitably there are occasional tensions over specific development control decisions, but this is more than balanced by the sense of a supportive approach taken by the Council. As well as some agency arrangements, the Council has offered training in planning issues and standards. There are active town centre partnerships, involving the Town Councils • This is backed by a small number of Service Level Agreements, with key partners, such as the Huntingdonshire Forum for Voluntary organisations, and the Citizens’ Advice Bureau. • Information technology is widely and effectively used by both members and officers, and the Intranet and website are further indicators of capacity in this area. Issues for discussion: • The Council’s offices at Pathfinder House have maintenance problems, which will be a challenge; however, the team was aware that the Council’s progressive “Customer First” strategy was impeded by the layout and ambience of the building. Currently characterised by numerous individual reception areas spread over several floors, with inadequate disabled access, there will be major issues to create the single customer services access point the Council aspires to. • The team was concerned about some aspects of scrutiny, which it would ask the Council to look at again. These include: There is no dedicated officer support to support scrutiny panels, or to act as a champion for the process within the Council There is a lack of a significant role for the major opposition party in the arrangements for overview and scrutiny. It is limited to the vice- Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 29 12
chairmanship of one of the panels. This seems to have led to scrutiny being less effective than it should be and leaving issues instead to the full Council, which may not be the best forum for scrutiny of the executive The team also felt that there was a role within the scrutiny process for a dedicated budget monitoring group. There was little evidence that the Finance and administration Panel as a whole was able to provide the detailed examination and challenge needed in this area A joint executive and scrutiny group had been established to examine public conveniences. The team felt that this was not an appropriate response, and that the Council ought not to mixing roles in this way. The Council’s own view was that this was exceptional and a solution appropriate to the issues in this particular service. • The team felt that it was inappropriate for the Council’s Standards Committee to be chaired by a Councillor rather than an independent member, and, with changes to the independent membership, the Council might usefully revisit this issue. • The Council had recently changed the constitution to allow the presentation of petitions to the Council by the public, and the oral questioning of Executive Members by other Members. The team welcomed this, but felt that the Council should consider wider participation in Council meetings: Non-executive members have the right to address the Cabinet, but do not seem to take up their right on a regular basis. Backbench Councillors might usefully be reminded of their ability in this regard The public may present petitions to the Council; that is a very limited form of participation and the Council is asked to look at other Councils’ practices with a view to a wider involvement The Council has indicated that it intends to vary the location of its Scrutiny meetings throughout the district. It seems that to date that this has happened only once. A Panel is considering setting a programme for meetings outside their headquarters. This is endorsed by the team and the Council is asked to avoid losing sight of this valuable intention • There appeared to be minimal interaction between the Council Leader and the Leader of the largest minority group. The Council might consider a more formalised Leader/Opposition Leader briefings. • The team noted that delegation to executive members is very limited, with the effect that most reports required decision in Cabinet. The Council has not seen this as a priority up to now. Nonetheless, the delegation to individual portfolio holders could be looked at again. • Although not a major issue, the team was puzzled by the differential job titles of the Directors. A group of three office holders shared three job titles (Director, Executive Director and Corporate Director), although each confirmed that this did not reflect any issues of differential status • Concerns were received from staff that the Council’s Chief Executive was insufficiently visible to offer the leadership they wished. “We need a Chief Executive who is visible with clear priorities” was one (but not the only), comment along these lines. There was also said to be a lack of cohesion within the team by a number of staff at different levels within the Council, Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 30 13
though it seemed that this was not apparent to members until the issue was raised in feedback. This is recognised by the Chief Executive and is being addressed.
Theme Five: Performance management
Strengths: • There is a cascade from the medium term plan to service plans to individual targets; from the team’s investigations, this seems to be a genuine structure. • The Council has universal system of staff appraisal that is geared towards supporting its objectives. Without exception, all staff questioned confirmed that they had been appraised. The extent to which staff personal priorities are fully integrated with the Council’s seems to be in place. • The Council has established an effective complaints system. • There have been some examples of some Cabinet decisions being called in (three to date). • The emerging community strategy is very obviously performance based with clear outcomes and measure a significant feature of the way the strategy is structured • Members of the Council receive regular performance information • Finally, whilst the Council’s self assessment frankly admits that performance management is underdeveloped, there are elements of a performance management culture in place, and the Council is in the process addressing identified weaknesses. In fact, during the visit, the team saw a training event for the introduction of a performance management system.
Issues for discussion: • Although a risk management policy has now been adopted and an officer appointed, a risk management approach has yet to become fully embedded in the Council. • The team was concerned that the Council’s large financial resources might lead to complacency about achieving value for money. The team did look at what, at first sight, would seem to be an excessive increase in a capital scheme, as an example. Though there were valid reasons for the increase, the team wondered whether the scheme would have proceeded in another council with fewer resources to fall back on. The suggestion made above about a budget monitoring group within the scrutiny framework would help to alleviate that sort of concern. • At the risk of repeating concerns already expressed, the team felt that the scrutiny process had not yet developed to underpin performance management. • It was put to the team, by a senior officer, that the Council’s own performance measures (as well as national BVPIs) had yet to address the benefits of the services or actions being measured. This was a comment which the team endorses. Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 31 14
• The Chief Officers’ Management Team does not yet commit to a regular review of a “basket” of performance indicators which cover its areas of risk and local priority. The team understands that this is now likely to be put in place.
5. What has the Council achieved/not achieved to date?
Theme Six: Achievement in service quality
Strengths: • The team was satisfied that the Council provided good quality services. Service BVPIs were generally good, as was performance against its targets • The council had undertaken a number of Best value reviews, though only one (its waste strategy) had been inspected. That was rated as two star, though with limited prospects for improvement. The Council was able to demonstrate that it had improved its performance since the inspection • There were some examples of external accreditation, in addition to its Investors in People award: ISO for Building Control Beacon status for the HELP project Car parks “Safe by Design” • The Council’s Housing strategy has been rated “well above average” in 2002-3, and “well above average” and “fit for purpose” in 2003-6. This ranks it as only one of 10 Councils outside London to achieve this in 2003. • It was noticeable that stakeholder satisfaction levels were good in the service areas surveyed with one exception (for public conveniences) Issues for discussion: • The BVPIs for the Council’s corporate health were weaker than those for service delivery, and the team felt that the proportion of all BVPIs in the top quartile was lower than would have been expected. • External accreditation of the Council’s services (beyond those listed above) is limited.
Theme Seven: Achievement of improvement
Strengths: • The team felt that this theme was one where the Council was able to demonstrate considerable strength, with few, if any, weaknesses. As mentioned above, the Council not only has the resources, but it is characterised by a focus on getting things done when they are prioritised. This is evidenced by significant service improvements in key areas. • The following list is not exhaustive, but represents some examples of the many service improvements put in place by the Council: Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 32 15
Various community safety initiatives, including a significant investment in CCTV and new Police Community Safety Officers The establishment and leadership of the Oxmoor SRB project The green waste pilots The regeneration of the Town Centres in the district The country parks Various community transport initiatives “Impressions” in the Council’s leisure Centres Various affordable housing projects Success in attracting inward investment, such as Skyline Computing Issues for discussion: • There are no issues to raise other than a general concern that this level of service improvement may be difficult to sustain against the raised expectations of stakeholders and the community, as resources for future investment become scarcer.
Theme Eight: Investment
Strengths: • The Council has put in hand the building blocks for future improvement through the adoption of a wide range of strategies, policies and procedures, especially its medium term financial strategy, though this is counterbalanced by the challenge of disinvestment when the reserves will not fund all the new improvements desired. • The Council’s “Customer First” contact centre is due to start soon, and will be a tangible investment in the commitment to a customer focus. • The Council has a programme of maintenance and improvement in its plant and buildings • The Council has invested in the future health of the inhabitants of the district through its use of jointly funded appointments in the PCT • Similarly its imaginative appointment of a Policy Officer for Young Persons’ participation has provided an investment in the future engagement of young people in the district • Given that the fear of crime is one of the issues that the community has expressed, the whole community safety infrastructure developed by the Council is an investment directly relevant to the community’s expressed needs Issues for discussion: • As mentioned above, the Council needs to ensure that its investment decisions are linked to its priorities; this will be an issue as the resources available reduce. • With such an ambitious programme of investment, the Council also needs to ensure that the future revenue impact of decisions made now will be Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 33 16
sustainable in the longer term This is an issue of which the Council is very aware and was in the process of discussion whilst the team was on site. • As already mentioned, the scrutiny process has yet to demonstrate that it is fully functioning. • The Council’s Best Value Reviews have not had as great an impact on changing the fundamental nature of the Council’s services as they might have.
6. What does the Council plan to do next?
Theme Nine: Learning
Strengths: • The team saw some evidence of learning from other authorities in the development of some of its services. The “Customer First” initiative, for example, involved visiting and learning from the experience of other Councils. Countryside Services have visited extensively other authorities to learn best practice for developments. The current debate within the Council about the future provision of public conveniences has also involved input from the experience of others. • The Overview and Scrutiny Panels invited a local MP to address them on the operation of Select Committees. • There is a new scheme whereby staff from Tourist Information Centres spent time in the Council’s Tourism and marketing section and vice versa. This now applies to all new staff. • The Council was, following the site visit, able to list numerous areas where its officers work with other councils in formal or informal benchmarking. Examples included: Process benchmarking with West Oxfordshire on development control Performance benchmarking with 14 East of England Housing Transfer Authorities Participation in the “Benchmarking ICT services across the UK in 2003” managed by SOCITM Benchmarking printing prices and customer satisfaction with 10 other authorities Environmental Health benchmarked pest control with Peterborough, as well as involvement with a countywide group • Reference has already been made to the Council’s excellent training and development for its staff and members. This suggests that the Council is committed to be seen as, and behave as, a truly learning organisation.
Issues for discussion:
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 34 17
• On the other hand, the team did not see any evidence of the Council having a culture of systematic sharing across the Council’s departments and only one example was offered to the team when this was questioned. Some staff pointed to the existence of a “silo” mentality and complained of departmentalism.
Theme Ten: Future plans
Strengths: • The Council has the Community Strategy prepared and on the verge of publication; its own Corporate Plan is in place and functioning. It has developed a robust medium term plan supported by a hierarchy of service plans, with good integration. • Its “Customer First” strategy is an impressive plan for the future culture of the Council. • It has a full range of housing plans and strategies which will seek to target the priorities in housing the Council has identified. • Its BVPP is well established, and it has its statutory plans in place. • Its community safety strategy has already been commented on positively as has its proposals for Oxmoor • The Council has a sound and well resourced capital programme, and its Asset Management Plan and Capital Strategy have been rated as “Good” by the Government Office for the Eastern Region. • It has a race equality scheme in place even though its ethnic minority population represents a very small proportion of its overall population. • Finally, there is no doubt that the Council has successfully engaged its partners in planning for future services. Issues for discussion: • The team would have wished to see more active future planning of the Council’s use of its assets other than its cash reserves; this will become increasingly important as it needs to look to a future beyond the anticipated life of those reserves. • The Council has yet to agree its plans for the future of Pathfinder House. This is becoming a matter of some importance, as investment decisions need to take place about the location of its proposed customer services access centre. At the same time major repair work is a challenge • Again, the team would comment that the Council’s plans need to take account of their sustainability against community expectation.
7. Process, content and deliverability 7.1 This section of the challenge report sets out the team’s findings on the three aspects of the authority’s CPA self assessment which the team was charged with assessing namely:
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 35 18
• The process by which it was produced • Its content • Its deliverability
Process
The team found high levels of awareness amongst the Council’s staff about the whole CPA process and the role of peer challenge. However, few had actually read the draft self assessment document, and those that had seemed to have looked mainly at those extracts of most relevance to them. Similarly, the Council partners approached by the team all seemed to have been aware of CPA, but had not seen the self assessment. The site visit by the team was well prepared and supported by Council officers, and the process was open and frank throughout. Information requested was supplied promptly and the Council responded in a constructive and timely way throughout. The only issue the team would raise in terms of the process was the extent to which the awareness amongst staff was accompanied by a sense of ownership of the process. There had been little involvement of staff or partners generally in its preparation. For the site visit, the team felt that the delay of sending the self assessment until only a few days beforehand, and after the delivery of the bulk of the background documentation, made the preparation for the visit more difficult than it might have been. In addition, some key documents were not submitted until requested. The Audit Management Letters were an example, and the late supply of Huntingdonshire 2000 Plus left the team without a clear idea of what the Council’s vision was until the end of the time on site.
Content
The actual content of the self assessment presented a mixed picture. The document was not as thorough in listing all the Council’s achievements as the team would have expected. In effect the Council seemed to underplay the extent of its achievement, much of which was discovered almost in passing! Staff feedback confirmed that the assessment represented a fair record of what the Council had done. The content was organised against the Audit Commission top level questions but not against the ten themes, which lost the opportunity to list the Council’s achievements in a way that allowed the team to assess performance in respect of each theme. The document had lengthy appendices, which made it too long, and the team suggested that these should be submitted separately to the CPA team. With those removed, the document was shorter than it needed to be and the extra space would be available for the Council to cite more examples of its achievements.
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 36 19
There was no action plan summary attached to the self assessment. Also, the team concluded that some of the self scoring should be revisited by the Council to check for, and in the light of this peer challenge. Not all the issues identified by the team had been included in the self assessment, which is not unexpected. That is, after all the purpose of peer challenge. However, we are confident that the Council’s final self assessment for submission to the Audit Commission will be comprehensive and will have dealt with the issues raised. Some were dealt with during the course of the site visit.
Deliverability
The team was confident that the Council has put in hand a range of initiatives recently over many aspects of policy and procedure to allow itself to deliver the ambitions it has set for itself. Even more important, it was clear that the task of investing resources to underpin delivery was already well in place. This has not been restricted to investment in direct service delivery, but has included investment in capacity also. The team accept that, in spite of the frequency of references to under achievement in performance management, the Council is devoting commitment and resources to the subject. Given the Council’s track record in doing things well which it has prioritised, the team feels that this is in hand. Ownership by members of the Council will ultimately be the key. High levels of commitment were apparent to the team from the Council’s political and managerial leadership. Staff themselves were seemed confident about their ability to deliver in spite of some references to a priority overload. The continuing commitment of management and staff to the appraisal system, to ensure that the priorities of individual employees are integrated with those of the Council, is therefore critical. That also presents a challenge to the Council to “prioritise its priorities”. Finally, the team felt that deliverability also requires a strong focus on engaging the community and the Council partners. Communication with the community is well developed and the Council has also worked well with partners to establish respective expectations to ensure that the processes put in hand in Huntingdonshire have successful outcomes.
8. The Council’s response to the peer challenge
The Council adopted a positive approach to peer challenge throughout the visit and during feedback. Inevitably, during the challenge event, the Council tended to accept without debate the strengths identified, reserving discussion for the issues raised by the team. As far as possible the response of the Council has been incorporated into the text at the point it is relevant. They include: Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 37 20
• Amendments were made to the team’s perception of the Council’s vision for the future • The Council was able to offer additional evidence of learning, and particularly benchmarking, which had not been apparent during the site visit • The emphasis of the initial conclusions on scrutiny and participation in meetings was changed in the light of discussion during the challenge event In addition, the Council felt that the team should have referred to the 16-point development plan for scrutiny. However, this was not examined during the site visit. The Council has also pointed out that, in accepting the limited number of delegations to Executive Members, there was extensive delegation to officers “in consultation with Executive Members”. Some examples of inter- departmental working were also offered after the site visit was concluded and therefore not discussed at the time or seen in the documentation. Overall, however, the Council’s representatives at the challenge event took the view that they accepted the conclusions of the team. For example, the team has been informed that a change will be proposed to the next annual meeting to appoint an independent member to Chair the Standards Committee.
9. Conclusion
The team were grateful to the Council for the care and attention devoted to making the peer challenge a success. Members and staff were consistently helpful, open and honest at all levels.
As stated at the outset, Huntingdonshire is a Council, which, in the view of the peer challenge team, displays significantly more strengths than weaknesses. It has demonstrated its willingness to improve and has responded positively to challenge.
Tony du Sautoy on behalf of SOLACE Enterprises 28 November 2003
Huntingdonshire District Council CPA Peer Challenge 38 COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: DRAFT SELF-ASSESSMENT
Welcome to Huntingdonshire
“one of those pretty, clean, unstenched, unconfined places that tend to lengthen life and make it happy”.
While the William Cobbett of 1822 might not recognise some aspects of modern Huntingdonshire, we are proud of an area where we have maintained an enviable quality of life in the face of tremendous growth.
The District Council is committed to ensuring that Huntingdonshire develops in a way that retains the things local people value, while facing up to our challenges.
We have a clear understanding of what local people want through consultation and listening, which has strengthened the role of our democratically elected representatives.
We also have clear plans of how we are going to achieve this. Our ambitious investment programme will provide significant improvement in services and facilities to improve our District. At the same time we know local people enjoy low levels of council tax to pay for the services we provide. Maintaining low tax levels will become more difficult as we invest in improved services but finding the right balance between services and what local people have to pay for them will be one of our priorities.
We have an excellent track record in delivering services and improvement projects – a real ethos of getting the job done well. But in many areas the improvements we want to see cannot be brought about by the District Council working alone. We have an important role in the Huntingdonshire Strategic Partnership – which brings together many organisations and businesses that provide services in our area. The Partnership has just published the first Community Strategy for Huntingdonshire and we will use this Strategy to test our objectives and priorities to ensure that we are delivering what our communities want from us.
This self-assessment presents a snapshot of the council, but one we believe is robust and accurate and reflects the many achievements of our Members and employees.
Councillor Derek Holley, David Monks, Leader of the Council Chief Executive
39 SETTING THE SCENE
Huntingdonshire in Context
Huntingdonshire is an attractive rural area of nearly 350 sq miles – about the size of Birmingham and the west midlands. Currently our population is around 160,000. Approximately half of the population live in four market towns – Huntingdon, St Neots, St Ives and Ramsey. The remainder of the population is dispersed in rural villages set in varied countryside, which ranges from clay uplands to the west, Fenland to the north and east, and the River Gt Ouse Valley to the south and south-east.
Since it was established in 1974, the main priority and focus of the District Council has been to manage the pressures associated with the rapid and extensive growth in Huntingdonshire. Specifically, there has been the tension between new housing and commercial development and residents’ increasing expectation and demand for facilities and services while protecting and enhancing the natural and built environment. Some 8,000 residential properties have been built in the last decade and a further 6,000 are forecast in the next ten years. In the same period the population has increased by some 15,000 and is forecast to increase to (?) by 2011. Since the early 1990s the number of VAT registered businesses has increased by around 8% to just under 6,000: a rise which is nearly double the rate for Cambridgeshire as a whole.
Huntingdonshire has been the fastest growing district, in a rapidly developing county, in the third strongest region in the country. The growth has come about because of a variety of factors, including our proximity to regional and national centres, particularly Cambridge and London, excellent road and rail networks, an adaptable and flexible workforce and a capacity to develop.
Despite significant physical change, Huntingdonshire has retained its predominantly rural nature and the four market towns provide a focus for a variety of communities. Growth generally has been concentrated in that part of the District in the Cambridge Sub Region which covers the market towns of Huntingdon, St Neots and St Ives. In comparison, the historic market town of Ramsey and its surrounding area has experienced relative decline due to poor infrastructure and limited growth. Outside the market towns there are a number of large village settlements such as Brampton, Buckden, Fenstanton, Kimbolton, Little Paxton, Sawtry, Somersham, Warboys and Yaxley, which all provide some local facilities and services.
Generally, Huntingdonshire is an area of economic prosperity where the majority of local people enjoy a high quality built and natural environment. Quality of life in the area remains good: in a recent survey (March 2003) 85% of people surveyed were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their quality of life. The majority (62%) indicated that they were satisfied with the quality and amount of natural environment and the level of social and health services (61%). Approaching one half (48%) were satisfied with the quality of the built environment. However, the Council recognises that this general picture cannot be applied to all individuals and communities. Extensive research and consultation, both at strategic and operational levels, has highlighted a number of “hot spots” where some communities are experiencing higher levels of relative deprivation.
