To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Carole Allaway Martin, Don Pugh (substitute Frank Baynham) and Marrilyn Smart (substitute Len Lawton) and from Marie Rosenthal, Solicitor to the Council.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2012.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2012 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

The chairman identified no items of urgent business on this occasion.

To receive any declarations of interest in any matter to be discussed at the meeting.  Members and officers are requested to identify the nature of the interest and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

Cllr Baynham declared a personal interest in item 11.1 as a trustee of the Forest Voluntary Action Forum (FVAF).

Cllrs Hale, Quaile and Robinson declared a personal interest in item 8 as county councillors

Cllr Robinson declared a personal interest in item 7 as a director and shareholder of a company offering similar services to Civica.

Cllr Martin declared a personal interest in item 11.1 because she was involved with a youth cafe that received funding from the council.

To consider questions from members of the public in accordance with the published protocol. To submit a question contact Democratic Services on 01594 812625 or email democratic.services@fdean.gov.uk. All questions must be submitted in writing at least two working days prior to the meeting.

No public questions were received for this meeting.

To note dates for future committee and panel meetings.

To consider items for discussion at future meetings, including relevant issues on the Cabinet forward plan.

The committee had determined issues at its meeting on 3 May 2012.

The committee agreed at its last meeting that an inquiry into Voluntary Sector Funding would begin in July and an inquiry into procurement would begin when the GO Shared Service Inquiry ends.

The committee had determined priorities at its meeting on 3 May 2012.

The Group Manager for Finance and Property and an officer from the Gloucester partnership to present report F.158.

Cllr Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council, presented report F.158, commenting that this item was as significant as the previous initiative regarding waste management. He asked the Group Manager for Finance and Property to talk through the report.

The Group Manager for Finance and Property apologised for the item being delayed until the July Cabinet meeting, explaining that he wanted to ensure that it contained the correct details but the relevant manager was unavoidably absent from work due to personal circumstances. He highlighted the following points:

• The Revenues and Benefits team had been slimmed down and until recently been using an antiquated computer system.
• The £100,000 saving required by the team represented 10 per cent of the total service cost.
• There were imminent changes in moving to the universal credit scheme, which would have a great impact on delivery.
• Staffing levels would shrink further and the public would have to wait longer for benefit claims to be processed if the council did nothing.
• The recommendation to enter a section 101 agreement with Gloucester City Council would retain jobs in the district.
• Staff would TUPE to Civica, the company operating the service, but the agreement would be with Gloucester City Council.

• Gloucester City Council was prepared to make a small change to its contract to embrace this council's good practice of undertaking face-to-face interviews. This created a small legal risk for which a 'pre-nuptial' agreement would be offered.

Cllr Robinson said that there was a risk that if the council did nothing it would lose out and the service would 'wither on the vine'. Change would happen to the council rather than the council influencing change. He believed that the section 101 agreement with Gloucester City Council was the best solution for the district and the council should grab it as an opportunity. He agreed to organise an all-member briefing before the July Cabinet meeting.

The Group Manager for Finance and Property confirmed for Cllr Hogan that the new service would have a virtual centre and that local people would still be able to come to the council offices to speak to an officer face to face.

Cllr Robinson added that to have a contiguous boundary was not an issue for this project and that the priority was to have the right partner for the right project.

Cllr Martin asked members to recognise that the changes in the service would be huge. To safeguard jobs while making savings and keep public access locally she supported the recommended option.

Cllr Bill Evans asked for detail regarding the impact on council staff of these changes, in particular regarding the Department for Work and Pension's view that TUPE would not apply to them with the introduction of the universal credit.

The Group Manager for Finance and Property replied that to make the requisite savings there would be a reduction in staff. In the first instance agency workers would be released and the model for the recommended route included the possibility of some staff  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Cabinet Member for Environment, to give an oral update, with support from the Strategic Director and Andrew Logan, Joint Waste Project Programme Manager.

Cllr Quaile, Cabinet Member for the Environment presented an oral update, making the following points.

Background

FoDDC had long been engaged in a county-wide project to form a Joint Waste Committee (JWC) in order to make better use of public funds by allowing the end-to-end management of the waste collection and disposal process and access savings that could be achieved only by working in partnership.

The Committee would need to be supported by a Joint Waste Management Unit – that is a team of officers that would manage waste collection and disposal in participating authorities.

If the Joint Committee formed relevant staff from each authority would transfer to the Administering Authority for employment purposes, just as in the GO project; TUPE would apply. 

