Apologies for absence had been received from The Mayor Lutfur Rahman.

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Interim Monitoring Officer.

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest were received.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 3^rd December, 2014.

The Chair Moved and it was:-

RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 2^nd December, 2015 were approved subject to the following amendments.

6.1 Scrutiny Spotlight – The Mayor

Paragraph 1

Delete “Accordingly, the Chair noted the Mayor’s apology for absence and informed the Committee that it be noted that he was disappointed that the Mayor had not attended and he instructed officers to request the reason for The Mayor’s absence on this occasion.” and

Insert “Accordingly, the Committee expressed their disappointment that the Mayor had not attended and officers were instructed to request the reason for The Mayor’s absence on this occasion”.

7.1 Response to Reference from Council (Judicial Review on Best Value Inspection)

Paragraph 1; 5^th Line: Delete: “As a result of discussions on this matter”.

Paragraph 3, 3^rd Line: Delete: “be advised of” and Insert “receive all of”

7.3 Implementation of Electoral Commission Recommendations

Paragraph 2, 7^th Bullet Point; 7^th Line:

Delete: “A majority of Members of the Committee supported the use of ExCel although Councillors Mahbub Alam, Abjol Miah and Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim did not, as they considered the count should be held within Tower Hamlets.” and

Insert “As no suitable venue had been identified in the Borough a majority of Members of the Committee supported the use of ExCel although Councillors Mahbub Alam, Abjol Miah and Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim did not, as they considered the count should be held within Tower Hamlets.”

Paragraph 3, 1^st Line:

Delete: “To note that report and that the points raised in tonight’s discussions be fed into the consultation process” and

Insert “To note the report and that the points raised in tonight’s discussions would be fed into the consultation process”.

In addition, to the amendments the Committee noted the following:

6.2 Social Housing Provider - One Housing Group (OHG)

The Committee was informed that since the last meeting the Chair had received a letter from Mick Sweeney, Group Chief Executive OHG regarding a number of points raised at the last meeting.

(i) Bulk Rubbish

Committee was reminded that Councillor Chesterton had circulated a photograph at the last meeting showing the storage area in Samuda, containing bulk rubbish, which the Committee noted had been taken no more than six weeks prior to the meeting. However, since the meeting OHG had disputed the actual date when this photograph had been taken. Councillor Chesterton emphasised that the photograph had been taken recently, and that the rubbish in the picture had been in this state at least until July 2014. Whilst the Committee noted the comments of OHG it was felt that it was not acceptable for residents to have to look such bulk rubbish being stored for any length of time.

(ii) Residents’ Complaints

At the last meeting Councillor Golds had indicated that he had not received a letter from OHG, inviting him to meet to discuss his files of residents' complaints.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To receive any petitions (to be notified at the meeting).

Nil items.

The decisions of the Mayor in Cabinet 3^rd December, 2014 in respect of the Savings Proposals: Public Health - Reconfiguration of Sexual Health Services has been ‘called in’.

The Committee received and noted that the Medium Term Financial Plan report, including proposed financial savings for 2015/16 had been considered by the Mayor in Cabinet on 3rd December 2014 and had then “Called In” by Councillors Rachael Saunders, Shiria Khatun, Ayas Miah, Rachel Blake and Khales Uddin Ahmed. This was in accordance with the provisions of rule 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Call-in requisition signed by the five Councillors listed above gave the following reasons for the Call-in:

·         The proposed cut of £800,000 from the budget threatens to have a severe impact on the service provided and, as such, further consultation is vitally important.

·         This call-in will give the Mayor the opportunity to re-examine, consider and consult on the proposal to reconfigure sexual health services in the borough.

In addition to the business papers presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Committee also considered:

1.         The views and comments made by Councillor Rachael Saunders in presenting the call-in;

2.         The information provided by Councillor Alibor Choudhury Cabinet Member for Resources and Councillor Abdul Asad Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Services;

3.         The information provided by Robert McCulloch-Graham, Corporate Director Education, Social Care and Wellbeing, Dr Somen Banerjee, Interim Director Public Health and Chris Lovitt, Assistant Director Public Health.

4.         A representation by Dr Vanessa Apea, Consultant Physician GUM/HIV, Barts Health NHS Trust; Teresa Battison (Network Manager, NELNET - London sexual health and HIV clinical network); and Mark Santos, Director, Positive East regarding the Savings Proposals.