Sparsity and isolation characterise many rural areas — some wards are the area of London Boroughs but with a population under 2,000. They often lack an adequate range of services and facilities and many are predominantly based on agriculture and are characterised by lower wages, often due to seasonal work, and lower skills and attainment. Such communities can often sit next to, or even within, more prosperous settlements where local 2 40 residents are commuting to higher paid work within or outside the District. The level of public transport, particularly in rural areas, is perceived as a major contributor to dissatisfaction with the quality of life. However, transportation along the main travel corridors is good – with the exception of the A14 trunk road at peak times. Travel around the market towns and on local roads is reasonable although congestion, particularly at peak times, has been highlighted as a growing concern of local residents.
The level of crime compared to national figures is low and most people feel safe in Huntingdonshire. However, for some communities crime is high and this has a detrimental impact on daily life. For others, the fear of crime or antisocial behaviour/disorder is a disproportionate cause for concern.
Many people have highlighted the affordability of housing as a particular issue to them and their families. This is supported by the Council’s research, which showed the need for more affordable and socially rented housing. However, local people have also expressed strong concerns at the environmental impact of new housing and development generally. House prices in the District remain relatively high — the average price for all dwellings in the last quarter of 2002 was £143,500 and only 16% of houses sold were sold for under £80,000.
In environmental terms, the increased incidence and risk of flooding, especially along the River Gt Ouse Valley and floodplains, is a particular problem, along with managing waste and ensuring the quality of the built environment.
Summary of the challenges we face:
Based on consultation and analysis, the following key challenges have been identified:
♦ transportation and access (particularly rural transport and along the A14 trunk road); ♦ crime and disorder; ♦ environment; ♦ the impact of major developments (such as Alconbury Airfield); ♦ the lack of affordable housing; ♦ the need for town centre improvements; ♦ the demand for more recreational facilities and services.
Political and Managerial Leadership and Organisation
Political Management
Political Composition Conservative 37 Liberal Democrat 13 Independent 3
Total 53
3 41 The Council introduced a new Leader and Cabinet political structure in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000 in May 2002, having undertaken a trial of the arrangements for the preceding two years which provided Members and Officers with valuable experience. The transition to the new system, which was implemented with the help of exercises facilitated by the IDeA, was seamless. An initial review in spring 2003 produced some minor changes and further reviews will be undertaken annually.
The present structure comprises a single party Cabinet of 8 Members, chaired by the Leader, which meets on a three weekly cycle. Cabinet Members are appointed by the Council and the constitution authorises the Leader to establish and vary portfolios of responsibility to Cabinet Members.
Two Overview and Scrutiny Panels, each of 12 Members, have been established and meet monthly. The Vice Chairman of one of the Panels is a member of the political opposition. Meetings are held regularly between Panel Chairman and Vice Chairmen to co-ordinate activities, share experiences and help develop the scrutiny role. Task and finish groups are established by the Panels to examine particular issues and to participate in Best Value Reviews.
Call-in has been used sparingly but judiciously by the Panels, with four Cabinet decisions having been subject to call-in. Detailed studies are undertaken by the Panels in their policy formulation role, with previous reports and recommendations on subjects such as rural post offices, flooding, fly posting and drugs having been accepted by the Cabinet. These have involved public consultation, site visits and discussions with interested parties and organisations. The Panels have instigated a programme to develop their role further.
Two panels, Development Control and Licensing and Protection, deal with regulatory matters.
An Employment Panel is responsible for issues relating to the terms and conditions of Council employees.
The Standards Committee is politically balanced with 7 District Councillors, 2 representatives of town and parish councils and 3 independent persons.
The role of the Council is developing as the main forum for political debate under the new structure. A procedure to enable petitions to be presented by members of the public has been introduced, together with oral questions to Cabinet Members and Panel Chairmen. The Council has also experimented in holding meetings at alternative venues.
Management Structure
The Chief Executive and three Directors form a Management Team, which meets weekly to consider corporate and strategic issues. A team of Heads of Service, representing 13 divisions, meet six-weekly with the three Corporate Directors to consider matters around corporate strategy and service improvement. To complement the strategic management structure there are a range of standing and ad hoc task and finish groups to deal with a variety of issues and to ensure coordination and common purpose.
4 42 WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE
Ambition
Huntingdonshire’s development in the last thirty years has been characterised by rapid and extensive growth and this continues to be a major influence on the environment in which the Council operate. Our ambition is to capitalise on that growth for the benefit of local people and we have in place robust and realistic long-term plans for sustainable improvement in the quality of life in our District, which are based on evidence and our understanding of local needs. Our corporate plan, which has been informed and refreshed by our work with partners and stakeholders in developing a Community Strategy, sets out our long-term vision, priorities and outcomes, along with measures to judge our success in the short to medium term.
The Council operates in a complex environment to achieve a broad range of outcomes, which will improve the lifestyles of people who live, work or visit our District. To help deliver our ambitions we have identified the following Vision, from which our priority outcomes stem—
Huntingdonshire, where –
♦ we make the most of the opportunities which come from growth; ♦ local people can realise their potential; ♦ we balance our social, economic and environmental needs; and ♦ our quality of life and well-being are envied.
Our vision supports the main themes in the Community Strategy —
♦ continued economic success; ♦ opportunity for all; and ♦ protecting and enhancing our environment.
Community leadership is important to the Council. It is formalised in our protocols and is evidenced in what we do by
♦ our leadership in the development of the Community Strategy and in the establishment and resourcing of the Huntingdonshire Strategic Partnership; ♦ our work, particularly with other Councils and local communities, on the Oxmoor Single Regeneration Budget ; and ♦ in a range of projects designed to build community capacity, such as the Partnership Schemes in our market towns and larger settlements, and support for our rural hinterland.
The Council have a strong culture of initiating and developing partnerships: examples of innovative approaches include the Cambridgeshire Joint Waste Partnership, a successful Crime & Disorder Partnership, and funding and working with the voluntary sector. The establishment of the Huntingdonshire (Local) Strategic Partnership (HSP) has helped to consolidate this work. Built on the foundations of existing partnerships, the HSP has a clear remit to provide a focus and framework for future joint working to build capacity, to add value and to bridge gaps in service provision while avoiding duplication and overlap.
The HSP has developed rapidly and effectively since it was established in the Spring of 2002. It has participated in a national pilot (working closely with the Government Office for the Eastern Region and the ODPM’s Neighbourhood Renewal Unit) to develop a performance 5 43 management framework for LSPs generally and has recently adopted and published the first Community Strategy for Huntingdonshire. The Community Strategy is performance-based and focuses on the three themes mentioned earlier.
We are extremely ambitious in our plans to improve the range and quality of services for the benefit of local people and we have an excellent track record in delivering improvements through our five year Medium Term Plan. At the same time we are realistic about the sustainability of our ambitions and the need to tailor and direct these to areas that will impact most on the Council and local people.
Prioritisation
The Council have a set of six clear priorities which underpin our ambitions and represent the subjects which local people consistently have told us are important to them —
♦ vibrant and safe communities; ♦ a healthy and active population; ♦ a clean, green, attractive environment; ♦ a strong and diverse local economy; ♦ housing which meets local needs; and ♦ accessible services and transport choices.
The six priorities replace our previous 17 Medium Term Objectives (MTOs) which, while not detracting from our ability to deliver improvements and development across the broad range of objectives, nevertheless presented some difficulties in prioritisation. We are confident that the revised priority outcomes will support a more sustainable approach in the longer term.
Our systematic and active approach to consultation, engagement and research supports democratic representation, prioritisation and decision-making. We have a clear understanding of the challenges we face and the needs and aspirations of the communities we serve. Recent examples of in-depth consultation and research — both qualitative and quantitative — include the Community Strategy, housing needs survey, the Community Safety Strategy, and Customer First programme. In addition we have conducted other surveys on the level of satisfaction with our services and local people’s perceptions of the quality of life they enjoy.
Detailed research in the production of a local economy audit, the interpretation of census data, preparations for a local development framework (a replacement Local Plan) and to support our community planning and development initiatives have produced a coherent picture of the scale and distribution of relative deprivation across the District. This research is being used to develop policies and plans designed to achieve the improvements we are seeking to make.
To support the process of consultation and research the Council have joined with other Councils and public bodies in Cambridgeshire to develop a “joint consultation framework” to provide innovative and consolidated market research and to move towards complementary approaches. The framework, delivered via Bostock Marketing Limited, was the first of its type in the country and has resulted in co-ordinated and effective contracted market research.
Huntingdonshire has a relatively low proportion of local people from ethnic minority backgrounds — 2.85% — compared to a national average of 7.9%. These communities are dispersed across the District. In developing our Race, Equalities and Social Inclusion 6 44 Strategies we have recognised that the particular needs of such communities, without the necessary support, may be disproportionate to their number. Working closely with partners such as the Police and registered social landlords, the Council, therefore, have embarked on a programme, to “map diversity” across Huntingdonshire. This project has already provided new avenues for better consultation and engagement with minority ethnic groups. In Huntingdonshire we are fortunate in not having significant difficulties in community cohesiveness and we are keen to work with all communities to maintain this position.
Mapping Diversity
Established in April 2002 to –
♦ identify the diversity of ethnicity and religion in Huntingdonshire; ♦ establish consultation forums with ethnic minority groups; and ♦ build community cohesion.
Members of the group are: Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Cambridgeshire Travellers’ Initiative, Huntingdonshire District Council, Huntingdonshire Housing Partnership and Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust.
Consultation forums have been established with an Asian Women’s Group in Oxmoor, Huntingdon, and Asian Men and Women’s Groups in St Ives.
The future work programme includes —
♦ quarterly Newsletters; ♦ publishing the results of consultation surveys;’ ♦ continuing research on diversity; ♦ production of a Huntingdonshire Cultures Handbook; and ♦ attracting funding for future work.
The Community Strategy and Corporate Plan have been designed to deliver outcomes which support the achievement of national priorities. The Council have a tradition of innovative and effective delivery against a range of national priorities: we have been designated a “Pathfinder”, “Beacon” and “Exemplar” Council and have participated in a variety of national pilots. For some local initiatives which match national priorities, such as performance management and risk management, the Council have adopted measured and comprehensive programmes in order to establish frameworks which are effective and sustainable. As a consequence, as with many Councils, progress in these areas has not been as rapid as originally envisaged. However, clear progress is now being made.
The Council’s Medium Term Plan integrates priority setting and the allocation of resources. Funding for service improvements requires clear identification of their contribution towards meeting our objectives. Because of the Council’s financial position we have been able to make many improvements which improve the quality of life of local people. Although to date there has been little need to shift resources from non-priority areas to meet new priorities, the Council recognise that the process needs development to ensure the effective achievement of priorities, particularly as our financial planning identifies that resource levels are likely to change significantly towards the end of the decade. 7 45 Focus
The Council have delivered improvements to services in accordance with our priorities, thereby contributing to our long-term aims which are based on our understanding of what local people have consistently identified as important.
The Council can demonstrate that it can deliver services and service improvement across a broad range of local and national priorities. We have a track record of achievement for priority issues. The allocation of resources has been linked to our priorities and we have maintained our focus to deliver against these areas.
The high level priorities are cascaded through service plans and into key performance areas for individual employees.
The Council’s Cabinet works to a Forward Plan and individual Executive Councillors meet regularly with senior Officers to sustain focus on priority issues.
The two Overview & Scrutiny Panels have forward work programmes and a co-ordinating meeting to plan future work.
The Cabinet, Overview & Scrutiny Panels and senior Officers are using performance information to monitor achievement against priorities, albeit not consistently and uniformly across the Council’s organisation.
The Council maintains effective and consistent communications on the range of our activities through its newsletter, website and through consultation and engagement.
8 46 DELIVERING PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
Capacity
The Council have an appropriate mix of employees with the right skills and capabilities. We have invested in new posts to improve our capacity to deliver our priorities and the high calibre of our employees is supported by extensive and effective training and development programmes. Training needs are identified through our established appraisal system, which supports the formation of individual training and development plans. Appropriately training programmes are in place to meet corporate and service training needs. Corporate programmes have concentrated on ICT skills, management development, and health & safety. Specialist and individual professional training needs are dealt with on a service-by- service basis. This involves a range of in-house and external training.
In 1999 the Council started a Management Development Programme which —
♦ is designed to provide management skills to meet the Council’s future needs; ♦ has ? number of employees participating; ♦ provides 12 month course provided by external management development consultants leading to NVQ Level 4 qualification; ♦ is open to external participants from partner organisations.
Housing and Council Tax Benefits: Training
In recognition of the complexity and fast-changing requirements around the delivery of Housing and Council Tax benefits, the Council have appointed a specialist trainer to support the work of this service. Her role is to ensure that staff are up-to-date with legislative and regulatory changes and are proficient in the processes, specifically ICT, to deliver an efficient, effective service.
In 2003, the Council was successfully reassessed as an Investor in People with accreditation extended to the whole organisation, including our Operational Division which delivers such front-line services as refuse collection and grounds maintenance. The IIP reassessment highlighted the effectiveness and investment in training and developing our employees.
The capacity of District Councillors is improved by effective support and training and development, which includes —
♦ well-received induction for new Members; ♦ extensive ICT training to maximise the ICT infrastructure provided for Members; ♦ external training provided by IDEA, INLOGOV, the LGA, the Public Health Legal Information Unit, the Standards Board, the “House” magazine, the Town and Country Planning Association and a local MP; ♦ in-house training, including Development Control, ethical framework and Scrutiny. 9 47
Members have identified the continuing need for training and development - specifically around new roles and responsibilities, such as Scrutiny.
Further development issues in relation to employee training and development have been identified as part of a Best Value Review of Personnel Services. These are being delivered through a Service Improvement Plan, the Investors in People Reassessment Action Plan and external appraisal on Health & Safety carried out both by the Health & Safety Executive and an external audit.
The Council’s People Strategy provides high level direction for our human resource activities to ensure that we have the capacity to prioritise and to improve and deliver services. Supporting our People Strategy are a range of robust and appropriate human resource policies, procedures and guidelines, which are periodically reviewed by the Chief Officers’ Management Team, the Employee Liaison Advisory Group (staff and Trade Union representatives) and the Employment Panel. Sickness absence (6.7 days – best quartile) and turnover (8%) both reflect high levels of employee morale, effectiveness of HR policies, the effective management of sickness and good retention measures. Sickness is monitored systematically using the “Bradford Formula” and is linked to our contracted occupational health service delivered by the local Hospital Trust, a “First Contact” and counselling service, and an active stress management programme. Turnover rates are measured monthly by grade and Directorate and action taken as trends emerge. Exit interviews also provide useful information to help to monitor and control turnover rates. Other notable policies and procedures include —
♦ an innovative, flexible working framework which supports family-friendly working and the increased management requirement for flexibility in service delivery;
♦ a local salary grading scheme with local pay negotiations, which incorporates market related pay with progression for assessed performance. (A “pay health check 2003” has been undertaken and is subject to discussions with employee representatives); and
♦ a well-established appraisal scheme which combines an evaluation of performance, the identification of training and development needs and setting key performance areas for individuals linked through Service Plans to the Council’s priorities.
The Council takes pride in the excellent working relationships between Members and Officers. There is a clear understanding of their respective roles and the value that both have in terms of delivering services and our priorities. Traditionally this confidence has been underpinned by an extensive scheme of delegation, often characterised by close consultation between Members and senior staff. This Scheme of Delegation was carried forward and incorporated into a revised Constitution following the move to a new system of political management. Direct delegation to Executive Members is limited and appropriate decision- making is reserved to the Cabinet collectively or regulatory Panels. This process of delegation works well for the Council providing speedy and effective decision-making with the requisite level of Member involvement.
The Council understands and has provided a cogent response to the new ethical framework for Members and Officers. A Standards Committee was established in 2000 and the Council have adopted the Model Code of Conduct. Initially the Council experienced difficulties with the consistency of attendance of independent members of the Standards Committee. Recent appointments have resolved this difficulty and as a consequence the Council is planning to further develop their role by considering the appointment of an Independent Member to chair the Committee. In the meantime it has been agreed that an Independent Member will 10 48 chair the Committee in the event of an investigation taking place against a District or Parish Councillor.
All Members have received training on the Code and it now comprises part of the induction process for newly-elected Councillors. Members of the Standards Committee have attended external training seminars and the Annual Conference organised by the Standards Board for England. In 2002 and 2003 the District Council presented a series of training workshops for Parish Councils in partnership with the Cambridgeshire Association of Local Councils (CALC).
Ethical Standards training 2002/03 ♦ 7 workshops; ♦ 74 Parish Councillors or Clerks attended; ♦ 65 Parish Councils represented
Recently the Council have adopted a Planning Code of Practice, protocols on Member/ Employee relations and Community Leadership. Training with Town and Parish Councils is continuing in partnership with CALC. In addition the Chief Officers’ Management Team has instigated a process to identify any emerging problems in observing local Codes of Conduct and to refer them to the Monitoring Officer for action. This procedure has been used successfully to prevent a potential breach of the Code and to provide specific advice to a Parish Council. The Council have identified (contingency) resources to deal with any local investigations of complaints in accordance with the Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) Local Determinations Regulations 2003.
A development issue in terms of the Council’s capacity relates to its office and operational accommodation in the light of both maintenance problems and in terms of delivering our Customer First programme. Consultants have been appointed to advise on options for change and a three-year period of rationalisation and improvement is anticipated.
The Council have sound and stable financial capacity and significant reserves resulting from the transfer of its housing stock to a Registered Social Landlord established for that purpose. Our Medium Term Plan provides for significant increases in capital and revenue expenditure to deliver key priorities over the medium (5 year) term. The Council’s longer-term financial planning has highlighted a number of factors, including recent Government decisions on expenditure support, which have raised serious issues about the sustainability of the Medium Term Plan. In response, we have instigated a series of measures, including a reappraisal of the Plan and are gathering evidence, including public opinion, on spending proposals to ensure that we meet our key priorities and local needs.
The Council have a positive and open approach to partnership across all sectors and communities within the District in order to ensure there is capacity to deliver and improve services to meet local needs. Recognising that different opinions may arise — particularly in relation to planning and development control issues — the Council have established and maintained good working relationships with Town and Parish Councils across Huntingdonshire and their representative bodies, particularly the Huntingdonshire Branch of CALC. The Council provide training on planning issues and ethical standards. We also have a policy of assisting Parish Councils with professional advice and support.
There are effective and active Town Centre partnerships in the four market towns in the District, which involve a range of statutory, voluntary and business partners. The Council 11 49 have recently undertaken a review of its partnership work and has adopted a process to ensure that there is a consistency of approach, that partnering risks are clearly identified, and that there are clear links between the partnerships and the Council’s objectives. These arrangements are also designed to ensure that partnership working is channelled through the HSP to avoid inconsistencies or duplication in terms of achieving the Community Strategy.
We have longstanding and effective relationships with Cambridgeshire County Counci, which embrace, for example —
♦ joint provision of leisure centres and a Country Park; ♦ a highways maintenance agency in the four market towns; ♦ monitoring and management of the Community Strategy; ♦ the development of new local public service agreements; and ♦ SRB.
More recently the Cambridgeshire Joint Waste Partnership reflects an eagerness to work together on major issues.
We have effective links with Sub-Regional Local Economic Partnerships and on a regional basis with the East of England Development Agency. The Council have service level agreements with key voluntary sector partners such as the Hunts Forum of Voluntary Organisations, the Huntingdonshire Citizens’ Advice Bureaux, and the Huntingdonshire Federation of Volunteer Bureaux.
