Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Graham Morris.

To note any declarations of interest from the Councillors.  They are asked to indicate the relevant agenda item, the nature of the interest and in particular whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Any declarations of interest made at the meeting which is not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.

The following non-pecuniary interests were declared;

Councillor Tim Kent declared that a family member had an Education Health and Care Plan.

To agree the minutes of the meetings on 12 July and 20 September as a correct record.

The Chair advised that the Clean Air Zone had been omitted from the list of OSMB work programme items set out in the minutes from the 20^th September 21 meeting, and that it would be brought to a subsequent meeting after the Council had received a response from Government about the proposals.

RESOLVED;

That minutes of the meetings on the 12 July and 20 September 2021 be approved as a correct record.

To note any announcements from the Chair

Councillor Denyer announced that she would be stepping down as Chair due to other commitments and that a new appointment would be made at the Full Council meeting on 9^th November 21.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item

Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5pm, Tuesday 12 October.

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12 noon, Friday 15 October.

The following public forum was received;

Statements

Questions

The following Supplementary Questions were asked:

Q2-3 Clive Stevens.

Clive Stevens asked a question in relation to a neighbouring council and good practice, and the Chair of Growth and Regeneration Scrutiny Commission confirmed that he had looked into contacting South Gloucestershire Council. 

Q4 Councillor Christine Townsend.

Cllr Townsend asked about the  impact  a delay in mainstream secondary schools announcing the SEN places would have, and the Chair requested that officers respond in writing after the meeting. 

RESOLVED;

That;

·         The public forum business be noted.

·         The Chair of People Scrutiny Commission review Cllr Townsend’s statement and raise with the Director of Education & Skills.

The Head of Policy and Public Affairs introduced the report of the Director: Policy, Strategy and Partnerships.

·      Members commended the report and information made available commenting that this was a positive and helpful way of presenting an item  and should be used as an example for future scrutiny topics

·      The Board noted that the views of the Corporate Strategy Member Working Group had been clearly incorporated into the report, which was welcomed

·      Members queried the date of the Quality of Life Survey used within the evidence base for the Strategy. Officers advised that the Strategy had been informed by last year’s Quality of Life Survey, and that due to the annual timing of the survey, this year’s results would feed into future plans, including the annual Business Plan.

·      The Chair referred to HC2 ‘Lower Carbon Homes’ and queried the decision to amend the phrase ‘we will deliver carbon neutral homes’ to ‘we will deliver lower carbon homes’.  Members were advised that this was to ensure commitments were achievable, but this would be referred to the service lead for a full response.

·      There was a discussion around the number of responses to the consultation, including low rates in disadvantaged areas.  .  Members enquired about the approach taken to engage people and heard that COVID-safe practices placed some restrictions on how the team could reach out to communities and that the usual activities such as  physical presence in public spaces, could not take place.

·      A Member raised the point that Ward Councillors had not been identified within the ‘Community Participation’ section, and recommended that the role of elected Councillors to enable participation should be recognised and utilised within the Strategy.

·      The Chief Executive advised the Board that the Council had a good record of outreach and engagement; for example with the award winning budget consultations that had taken place. He added that Corporate Strategies tended to attract low interest from the public due to their generality, and it was noted that the response rate was higher than that of the previous Corporate Strategy consultation.

·      Members referred to HC5 ‘Community Participation’, welcoming the commitment to the importance of investment into the sector, and asked about the funding for ‘greater investments in community-based organisations…’  Members were advised this would be referred to the appropriate officer.

·      The Board referred to ENV3 ‘Cleaner Bristol’ and welcomed the commitments, which included making it easier for people living in flats to recycle and increasingthe number of fly-tipping and litter enforcement officers.

·      Clarification was sought on the rationale behind the decision to change the title of ENV3 ‘Waste Reduction’ to ‘Cleaner Bristol’; that the terms were not interchangeable and meant different things, and so there should be clarity on the commitment to one or both of these.  Members were advised the heading was changed to ‘Cleaner Bristol’ as a result of the consultation and discussions which suggested the original term ‘Waste Reduction’ was not broad enough.

·      Members asked for clarity  on what was meant by ‘economic growth’, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Chair recommended that, due to the cross-cutting nature of the items, the Corporate Performance and Risk reports (Q1) should be discussed together.

·      It was agreed that OSMB’s revised approach would be to identify concerns and prioritise items within the performance report, with reference to the corporate risk report, with a view to delegating to the relevant Commission to scrutinise in detail.  This was a recommendation from the training Members recently received from the Centre for Governance & Scrutiny.

·      It was explained that this approach would enable valuable scrutiny of performance by each Commission; and would provide an ability for relevant officers and Cabinet Members to attend and contribute to a scrutiny meeting where appropriate.

The Head of Insight, Performance and Intelligence introduced the Performance Report, and the Risk & Insurance Officer introduced the Risk Report.

·      The Chair explained that the OSMB Lead Member had identified initial themes in the Performance report which required attention. These were;

o    BPC222 ‘Increase the take-up of free early educational entitlement by eligible 2 year olds’

o    BPB528 ‘Increase the percentage of employment offers made to people living in the 10% most deprived areas’

o    BPC541 ‘Increase the percentage of household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting’

·      The Chair of the People Scrutiny Commission brought the Board’s attention to Performance Indicator BPB225e ‘Increase the percentage of Final EHCPs issued within 20 weeks excluding exception cases’; that, although this Indicator provided a positive performance measure, he thought  there could be issues with EHCPs, and so the detail behind this indicator required further scrutiny and explanation.  It was also suggested that this should be flagged as a higher risk.

·      The Chief Executive stated that he and relevant senior officers were aware of the situation and growing challenge related to EHCPs, and provided reassurance that there was ongoing consideration of the issues.

·      Performance Indicator BPB124a ‘% of major residential planning applications processed within 13 weeks or as otherwise agreed’ was raised as a concern, as it potentially contradicted other goals, which included the ability to achieve positive outcomes from a negotiation process within the allotted time. 

·      There was a discussion about the wellbeing performance indicators and the Board was advised that some of the indicators that displayed ‘Annual – data not due’ were aligned with the Quality of Life Survey, and there were lags in some of the data fields, which would be reviewed early 2022.

·      There was a discussion about ‘major threat’ risks which remained amber for four quarters and Members were advised that this would be passed to the risk owners and those which remained at the same score over a number of quarters were flagged and reviewed at Executive Director meetings.

·      The corporate risk CRR42 ‘Provision of Leisure Centres’ was discussed within the context of the proposed closure of Kingsdown Leisure Centre. The Board was advised that the risk owner was responsible for the scoring of the risk, and the reporting period for this report was up to 1 July, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Chair recommended that, due to the cross-cutting nature of the items, the Corporate Performance and Risk reports (Q1) should be discussed together.

Refer to Performance report minute.

To note the work programme.

The Chair noted that a Working Group had been convened to examine the Council’s proposals for carbon reduction, and would meet in 2022. 

The work programme was noted.

Members welcomed the current version of the Forward Plan, which contained more details than previous iterations.

The Forward Plan was noted.

The minutes were noted.