Councillor Rachael Saunders gave a presentation to the Committee outlining the reasons for the Call In and the concerns highlighted.  Councillor Saunders then responded to questions from the Committee.  Councillor Alibor Choudhury; Councillor Abdul Asad; Robert McCulloch-Graham; Dr Somen Banerjee and Chris Lovitt then responded to concerns raised.  Their responses to questions raised are summarised below:

The Committee:

•           Recognised the principle of reducing demand on acute services by better utilising primary care, but noted concerns from professionals about the feasibility of effecting behavioural change in the numbers of users necessary to achieve the savings, given the needs and preferences of these groups.

•           Expressed concern at the consultation that had been undertaken with professionals, who were not aware of the extent of the savings proposed at the time.

•           Noted that there had been an approximately 30% increase in cost and activity of acute GUM services paid for by GUM PBR tariff since transfer of commissioning responsibilities to the council in April 2013 (12/13) and projected cost for year end 14/15 - This however has not been reflected in a commensurate increase in the Public Health Grant from the Department of Health which creates ongoing and  significant cost pressure on other areas of the public health grant due to this increase in activity and cost.

•           Noted that savings are based on seeking to reduce the increasing demand on acute/specialist services through prevention and reconfiguration of those services within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

The Committee noted that the Mayor has asked that OSC Members be informed that he will attend a future Overview and Scrutiny so that the session can concentrate on delivery of the Mayor's pledges and Council services going forward. Central to this is the Mayor's draft budget which will be formally proposed at Cabinet on 7^th January, 2015. 

As a result of discussions on this matter the Committee indicated that considers it important to both hold the Executive of the Council to account, and also to contribute to improving outcomes for residents.  Accordingly, as the Mayor had not attended either tonight’s meeting or the December meeting of this Committee the Chair Moved and it was:-

RESOLVED

To request that:

1. The Mayor attends the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee (OSC) for a Mayor’s Spotlight session 3^rd February, 2015; and
2. Officers provide OSC with a briefing note on the process for requiring the Mayor to attend OSC so as to explain matters within his remit.

Action by:

David Knight – Senior Democratic Services Officer; and

David Galpin(Service Head, Legal Services, Law Probity & Governance)

The Committee considered a report that set out the information regarding the process whereby the decision had been taken to seek a Judicial Review of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s appointment of Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP (PwC) to undertake a best value inspection of certain council functions. The main points of the discussion may be summarised as follows:

The Committee received information from the Interim Monitoring Officer that:

• The Local Government Act 1999 had introduced a statutory duty on “Best Value Authorities” (like the Council) to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness and to consult about those arrangements. Until 4th April 2014, the responsibility for undertaking and appointing inspectors as to the delivery of that duty was vested in the Audit Commission under the Local Government Act 1999. On that day, the Secretary of State took to himself the powers to appoint Inspectors to undertake Best Value Audits (The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2014 which brought into effect section 34 and Schedule 10 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and amended the 1999 Act.).  Therefore, the Secretary of State’s decision to launch the PwC Audit was unprecedented.  In addition, in the absence of clear reasons, it was difficult to address the proper scope of the inspection. This meant that officers did not know what was a legitimate information request and one that was outside the proper scope of the investigation. Which was an important concern, both having regard to the cost of the inspection and any potential criminal liability which might attach for non-compliance with a request.
• The Metropolitan Police Service had indicated that there was no credible evidence of criminality and therefore any references made by the DCLG regarding a future police investigation should be considered as speculative.  In addition, that consideration of criminality it was noted does not form part of the Best Value Duty.
• Following the announcement of the inspection by Secretary of State in April 2014, officers had sought to engage in a dialogue with the DCLG as to the specific issues that were of concern but to no avail. Thus, the view was reached that the only way to ensure that there was proper scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s decision-making and to limit the Council’s liability for the then unquantified costs of the inspection was to seek permission for a Judicial Review of that decision.  Counsel had been engaged to provide advice on the approach of the Council to the decision.  Jonathan Swift QC had been selected as he had great experience (as Senior Treasury Counsel) of advising Government Ministers and Departments on Judicial Review matters.
• Judicial Review Proceedings had to be commenced within three months of the decision having been challenged.  It was considered that during the Pre-Election Period there should be no decision as to what action should be taken but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