The Council have an efficient and wide-ranging ICT infrastructure across the whole of their organisation. ICT is widely and effectively used by Officers and Members and our Intranet and website — which are both under further development — are used to improve capacity. The Council’s achievement of a “1-7-5” Award recognised early achievements in providing ICT for Members and proved to be a catalyst for future development. All Members now have the opportunity to access IT hardware and software training and dedicated support to develop their IT skills and competencies.
In July 2002 the Council adopted a revised Procurement Strategy, which commits us to examining a wide range of methods of service delivery and purchasing goods and services. As a result of service reviews, or otherwise, we have a mix of direct service provision and contracted-out services relative to our capacity and management ability. However, we are always open to looking at alternative methods of service delivery if they offer efficiency improvements, particularly through partnership.
Performance Management
The Council are in the course of implementing a Comprehensive Performance Management Framework (CPMF) to build on existing established performance management measures. In 2003 Members identified the need for further support for performance management and approved the establishment of a post of Policy Officer: Performance Management to assist in the monitoring of financial data, Agreements entered into with developers under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and performance data generally.
Our service planning guidance (Unlocking The Potential) describes the way in which the Council’s priorities are set out in our Corporate Plan and cascade through Service Plans. The key performance areas demonstrate the contribution of individual employees towards corporate objectives. Employees are appraised annually — with a half-yearly updates. Employee performance contributes to the objectives in Service Plans, which are monitored 12 50 by Directors. Salary progression then is linked to performance scores. In addition, performance data — such as that produced by the Best Value Performance Indicators and the complaints system — are collected corporately and reviewed by managers. Twice a year Members — the two Overview & Scrutiny Panels and the Cabinet — receive reports on our performance for the BVPIs and in our achievement of improvements identified as a result of Best Value and other service reviews. One of the Overview & Scrutiny Panels has started to carry out monthly reviews of a “basket” of BVPIs.
The Council’s Medium Term Plan, which is used to allocate resources to meet new service developments, requires the clear identification of the contribution of such developments to the Council’s corporate priorities and their contribution to the outcomes we are seeking to achieve.
The Community Strategy is based on clear outcomes, measures and targets to reinforce the performance management culture — an important principle agreed at the outset with our partners in the HSP. In conjunction with Cambridgeshire County Council, we collect performance data for “quality of life” issues to support the performance management of the Community Strategy. A range of other baseline data is to be collected and monitored by individual partners or by the Partnership as a whole.
The Council’s complaints procedure is well established and was developed to meet good practice guidance. A review to enhance it, specifically to improve its accessibility and ease of use for young people and other groups and to ensure that information from complaints is used systematically in performance management, is underway.
There is sound financial management throughout the Council and financial monitoring is devolved to service managers, supported by appropriate financial controls. The Council’s Internal Audit service concentrates on system-based auditing and risk assessment and ensuring that appropriate measures of financial control and monitoring are in place.
The Council have adopted a Risk Management Strategy and the development of service and Directorate risk registers is in progress. Initial training involving Members, Directors, Service Heads and Activity Managers has started and a project plan to roll out the risk management approach is being implemented. A post of Risk Manager has been established. One specific development area identified has been the integration of risk management with our CPMF. Further training and guidance will be rolled out to help embed risk management into service planning and delivery arrangements.
Building on these established performance management processes, the CPMF being developed will draw together various elements to provide a robust and reliable system that will enable performance data to be used to monitor services and initiatives, to allocate resources and to ensure corporate priorities are being met. In early 2003 the Council procured a software system (Corvu) to manage data collection and monitoring.
The Council have identified the need for differing levels of performance management data, ranging from a small “basket” of indicators which can be used by Members and senior managers through to detailed service-specific data for service managers. In recognising that in a complex and diverse organisation a variety of perspectives will be required, we have chosen to develop our CPMF around the “balanced scorecard” methodology. The Corvu system provides for the (automated) collection of data, analysis and publication in accordance with the principles of the balanced scorecard. Performance information will be published via the Council’s Intranet and website. Subject to appropriate control, it will allow for detailed enquiries starting from a broad level into detailed performance data.
13 51 In the summer of 2003 a pilot project was undertaken within one Service Division to adapt the balanced scorecard principles to the Council’s operation and to provide learning for the roll out of the programme across the organisation. At the same time the Council embarked on a systematic review of their corporate priorities in the light of the (then) emerging Community Strategy to ensure that the Council were contributing towards the achievement of the Strategy. These two projects in tandem were used to design a project implementation plan for our new CPMF. This programme includes a range of workshops and training and seminars involving Members, senior management, Heads of Service and Activity Managers to refine our corporate priorities, to identify baseline measures and targets, to determine the outcomes that will form the perspectives of the balanced scorecard, and to build the scorecard into our service planning process.
14 52 THE IMPROVEMENTS WE HAVE ACHIEVED
Achievement in the Quality of Service
The Council achieve a high level of quality in service delivery. This is evidenced by our own targets and standards and measurements against National Performance Indicators, the evaluation of external Inspectorates and in external accreditation generally.
Our Best Value Performance Indicators for service delivery generally are good and this is reflected in our quality of life survey, which shows a high level of satisfaction across the District.
We have also contributed to a national pilot to evaluate the long-term impact of Best Value and a study, on behalf of the ODPM, conducted by Cardiff, Leeds and Glamorgan Universities demonstrates a high degree of quality in our Best Value Review programme. Only two BVRs have been subject to external inspection —
♦ Benefits, one star but with good prospects for improvement; ♦ Waste Management/Strategy, two star with limited prospects for improvement. However, as evidenced by the recent ODPM case study, the Council have been able to demonstrate that performance has improved significantly since that inspection.
“This report provides the first independent evidence that best value reviews are working well. They are helping authorities to improve service delivery and secure better outcomes for local people.
I congratulate Huntingdonshire on making such a success of best value in their area.
The evidence contained in the report confirms that best value remains an important lever to help authorities tackle their improvement planning agendas.”
Nick Raynsford, Minister for Local Government
In common with many Councils, the initial Best Value programme produced relatively modest improvements in services and service quality although the decision to close part of the Council’s external training programme, in recognition that those services would be better provided otherwise, highlights the Council’s focus on its core services and priorities.
Since the re-evaluation of our Best Value programme to concentrate on cross-cutting issues linked to our objectives and priorities —
♦ the review of the way we provide access to services resulted in direct recommendations to the Council for its Customer First programme; and ♦ the Health BVR was instrumental in improving the quality of our health-related services and the way we interact and work with partners in this field.
The Council does not aspire to external accreditation per se, but can provide a number of examples which point to the achievement of quality in areas of service delivery which feature prominently on our agenda: 15 53
♦ Pathfinder status for e-procurement; ♦ a Beacon Authority for social inclusion; ♦ ISO 2000 for building control services; ♦ Safe By Design award for all our car parks; ♦ Investors In People; ♦ IdeA Exemplar Award for application of the National Land & Property Gazetteer; ♦ the Council’s Housing Strategy for 2003-2006 is rated as well above average and fit for purpose — one of only ten authorities outside London to achieve this status; ♦ our Asset Management Plan and Capital Strategy have both moved from “fair” to “good” (the highest rating) in evaluation by the Government Office for the Eastern Region [analysis of BVPI customer satisfaction survey – likely to show improvement in individual service areas but not significant, if any, improvement in overall satisfaction].
Moreover, across a range of direct service surveys, reported levels of satisfaction are good. In those areas where satisfaction is less than good, the analysis is used to improve services, eg public conveniences.
Achievement of Improvement
The Council have an excellent record of “getting things done” to achieve our priorities. We have significant evidence of improvements which are designed to maintain or improve the quality of life for local people and the communities we serve, linked directly to our priority outcomes.
Accessible Services and Transport Choices
The Council have been awarded Beacon Status for social inclusion through ICT: specifically, we provide the infrastructure and opportunity for learning, skills development and communication in rural locations. The Huntingdonshire E-Learning Points (HELP) complement similar provision in libraries throughout the District and are supported via a joint initiative with the County Council’s Library Service.
The Council have facilitated the provision of a range of community transport initiatives in rural areas and market towns. The community transport initiatives are designed to support potential improvements in public transport identified in the County-wide Local Transport Plan and the Community Strategy for Huntingdonshire. Direct funding is used to support improvements in a range of cycle routes and the Council also supports the “Safe Routes to School” programme.
Our Customer First programme is designed to coordinate our approach to ensure that local residents have the best possible choice of access to our services. The planned multi-million pound investment is focused on customer needs to improved and interactive web-based services, a contact centre and a customer service centre. The programme is to be implemented as part of a review of the Council’s headquarters and other accommodation and will involve joint working with partners and other organisations to examine the benefits for local people in co-located services.
The Council have recently replaced their mobile information unit, which takes services and information to communities across Huntingdonshire. This is used extensively by the Community Safety team, Home Energy, etc.
The Council have recently opened the third of their Community Information Centres/Projects, currently at Oxmoor Huntingdon; Ramsey; and Yaxley, to provide out-reach facilities for local 16 54 people, to provide information about statutory and voluntary services, and to help community development. The Community Information Projects complement other activities such as the St Barnabus Community Learning Centre and Crèche at Oxmoor, which are supported directly by the District Council to provide high quality ICT-based learning facilities for the community and local businesses.
A Healthy Population
The Council operates a network of five Leisure Centres at St Ives, St Neots, Huntingdon, Ramsey and Sawtry. Four of the five Leisure Centres have “Impressions” branded Fitness Studios and a fifth is planned at Sawtry. The Impressions Fitness Studios’ membership scheme now exceeds 3,000 pre-paid members. The Leisure Centres offer swimming and a full range of sports and leisure activities. In addition, the St Ivo Outdoor Centre provides a range of grass and synthetic pitches and an athletics track. The Council have invested heavily to update and refresh the Centres and has a continuing programme to ensure their maintenance and improvement. The Leisure Centres’ planned maintenance programme started in March 2003 and comprises a £3m investment programme to improve these assets over a four-year period. The Centres are complemented by a range of out-reach sports and leisure developments. The Leisure Centres operate a medical referral scheme in conjunction with local GP practices which has a 95% customer satisfaction rate, and a cardiac rehabilitation programme which was used by some 421 patients (an increase from 154 in 2002). In July 2002 the Council hosted the “Heart of the East” Youth Games at the St Ivo Outdoor Centre with 1,000 young people taking part in sports introduced to them during the previous year. The success of the event was recognised and in July 2003 the District Council was the first authority to be selected to repeat the hosting of the event.
The Arts Service supports a range of arts and cultural activities across the District, including —
♦ riverside music events in the four market towns, which have a 98% customer satisfaction rating; ♦ a 17th Century Street Festival and Living History Camp, which attracted over 10,000 visitors and built on the earlier success of the Quatercentenary Cromwell celebrations; ♦ “Grand Union” community music project involving Huntingdonshire’s Indian community in a Country Music event; ♦ a “Place Called Oxmoor” community video project involving local people in celebrating the cultures of their neighbourhoods; ♦ “Big Gig” arts events in June 2002 over a summer weekend, which had over 10,000 visitors with 100 local singers performing with a professional orchestra, top quality professional musicians and specific events for young people. The Big Gig events will be repeated in 2004; ♦ support for “Arts in Cambridgeshire” on tour, which provides subsidised performers in rural locations; and ♦ the bi-monthly Arts Diary and website provide free promotional activities for local and community based arts and events across the District.
In conjunction with the Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust, the Council jointly funds two posts —
♦ Director of Public Health for Huntingdonshire (£7,000) - to maintain and develop a strong public health ethos across the District. Dr Christine McLeod also provides support to the HSP; and
17 55 ♦ Community Health Project Worker (£18,000) – to work with our Environmental Health and Community Development teams and the voluntary sector to promote healthy lifestyles in our communities.
Again working with the PCT, the Council is also supporting an innovative project to facilitate a multi-£m health and community facility which will help the regeneration of part of one of our most deprived communities.
To maintain good public health across the District, the Council has —
♦ an active programme of education and support on food hygiene and health & safety for local businesses, matched with appropriate enforcement; ♦ effective food hygiene courses, including courses for Bengali and Cantonese speakers, and specialist work with the voluntary and charitable sector, including those involved with mentally handicapped people; ♦ animal welfare teams, commended for promoting responsible dog ownership and increased provision year on year to tackle dog fouling; ♦ close work with RSL, Powergen and the Home Improvement Agency to promote energy efficiency and tackle fuel poverty.
Vibrant and Safe Communities
The Council have initiated a range of schemes and projects to support, develop and strengthen our communities and to make them a safer place. Community initiatives have been targeted at those areas which suffer relative deprivation. Projects are under way in the Oxmoor Huntingdon, St Neots, Ramsey and Yaxley. Schemes include —
♦ holiday activity programmes, which have a 94% participant satisfaction; ♦ the St Barnabas Community Learning Centre and Crèche providing high quality ICT- based family learning; ♦ the “Moor Play” in Oxmoor Huntingdon; ♦ community information projects in Ramsey, Yaxley and Oxmoor Huntingdon, to provide out-reach facilities for local communities to access information about statutory and voluntary services; ♦ grant support for local and community groups: financial support for local facilities, including village and community halls; ♦ schemes to encourage participation and engagement, particularly young people; and ♦ targeted support for rural communities, including the appointment of a Rural Renewal Officer.
In response to detailed research and consultation about Community Safety, the Council have identified that Huntingdonshire is a safe place to live and work but there are certain hot spots within the area where crime is concentrated and is a problem. Local people generally feel safe in their homes and going about their daily lives but in certain communities and groups the fear of crime and disorder is high. In response to this, the Council have been a key and committed partner to the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership since its formation in 1998. We actively contribute to the Partnership both in terms of staff resources and a financial commitment, which includes —
♦ some £300,000 a year towards the funding of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) which meant that additional Home Office funding resulted in 18 PCSOs becoming operational from September 2003;
18 56 ♦ £130,000 for mobile Closed Circuit Television unit to complement fixed cameras and reach more remote parts of the District. The unit will be used as a mobile control room for emergencies; ♦ the introduction of CCT systems which cover the market towns at a revenue cost of around £½m each year. This contributed significantly to all the Council’s car parks being awarded a “Secure By Design” award; ♦ providing support and administering Partnership funding – Community Against Drugs, Safer Communities, Partnership development and pooled funding; ♦ evaluation of the success of funded schemes; and ♦ liaison with the Police Architectural Liaison Officer.
In addition, the Council have been able to deliver a number of schemes within the Community Safety Partnership, including –
♦ initiatives to help prevent distraction burglary; ♦ support for detached Youth Work; ♦ Pub Watch and Shop Watch Schemes; ♦ County-wide initiatives including a Domestic Violence Coordinator; ♦ open-out schemes for the reporting of personal hate crime; and ♦ support for the persistent offenders programme.
The Council have also coordinated work of the Community Safety Partnership to maximise improvements and in conjunction with the Huntingdon Town Centre Management Initiative has successfully obtained funding of £? for a safer retailing scheme.
The Council have recently adopted a plan to develop further the “mainstreaming” of Community Safety activities within our organisation. Specifically we have adopted a new approach to problem solving which involves a cross-Council approach.
A Strong and Diverse Local Economy
Our audit of the local economy was designed to complement macro economic regional and sub-regional data. In summary Huntingdonshire’s economy is buoyant, with a good mix of sectors and businesses and low unemployment. But as in many areas this can mask pockets of relative deprivation where employment, skill levels and attainment and wage rates do not match the area as a whole. We also experience considerable levels of out- commuting. At the same time local employers complain of difficulties in recruiting to fill vacancies. To address these mismatches the Council have adopted a strategic, corporate and operational response to economic development.
Strategically we have —
♦ completed Best Value Review and implemented Service Improvement Plan; ♦ produced Medium Term (5 year) Local Economy Strategy; ♦ developed effective consultation with local business community – quarterly meetings with 60/70 businesses attending, organised in partnership with Huntingdonshire Business Network.
Corporately, we have —
♦ project teams to deal with new developments, such as Huntingdon Marina; ♦ a whole Council approach to businesses in difficulty; ♦ a one stop shop approach to inward investment enquiries, exercise of regulatory functions, environmental improvements, etc. 19 57
Operationally, we have —
♦ an available property register, in partnership with local commercial agents, providing an on-line commercial property service which has been instrumental in securing inward investment; ♦ a funding database, working with J4B, an established on-line private funding organisation; ♦ produced “Huntingdonshire In Perspective”, an inward investment film highlighting the District’s strengths; ♦ a business information pack, to provide a comprehensive information source for local business; ♦ developed a twice a year BusinessWide newsletter, published in response to consultation with the business community; ♦ coordination and support for Town Centre Management Initiatives; ♦ Business Scene, an on-line information services for business.
Clean, Green and Attractive Environment
Achievements include –
♦ vision statements, prepared in conjunction with the Civic Trust, to facilitate the regeneration of the Market Towns; ♦ site development briefs and frameworks to promote sustainable development; ♦ conservation and character statements to help conserve heritage while ensuring the quality of new development; ♦ design guides to promote quality development; ♦ interim planning policy and action plans to support community-based regeneration in the Oxmoor, Huntingdon and at Ramsey.
Physical improvements to the environment include —
♦ environmental improvement schemes ranging from significant market town centre initiatives to small-scale village scheme in partnership with parish councils; ♦ expansion and development of the Country Parks and other countryside schemes; ♦ implementation of bio-diversity action plans, ♦ home energy efficiency schemes, ♦ green waste pilot; ♦ extension of kerbside recycling; ♦ sustainable housing developments; and ♦ tree and woodland protection, backed by Tree Wardens and an annual planting scheme recognised by an award under the National Grid Tree Warden Scheme.
The Council also works in partnership to secure and maintain the physical environment, examples of which include —
♦ the Great Fen Project, an ambitious project of national significance to restore 3,000 acres of farmland to natural wetland; ♦ the development of a nature reserve and natural wetland at Needingworth Quarry following mineral extraction; ♦ numerous countryside projects at Hinchingbrooke Country Park, Paxton Pits, etc, which attract significant volunteers;
20 58 Working in partnership with the County and other District Councils in Cambridgeshire, the Council have led on developing a long term, sub-regional strategy, to deliver progressive waste minimisation and to increase recycling to the year 2022. The Cambridgeshire Joint Waste Partnership is seeking PFI funding to develop an integrated collection, disposal and recycling system throughout the Partnership area. As a contribution to the commitments within the Joint Waste Strategy, the Council have made long-term financial provision to —
♦ expand the provision of kerbside recycling; ♦ widen the range of materials collected and recycled; ♦ develop a fortnightly collection of garden waste for composting to limit the frequency and amount of residual domestic waste to landfill; ♦ increase the number of community-based recycling “bring” sites to 110 across the District; ♦ expand the waste awareness and education programmes with local schools and colleges.
In addition, the Council operates both planned and responsive cleansing arrangements that aim to provide a uniform service across the District. Additional investment of £300,000 has been made in resources over the past three years. The En-Cambs (formerly Tidy Print) cleanliness index shows a progressive improvement resulting from this investment with 95+% of areas within the District maintained at an acceptable standard.
Housing which meets local needs
The Council’s Strategic Housing function is well defined and well resourced. Despite the difficulties faced locally in the light of high land prices and competition from private development, since the transfer of our housing stock in March 2000 the Council have spent a total of £15m on securing some 450 additional affordable homes in the District. Our robust and active approach to channelling resources to help balance the housing market has also secured £1.4m of single regeneration budget funds and £3.3m from the sustainable communities fund for Oxmoor Huntingdon. Other successful projects to deal with housing needs include:
♦ increasing the provision of good quality temporary accommodation for homeless families, ♦ bringing unfit properties back into use; ♦ encouraging the return of empty properties back into beneficial housing use; ♦ energy efficiency works; ♦ grant funding for disabled facilities; ♦ discretionary grants and listed building grants; and ♦ landlords and letting agents forum.
Investment
The Council have in place a strategic approach backed up by an appropriate planning and policy framework and a robust Medium Term Financial Plan to ensure future improvement. Our Comprehensive Performance Management Framework (CPMF) together with long-term financial planning will provide senior management and Members with the right level of information to ensure that our plans and strategies are on target to deliver improvement.