The Council's Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the Joint Waste project at their meeting on 17 November 2012. The committee had resolved that:

(a)               The Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee notes report SD.81 and the Cabinet position and is supportive in principle of the Forest of Dean District Council joining the Countywide Joint Waste Project and the Local Authority Company provided that Tewkesbury Borough Council also joins.

(b)               If Tewkesbury Borough Council does not join the Local Authority Company then this council should only proceed with joining the Countywide Joint Waste Project.

(c)               In the event that Tewkesbury Borough Council fails to join either the Countywide Joint Waste Project or the Local Authority Company then the Cabinet need to re-visit the issue

Progress to date

In November/December 2011, each participating authority had put proposals to form a JWC to their Cabinets. This council had decided to consider the matter further. The county council, Cotswold District Council and Cheltenham Borough Council had agreed to proceed. Stroud District Council and Gloucester City Council had dropped out, due to issues around contract expiry issues and Tewkesbury had decided not to consider the matter again until April 2013.

The LA Company/Ubico

The council had expressed an interest in Ubico providing its street cleaning service.  Officers had investigated this possibility but the timing was not good.  Ubico was not in a position to guarantee that it could take on the work at a competitive price and FoDDC could not delay the matter as the current street cleaning contract expires in August this year. As the procurement lead-time demanded action in February both parties agreed that the council should turn to the market. That action was at the contract procurement stage.

The Joint Waste Committee

In January 2012, the three committed councils concluded that a partnership of three was marginal and asked what conditions would enable this council Tewkesbury Borough Council and to agree to proceed

This council identified the following blocks: the assumptions that led to their own deferral: The cost of breaking the Biffa contract early and the ‘loss’ of majority of any savings arising from FoD joining Ubico.

Pros and cons of joint working

It would get progressively harder for individual authorities to realise savings alone thus  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Strategic Director and the Group Manager for Finance and Property to give an oral update.

The Strategic Director explained that the county council was responsible for on-street parking enforcement but delegated that responsibility to districts through agency agreements. Gloucester City Council provided the service for this council and the contract expired in September 2014. Other districts in the county had different arrangements and the county council wished to bring them together to run centrally. As the districts are responsible for off-street parking enforcement they could join together the management of both on and off street parking to achieve efficiency savings. No decisions had yet been made and the council was watching and listening. Nothing needed to change before 2014, but if the situation seemed promising a report would be presented nearer that time.

The committee noted the update.

The Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Finance to give an oral update.

Cllr Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy introduced the item and tabled the printing strategy 2012-2016. He said that while a long-term aspiration was to achieve a paperless system, in the short term the council needed to decide what to do about the machines it used to maximise efficiency

Responding to requests from Cllr O'Neill and Cllr Whitburn the Group Manager for Finance and Property said that he would circulate postage costs, including a separate figure for Democratic Services.

Cllr Lawton asked for clarification of the term 'better use of personal print budgets or quotas' as at paragraph 4.1 of the strategy.

The Group Manager for Customer Service explained that currently staff members used swipe cards to release printing, but did not know how much the printing cost. One aim was to change behaviours and drive down printing volumes. There was no specific quota for individuals. Printing costs were recharged to teams at year-end, but could become a devolved budget.

The Group Manager for Finance and Property clarified for Cllr Burford that changes in benefit allocation required a letter. Much of Forward Plan's printing needed colour or the special large map printer.

The Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships and Projects and the Cabinet Member for Community to present report SD.93.

Cllr Diana Edwards, Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships and Projects presented report SD.93 and invited questions to herself for service level agreements and to Cllr Hale, Cabinet Member for Community for community grants.

Cllr Hale and the Community Engagement Manager clarified for Cllr Hogan that 'The General Stores' referred to on agenda page 32 was simply the name of a building and the grant was for a Parish Council and Community consultation project held in Mitcheldean.

Cllr Martin emphasised how important the issue was and the work of the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) Funding Group, which was exploring options for future major contributions to the community groups and through them to the local economy. She urged members to keep a watching brief on outcomes.

Cllr Diana Edwards added that the group was looking at best outcomes, using a commissioning based approach. At its next meeting the Strategic Director would be presenting a draft application specification for consideration. Answering Cllr Winship she said that perhaps in the past the council had not always monitored how its grants had led to savings in other areas, but it would be very thorough and would take on board that point.

Cllr Lawton asked if the council considered how much each organisation received from bodies other than the council when deciding grants and how it verified that grants were spent for the agreed purposes.

Cllr Hale confirmed that groups explained where they received funding on the expression of interest form. He explained that the Community Engagement Officers monitored expenditure, including visits to the projects.

Cllr Burford commented that one of the reasons for the item on the agenda was to help inform a possible scrutiny inquiry. He was concerned that scrutiny did not duplicate the work of the VCS Funding Group. He suggested that scrutiny members attend the next VCS Funding Group meeting.

