Agenda and Draft Minutes

Apology received from Councillors Parry and Windsor.

(a)            Disclosures of interest and their nature ie prejudicial or personal.

 

(b)            Disclosures of lobbying.

 

(c)            Disclosures of whipping.

Councillors Thomas, Reuby and Samper declared that they were members or reserve members of the Development Control committee in relation to the discussion on the City Life Scrutiny review report.

Provided that notification has been given to the Chief Executive by 12.30pm on Tuesday 9 March 2010, members of the public may speak on any item on the agenda for a maximum of three minutes.

 

The Chairman to report any notifications received.

None.

TO CONFIRM as a true record subject to the inclusion of Councillor Parry under apologies.

The minutes were agreed as a correct record.

TO CONSIDER whether any of the decisions made by the Executive at its meeting on 4 March 2010, should be called-in.

 

Please bring your copy of the agenda and the minutes for the Executive meeting.

 

Copies of both will be available at the meeting for members of the public.

 

Members are reminded that a request for call-in must be delivered to the Monitoring officer within three clear working days of the publication of the decision.

 

There were no call-ins of the decisions made by the Executive at its meeting on the 4 March 2010.  The Chairman drew attention to the fact he had waived call-in powers for the report to the Executive meeting, 4 March, on the relocation of the Pier Sports Centre.  This was to enable a resolution to be passed giving delegated authority to officers to reach an agreement on behalf of the council by the prescribed deadline of 5 March. 

To Consider.

The Improvement Manager provided an update to the action plan arising from the review: 

 

i)                    Action 7 – a response was awaited from Natural England.  Money was available for a limited period of two years but clarification was being sought from Natural England on the funding position beyond the two-year period. 

 

ii)                  Action 6 – disappointment was expressed that no private hire company arrangement had been established.  It was noted that no Parish Council had taken up the opportunity to investigate the matter further.  The point was made that take up of the scheme might be low and this may have been the reason for the lack of interest.

 

RESOLVED –

1. In respect of Action 7, that the Senior Transport Planner be requested to provide an update to a future meeting on the outcome of discussions with Natural England.

2. In respect of Action 6, that a request be made to add an item to the next Parish Forum to establish if the lack of interest was due to funding or another reason.  Depending on the outcome, the sub-committee would consider whether or not to refer the matter to the Joint Transport Board. 

To Consider.

The Chairman introduced the report.  The committee considered the points raised at the Canterbury Area Member Panel earlier in the week and agreed the following: -

 

i)                    That the land adjoining the Odeon Cinema south of St George's Place, Canterbury was used by some as a public toilet - ACKNOWLEDGED;

 

ii)                  That the map in Section 10 (Safer City) should be revised to include additional main pedestrian routes including those from south Canterbury and the pedestrian routes to Christ Church University via Love Lane, Monastery Street and Havelock Street - AGREED;

 

iii)                Provision of toilets in the bus station - REJECTED.  This was a matter for the station operator;

 

iv)                The request to provide benches along the whole of length of the pedestianised area in the city centre for use by the elderly and people with disabilities - REJECTED;

 

v)                  The comment from a member of the scrutiny review panel that there should be a greater emphasis on the Police decision to increase patrols in the city centre – AGREED.  It was agreed that the following statement be inserted into Section 8 of the report: “The council welcomes the recent decision by the Police to increase the patrols in the city centre and trusts that this will be maintained”.  Officers were granted delegated authority to amend the report as necessary to incorporate this comment.   

 

The sub-committee then considered the report and made the following comments: -

 

i)                    Some of the quotations and photographs presented a negative picture.  It was pointed out that the review panel had included more positive photos at the final stage of drafting.  The consultation had drawn out the issues people would like to see addressed and this had to be reflected in the report.   

 

ii)                  The recommendations should be costed.  It was pointed out that the role of the scrutiny review panel was to identify the issues and suggest possible solutions for the Executive to consider.  It was not the role of the scrutiny review panel to establish the costs at this stage of the process.   It was noted that the City Centre Action Group (CCAG) would be invited to prepare costings where appropriate.  It was also noted that a recommendation had been included that the CCAG should report to a Senior Officer who could refer relevant matters to Management Team.  

 

iii)                Where it was stated that the recommendation could be implemented using existing officer resources, there was still a cost in terms of how their work was prioritised.  In response it was stated that the recommendation would result in a more focussed approach rather then a change in priority. 

 

iv)                Was there a timescale that could be placed on the recommendations?  The timescales were variable depending in the nature of the recommendation and the capacity of the officers and partners affected.  These would be considered as part of the regular action plan progress updates to the Sub-Committee.

 

RESOLVED –

1. That the  recommendations set out at the end of the report be accepted and referred  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To Note.

The Assistant Head of Democratic Services introduced the report.  He said there had been a threefold increase in the number of requests since the introduction of Freedom of Information in 2005.  He drew attention to the council’s performance in responding to requests, which was above the national average reported in a recent survey. 

 

Information was provided on the number of requests referred to each department and the breakdown of requestor types.  It was noted that journalists was the highest individual category of requestor. 

 

The sub-committee debated how FoI had helped councils to improve the quality of the responses provided to enquiries.  It was noted that Canterbury had been praised for its openness and transparency in the local press.  A question was asked about how persistent complainants were dealt with.  It was stated that the council could refuse to respond if it felt that the requests were becoming voluminous or vexatious.

 

RESOLVED – That the report be noted and a recommendation made that at some point in a future the answers to the most frequently asked requests be published on the council website.

To Consider

The sub-committee received the monitoring update for the current programme of scrutiny reviews. 

 

The expected completion date for the Council-run Leisure Facilities review was questioned.  The sub-committee was advised that there had been a debate about the involvement of the portfolio holder in the review.  Advice had been received from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services that the portfolio holder could not be part of the review group, so it had yet to be decided whether a scrutiny panel or an Executive Working Group would conduct the review.

 

It was pointed out that the general election would lead to a number of members being unable to attend meetings.  The chairman said the scheduling of meetings would be a matter for each panel to decide. 

 

RESOLVED – that the report be noted.

The next meeting of the Scrutiny Sub Committee will take place on Wednesday 7 March 2010.

 

Items under consideration will included:

 

Crime and Disorder Partnership Scrutiny

The next meeting of the Scrutiny Sub-Committee would be on Wednesday 7 April 2010 at 9.30am. 

 

Items for the agenda would include reports on the Westgate Towers scrutiny review action plan and the 2010/11 scrutiny review programme.