The Council have developed a sophisticated financial planning system which integrates long- term financial strategy (predicting Council Tax levels over a 10 year period) with a 5 year Medium Term Plan (MTP) for improving and developing services. Capital and revenue expenditure is integrated at every stage and proposals for inclusion in the MTP must be 21 59 supported by detailed appraisals which highlight the contribution towards achievement of the Council’s priorities, the risks or opportunities of the proposal, alternative approaches which have been considered and the potential for obtaining external funding.
The Council is open to challenge and new ways of delivering service. A corporate approach to procurement, including the appointment of a new post of Procurement Manager in November 2002, has the key aims of achieving value for money in a devolved procurement model. An updated and revised Procurement Strategy has been developed which highlights the diversity of methods for the procurement of goods and services and the commissioning of services. Our Best Value Review Programme remains on target and the Council have adopted a new methodology for carrying out reviews to ensure that they are done in a robust and cost-effective way and continue to provide an impetus for change and improvement. The Council have been involved in the long-term evaluation of the Best Value regime, working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and researchers from the Universities of Cardiff, Leeds and Glamorgan. In a recent report by the ODPM – “Changing to Improve: Ten Case Studies from the Evaluation of the Best Value Regime” – highlights the service improvement coming from one review – Waste Management and Operations – which has made significant inroads into reducing waste and increasing recycling.
Reducing waste and increasing recycling
Arising from the Best Value Review of our Waste Management and Operational Services, the Council have conducted a 9,000 household trial of fortnightly collection of recyclable and non-recyclable waste. Recycling has increased from around 15% to 47%, while waste going to landfill has fallen by 25%. The Council is now planning to rollout this scheme District-wide.
The revised methodology for conducting Best Value Reviews means that we will concentrate on larger, crosscutting reviews focused on our priorities. We hope in this way to be able to make significant improvements to the way we provide our services for future years. The development issues identified as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment process will be incorporated into our Best Value Review Programme.
Another review, which has resulted in significant changes to the way we provide service and has been the focus of significant investment on behalf of the Council, is the Access to Services Review, which gave rise to our Customer Service Strategy and the Customer First programme. The Customer First programme involves a multi-£m investment in the way we provide access to our services, ranging from innovative improvements to our website and web-based services, a telephone Contact Centre, face-to-face Customer Service Centres and the potential use of mobile technology to support out-reach and personal visits.
22 60 WHAT WE PLAN TO DO NEXT
Learning
The Council have good self-awareness about development needs and a track record which shows continuous improvement and appropriate organisational change. Underpinning this is our ability to interact and learn from others: from within the organisation, from local government generally and across all sectors.
The Council have a good history of trialling and piloting new initiatives specifically to meet local needs and also in contributing to regional and national initiatives.
Learning from within the Organisation
♦ cross-Directorate multi-disciplinary teams, to advise and deliver on projects such as the Customer First programme, Huntingdon Marina, Car Parking Strategy, etc; and ♦ training and development, specifically our Management Development Programme which brings together our potential future managers from across the Council’s organisation to help them to grow and to learn from each other;
Learning from within the Local Government Community
♦ active participation in a range of County and Regional Forums, from the Chief Executives Liaison, the Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership; and ♦ facilitating the East of England Regional Assembly workshop and specific professional or service based groups;
Learning across the Sectors
♦ the development of the Community Strategy has led to a wider exposure to a range of service providers across the statutory and voluntary sectors and with business; ♦ the increasingly successful and well attended consultation with the business community is providing a greater understanding of business needs and requirements across the District; ♦ participation in schemes such as the Cabinet Office Public Leadership Scheme; ♦ close liaison with GO-East, particularly around the development of the Huntingdonshire Strategic Partnership and the piloting of the National Performance Management Framework for LSPs; and ♦ benchmarking cost and process on development control, housing, ICT services, printing & reprographics, environmental health, etc.
Future Plans
The Council have in place an appropriate policy framework. This is headed by the Community Strategy, which is a shared Strategy with the key stakeholders delivering services in Huntingdonshire. This is a performance-based Strategy which is designed to maintain and improve the quality of life for local people. The Council’s Corporate Plan has been revised following publication of the Community Strategy to ensure that the Council is delivering its part of the Strategy together with other statutory and distinct services. The Corporate Strategy and specific Service Strategies and Plans and Service Plans, all support the achievement of our objectives and priorities set out in our Corporate Plan and our Comprehensive Performance Management system provides the necessary information for monitoring and ensuring continuous improvement.
23 61 Our Customer First strategy and programme provides for extensive and radical changes to the way the Council is structured and operates to provide better and more accessible services for local people.
Our Strategic Housing and Planning Strategies have been endorsed and recognised by the Government Office as providing targeted and high quality plans for future development.
Our Asset Management and Capital Strategy similarly have been endorsed as “good” by the Government Office for the Eastern Region (moving from “fair” in the previous year).
The Council’s Best Value Performance Plan meets all the statutory requirements and is being developed year-on-year, recognising its importance as a means of ensuring improvement.
The Council’s Community Safety Strategy complements the Crime & Disorder Partnership’s wider strategy.
Despite being an area of relative affluence with low ethnic minority population, the Council have in place a Race Equality Scheme and caries out assessments in accordance with that Scheme. Our Equality Strategy has being expanded to incorporate new areas of emphasis in line with new statutory requirements, the needs of local people and our Social Inclusion Policy, designed to tackle deprivation and exclusion in pockets across the District
The Council’s Asset Management Plan, its facilities management activities, investment programmes and consultancy to identify future accommodation needs, will all be used to examine our future assets.
24 62 Self Scoring Summary
Theme Score Key Strengths Key development areas
Ambition 4 The Council is ambitious and active in realising our Improving the visibility of leadership, effective engagement visions and ambitions for Huntingdonshire and has with communities and community representatives, and robust and realistic long-term plans based on communicating our vision and ambitions for maintaining and improving the quality of life experienced Huntingdonshire. by local people. The Council have demonstrated community leadership through leading and resourcing the establishment of a Local Strategic Partnership and the development of a Community Strategy, together with a range of initiatives to aid community development.
63 Prioritisation 3 The Council have clear priorities to underpin our vision To develop and refine processes to support our priorities, and ambitions based on effective use of consultation and to make explicit decisions about which activities are not research. Linked to this is a well defined process to priorities and to ensure the appropriate (re)allocation of allocate funding for service improvements which are resources. based on our priorities.
Focus 3 The Council have maintained its focus on improvements To develop the use of performance information in a in our priority areas, as demonstrated by significant comprehensive and consistent way to support focus on achievement. priority issues.
There is good forward planning across the Council’s To improve a shared understanding our vision and priorities organisation both at Member and Officer level which with our communities to ensure that the focus on a limited contributes to maintaining focus on priorities. number of priority issues is maintained.
The structures and mechanisms for ensuring that the Council focuses on our priorities and, therefore, the long-term vision are in place.
25
Capacity 4 The Council is appropriately staffed with high calibre To further develop internal communications. employees with the right skills. The quality and capacity of Members, management and staff is supported by To improve the identification of individual development extensive training and development programmes linked needs of Members. through an established appraisal system. There are a range of effective personnel policies and high levels of To further develop constitutional arrangements. staff morale.
Extensive financial capacity supports an ambitious programme to promote improvements in service and community leadership. There has been significant investment in new employees in priority areas through the Medium Term Plan. There are effective Member and democratic structures and there is a clarity about the roles of Members and employees which is supported by
64 mutual respect, understanding and excellent working relationships. There is also a well defined and understood ethical framework.
The Council works well with other stakeholders and partners and can demonstrate some innovative approaches to service delivery.
Performance 3 The Council’s established service planning process allows Implementation of the comprehensive performance Management the translation of corporate objectives through service management function. plans and, through our performance appraisal system, into key performance areas for individuals. Directorates Implementation of the risk management approach. monitor the achievement of targets relating to objectives within individual service plans. The Community Strategy Enhancement of corporate complaints procedures. is performance based with clearly identified outcomes and ?
Members and senior management are involved in
26 monitoring a range of performance data, principally centred on national performance indicators and improvement plans following service reviews.
The introduction of a comprehensive performance management system which links corporate objectives to service activity and offers the potential for the allocation of resources is underway. A risk management strategy is in place and programme to embed risk management into service planning and delivery is being implemented.
The Council has a record of sound financial management.
Achievement in 3 Standards of service delivery compare well to other To improve “high risk” Best Value Performance Indicators quality of service Councils. Our programmes for Best Value and other to achieve best quartile/national targets. 65 service reviews are robust.
The Council have a number of external accreditations and current level of stakeholder satisfaction is high.
Achievement of 4 The Council have an excellent record in achieving To maintain and to manage public expectation of improvement improvement across a broad range of service areas. improvement in the light of available resources. The improvements are closely linked to the Council’s priorities, which in turn are informed by a clear understanding of local needs and issues.
Investment 4 The Council has put in place the foundations for future To incorporate investment decisions within the improvement through its medium term financial strategy comprehensive performance management framework to supporting a range of longer-term strategies, policies make sure that the allocation/reallocation of resources and procedures. continues to be in line with our priorities.
Investment in our “Customer First” programme in To ensure the sustainability of our ambitious investment
27 improving and maintaining our buildings in a range of programmes. innovative and imaginative posts are all designed to address our priority areas.
The Council have a good track record in attracting inward investment both in support of its own programmes and into the area generally.
Learning 3 The Council has good self-awareness about Element of leadership and management styles to develop organisational development needs and a track record of organisational culture, which encourages staff to test ideas learning in comparison with other authorities and best and development solutions that benefits service users. and good practice.
The Council has a good history of trialling and piloting new initiatives specifically to meet local needs, but also in contributing to regional and national initiatives. The
66 Council is/has been a Pathfinder, Beacon or Exemplar authority. The Council can demonstrate good learning from within its own organisation, across the local community and across other sectors.
Future Plans 4 The Council has a robust and effective policy framework Development areas, engagement with staff, partners, which is designed to support the achievement of the stakeholders and the community. Community Strategy and its own corporate plan. This is backed up by high quality and suitable statutory plans which are evidence-based. The Council can demonstrate good engagement with partners and other stakeholders and is implementing a Comprehensive Performance Management system to support the achievement of these plans and strategies.
28 SUMMARY ACTION PLAN
Specific Activity Measures Timescale Resources
Priorities and Vision Adopt updated Corporate Plan February 2004 Lead Member: Councillor D P Holley, Leader of the Council Completion of internal March – Lead Officer: communications plan June 2004 David Monks, Chief Executive Support: Completion of external March – Head of Policy and Policy Division communication and December 2004 Budget: engagement plan to share existing budget ref: vision
Implement Comprehensive Completion of project plan March 2004 Lead Member: 67 Performance Management Councillor T V Rogers, Executive Councillor for Framework Finance Lead Officer: Incorporate framework within April 2004 David Oliver, Corporate Director, Commerce & service plans and link to Key Technology Performance Areas Support: Head of Policy. Policy Division and multi- Regular reporting of July 2004 disciplinary Project Team performance information Linked with change management programme to add capacity Integrate CPMF with Medium September 2004 Consultancy support: Term Financial Plan Stuart Bestwick, Alexander Consulting Budget: existing budget, ref: CB03
Implement Risk Management Complete Risk Register March 2004 Lead Member: approach Councillor T V Rogers, Executive Councillor for Finance
29 Integrate with Comprehensive September 2004 Lead Officer: Performance Management David Oliver, Corporate Director, Commerce & Framework Technology Support: Head of Financial Services and Risk Manager
Revisions to Constitution Implementation of Overview & Autumn 2004 Lead Member: Scrutiny development Councillor D P Holley, Leader of the Council programme Lead Officer: Peter Watkins, Executive Director of Central Changes to Chairmanship of Annual Meeting Services Standards Committee 2004 Support: Head of Administration with Democratic Services Division
68
30 Agenda Item 4
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL 6TH JANUARY 2004 (SERVICE DELIVERY AND RESOURCES)
PERFORMANCE MONITORING (Report by the Head of Policy)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Members with progress against a basket of pre - selected Best Value Performance Indicators.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 At it’s meeting on the 9th December 2003 the panel requested a monthly report on a basket of Best Value Performance Indicators (attached). This information will be updated monthly as far as possible, however, for some indicators this may not be possible. The latest BVPI quartile data (2002/03) has just been received and will be used in February’s report.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 The Panel is requested to consider progress against the Best Value Performance Indicators and to consider if further information is required.
Contact Officers: Howard Thackray, Policy Officer (01480) 388035 e-mail:- [email protected]
69 70 HDC Top Bottom HDC Trend Qrtl Qrtl HDC in BVPI Description Actual Actual Actual Estimate in = better 01/02 01/02 Bottom 00/01 01/02 02/03 2003/04 Top = same (All (All Qrtl = worse England & England Qrtl District) & District 8 The percentage of invoices for commercial goods and services, which 93.5% were paid by the authority within 30 days 83.2% 87% 89.73% 94% 84% of such invoices being received by the (Nov 03) authority. 12 The number of working days/shifts lost to 7 days sickness absence. (See note) 8.31 8.75 6.85 8.5 11.7 (Sept 03) 78a Average time for processing new 43 benefits claims (days) 49.09 44.9 40.6 35 63 71 (Nov 03) 78b Average time for processing notification 6 of change of circumstance (days) 8.68 9.1 7.38 8 20 (Nov 03) 78c Percentage of renewal claims processed 72% on time 50% 60.2% 77.9% 82% 54% (Nov 03) 79a Percentage of cases for which the calculation of the amount of benefit due was correct on the basis of the information available for the 97.4% 98.8% 96.8% See note 98% 96% determination for a sample of cases checked post-determination. 79b The percentage of recoverable overpayments (excluding Council Tax 55.3% 52.6% 49.49% See note 63% 43% Benefit) that were recovered in the year 82b Percentage of the total tonnage of 0% 0% 0.56% 5.5% 1% household waste arisings which have 0% (Oct 03) (District HDC Top Bottom HDC Trend Qrtl Qrtl HDC in BVPI Description Actual Actual Actual Estimate in = better 01/02 01/02 Bottom 00/01 01/02 02/03 2003/04 Top = same (All (All Qrtl = worse England & England Qrtl District) & District been composted Only) 84 Number of Kilograms of household waste 213kg collected per head (Oct 03) 321kg 333kg 348kg 357kg 428kg 365kg (Est. y/ end) Cost of waste collection per household £44.42 £28.05 86 (See note) £22.13 £26.64 £31.44 (District £36.31 (Nov 03) only)
72 107 Planning cost per head of population £16.14 £17.13 £13.34 See note £7.3 £13.97 126 Domestic burglaries per 1,000 5 (to Sept) households. Local authorities to set local 9.99 targets. (See note) 9.28 11.2 11.56 8.3 19.5 (Est. y/ end) 5.24 Vehicle crimes per 1,000 population 128 (To Sept) 9.3 (See note) 11.4 11.7 8.91 19.4 10.47 (Est. y/ end) 157 The number of types of interactions that are enabled for electronic delivery as a 50% percentage of the types of interactions 0% 15% 33% 45% 25% that are legally permissible for electronic (Sept 03) delivery. (See note) HDC Top Bottom HDC Trend Qrtl Qrtl HDC in BVPI Description Actual Actual Actual Estimate in = better 01/02 01/02 Bottom 00/01 01/02 02/03 2003/04 Top = same (All (All Qrtl = worse England & England Qrtl District) & District 179 The percentage of standard local 98.5% property searches carried out in 10 98.4% 84.2% 66.8% 100% 90% working days (Nov 03)
Notes:
The Trend arrow compares estimated performance for 2003/04 against actual for 2002/03. Top quartile indicates whether this was achieved for 2002/03.
73 BV 12 – Sickness – It is possible to calculate the sickness on a monthly basis, however, this would be a manual task & time consuming. When the new HR system is installed the data can be produce automatically on a monthly basis.
BV 79a Accuracy - We are only able to provide this figure on a quarterly basis as this is in line with our reporting requirements to DWP. The PI is only calculated following the June, September, December and March quarters as per the DWP rules.
BV 79b HB Recovery - This information is not easily accessible and can only be obtained by undertaking a large manual exercise which we can only resource once a year for the actual PI figure.
BV 86 - estimated outturn Waste Collection - Including capital charges the new PI figure is £44.42 per property. This takes into account increases in Ops Division’s time for the garden waste trial and increased gate fees for recyclable materials. There is possibly a reduction in this figure due to part of an MTP scheme not starting in 2003/04 – unfortunately we cannot quantify this as of yet.
BVPI 107 - Expenditure/Income to date – if the cost per head were calculated at the end of every month, based on expenditure to date, then the data could be flawed because 85% of this indicator is staff time recharges and if people haven’t been inputting their timesheets to Track then recharges would be understated. Estimated Outturn Budget 3 – Budget 3 on the Financial system gets amended when accountancy receives information on savings/overspending predicted for the year. The departmental recharges tend to only get changed once a year (December/January) as part of the budget process and so for most of the year there could be very little change in the predicted cost per head.
BVPI 126 & 128:- Month on month changes in domestic burglary and vehicle crime can be quite dramatic and do not give a realistic overview of the trend. Quarterly reporting is recommended for these two performance indicators, including comparison with the same quarter in the previous year to take account of seasonal changes. The other problem with reporting this data monthly is that it is only currently audited and ‘cleaned up’ by the police and given to the Crime Research Team in a useable format once a quarter and so in order to get the data on a monthly basis we would have to use raw data direct from the police which hasn’t yet been properly coded and cleaned up. There would then be discrepancies with the quarterly data, which can lead to confusion. 74 Agenda Item 5b
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 (i).
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL 6 JANUARY 2004 (SERVICE DELIVERY & RESOURCES)
LEISURE CENTRES (Report by Head of Community Services and Leisure Centres’ Co-ordinator)
1 SUMMARY
The Panel has asked for a report on the operation of the Leisure Centres. This report is drawn from the annual report that is provided for the Joint Management Committees of the Centres and was presented to them in May last year. It has been updated where necessary.
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 Members will be aware that the Leisure Centres are managed and operated by the District Council to meet the joint needs of the Council, the County Council and the various governing bodies of the schools where the Centres are sited. Joint Management Committees are established for each Centre with representatives from, at least, these agencies. The Committees meet quarterly.
2.2 A review of the management of the Centres was conducted in 2001 and its outcomes reported to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Panels. Subsequently, its recommendations were adopted by the Cabinet. The main outcomes vested in the Joint Management Committees the responsibility for monitoring performance against a set of agreed measures. The District Council’s officers are responsible for the day to day management of the Centres and are accountable for the achievement of the performance measures.
3 LEISURE CENTRES’ PEFORMANCE 2002/03
3.1 The table below shows the key non financial performance information for the Centres in 2002/03 compared with 2001/02.
75
2001/02 2002/03 Admissions 1,779,778 1,877,135 Card Holders 49,532 56,321 Anyone registered on our member database “Live” members 14,193 15,065 Those who have visited in past 6 months Members aged 60 or over 1,813 1,934 Members aged between 13 and 17 - 4,026 Courts occupied 60.6% 68.5% Percentage of public courts used Swimmers per hour 22.0 21.2 Swimmers using pool during public times Accidents 810 780 Accidents related to activities Non-activity related accidents 113 37 Accidents not caused as a result of direct participation in an activity Pool closures (hrs) 639.5 459 Number of hours pool closed due to faults or repairs Cancelled classes 269.5 95 Classes cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances Overtime (hours) 4321 2487 Sickness (days) 467 409 Full days absence from contracted staff
3.2 Clearly, the overall figures are heading generally in the right direction. However, in line with national trends, key features of performance are increases in fitness related activities, whilst public swimming continues to decline, as had non sporting functions in 2002/03.