Cllr Whitburn pointed out that the scrutiny scoping document looked at how scrutiny could help voluntary organisations to get funding from bodies other than the council.

Cllr Hale confirmed that the VCS Funding Group was considering many of the points mentioned in the scrutiny scoping document.

Cllr Diana Edwards welcomed members to observe the VCS Funding Group meeting on 18 June at 4.30pm.

Cllr Winship, chairman of the Scrutiny Community Panel, emphasised that any scrutiny needed to achieve positive outcomes that made a difference.

Cllr Baynham explained that the idea of his scoping document was not to look at the impact of the lack of council funding for the groups, but to consider the effects of all funding cutbacks on the operation of voluntary groups, how the council could help in joining up initiatives to mitigate the effects such as generating sufficient volunteers.

The Community Engagement Manager explained that there was a grant finder section on the council's website to help organisations and her team sent regular bulletins to all parish councils. The VCS Funding Group was looking at all service level agreements alongside funding advice, which was also available from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.1

The Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy, to present an oral update

Cllr Robinson explained that a partner had been interested in Lawnstone House as a retail site, but that currently proposals were not attractive in reflecting opportunities over a long period of time. The partner had appointed an alternative architect and the council had initiated a design competition. Three entrants had been asked to provide more detail, which would be on display from 9 to 27 July. The cost of mothballing the complex was £9,000 per year. Other possibilities included

• Demolishing the complex at a cost of £50,000, thereby creating a more marketable space and in the short term an off-street car park
• Putting together a more attractive package for developers, by including the Bank Street site.
• The council developing the site itself, thus creating an income stream.

Cllr Robinson welcomed members' ideas and ended by saying that the Cabinet would be considering the matter in September 2012.

Cllr Hogan said that he understood the difficulties in dealing with the complex in the current economic circumstances and asked if it were possible to offer short term-lets for the bungalow to offset the cost of mothballing.

Cllr Robinson thanked him for the idea, but said that the council might be liable to 'right to buy' rules, which would limit future action.

The Group Manager Legal and Democratic to present an oral update.

The Head of Paid Service reported that the pay modelling process had been completed and thanked all staff members who had been involved. There was an emerging preferred option that would cause the least impact and meet affordability criteria. GMB and Unison would now take regional and national advice and had agreed to report back at scheduled meetings in June and July. The council would then consult with all staff with a view to presenting a report to the Cabinet in October 2012.

To confirm a first meeting date for the Voluntary Sector Funding Inquiry.

Cllr Martin to give an oral update on the work of the Private Sector Housing Renewal Loans Inquiry.

Cllr Winship confirmed that a first meeting date for the Voluntary Sector Funding Inquiry would be arranged for late July.

Cllr Martin confirmed that the Private Sector Housing Renewal Loans Inquiry would meet on Tuesday 19 June 2012 at 4pm to consider evidence gathered. The inquiry would be ready to report to the committee on 19 July 2012.

The six-month review meeting of the Bus Links Inquiry will take place on Wednesday 13 June at 4.30pm

The six-month review meeting of the Bus Links Inquiry would take place on Wednesday 13 June at 4.30pm

The Office Public Opening Hours Inquiry 12 month review meeting will take place on Monday 24 September 2012 at 4.30pm.

The Office Public Opening Hours Inquiry 12 month review meeting would take place on Monday 24 September 2012 at 4.30pm

On Monday 2 July 2012 at 4.00pmthe panel will meet for a question and answer session with Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Financeregarding the 4th quarter performance report.

On Monday 2 July 2012 at 5.00pm the panel will hold the first meeting of the GO Shared Service Inquiry.

Cllr Bill Evans confirmed that on Monday 2 July 2012 at 4.00pm the panel would meet for a question and answer session with Brian Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Finance regarding the 4th quarter performance report.

On Monday 2 July 2012 at 6.00pm the panel would hold the first meeting of the GO Shared Service Inquiry.

All at 6.00pm with a chairman’s briefing for members at 5.30pm

Thursday 19 July 2012 at Lydney Town Hall

Thursday 13 September 2012 at the council offices, Coleford

Thursday 18 October 2012 at the council offices, Coleford

Thursday 15 November 2012 at the council offices, Coleford

All at 6.00pm with a chairman’s briefing for members at 5.30pm

Thursday 19 July 2012 at Lydney Town Hall

Thursday 13 September 2012 at the council offices, Coleford

Thursday 18 October 2012 at the council offices, Coleford

Thursday 15 November 2012 at the council offices, Coleford