3.3 The following table summarises the main financial performance for 2002/03 against the budget. (Note figures may not tally exactly due to rounding) Actual Budget Actual Budget 2001/02 2002/03 2002/03 2003/04 £k £k £k £k Income 3,284 3,286 3,381 3,635 Direct Expenditure 4,454 4,505 4,527 4,889
Direct Expenditure less 1,170 1,219 1,146 1,254 Income Other Expenditure 1,277 1,197 *1,601 1,298 Uncontrollable by Centre Management, including recharges
Total Net Expenditure 2,447 2,416 2,748 2,552 Funded by: Huntingdonshire District 2,015 1,983 2,260 2,111 Council County Council/Schools 432 432 487 441
* As a result of District Audit advice on National Non Domestic Rate (NNDR) Relief, the Leisure Centres had to pay an additional sum of £244,231 in NNDR
2
76
3.4 The performance figures themselves have no intrinsic value unless management intervenes to take action to ensure that overall targets for financial and non financial performance are met. Consequently, strategic action taken has included the development and introduction of an all inclusive Advantage membership category and the restructuring of the Leisure Centres staffing to focus attention on the need to develop the markets in the Impressions fitness brand and the hospitality and events sector.
4 FACILITY MANAGEMENT
The Leisure Centres comprise significant physical assets which need to be well maintained in order to remain fit for purpose. The District Council has commissioned a number of facility studies which have sought to evaluate the requirements for pre planned maintenance in order to maintain the assets and reduce the possibility of asset failures. Clearly, there will always be unforeseen failures, but the Council’s Medium Term Plan identifies resources for maintenance which will meet most requirements. Consequently, officers are now able to plan for maintenance with due regard to minimising the effect on both customer service and projected income.
5 RECOMMENDATION
The Panel is invited to comment on this report
Contact Officers: Peter Jones Head of Community Services 01480 388202
Simon Bell Leisure Centres’ Co-ordinator 01480 388049
3
77 This page is intentionally left blank
78 Agenda Item 5c
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 (iii).
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL (SERVICE DELIVERY AND 6 JANUARY 2004 RESOURCES) CABINET 8 JANUARY 2004
HUNTINGDONSHIRE CAR PARKING STRATEGY 2004 TO 2016 (Report by the Head of Environment & Transport)
1. PURPOSE
1.1 Cabinet approved a draft car parking strategy at their meeting on 23 October 2003 together with arrangements for consulting on the strategy. This report details the outcome of the consultation and proposes a final version of the strategy.
1.2 Cabinet are requested to approve the strategy and note the consequential implementation issues.
2. CONSULTATION PROCESS
2.1 Public exhibitions outlining the draft strategy were held at Ramsey, Huntingdon, St Neots and St Ives and were attended by in excess of 250 people.
2.2 Comments on the strategy were invited from a wide range of organisations, including all parish and town councils. Presentations were made to the following organisations as part of their consideration of the draft strategy:-
• St Ives Town Council • St Ives Area Parish Forum • Town Centre Managers • St Ives Chamber of Commerce
2.3 Submissions were received from a number of organisations including parish councils and all local community transport schemes and the issues raised are considered in the following sections of this report.
2.4 The public consultation eventually closed on 31 December 2003 having been extended from the originally advertised closure of 5 December 2003. As at 19 December 2003 a total of 93 replies had been received. The consultation results and public comments submitted (to 19 December 2003) are included at Annex A. Responses received after 19 December 2003 will be reported at the meeting.
3. COMMENTS FROM CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
3.1 The county council strongly support the principle of a car parking strategy, wish to be associated with it and see it published as a joint strategy under the auspices of the Local Transport Plan. It is evident also that the county council would like to see –
• greater emphasis given to environmental sustainability • future parking provision having an explicit linkage to reduction in car usage achieved through LTP initiatives • future car parking charges being increased above retail price inflation using a multiplier related to the availability of public transport
79 3.2 Ultimate responsibility for on-street parking rests with the county council. Accordingly, the formal support of the county council’s Cabinet will be required for the proposed changes to the on-street charging arrangements.
4. COMMENTS FROM TOWN & PARISH COUNCILS
4.1 The following parish councils have yet to consider the draft strategy but have indicated an interest in commenting –
• Abbotsley PC • Buckden PC • Catworth PC • Gransden PC • Little Paxton PC • Yaxley PC
4.2 The following parish councils have indicated their support for the draft strategy –
• Hilton PC • Holywell-cum-Needingworth PC (except for reduction in on-street parking)
4.3 Hemingford Grey PC and Stow Longa PC will not be making a response but have left individual parish councillors to respond. Hemingford abbots PC generally support the proposals relating to the designation of car parks but do not support the proposed off- street charges, linkage of charges to RPI or the reduction of on-street spaces.
4.4 Warboys Parish Council consider that the strategy should make specific reference to the maintenance of existing village car parks and provision on new to support the vitality of larger villages.
4.5 Godmanchester Town Council consider that the strategy fails to address inadequate parking provision in the town. They have commented specifically on the lack of parking near shops, cars parking on double yellows, limited visitor parking near the Causeway and for access to riverside park. The town council consider that the problems will be exacerbated by planned residential development.
4.6 St Ives Town Council have broadly welcomed the strategy but have raised concerns with regard to –
• reduction in on-street • differential between shoppers and edge-of-centre car parks (particularly in respect of stays over two hours) • the capacity of the proposals to deal adequately with demand on market days
4.7 The St Ives Town Council have not commented on the proposal to provide a deck to Globe Place as this is not explicitly stated in the strategy document.
5. COMMENTS FROM OTHER ORGANISATIONS
5.1 No written submission has been received from the St Ives Chamber of Commerce although from your officer’s meeting with the chamber it would appear that they are generally supportive of the draft strategy’s proposals. They particularly favour further parking at Globe Place as a means of increasing footfall at the western end of the town. There appears to be conflicting opinions within the chamber on the reduction of on-street parking.
80 5.2 No written submission has been received from the St Ives Civic Society although it appears from comments attributed to the society that it strongly opposes on visual amenity grounds the proposed provision of a deck at Globe Place car park.
5.3 St Ives Access Group would have liked to see a more explicit strategy objective relating to the provision for blue-badge holders.
5.4 Operators of community transport schemes (Ouse Valley Dial-a-Ride and Thrapston Area Community Transport) have highlighted the lack of adequate setting down/picking up locations within town centres and the absence of any shelter for clients waiting for the service to make return journeys.
5.5 The Huntingdonshire Environment and Transport Area Joint Committee received and noted the draft strategy without comment.
6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANELS AND DISTRICT COUNCILLORS
6.1 Some 25 district councillors attended a presentation of the draft strategy on 2 December 2003 arising from which comments were made with regard to –
• concern that the public consultation was too short • opposition to removal of charges in Ramsey • support for short-stay provision at Darwoods Pond, St Ives • first hour of off-street parking should be free • ability to meet peak demand, such as market days • lack of measures to discourage car use • abuse of town centre/on-street parking by commuters • relationship between cost of provision and income • need to broaden focus from market towns to villages
6.2 In addition the draft strategy was presented to meetings of both Overview and Scrutiny Panels in December 2003. The Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery and Resources) will consider the issue again at its meeting on 6 January 2004 and the outcome will be reported to Cabinet at their meeting.
7. PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION
7.1 The proposed final strategy, reproduced at Annex B, has been varied from the consultation draft as described below.
Issue 1 now makes reference to the need to acknowledge an appropriate balance between economic and environmental concerns in the forecasting of car parking demand in the medium to long term.
Issue 2 now refers to hypothecating surplus income on the car parking account to ‘securing’ rather than ‘supporting’ transport choices other than the private car. An additional measure has been added relating to satisfaction with alternative transport choices.
Issue 3 now makes reference to car parking ‘serving’ villages in transport corridors rather then car parks ‘in’ such villages. This provides opportunity for a more innovative approach to parking provision in rural areas.
Issue 5 now expresses future parking capacity targets in terms of demand forecast by demographic growth and growth in first time car ownership modified by actual
81 achievement of Local Transport Plan/relevant Market Town Transport Strategies in reducing car usage.
Issue 8 now proposes three-yearly review of charges will take RPI as the minimum increase, leaving open the option of increases above RPI if it is decided at a future date to use charges to encourage people to transfer to more sustainable travel modes as these become available.
Issue 9 now has the performance measure qualified by the insertion of a reference to parking demand being related to shopping trips.
Issue 14 now allows for season ticket holders to park in edge of centre car parks at any time allowing workers to park at the start of working day when daily tickets not available (to deter commuters).
Issue 17 now makes reference to ‘staff’ rather than ‘green’ travel plans to emphasise that it is a reduction in employees’ use of cars that is being sought.
Issue 18 now includes reference to appropriate provision being made in respect of community transport schemes and parking of motorcycles.
Issue 20 now extends safety considerations to footways linking out-of-centre car parks to town centres.
Issue 23 for the avoidance of doubt reference is now made to future parking standards for development being in line with the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan.
7.2 Issues in respect of proposals for car parks from April 2004, shown at Table 1.1 of the draft strategy, are commented on below:-
• Ingram Street CP, Huntingdon, has been designated an edge-of-centre car park rather than ‘residents only’. It is now proposed that the change to residents only is deferred until additional public parking is available at Chequers Court. • Dolphin Hotel CP, St Ives, will be made available as public parking by the proprietor of the hotel and will be signed accordingly. • Waitrose CP, St Neots, although included in the 2004 provision the owners of the car park have served notice terminating the management agreement with the district council from July 2004 and the council will no longer be able to influence the operation/charging policy associated with this car park.
7.3 Arising from 7.2 above consequential changes have been made to Table 1.2 showing capacity/demand in future years. In addition the figures for St Ives now reflect a deferral of any reduction of on-street parking to post 2006 in recognition of the initial demand forecast slightly underestimating the Monday peak demand. A smaller scale reduction is now proposed in conjunction with additional off-street provision between 2006 and 2011.
7.4 In view of the reaction to the proposal to meet the shortfall in provision in St Ives towards the end of the decade by the provision of a deck at Globe Place car park it is proposed that this is the subject of further consultation at a future date. This will allow the consultation to be conducted in the knowledge of parking demand at that time and in the context of the development plan for the east of the town centre.
82
8 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 The proposed changes to the strategy in responses to the consultation will have a minimal impact on the previously reported financial implications which now constitute the MTP bid in respect of car parking.
8.2 Subject to the county council approving the proposed extension of on-street charges the deferral of reductions in on-street spaces until post 2006 will marginally increase income levels in the early years of the strategy.
8.3 Although the strategy has not been revised to provide any period of free parking in off- street car parks Cabinet may wish to note that the impact of making the first hour free would be to reduce income by £378k annually from 2004/05.
9. CONCLUSIONS
9.1 The consultation has indicated a significant level of support for the majority of the proposals contained in the initial draft strategy. The final draft now presented has been revised to reflect the following key concerns which were raised through the consultation –
• the potential for broader sustainability issues to influence future reviews of the strategy as transport choices are delivered by the Local Transport Plan; • encouragement to use community transport schemes will be given by the planned provision of town centre facilities for users and operators; • reduction in on-street parking will be deferred until adequate off-street parking capacity is available; and • the contentious issue of providing a deck to Globe Place car park will be consulted on further before any decision is taken.
9.2 Arrangements for introducing revised off-street charges and new on-street charges will be subject to statutory processes that include further public notice and consultation.
9.3 The strategy will become a key part of the district council’s delivery of the Local Transport Plan alongside existing and emerging market town transport strategies. Accordingly, it is proposed to publish it as a joint district/county council strategy.
10 RECOMMENDATION
10.1 Cabinet are recommended to –
(a) note that the outcome of the consultation; (b) approve the strategy at Annex B and authorise the Director of Operational Services following consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy to finalise the document; and (c) authorise the Director of Operational Services to initiate the making of appropriate car parking orders and all consequential actions to enable the proposed charging arrangements to be implemented from 1 April 2004.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:-
1. ‘Huntingdonshire Car Parking Study; Final Report’ prepared by Transportation Planning (International) on behalf of the District Council 2. ‘Huntingdonshire Car Parking Strategy 2004 to 2016: Initial Identification of strategy statements, objectives and performance measures’ – Head of Environment and Transport
83 3. Financial Model – Head of Environment & Transport 4. Consultation responses — Head of Environment & Transport
Contact Officer: R Preston, Head of Environment and Transport 01480 388340
84 ANNEX A: CONSULTATION RESULTS
Questionnaire Responses
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree nor Strongly Disagree 1 We should plan now to meet peak demand for town centre 55% 35% 7% 1% 2% car parking.
2 We should reserve the most convenient town centre 19% 40% 13% 12% 16% parking for shoppers and encourage workers and visitors to park further out. 3 The proposal for three types of car parks will meet the 9% 51% 14% 16% 10% needs of our market towns.
4 The proposed designation of the car parks in the tables on 5% 51% 29% 15% 5% 85 page 2 makes the best use of the available car parks. 5 The proposed car parking charges are acceptable. 5% 44% 14% 25% 12%
6 Charges should increase roughly in line with inflation 11% 44% 17% 19% 9%
7 We should reduce the amount of town centre on-street 13% 20% 12% 32% 23% parking provided that adequate capacity is available in off- street car parks. 8 The introduction of on-street parking charges for the areas 9% 30% 27% 15% 19% of town centre shown on the maps is the right thing to do.
How often do you park in one of Huntingdonshire’s town centres • 5 or more times a week 49% • once a week 33% • less than twice a month 13% • never 5% When you park in town do you usually • park in a public off-street car park 61% • park on street 28% • park in a private car park 11%
Base 93 (to be updated for results received up to 31 December 2003) Comments Received
Responses in bold indicate that the issue is addressed further in Section 7 of this report.
ISSUE RESPONSE General Parking should be paid for by shops A number of refund schemes are operated by traders. Provision by the council ensures provision is properly planned and enforced. On street parking should be free for 30 mins The 20 minute free period is proposed to allow for single purpose visits e.g. banking. Beyond this the intention is to encourage people to use car parks rather than drive into central areas. Does not like the season ticket system for town centre car parks - Season tickets are a method of paying in a lump sum for the tickets with tickets should guarantee a space a saving. It would not be possible to reserve spaces for all season ticket holders More long stay town centre parking for workers — problem for Most conveniently situated parking should be available for shoppers. people parking for the full working day People parking for the whole day should be further from centre.
86 Need central free parking for workers Address safe pedestrian routes from out-of-centre car parks (see para. 7.1 – Issue 20) Shoppers should not take priority
Workers should not have to park in 'edge of centre' - walk is too long if it is raining or you are carrying shopping. Display car park full signs With pay and display systems, there is no method of checking the spare capacity of car parks. System would be very expensive to install Would like to see a railway link between Huntingdon and Not relevant to car parking strategy. Cambridge There should always be on street parking for disabled and This is provided where possible, limitations such as road widths, access deliveries requirements, pedestrian zones restrict the areas where this can happen On-street parking is very helpful for disabled No provision for Motorcyclists. Consideration to be given to marked bays, security points and charging regime. (see para 7.1 – Issue 18) Why is parking is free in Ramsey but not everywhere else. Part of a package of regeneration measures. Why limit out of town car parks to 23 hours – like to park and leave This gives control so that cars are not left here for long periods, for several days reducing parking for people visiting the towns ISSUE RESPONSE Decriminalisation should improve enforcement This will be looked at by the district and county council New development should be designed to be less car dependant – Issue being addressed through LTP and local development framework. provide better alternatives Increase charges by increments of 10p. Long stay £1-00 Charges generally increase by inflation. Increased income should go to better car park equipment Improvements have been made to the town centre car parks with all having Secure Car park awards which reflect high security and low crime figures Huntingdon No stopping point on slip road entrance to Sainsbury’s to prevent Improvements to Sainsbury’s car park are needed and these will come obstruction of ring road. with the redevelopment in the area Space under Chequers Court should be used, with an attendant Private area soon to be redeveloped. Restricted access at Mill Common should be before 7.15 or 7.30 Control imposed to limit use by commuters but does pose a problem to not 8.15 a.m. town centre workers who start early.
Remove restriction for season ticket holders. (see para. 7.1 – 87 Issue14) HDC employee - should provide 'essential parking permits for HDC Seek to reduce demand for staff parking through promotion of staff who use their vehicles during their normal duties staff travel plan. (see para 7.1 – Issue 17) Disabled drivers should be able to drive down High Street and park Cars where excluded from the High Street on safety grounds. outside of shops. Dedicated parking for disabled people has been provided at St Germain Failing to meet the needs of disabled. Street and Chequers Way. Restore disabled parking bays in the market square. Extend High Street access times on one or two mornings to allow Introduction of ‘shop mobility’ scheme should significantly improve disabled people access to banks that do not open till 10. access. Elderly people using the Stanley centre now use up disabled bays Operational issue – review number of disabled spaces. in Ingram Street. Estimates for car parking demand could be wrong. Encourage Demand forecast validated against government traffic growth model. people to park out of town by making out of town parking free and Current proposals seek to establish free out of town and more town centre parking expensive. Use town centre space for new expensive in the town centres. If demand falls existing car parking sites businesses rather than car parking. would be available for redevelopment. Hartford Road parking should be exclusively for residents; More Hartford Rd is split at present between residents and 1 hour parking. traffic wardens should enforce this. Concerned that proposal to Strategy proposes move to wholly residents parking in the longer term make Hartford Road to the fire station two-way will not benefit when other traffic management measures are implemented, including residents. closing access directly to ring-road. ISSUE RESPONSE Layout of Sainsbury car park is poor and needs improving This will be addressed as part of the redevelopment of Chequers Court. St Ives Two-storey car park at Globe place will be unattractive, and will Requirement for additional parking is post 2008. encourage vandalism/ lawlessness. Consult specifically on design options and possible alternatives nearer time when demand has been demonstrated. (see para 7.4) Strongly objects to car park charges, would like to know how much Charges are generally accepted by public and avoid cost of service revenue we collect & where it all goes. falling on the Council Tax payer. Financial information is publicly available through published annual accounts. Car park charges drive people to other towns
If there are no charges in Ramsey then there should be none in St Removal of charges in Ramsey is part of a package of regeneration Ives. measures.
Agrees with expansion of Dolphin car park, suggests raising base Car park is in flood plain and cannot be raised. level in order to stop flooding.
88 The entrance/exit to the Dolphins does meet the present requirements. Concern about entry/exit to Dolphin car park and flooding Intensified use of Dolphin car park would be assisted by new access from south end of causeway. Dolphin floods – needs platform adding Visual impact would be significant – unlikely to obtain planning approval. Supports on street charges but suggests 45-minute free period. Proposed charging arrangements are intended to discourage people wanting to park for more than 20 minutes for driving into town centres to On street car parking should remain free – charged will push cars reduce vehicle movements. into residential streets Displacement to residential roads will happen regardless of charges if If on-street charges are introduced will not use St Ives for shopping current restrictions were properly enforced. or anything else
Re-open Bridge Street for on-street parking and allow traffic to The design principle used in St Ives is to reduce the traffic passing pass through The Waits and Market Hill by removing the bollards through the streets looking for places to park, but to utilise the car parks provided on the ways into the towns. This makes it much safer for the shoppers in the town Create car park at Meadow Lane regardless of whether RTS goes A new car park in Meadow Lane would also need facilities for ahead or not pedestrians to access the town. Review potential if RTS does not proceed. ISSUE RESPONSE Survey is premature because it does not take into account plans Strategy has regard for known developments and will be regularly for Meadow Lane or Globe Place reviewed in light of future developments and demand. Why plan for 2004-2016 when we do not have enough spaces for Sufficient parking exists in town if Dolphin car park is taken into 2003. account. All Cattle Market should be for shoppers Edge-of-centre designation allows for 1 or 2 hour stays and will not discourage shoppers. St Ives has no out of centre free parking. Consideration to be given to signing St Ivo Recreation Centre car park as out-of-centre car park. Provide short term parking in the Globe Place car park if the Designating Globe Place and edge-of-centre car park has achieved. Broadway is to be revitalised. Impose charges on parking at out of town retail locations and use Parking associated with out of town retailing is privately owned and income to support parking and transport in town centres. could not be subject to a charges could note be imposed by the council. St Neots Annoyed that people regularly park on double yellow lines in Decriminalisation has the potential to provide better enforcement. places like Huntingdon Street. 89 We should not encourage workers/visitors to park in East Street East Street is to be considered for residents parking area - suggests residents parking permits. Better access and drop off points for Dial a ride needed Consideration to be given to drop off/pick points and user shelters for community transport schemes. (see para 7.1 – Issue 18) Current Charges are fine – no increases. Ignores growth in running costs and anomalies in existing charging arrangements. Ramsey Rules need enforcement, thinks we should make on street parking As there are no proposals to have paid on street parking in Ramsey, the free for 30mins, agrees free parking is an excellent idea - but enforcement will remain with the police. worries it will benefit workers/residents rather than shoppers. The use of the car parks by long-term users will be monitored for potential disadvantage to shoppers. Charges could be reintroduced at a later date. There should be more disabled bays in Ramsey and they should Enforcement of disabled bays is a police matter and this will be be better marked, and they should be policed better - especially as discussed with them. they are abused. The existing provision will be assessed. A one-way ring road would help the traffic situation in Ramsey. A future market town transport will address traffic management issues. ANNEX B REVISED STRATEGY
HUNTINGDONSHIRE CAR PARKING STRATEGY 2004 to 2016
90
FINAL DRAFT
PRINCIPAL DRIVERS AND INFLUENCES ON THE STRATEGY
The Huntingdonshire Car Parking Strategy (‘the strategy’) is informed by and will contribute to the achievement of the Cambridge Local Transport Plan and the district council’s transportation and land use planning policies and objectives. It seeks to —
• establish an appropriate balance between economic, transportation and environmental policies • be compatible with relevant national, regional, sub-regional, county-wide and district strategies and plans • contribute to sustaining the vitality of the local economy • encourage modal shift and contribute to the development of sustainable travel choices • recognise the contribution that proposed transport interchanges at St Ives, Huntingdon/Godmanchester and St Neots will have on local travel • recognise the influence of Cambridge to Huntingdon Rapid Transit System on travel to and from Cambridge and between Huntingdon and St Ives • 91 recognise the importance of Huntingdon and St Neots railway stations and the associated demand for car parking • recognise the high levels of car ownership in the district • provide an appropriate mix of public car parking including charged and free on-street and off-street provision • meet the parking the needs of existing and planned development • promote the enforcement of parking and waiting orders and regulations to ensure best use of the parking provision
Partnership
Huntingdonshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council will work in partnership to deliver the strategy’s as part of their joint commitment to Cambridge Local Transport Plan and the associated Market Town Transport Strategies.
Performance Measures and Targets
Where no specific target is included in any performance measure a baseline will be established in 2004 and targets published having regard to that baseline.
Final Draft page 1
Issue Objective Performance Measure 1 The council recognises that the essentially rural The provision and operation of public, 1.1 Percentage of local people who consider nature of the district makes use of private cars private non-residential and residential car that car parking provision is adequate having unavoidable in the short/medium term but parking supports the sustainable regard to the travel choices available to them. acknowledges, however, that this is development of the local economy and unsustainable in the longer term. It will seek to encourages local people to consider the 1.2 Percentage of local employers who achieve appropriate parking provision in travel choices available to them. consider that car parking provision is residential areas, at places of employment, retail adequate for their customers/clients. activity and leisure and recreational facilities to support sustainable development in the local economy and in order to combat rural isolation and social exclusion.
2 The council will assist in securing measures to Increased proportion of income derived 2.1 Annual percentage increase in car promote integrated, sustainable and accessible from car parks hypothecated for non-car parking income employed on securing transport and will direct surplus income derived based transport projects. integrated, sustainable and accessible
92 from car parking charges to the furtherance of transport. these objectives. 2.2 People employed in the towns, tourists and business visitors who are very satisfied/satisfied with available transport alternatives to the car.
3 The council will support the development of car Promote modal interchange and improve 3.1 Off-street parking spaces available parking provision serving villages on transport access to services by providing car parks serving villages in transport corridors corridors where these will facilitate use of public serving villages, identified through the transport and support the economy of villages. planning process, which are appropriately located on public transport corridors.
4 The council will seek to maximise the benefit for Long-stay visitors to market towns make 4.1 Number of passenger using public its market towns from future transport use of transport interchanges for the transport routes between transport interchanges provided in their vicinity. parking of private cars and coaches interchanges and town centres.
Final Draft page 2
Issue Objective Performance Measure 5 Future demand for public car parking has been Future arrangements for the provision of 5.1 By 2011 mix of parking provision assessed by reference to observed parking public car parks and the management of available to users of market towns meets levels (2002), predicted demographic growth and public car parking demand initially will initially forecast demand reduced by actual increase in households with access to a first car. have regard to the demand figures given achievement in traffic volumes delivered by It will be reviewed regularly, however, with regard in ‘Huntingdonshire Car Parking Study – LTP/relevant market town transport strategy. to the achievement of the LTP in reducing the Final Report’ published in July 2003. use of the private car. 5.2 By 2016 mix of parking provision This demand in any town will be reduced available to users of market towns meets by the actual reduction of traffic in the initially forecast demand reduced by actual town attributable to the relevant market achievement in traffic volumes delivered by town transport strategy. LTP/relevant market town transport strategy.
6 The council will seek to manage public car Mix of available car parking and charging 6.1 85% of shoppers are very parking most conveniently situated to town policy encourages stays of not more than satisfied/satisfied that public car parks are 93 centres to secure its primary use by shoppers. two hours in ’shoppers’ car parks most conveniently located and easy to use. conveniently situated for town centres. 62 90% of users of ‘shoppers’ car parks stay less than 2 hours duration.
7 The council will seek to secure a combination of Mix of available car parking and charging 7.1 People employed in the towns, tourists car parks peripheral to town centres and at policy encourages people wishing to park and business visitors who do not have access transport interchanges which meet the needs of in excess of two hours to park in ‘edge of to private non-residential parking very long-stay car parkers. centre’ and ‘out of centre’ car parks, or at satisfied/satisfied with available public interchanges offering quality public parking. transport links to the town centres.
8 The level of car parking charges will be reviewed Car park charges revised at three-yearly 8.1 Review of charges completed and new at intervals not exceeding three years to restore intervals to adjust levels, as a minimum, charges introduced in 2004/05, 2007/08 etc. levels as a minimum to that which would have in line with movements in RPI in the resulted had annual RPI been applied in each period since the last review. year following the last review. Any change in price will be a multiple of five pence or ten pence.
Final Draft page 3
Issue Objective Performance Measure 9 Pending the outcome of the various initiatives to Contribute to the regeneration of Ramsey 9.1 Parking demand in Ramsey for shopping regenerate the Ramsey area all existing car town centre by the removal of car parking related trips maintained above 2002 levels. parking charges should be removed and the re- charges for a minimum period of three introduction of charges be deferred until the first years. review of charges.
10 People should be provided with the opportunity to Facility provided to stay up to four hours 10.1 Income from ticket sales for periods in park for longer periods in off-street car parks in shoppers’ car parks subject to third and excess of 2 hours not more than 15% close to town centres only if they are prepared to fourth hour being significantly more annually of total value of sales in shoppers’ pay a premium for the convenience. The expensive than the first two. car parks. maximum permitted stay should be 4 hours i.e. half the working day.
11 People should be provided with the opportunity to Discourage vehicle movements in town 11.1 Ticket sold for less than two hours in park for short periods in off-street car parks away centres by offering lower cost short stay edge of centre car parks make up at least
94 from the town centres as it reduces the need to parking in edge of centre off-street car 70% of annual ticket sales penetrate town centre to find short stay parking. parks. The cost of staying one or two hours should be set at not more than 80% of the cost in a town- centre shoppers’ car park.
12 Until parking becomes available at transport Provide free of charge off street parking 12.1 80% of vehicles parked for in excess of interchanges with associated public transport to discourage long-stay parkers from three hours. links to town centres the council will continue to entering town centres where possible. make available free of charge some out of centre off street parking to meet the needs of long stay parkers in Huntingdon and St Neots.
Final Draft page 4
Issue Objective Performance Measure 13 To encourage uniformity of enforcement all town (a) Charges introduced all town centre 13.1 Occupancy (based on ticket sales) of centre on-street car parking (excluding Ramsey) on-street parking (excluding Ramsey) on-street spaces exceeds 150% per working should be brought within the charging regime. day. However, to facilitate very short business and shopping trips the first 20 minutes of any visit (b) Parking needs for very short stay visits 13.2 Users very satisfied/satisfied with should be free of charge. The charge for periods to town centres met by 20-minute free-of- availability of on-street parking. in excess of 20 minutes, up to a maximum of one charge period in on-street provision. hour, should be greater than that for one hour in a shoppers’ car park.
14 Season tickets provide town centre residents and Sale of season tickets decline as 14.1 Based on 2004/05 season ticket sales employees of local businesses with convenient alternative out of centre facilities become fall by 30% by 2011/12 and 70% by 2015/16. access to nominated edge of centre car parks. more attractive to regular parkers. Purchasers will need to demonstrate that they are employed in the town centre or are resident 95 at a town centre address. Purchasers will have a choice between a 5 day and 6 day season tickets i.e. Monday to Friday or Monday to Saturday Season ticket holders will not be subject to the early morning exclusion periods when daily tickets are not issued to deter commuter parking. 15 Residents’ permits for use in edge of centre and Parking needs of residents in town centre 15.1 Users very satisfied/satisfied with residents’ car parks will be available to qualifying homes met by a combination of on street provision made for residents’ parking. households. Generally those households will and off street residents’ permits issued by have no parking within their curtilage and will not the district council. be eligible for a residents’ on-street permit. Only one off street permit will be issued per address. The cost of the off street residents’ permit will be in the order of 80% of the cost of the on street permit.
Final Draft page 5
Issue Objective Performance Measure 16 The council recognise the need to make Develop standards for the provision of 16.1 Parking standards for people with adequate public parking provision for ‘blue parking in public car parks for people with disabilities adopted by July 2004. badge’ holders. Specific parking spaces will be disabilities in partnership with appropriate made in shoppers and edge of centre public car local representative groups. 16.2 Parking standards for people with parks for people with disabilities. The council will disabilities, including shop mobility schemes, work in partnership with appropriate implemented by July 2006. organisations to achieve ‘shop mobility’ schemes in the town centres of Huntingdon, St Neots and St Ives.
17 Excessive levels of private non-residential Private non-residential parking reduced to 17.1 Number of private non-residential parking in town centres encourages increased conform to current parking standards. spaces taken out of use. vehicle movements and sterilises land that could potentially be used for development. Businesses 17.2 Number of businesses with staff travel will be encourage to review the need for parking plans.
96 within their sites and to reduce demand by the adoption of ‘staff travel plans’. 17.3 Huntingdonshire District Council adopts staff travel plan in 2004/05. 18 Appropriate provision will be made for people Provision will be made in car parks or at 18.1 Percentage of community transport using alternatives to the car including pedal other appropriate locations for the setting scheme users very satisfied/satisfied with cycles, motorcycles and community transport down/picking up of passengers using provision made for setting down/picking up. schemes. community transport schemes and for the scheme vehicles to wait. Cycle stands 18.2 Percentage of users very and secure parking of motorcycles satisfied/satisfied with provision made for available in town centres and at transport motorcycle parking. interchanges. 18.3 Percentage of potential users very satisfied/satisfied with provision made for cycle parking.
Final Draft page 6
Issue Objective Performance Measure 19 Train operating companies and Network Rail Support measures to improve access to 19.1 Annual increase in the percentage of have responsibility for providing adequate car railway stations by bus, taxi, and cycle peak time rail travellers not using private cars parking for train users. The council will work with and on foot to reduce the demand for car to travel to/from the railway station. them to minimise demand for parking by parking. encouraging the integration of bus and train services. The council will support the introduction of parking restrictions on residential roads in the vicinity of railway stations.
20 The design, construction and maintenance of (a) All shoppers and edge of centre car 20.1 100% of shoppers and edge of centre public car parks must be such that they are safe, parks have ‘Secure Car Park’ status car parks owned/operated by the council attractive and convenient to use. awarded by Cambridgeshire have ‘Secure Car Park’ status. Constabulary. Footways linking out-of-centre car parks to town 20.2 Public car park users very centres will be clearly sign-posted, lit to a high (b) Public car parks maintained to a high satisfied/satisfied with condition of car parks. 97 standard and covered by CCTV. standard. 20.3 Zero claims for loss resulting from (c) safe and convenient access from out- injury/damage attributable to physical of- centre car parks to town centres. condition of public car parks.
21 Car parking orders provide the enforcement Public car parks are safe and convenient 21.1 Percentage of users very framework for the operation of public car parking. to use and appropriate enforcement satisfied/satisfied that use of public car parks The council will seek through the orders to action is taken against breaches of the is adequately controlled. ensure that use of public car parks is as intended car parking orders. by this strategy and that car park users have due regard to the safety and convenience of other users.
22 The opportunity provided by the Road Traffic Act Review at regular intervals the level of 22.1 Town centre users and businesses very 1991 for local authorities to take over parking enforcement being delivered by the Police satisfied/satisfied with enforcement of waiting enforcement from the Police needs to be kept and evaluate the implications of seeking restrictions. under review. decriminalisation under the RTA 1991 if appropriate.
Final Draft page 7
Issue Objective Performance Measure 23 The Council will adopt parking standards for Parking standards for development are 23.1 Parking standards for development development that have regard both for national appropriate to the area and compatible adopted as Supplementary Planning standards and which recognise the nature of the with the objectives of spatial and transport Guidance. area and which are in accordance with the plans. Cambridgeshire Structure Plan.
98
Final Draft page 8
TABLE 1.1: DESIGNATION OF CAR PARKS 2004
Shoppers’ Car Edge of Centre Out of Centre On Street On Street Residents Park Charged Free SH EC OC CH FR R/RO Bridge Place GODMANCHESTER Princes Street Gt Northern St Riverside Ambury Road Hartford Road HUNTINGDON Sainsburys Mill Common High Street High Street (North) (South) St Germain St St Germain (Disabled) Street Minor Ferrars Road Waitrose Pathfinder St Mary’s Street House Trinity Place Chequers Way (Saturday Only) Princes Street Ingram Street 99 Anglian Water (Saturday Only) Mews Close Great Whyte RAMSEY New Road High Street (not charged) Little Whyte New Road Cattle Market Cattle market East Street Bridge Street Cromwell Place SAINT IVES (part) (part) (loading/disabled) (on-street) Market Hill Darwoods Pond (centre) Globe Place Market Hill (edge) Dolphin Hotel Station Road The Quarant
Final Draft page 9
Shoppers’ Car Edge of Centre Out of Centre On Street On Street Residents Park Charged Free SH EC OC CH FR R/RO The Broadway Waitrose Priory Cambridge St Market Square Avenue Road SAINT NEOTS (on street) Brook Street Tan Yard Riverside High Street East Street Priory Lane Tebbutts Road New Street (on street) Westgate House 100
Final Draft page 10
TABLE 1.2: CAPACITY AND DEMAND ANALYSIS
HUNTINGDON & GODMANCHESTER 2002 2004 2006 2011 2016 Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Parking Spaces:- Long Stay/Out of Centre L 400 726 OC 278 278 OC 278 278 OC 278 278 OC 278 278 Edge of Centre EC 204 530 EC 125 375 EC 225 225 EC 225 225 Short Stay/Shoppers S 821 821 SH 739 739 SH 1159 1159 SH 1159 1159 SH 1215 1215 Residents Only R 0 0 R 0 0 R 45 45 R 45 45 R 45 45 Off-Street Total 1221 1547 1221 1547 1607 1857 1707 1707 1763 1763 On Street Total 162 162 159 159 110 110 110 110 110 110 GRAND TOTAL 1383 1709 1380 1706 1717 1967 1817 1817 1873 1873 PUBLIC DEMAND 1287 1334 1351 1401 1403 1454 1544 1601 1815 1881
101 SURPLUS/SHORTFALL 96 375 29 305 314 513 273 216 58 -8 ST NEOTS 2002 2004 2006 2011 2016 Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Parking Spaces: Long Stay/Out of Centre L 627 627 OC 351 351 OC 351 351 OC 351 351 OC 351 351 Edge of Centre EC 433 433 EC 433 433 EC 339 339 EC 339 339 Short Stay/Shoppers S 463 463 SH 256 256 SH 256 256 SH 565 565 SH 565 565 Residents Only R 0 0 R 0 0 R 0 0 R 0 0 R 0 0 Interchange I 00 I 0 0 I 00 I 0 0 I 0 0
Off-Street Total 1090 1090 1040 1040 1040 1040 1255 1255 1255 1255 On Street Total 82 82 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 GRAND TOTAL 1172 1172 1172 1172 1172 1172 1387 1387 1387 1387 PUBLIC DEMAND 942 811 1036 892 1130 973 1356 1168 1422 1225 SURPLUS/SHORTFALL 230 361 136 280 42 199 31 219 -35 162
Final Draft page 11
ST IVES 2002 2004 2006 2011 2016 Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Off Street Sub Totals Long Stay/Out of Centre L 624 624 OC 0 0 OC 0 0 OC ? ? OC ? ? Edge of Centre EC 708 708 EC 708 708 EC 839 839 EC 839 839 Short Stay/Shoppers S 370 370 SH 286 286 SH 286 286 SH 228 228 SH 228 228 Residents Only R 0 0 R 0 0 R 0 0 R 0 0 R 0 0
Off-Street Total 994 994 994 994 994 994 1067 1067 1067 1067 On Street Total 237 237 237 237 237 237 180 180 180 180 GRAND TOTAL 1231 1231 1231 1231 1231 1231 1157 1157 1157 1157 PUBLIC DEMAND 1036 855 1053 881 1100 915 1164 975 1276 1052 SURPLUS/SHORTFALL 320 376 168 350 0 131 316 0 -7 182 0 -119 105
102 RAMSEY 2002 2004 2006 2011 2016 Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Off Street Sub Totals Long Stay/Out of Centre L 0 0 OC 82 82 OC 82 82 OC 82 82 OC 82 82 Edge of Centre EC 0 0 EC 0 0 EC 0 0 EC 0 0 Short Stay/Shoppers S 82 82 SH 0 0 SH 0 0 SH 0 0 SH 0 0 Residents Only R 00R00R00R00R00
Off-Street Total 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 On Street Total 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 GRAND TOTAL 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 PUBLIC DEMAND 260 242 276 257 289 269 328 305 361 336 SURPLUS/SHORTFALL 163 181 147 166 134 154 95 118 62 87
Final Draft page 12 TABLE 2: CHARGING PROPOSALS FOR MARKET TOWN CAR PARKS (2004/05)
Shoppers’ Car Park Edge of Centre Out of Centre On Street
(includes VAT) (includes VAT) (VAT exempt)
0 to 20 minutes 60 minute 60 minute free of charge free of charge (but ticket must be minimum charge minimum charge displayed)
0 to 60 minutes 30 pence 25 pence free of charge 40 pence (over 20 minutes)
1 to 2 hours 60 pence 50 pence free of charge 2 to 3 hours 120 pence 80 pence free of charge 103 3 to 4 hours 240 pence 80 pence free of charge
over 4 hours 80 pence free of charge
Maximum Stay 4 hours 23 hours 23 hours 60 minutes Excess Charge early payment £27 early payment £27 not applicable early payment £27 (expressed as percentage of Fixed full charge £40 full charge £40 full charge £40 Penalty for on-street offence)
Season Ticket not available Mon-Fri = £160 not required not available Mon-Sat = £224 Residents’ Permits not available same as On-Street not required not available
This page is intentionally left blank
104 Agenda Item 6
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL 6TH JANUARY 2003 (SERVICE DELIVERY AND RESOURCES)
PROGRESS TO DATE (Report by Head of Administration)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report provides a summary of action taken in response to the decisions and recommendations the Panel has made.
2. PROGRESS REPORT
2.1 A progress report is attached which highlights all outstanding items.
2.2 Actions previously reported upon as having been completed have been deleted from the report as the process rolls forward. The report is in tabular form and comprises a brief synopsis of the Panel’s decisions and the subsequent action taken.
3. CONCLUSION
3.1 The Panel is requested to note the contents of the attached report.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Minutes and Reports of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery and Resources).
Contact Officer: Mr A Roberts - 01480 388009.
105 .
106 Panel Date Decision Action Response Date for Future Action 3/09/02 Tourism 1/04/03 Working Group established to explore The findings of the Progress report on the Tourism Strategy 6/01/04 the actions and achievements of the Working Group noted requested in 12 months time. Tourism Strategy. Head of Community Services to be invited to a future meeting to discuss the tourism industry in Huntingdonshire – See item elsewhere on the Agenda.
4/02/03 Emergency Planning Study to be undertaken into emergency Report on the scope of See report elsewhere on the Agenda. 6/01/04 planning. the study to be 107 submitted to a future meeting. 4/03/03 Twinning Study to be undertaken into twinning, Report on the scope of 3/02/04 including the Council’s policy, associated the study to be costs and aims and objectives submitted to a future meeting
Panel Date Decision Action Response Date for Future Action 1/06/03 Rural Economy and Services in Huntingdonshire Scoping report Report on the scope of the study to be 3/02/04 Study to be undertaken into the rural requested. submitted to a future meeting. economy and services in Huntingdonshire Representatives of Ramsey TCP, NFU, Rural Parishes, Cambridgeshire ACRE and the Ramsey Area Partnership Forum to be invited. 1/07/03 Overview and Scrutiny Arrangements Report submitted. Proposal to appoint a dedicated Overview To Be 2/09/03 Report requested on the feasibility of and Scrutiny Officer subsequently endorsed. Arranged
108 7/10/03 providing a dedicated Scrutiny Support Further report to be submitted on the Officer and holding the executive to outcome of the MTP bid. account. Principle of holding meetings of the Panel As around the District approved. Meetings to be Appropria arranged as appropriate Agenda items te emerge. 2/09/03 Services for Young People Study to be undertaken into services for Report on the scope of Policy Officer – Young People’s Participation 2/03/04 young people. the study to be to be invited to a future meeting to acquaint submitted to a future the Panel with details of her role and remit. meeting. Chairmen of Youth Councils in the District to be invited to a future meeting.
Panel Date Decision Action Response Date for Future Action 2/09/03 Monitoring of Performance Information Monthly monitoring Reports to be submitted to each meeting. Study to be undertaken into the reports requested. monitoring of performance information.
Following consideration of Performance Indicators, monthly progress against a range of indicators requested.
2/09/03 Post Office Network and Services 109 Update requested on the current position Study concluded. with regard to the Post Office Network and Services in the District.
2/09/03 Leisure Centres Strategy Progress report requested on the Progress report to be See item elsewhere on the Agenda. 6/01/04 implementation of the Leisure Centres submitted to a future Strategy. meeting.
Panel Date Decision Action Response Date for Future Action 7/10/03 Sun Beds Report requested on the provision by the Report requested. Report to the provision of sun beds. 2/03/04 Council of sun beds at the leisure centres. DPH to attend future meeting.
Director of Public Health to be invited to Invitation extended to speak to the Panel. DPH. 7/10/03 Connexions Presentation requested on the work of Invitation to attend a Presentation by the Chief Executive of 2/03/04 Connexions. future meeting of the Connexions to be delivered to the Panel at a
110 Panel extended to future meeting. Connexions. 2/12/03 Recycling Collections and Garden Report to be submitted Waste Trial – Information requested on to a future meeting. the usage and take-up of the service and how it is monitored.
Agenda Item 7
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL 6TH JANUARY 2004 (SERVICE DELIVERY AND RESOURCES)
BEST VALUE REVIEW - PROGRESS (Report by the Head of Administration)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this report is to enable the Panel to review progress with the Best Value programme.
2. BEST VALUE PROGRAMME
2.1 Set out below is the outstanding Best Value Review currently allocated to the Panel. Members participating in the Review are invited to comment on progress.
Service BVR Start BVR End Panel Cabinet Working Date Group
Housing to 29/07/02 TBA TBA TBA Cllrs Baker, meet Miss Elliott, External Garner, and Local Hansard*, Need/ Mrs Demand Wagstaffe and Watt.
* Lead Member
Contact Officer: A Roberts – 01480 388009
111 This page is intentionally left blank
112 Agenda Item 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8. HUNTINGDONSHIRE AREA HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE SCRUTINY PANEL
2nd December 2003
1. NOTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed as a correct record.
Arising from the notes, the following points were noted:
• That information on joining Patients Forums was available from Councillor Silby on request;
• An update on Foundation Hospitals: The response of the Health & Social Care Scrutiny Committee was considered by Cabinet on 25/11/03. Cabinet had suggested that the positive aspects of Foundation status were not sufficiently emphasised, and it would therefore be preparing its own response. However, the Health & Social Care Scrutiny Committee would be submitting a response in its own right.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were none.
3. PRESENTATION ON ELDERLY INTEGRATION CONSULTATION
Sharron Cozens, Director for Integration & Older People, Huntingdonshire PCT, and Gaynor Simpson, Operations Manager for Huntingdon Locality Home Bases Services, gave a presentation on the integration of health and social services for older people and adults in Huntingdonshire (see attached presentation).
Members noted:
• The issue was not whether integration takes place, but how it takes place, and what vision was taken forward. Integration should enable a more seamless way of working which will improve the services provided.
• Huntingdonshire had a larger than average population of very elderly people, whose needs were quite complex.
• The vision for older people’s services and the case for change. A key driver was to ensure that there was a simple, understandable system that could be easily accessed when older people required help.
• That there was a national service framework for older people. 113
• How integration may be delivered in practice.
• How Health providers will also become commissioners of services, (as was currently the case with Social Services).
• The implications for Social Services, including the transfer of 900 staff (200 locally), and the transfer of £70M into pooled budgets.
• The differences between Social Services and Health in terms of management, e.g. charging, performance indicators, IT and administration, and how these issues would create both problems and opportunities within the integrated service.
• The proposed model, notably the single referral system and joint assessment tool and process, supported by joint protocols.
• That the comments from the Health & Social Care Scrutiny Committee had focused on (i) the volume of work to be done before the service became operational in April 2004, (ii) the lack of Member involvement to date and (iii) cross boundary issues.
Arising from the report, Members:
• Observed that there were considerable management challenges, in terms of organisational change as well as operational issues.
• Noted that there had been an extensive consultation with staff and senior management (Chief Executives and Directors), and that there would be no redundancies.
• Noted that the structures were yet to be determined, and commented that whilst the aspirations were impressive, asked how realistic the ‘one stop’ goals were. Ms Cozens acknowledged that there would in all probability be teething problems, but that the objectives made it worthwhile.
• Noted that there was an Intermediate Care Team in Huntingdonshire which was similar to the ‘Hospital at Home’ service in Peterborough.
• Questioned whether Gloria Culyer, Chairman of Age Concern Cambridgeshire, had been involved in discussions. Ms Cozens advised that there had been wide consultation with the voluntary sector, including Mrs Culyer (Age Concern) and Mrs Tubberdy (Hunts Forum of Voluntary Organisations). Working with partners in Huntingdonshire was a very important part of the process, and a workshop with partners was being organised for 12/12/03.
• Discussed the implications in terms of increasing demand for complex services within Huntingdonshire as a result of having a larger population of very elderly people. It was suggested that there would be a need for more reliance on mental health services than
2 114 was proposed in the report, especially given that 1 in 4 people over 80 will at some point be diagnosed with dementia. It was noted that a similar integration process between Social Services and the Mental Health Team was taking place, and that locality teams may be combined with mental health teams in future.
• Discussed how the different charging mechanisms may be integrated, as NHS services were free whilst Social Services were means-tested.
• Commented on the importance of links with housing – and observed that quite often, the independence of older people can depend on what adaptations can be installed in their homes, and how quickly this can be done. It was noted that the integration of services will enable more spending decisions to be made locally.
• Commented favourably on the open-minded and flexible approach of the proposals.
• Noted that sometimes the decisions of the different agencies involved in a specific case differed, and that this was one of the principal advantages of an integrated system.
• Commented favourably on the benefits of joint projects such as Poppyfields in St Neots, where independent living was encouraged, and the greater ability of an integrated service to influence how budgets were spend and needs were met.
• Noted that whilst the integrated service would improve service in many ways, it should not be regarded as a solution to the problems currently experienced by both services.
• Noted that independent contractors’ services, including dentists and optometrists, were recently transferred over to the PCT.
• Noted that there was currently no waiting list for nursing home care, unless the person was waiting for a specific named choice of nursing home.
• Discussed warden controlled schemes.
• Discussed the long term implications of caring for more people in their own homes, in terms of a possible increase in the number of vacancies in residential and nursing homes and hence an increase in unit costs per place.
Members thanked Ms Cozens and Ms Simpson for their informative presentation and requested a report back at a future meeting.
3 115
4. ACCESS TO CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (CAMHS) FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN HUNTINGDONSHIRE
Members noted that Councillors Banerjee and Wallis, who were undertaking this review on behalf of the Panel, hoped to meet up with parents who had undertaken the parent survey exercise, early in the new year. Lesley Stephen would then produce a report for the Panel on this issue, the progress made, and agreement on the conclusions to be reported back to CAMHS, for the 13/04/04 meeting.
5. SMOKING PREVENTION IN YOUNG PEOPLE
Councillor Downes proposed a Project Brief.
Members:
• Noted positive feedback from the Tobacco Alliance Launch Conference on 12/11/03, and the types of information and issues raised at the event. Members commented that it appeared that agencies were working in isolation, and there was little co- ordination. Mrs Griffiths commented that one of the purposes of the Conference was to bring together all partners with the newly launched Tobacco Alliance, to determine a way forward. Ms Weston outlined the scope and remit of the Tobacco Alliance.
• Suggested that smoking prevention/cessation marketing which targeted young people should focus on the reasons they smoke – evidence suggests that many young girls start smoking because they think it will keep them slim. Marketing needs to include role models who young people respect, to enforce an anti-smoking message.
• Noted the focus of the Brief on preventing young people smoking in first instance in Huntingdonshire. The review aimed to assess the effectiveness of current measures to prevent smoking in young people, and identify whether further action needs to be taken.
• Noted that the Members undertaking the Review wanted to speak to as many relevant stakeholders as possible, including PCSOs, children, teachers and parents.
• Noted the proposed action plan and timetable.
• Discussed the importance of finding out why some young people start smoking yet others do not, and the range of issues, e.g. socio- economic factors that needed to be considered.
• Noted that the Tobacco Alliance worked very closely with the PHSC Service.
4 116 • A key objective was to identify any gaps in the current smoking prevention initiatives.
• A Member commented that one difficulty in tackling this issue through schools was that those children who smoked were also those who were more likely to play truant.
• Commented on the role of Trading Standards, e.g. through test purchasing at retail outlets, and of the Proof of Age Partnership.
Councillor Downes acknowledged that the Project Brief was quite ambitious given the short timescale. Mrs Griffiths commented favourably on the Brief, but was not convinced that the ultimate objective of a pilot in schools to prevent smoking was attainable. Mrs Griffiths and Ms Weston agreed to provide guidance and information to the Members undertaking the review.
Members expressed full support for the Project Brief.
6. REVIEW OF FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME
It was agreed that:
• the ‘Access to CAMHS for young people with mental health problems in Huntingdonshire’ issue would be concluded at the 13/04/04 meeting.
• There would be a report back on the Smoking prevention in young people item at the 13/04/04 meeting.
• There would be a report back on progress with the Integration of services for the Elderly at a future meeting.
• That the Director of Public Health or Chief Executive of Huntingdonshire PCT would be invited to attend a future meeting to identify priorities and issues for Huntingdonshire.
It was suggested that it would be helpful for the Panel to revisit the list of possible areas for scrutiny identified at the Panel’s Launch event on 24/02/03.
5. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The Panel noted that the next meeting would take place on 13th April at 2.30pm. Venue to be confirmed.
Members of the Panel in attendance:
County Councillors P Downes, A Hansard (Chairman), W Hensley, W Silby
5 117 District Councillors M Banerjee, F Wagstaffe, B Wallis
Officers in attendance Lesley Stephen, Cambridgeshire County Council Dawn Melsom, Cambridgeshire County Council Sharron Cozens, Huntingdonshire PCT Gaynor Simpson, Cambridgeshire County Council Jenny Weston, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Public Health Network Nikki Griffiths, Huntingdonshire PCT
Others in attendance Jim Davie Ruth Clapham
Apologies: Steve Plant, Huntingdonshire District Council
Time: 2.30-4.30pm Venue: Pathfinder House, Huntingdon
6 118
FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS Prepared by Cllr D P Holley Date of Publication: 2 March 2004 For Period: 1 January to 30 April 2004
Membership of the Cabinet is as follows:-
Councillor D P Holley - Leader of the Council Grange House Raveley Road Woodwalton Huntingdon PE28 5YX
Tel: 01487 773639 E-mail: [email protected] Councillor I C Bates - Deputy Leader of the Council and Executive Councillor for Housing 4 Church End Hilton Huntingdon PE28 9NJ
119 Tel: 01480 830250 E-mail: [email protected] Councillor Mrs K P Gregory – Executive Councillor for the Environment 63 Milton Avenue Eaton Ford St Neots PE19 7LH
Tel: 01480 356710 E-mail: [email protected] Councillor R L Clarke - Executive Councillor for Service Delivery 5 Hall Close Little Paxton St Neots PE19 6QS
Tel: 01480 388952 E-mail: [email protected]
Councillor Mrs J Chandler – Executive Councillor for Leisure 28 Beech Drive Agenda Item9 St Ives Cambs PE27 6UB
Tel: 01480 388925 E-mail: [email protected] Councillor L M Simpson – Executive Councillor for Resources & Welfare and 45 Devoke Close Information Technology Stukeley Meadows Huntingdon Cambs PE29 6XE
Tel: 01480 388946 E-mail: [email protected] Councillor N J Guyatt – Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy 6 Church Lane Stibbington Cambs PE8 6LP
Tel: 01780 782827 E-mail: [email protected] Councillor T V Rogers – Executive Councillor for Finance Honeysuckle Cottage 34 Meadow Lane Earith Huntingdon PE28 3QE
Tel: 01487 840477 E-mail: [email protected]
Any person who wishes to make representations to the decision maker about a decision which is to be made may do so by contacting the Senior Democratic Services Officer, Mrs Helen Taylor on 01480 38808 or E-mail: [email protected] not less than 14 days prior to the date when the decision is to be made.
The documents available may be obtained by contacting the relevant officer shown in this plan who will be responsible for preparing the final report to be submitted to the decision maker on the matter in relation to which the decision is to be made. Similarly any enquiries as to the subject or matter to be tabled for decision or on the availability of supporting information or documentation should be directed to the relevant officer.
Roy Reeves Head of Administration
Notes:- (i) Additions/significant changes from the previous Forward are annotated *** (ii) For information about how representations about the above decisions may be made please see the Council’s Petitions Procedure at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk/central_serv/Documents/Petitions%20leaflet.pdf or telephone 01480 388006
120
Subject/Matter Decision/ Date Documents How relevant Officer Consultation Relevant Relevant for Decision recommendation decision to Available can be contacted Portfolio Overview & to be made by be taken Holder (Cllr) Scrutiny Panel
Council Tax - Second Cabinet 8 Jan 2004 Section 6 of Local Ms Julia Barber, Head of Revenue Services T V Rogers Planning and Homes Government Act 2003 Tel No 01480 388105 or e-mail Finance [email protected]
Housing Benefit Cabinet 8 Jan 2004 None. Ms Julia Barber, Head of Revenue Services T V Rogers Planning and Policy and Strategy Tel No 01480 388105 or e-mail Finance [email protected]
Council Tax Base Council 8 Jan 2004 None. Ms Julia Barber, Head of Revenue Services T V Rogers Planning and Tel No 01480 388105 or e-mail Finance [email protected]
Subject/Matter Decision/ Date Documents How relevant Officer Consultation Relevant Relevant for Decision recommendation decision to Available can be contacted Portfolio Overview & to be made by be taken Holder (Cllr) Scrutiny Panel
Anti-Fraud and Cabinet 8 Jan 2004 None. David Harwood, Audit Manager Tel No L M Simpson Service Delivery Corruption Strategy 01480 388115 or e-mail and Resources [email protected]
Twenty 16 Analysis Cabinet 8 Jan 2004 None. Dr Michael Bingham, Policy Team Leader N J Guyatt Planning and and programme Tel No 01480 388431 or e-mail Finance towards new Local [email protected] Plan
Definition of Cabinet 8 Jan 2004 Corporate Community Ms Sonia Hansen, Development and Feedback from Mrs K P Service Delivery Community Safety Safety Strategy Community Manager Tel No 01480 388341 Members workshop Gregory and Resources or e-mail [email protected] on 1.10.03
121
Car Parking Strategy Cabinet 8 Jan 2004 None. Richard Preston, Head of Environment and Feedback from public N J Guyatt/ Planning and Consultation Results Transport Tel No 01480 388340 or e-mail consultation Mrs K P Finance/ [email protected] Gregory Service Delivery and Resources
Airport Strategy for Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 None. Mrs Elizabeth Wilson, Director of Operational N J Guyatt Planning and the South East*** Services Tel No 01480 388301 or e-mail Finance [email protected]
Social Housing Grant Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 Office of Deputy Frank Mastrandrea, Policy and Enabling I C Bates Service Delivery for Affordable Prime Minister Officer Tel No 01480 388208 or e-mail and Resources Housing Communities Plan [email protected] South East: Correspondence to and from GO-East
Rural Bus Stops Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 Study carried out by Richard Preston, Head of Environment and N J Guyatt Planning and Environment and Transport Tel No 01480 388340 or e-mail Finance Transport [email protected]
Subject/Matter Decision/ Date Documents How relevant Officer Consultation Relevant Relevant for Decision recommendation decision to Available can be contacted Portfolio Overview & to be made by be taken Holder (Cllr) Scrutiny Panel
Town Centres Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 None. Mrs Elizabeth Wilson, Director of Operational N J Guyatt Planning and Development Advice Services Tel No 01480 388301 or e-mail Finance [email protected]
Acorn Community Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 None. Keith Phillips, Estates Manager Tel No. Undertaken as part of L M Simpson/ Service Delivery Health Centre, 01480 388260 or e-mail Keith.Phillips the Oxmoor Action T V Rogers and Resources/ Sapley Square West @huntsdc.gov.uk or Steve Couper, Head of Plan – Consultation Finance and Financial Services, Tel No. 01480 388103 or with PCT Delivery e-mail [email protected]
Land at Buttsgove Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 Growth area bid Keith Phillips, Estates Manager Tel No Undertaken as part of L M Simpson/ Service Delivery Way, Huntingdon 01480 388260 or e-mail the Oxmoor Action I C Bates and Resources [email protected] or Frank Plan Mastrandrea, Policy and Enabling Officer Tel No 01480 388209 or e-mail 122 [email protected]
BVR - Access to Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 None. David Oliver, Corporate Director, Commerce L M Simpson Planning and Services and Technology Tel No. 01480 388101 or e- Finance mail [email protected]
Consultation Paper - Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 None. Dr Michael Bingham, Policy Team Leader N J Guyatt Planning and Local Development Tel No 01480 388431 or e-mail Finance Framework (PPS 12) [email protected]
Rapid Transit Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 Cambridgeshire Richard Preston, Head of Environment and Report of CCC N J Guyatt Planning and System - Issues County Council's Transport Tel No 01480 388340 or e-mail consultation Finance Paper Cabinet Report [email protected]
Land Charges Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 None. Roy Reeves, Head of Administration Tel No L M Simpson Service Delivery 01480 388003 or e-mail and Resources [email protected]
Subject/Matter Decision/ Date Documents How relevant Officer Consultation Relevant Relevant for Decision recommendation decision to Available can be contacted Portfolio Overview & to be made by be taken Holder (Cllr) Scrutiny Panel
Budget, Medium Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 None. Steve Couper, Head of Financial Services Overview and T V Rogers Planning and Term Plan and Tel No 01480 388103 or e-mail Scrutiny Panels Finance maximum borrowing Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 [email protected] limits
St Neots Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager N J Guyatt Planning and Conservation Area Tel No 01480 388430 or e-mail Finance Character Statement [email protected]
LTP - Government Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 Approved LTP Stuart Bell, Transportation Team Leader Tel N J Guyatt Planning and Response 2004/11 No. 01480 388387 or e-mail Finance
APR Settlement Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 APR 2002/03 Stuart Bell, Transportation Team Leader Tel N J Guyatt/ Planning and No 01480 388387 or e-mail Mrs K P Finance/ [email protected] Gregory Service Delivery and Resoures
Emergency Planning Cabinet 29 Jan 2004 Dealing with Disaster Richard Preston, Head of Environment and L M Simpson Service Delivery Procedures Civil Contingencies Transport Tel No 01480 388340 or e-mail and Resources Bill [email protected]
Office Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 None. Mrs Elizabeth Wilson, Director of Operational D Holley Service Delivery Accommodation*** Services Tel No 01480 388301 or e-mail and Resources/ Cabinet 22 Apr 2004 [email protected] Planning and Finance
Subject/Matter Decision/ Date Documents How relevant Officer Consultation Relevant Relevant for Decision recommendation decision to Available can be contacted Portfolio Overview & to be made by be taken Holder (Cllr) Scrutiny Panel
Huntingdon Town Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 None. Mrs Elizabeth Wilson, Director of Operational N J Guyatt Planning and Centre Development Services Tel No 01480 388301 or e-mail Finance Advice*** [email protected]
PFI Waste Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 CCA Waste Forum Mrs Elizabeth Wilson, Director of Operational Mrs K P Service Delivery Management Minutes Services Tel No 01480 388301 or e-mail Gregory and Resources Update*** Cabinet 22 Apr 2004 [email protected]
Chequer's Court Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager Churchmanor (the N J Guyatt/ Planning and Development Tel No 01480 388430 or e-mail development of Mrs K P Finance Framework [email protected] Phase 2 of Chequer’s Gregory Court) Sainsbury’s 124
St Ives Residential Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager N J Guyatt Planning and Allocations Design Tel No 01480 388430 or e-mail Finance Framework and Gap [email protected] Study
Conservatories - Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager Once content of draft N J Guyatt Planning and Supplementary Tel No 01480 388430 or e-mail approved for Finance Planning Guidance [email protected] consultation
Development Plan Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager N J Guyatt Planning and Scheme Tel No 01480 388430 or e-mail Finance [email protected]
Subject/Matter Decision/ Date Documents How relevant Officer Consultation Relevant Relevant for Decision recommendation decision to Available can be contacted Portfolio Overview & to be made by be taken Holder (Cllr) Scrutiny Panel
Housing Mix Cabinet 12 Feb 2004 None. Dr Michael Bingham, Policy Team Leader N J Guyatt Planning and Tel No 01480 388431 or e-mail Finance [email protected]
Office Cabinet 4 Mar 2004 None. Richard Preston, Head of Environment and D P Holley Service Delivery Accommodation - Transport Tel No 01480 388340 or e-mail and Resources/ Approval of [email protected] Planning and Consultants*** Finance
West of Town Centre Cabinet 4 Mar 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager N J Guyatt Planning and Progress Report Tel No. 01480 388430 or e-mail Richard Finance [email protected]
125
Ramsey Area Action Cabinet 25 Mar 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager Ramsey Area N J Guyatt Planning and Plan Tel No 01480 388430 or e-mail Partnership Finance [email protected]
Ramsey Cabinet 25 Mar 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager N J Guyatt Planning and Conservation Area Tel No 01480 388430 or e-mail Finance Statement [email protected]
Revision of Cabinet 22 Apr 2004 None. Richard Probyn, Planning Policy Manager N J Guyatt Planning and Conservation Area Tel No 01480 388430 or e-mail Finance Boundaries for [email protected] Huntingdon/ Godmanchester/St Ives
This page is intentionally left blank
126 Agenda Item 10
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
This is your monthly summary of the decisions taken at meetings of the Council, Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny and other Panels, for the period 24th November – 24th December 2003.
Further information on any of the items contained in the Digest can be obtained by contacting the Democratic Services Section - (01480) 388007.
Budget 2004-2009 Medium Term Plan
The Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Planning and Finance) has given further consideration to the proposed budget for 2004/05 and the Medium Term Plan for 2004-09 at a Special meeting held on 27th November 2003.
The Panel discussed whether the Council should retain the same level of Council Tax in 2004/05 and concluded that, in their view, an increase was necessary to reduce the level of increase predicted for 2008/09. The Panel discussed potential levels of Council Tax increases and expressed their general support for an increase in the region of 6/7% which would equate to an approximate increase of 50p per month on a Band D property. It was also suggested that any increase in Council Tax levels should be explained to the public in terms of the cost per week for the additional services provided by the Council.
In considering the draft Medium Term Plan, particular reference was made by Members to the levels of expenditure envisaged in the Implementing Electronic Government Statement and the Customer First Programme and questions have been raised as to whether this could be sustained in the current financial position.
Following a wide ranging debate in which the Panel has discussed the potential for identifying savings in the base budget, the cash limits set at the September meeting of the Council, the potential for increasing fees and charges and the volume of new schemes proposed for inclusion in the Medium Term Plan the Panel agreed that the following recommendations be made to the Cabinet:
♦ that Council Tax be increased in the region of 6/7% for 2004/05 and that any increase be explained to the public in terms of the extra cost per week for the 1 127
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
additional services provided;
♦ that the Cabinet identify efficiency savings in the base budget of between 1.5 and 2%;
♦ that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel be involved in any review of the base budget when this is undertaken;
♦ that Cabinet consider current levels of fees and charges and the scope for the generation of additional revenue from increases in charges; and
♦ that the decisions on the Financial Strategy taken by the Council in September 2003 in relation to agreed cash limits be adhered to and any additional spending in 2004/05 be met from the overall levels of expenditure approved by the Council at the time.
Redundancy Policy and Procedure
The Employment Panel has considered the content of a revised redundancy policy and procedure for the Council. Having been informed that the current policy was no longer consistent with current legislation and the need to comply with the Council’s People Strategy, the Panel approved a revised Redundancy Policy for all employees on the Green Book National Conditions of Service, together with a new redundancy procedure for use in any potential redundancy situation.
Implementing Customer First
The Employment Panel has approved a set of guiding principles to be used as a template for the staffing/structural changes likely to arise from the implementation of the Customer First Programme. These address a number of issues including job evaluations, early retirements, ring fencing arrangements and protection for staff and displaced employees.
2 128
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
The Anti Fraud and Corruption Strategy
A proposed Anti Fraud and Corruption Strategy has been endorsed by the Employment Panel prior to its submission to the Cabinet. Whilst the Council has a number of policies and procedures that deal with the treatment of reported and discovered fraud and corruption, there is currently no overall approach towards tackling these issues. The proposed Strategy highlights the Council’s attitude and commitment towards preventing fraud, corruption and theft, lists the policies and procedures in place and explains the process to be adopted for reviewing the Strategy. Subject to a minor amendment to the wording of the proposed Strategy to reflect that the District Council would pursue “appropriate action in all instances where fraud, corruption and theft are found”, the Standards Committee has endorsed the draft Strategy for submission to the Cabinet.
Fitness Staff Bonus Scheme
A proposal to restructure the bonus scheme for Fitness Staff within the Impressions Fitness Studios has been approved by the Employment Panel. The Scheme is designed to maximise net income for the Centres and the District Council and will be calculated for Fitness Staff on the performance of their own centre against performance targets on a quarterly basis.
Staffing Review Operational Services
Subject to the Cabinet identifying the necessary funding, the Employment Panel has approved the terms of packages to be offered to two employees in the Operational Services Directorate as a consequence of the grant of early retirement. Compensatory payments have subsequently been approved by the Cabinet.
Reclassification of Byways
The Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Planning and Finance) have received a presentation from County Council representatives on issues relating to the reclassification of by-ways in the District. During the course of the presentation the Panel were informed of the status of by-ways open to all traffic (BOATS), the procedure for issuing temporary traffic regulation orders to regulate usage in wet weather conditions and downgrading BOATS to prevent use by motorised vehicles.
The Panel was informed that downgrading can only occur if it was proven that a byway was unnecessary and have expressed their concerns over the need for the
3 129
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
protection of those by-ways which were increasingly being damaged by four by four vehicles. This was exacerbated by the limited length of time which temporary traffic regulations orders could be in existence each year and the availability of County Council funds to reinstate those by-ways which were damaged by vehicle drivers.
The Panel has discussed what advice Members could provide to Parish Councils who were concerned about usage of particular Rights of Way and it was explained that, in the first instance a Parish Council should approach the County Council who would then examine each situation on a case by case basis. Officers would then attempt to secure improvements by negotiation or temporary closure before considering downgrading as a final resort.
Huntingdonshire Car Parking Strategy 2004-2016
The draft Car Parking Strategy for 2004-2016 has been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Panels. The Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Planning and Finance) have discussed the length of the consultation process, the costs involved in the decking of town centre car parks and the relationship with the Market Town Transport Strategies. The Panel has discussed the efforts being made to reduce reliance on cars as a means of transportation and were informed that the Rapid Transit System and the implementation of green travel plans were likely to have some impact and the Car Parking Strategy would be reviewed periodically to reflect changing circumstances.
The Panel has also discussed the levels of car parking charges and noted that the Strategy needed to balance the desirability of increasing the use of public transport and reducing reliance on the car against the danger of deterring motorists from shopping in the market towns in the District. Concerns were expressed that increased charges might encourage long stay parking in residential areas and Members were informed that consideration could be given to introducing parking restrictions in particular problem areas, although this was reliant upon action by the County Council as the highway authority.
The Panel discussed levels of expenditure on car parking improvements, parking provision at the railway stations in the District and short term parking in St Ives. At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor N J Guyatt undertook to convey the comments raised by the Panel to the Cabinet, including a concern in relation to the length of the consultation period.
The Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery and Resources) discussed a range of issues relating to car parking, including future levels of demand, on street parking, the economic impact of parking policies in towns, income and expenditure, enforcement and the Rapid Transit System. However, the Panel has decided to reserve its comment to the Cabinet on the Strategy pending the receipt of further information on the responses of the public to the questionnaire.
4 130
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
Risk Management Strategy
The draft Risk Management Strategy for the Council has been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Planning and Finance) prior to its submission to the Cabinet.
The Panel have noted the need to formalise and develop the present risk management arrangements and have discussed the role and purpose of the cross directorate Risk Management Group and its value in disseminating best practice.
Having been informed that authorities were required to demonstrate for the purpose of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment and compliance with Accounts and Audit Regulations that a Strategy had been approved and implemented, the Panel has noted that work was currently underway in reviewing disaster and recovery plans, a report upon which would be submitted to a future meeting of the Panel. The Panel subsequently agreed that the Cabinet be informed that they have no objection to the proposed Risk Management Strategy and their role in reviewing its effectiveness on an annual basis.
Performance Monitoring
The Overview and Scrutiny Panels have reviewed progress in the implementation of Service Improvement Plans arising from the Best Value Review Programme and Best Value Performance Indicators.
In considering the Best Value Performance Indicators, the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Planning and Finance) have discussed those indicators which appeared to be inconsistent with best quartile and audit targets and the trends compared with previous years. These included the increasing costs of planning per head of population and waste collection per household, the numbers of standard searches completed within 10 working days and the percentage of local authority buildings open to the public. It was subsequently agreed the Councillors P Mitchell and C W Looker be requested to investigate the Panel’s concerns in relation to the cost of planning in comparison with the best quartile statistics and report back to a future meeting.
The Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery and Resources) has commented that it would be desirable, in future, for a summary of the report on Service Improvement Plans to contain anticipated completion dates and clearer descriptions for each identified improvement. The Head of Policy has, as a result, agreed to include both together with a summary of achievements made in future reports. With regard to the Performance Indicators, the Members have selected a range of indicators, which they will monitor on a monthly basis. They have also asked that the quartile in which each indicator falls is reported.
5 131
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
Overview and Scrutiny Workplan / Future Agenda Items
Having regard to the need to identify studies for future meetings, the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Planning and Finance) have agreed to use part of their next pre meeting briefing for this purpose. It has also been suggested that the Panel should review the scale of the Council’s expenditure on Information Technology and with this in mind the Panel have agreed that Councillor C W Looker should liaise with the Head of Administration to discuss the best way to take this forward.
The Panel have also requested that an item relating to progress on the Street Warden scheme operated by Huntingdonshire Housing Partnership be included on their agenda for a future meeting.
CCTV In Rural Post Offices
Having been advised that there had been no expression of interest in the scheme whereby the Council offered remote CCTV monitoring of rural post offices, the Cabinet has agreed to delete the existing provision of £5,000 per annum set aside in the Medium Term Plan for that purpose. At the same time, the Cabinet has requested the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership to consider any issues of concern in relation to the security of rural post offices should these emerge in future.
This matter previously had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery and Resources) who had concurred with the proposed course of action.
Treasury Management Investment – Performance
The levels of performance achieved by external funding managers and the investment of the Council’s capital receipts during the period July – September 2003 has been reviewed by the Cabinet.
Publication of Rural Settlement List
An amended Draft Rural Settlement list for Huntingdonshire has been approved by the Cabinet. The changes had been necessary as a result of an increase in growth in some rural areas. The list will now be made available for inspection from January to March 2004.
6 132
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
Provision of Public Conveniences
In considering the recommendations of the Public Convenience Advisory Group regarding the provision and operation of public conveniences in the District’s Towns, the Cabinet has agreed to
♦ replace existing town centre public conveniences by semi- automated facilities based on an individual cubicle design with direct access;
♦ request the Head of Environmental Health and Transport to contact Godmanchester, Ramsey, St. Ives, St. Neots and Huntingdon town councils to ascertain whether they wished initially to enter into an agency agreement and ultimately to tender for a contract to maintain and clean those public conveniences in their towns;
♦ request the Head of Environment and Transport to invite separate tenders for the external design/construction, maintenance and cleaning of public conveniences in the town centres as part of one contract and for a design/construction contract only;
♦ support a Medium Term Plan bid relating to the cessation of the automatic public convenience service in the villages; and
♦ inform the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery and Resources) of the deliberations of the meeting of the Advisory Group.
Parish Plans – Maximising their Contribution to the Council
Having noted the role and contribution of parish plans to the Council’s policy and decision making process, the Cabinet has supported the development of the Parish Plan Programme within the District in partnership with Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE). At the same time the Cabinet has agreed to support various parishes identified as requiring assistance in undertaking the preparation of a Parish Plan over the next two years.
Office Accommodation
In discussing a number of recommendations by the District Council’s Headquarters and Other Accommodation Members’ Advisory Group, the Cabinet has agreed, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations - to locate for a temporary period of three years the District Council’s Contact Centre at Speke
7 133
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
House, St. Ives and to retain consultants to undertake a feasibility study of options for the relocation of the District Council’s Headquarters to take into account the following:-
♦ the existing bus station site on Huntingdon Town Centre;
♦ redevelopment of the Pathfinder House site;
♦ refurbishment of Pathfinder House; and
♦ the identification of a site on the periphery of Huntingdon (subject to the identification of a suitable site of 50 – 70,000 sq ft and an understanding that it would be complemented by a customer service centre in or convenient to the Town Centre).
Tree Preservation Order
The Development Control Panel has confirmed a tree preservation order to protect on oak, four white poplars and fifteen pine on the site of Tesco store and petrol filling station at St Peter’s Road, Huntingdon.
Development applications
Eleven applications were considered by the Development Control Panel in December and of these six were approved four refused and one deferred in response to the observations of Ramsey Town Council to try to achieve changes to the design of an extension to an opticians surgery in Ramsey to secure a pitched rather than flat roof.
Appeal Decisions
In noting the outcome of five appeals conducted by the Planning Inspector against the refusal of planning permission by the District Council, the Development Control Panel has been advised that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had recently announced that they had allowed the appeal against the decision to refuse planning permission for warehouse development on the former airfield at Alconbury. A detailed report on the decision and conditions will be submitted to the Panel’s meeting in January.
8 134
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
Proposed Amendments to the Scheme of Delegated Powers in Respect of Development Control
The Development Control Panel has undertaken its annual review of the scheme of delegation in the light of operational experience since its last review in 2002. It was considered that four areas would benefit from minor amendment. These concerned the proposed delegation of applications considered to be technically deficient and those which had lain dormant within the application system for a period of 12 months. In addition, the value of the contribution negotiated under S106 Agreements which can be dealt with by the Head of Planning Services without recourse to the Members Advisory Group has been increased from £30,000 to £50,000. A minor amendment to the wording of the current scheme to clarify the circumstances under which applications are referred to the Panel also has been approved. The amended scheme will operate with immediate effect.
Whistleblowing: Policy and Procedure
The Standards Committee has undertaken its third annual review of the operation of the whistle blowing policy and procedure which was first established in response to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1999. The policy provides a framework for staff to make a disclosure or whistleblow about wrong doing within the Council. Although the annual review has concluded that the policy and procedure do not require amendment, publicity will be given to the existence of the policy both internally and externally to the Council, the policy, procedure and electronic disclosure form will be published on the Council’s website and a standard whistle blowing condition will be prepared and included in all contracts that exceed £30,000.
Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) (Local Determinations) Regulations 2003
Following the publication of Local Determination Regulations, the Standards Committee has approved a procedure which will assist in preparations for and the conduct of hearings in anticipation of the reference of cases by the Standards Board for England for determination. The Committee will be required to consider whether or not a Member has failed to follow the Council’s Code of Conduct and, if so, to decide whether or not any penalty should be applied and what form that penalty should take. The Executive Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer, after consultation with the Chairman of the Committee was authorised by the Committee to administer the pre hearing process and to convene and appoint five Members to comprise a Panel in the event that a case is referred to the District Council by the Standards Board.
9 135
Huntingdonshire District Council - Edition 39
Application for Dispensations
In response to a request from Huntingdon Town Council, the Standards Committee has granted dispensations to speak but not vote to six Members of the Town Council’s twinning Sub-Committee for the period ending 30th April 2007 to enable them to continue to participate in meetings of the Sub-Committee when matters relating to grant applications and budgetary functions relating to twinning arise.
Notifications From the Standards Board
In accordance with the procedure adopted by the Standards Board for England, the Standards Committee has noted that the Standards Board has agreed not to take any further action in relation to allegations made against nine Members of the Development Control Panel and four ordinary Members of the Southoe and Midloe Parish Council but has referred to an Ethical Standards Officer a complaint made against the Chairman of that Parish Council.
Local Government Act 2000 – Forward Plan
The Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery and Resources) has reiterated concerns previously expressed at the inclusion in the Forward Plan of new items scheduled for the next Cabinet meeting, which prevented these from being scrutinised prior to determination and of the absence of background documents. The Chairman of the Panel has been authorised to write to the Leader of the Council drawing his attention to these matters.
Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing
The Licensing and Protection Applications Sub-Group has determined an application for a hackney carriage and private hire driver’s licence from an applicant who did not meet the Council’s criteria to hold a licence. The Panel decided that the licence should not be granted.
10 136