The Committee noted that at its meeting on 26th November 2014, Full Council resolved to require a full response to the issues raised in the auditor’s report be sent to all councillors by 12th December 2014.  Following receipt of this, and its consideration by political groups, Council resolved to mandate the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to undertake further interrogation of issues raised in the PWC [Best Value Inspection] report as it sees appropriate, and to report back to Full Council on its findings.  In addition, since the motion was agreed, the DCLG had confirmed its Directions and appointed two Commissioners. Work is underway within the Council on responding to the Directions, including in developing a strategy and action plan for securing the authority’s compliance with its best value duty.  The main points of the discussion are outlined below:

The Committee:

• Noted that the Directions of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government require the Council to develop a strategy, action plan, and publicity plan agreed with the Commissioners by 17th March, as well as an action plan on procurement and contracts in consultation with the Commissioners by 1st February.
• Was advised that the initial discussions with the Commissioners have highlighted that their focus is on the Council’s plans and actions to respond to the findings of the Best Value Inspection rather than revisiting those issues considered as part of PwC’s work.
• Wanted to ensure that it plays a productive role in supporting and complementing the Council’s improvement activity and the work of the Commissioners e.g. the Committee could consider the Council’s action plans and progress against them, which will be reported to DCLG on a six-monthly basis.

As a result of discussions on this item the Chair Moved and it was:-

RESOLVED that:

The Committee should receive a report at its February meeting that illustrates how it can support and complement the Council improvement activities and the work of the Commissioners as part of its existing work programme by focusing on plans and actions to support improvement (i.e. the Council’s response).

Action by:

Louise Russell (Service Head Corporate Strategy and Equality, Law Probity & Governance)

The Committee received a report that set out the approach so far to refreshing the Community Plan for 2015 onwards and proposed next steps. It proposed that, through the new Community Plan, the Partnership focuses on a number of high level and crosscutting priorities, complementing the range of priorities already being progressed by the existing Community Plan Delivery Group structure. The report outlined the potential cross-cutting priorities and asked the Committee to comment on these.

The Committee:

• Felt that the Plan needs to reflect the scale of pace and change within the Borough, especially regarding the built environment, and energise partners to rise to the current challenges faced in LBTH.
• Wanted to ensure that LBTH community/faith groups and charities are also involved in the development of the Plan.
• Recognised the importance of the preservation of the Borough’s heritage.
• Requested that the Plan acknowledged the role that creative industries play as employers.
• Acknowledged the need to improve the level of adult literacy and the reach of the Council’s consultation mechanisms (e.g. development of a dialogue within schools), and to engage the older residents and utilise their particular skill sets.
• Felt that economic and population growth would require the Council to play a more proactive role with regard to planning and development issues, to ensure sufficient infrastructure to cope with this.
• Wanted to see engagement with all businesses and harnessing their potential to drive economic growth.
• Felt that consultation should reach a wide range of people, and that the Plan needed to make use of all available formats (e.g. to engage the younger population).

As a result of discussions on this item the Chair Moved and it was:-

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Action by:

Louise Russell (Service Head Corporate Strategy and Equality, Law Probity & Governance)

The Committee received a report that detailed the financial position of the Council at the end of September 2014 (Month 6) compared to budget. The report included details of the General Fund Revenue and Housing Revenue Account; Capital Programme; Performance for strategic measures.  An outline of the discussions on this report is set out below:

The Committee:

• Noted that with regard to the need to increase the supply of housing and tackle affordability issues the housing supply is not keeping up with the demand;
• Indicated that it would wish to receive a briefing paper on the current delivery of the Decent Homes programme from officers;
• Expressed concern at the current level of street and environmental cleanliness (detritus) as it was below the standard target of 2.4 percent and it was noted had deteriorated by 1.7 percentage points compared to this time last year. This the Committee was informed had been affected by the factors affecting the litter measure (e.g. The increase in Multi Occupancy Premises) and the Council has been working with Veolia on improving all the overall cleansing standards; and
• Noted that there was provision within the budget for both the delivery/procurement options for the new civic centre and the securing of a multi-faith burial site for the use of Tower Hamlets residents.

As a result of discussions on this item the Chair Moved and it was:-

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Action by:

Jackie Odunoye [in respect of decent homes paper]

The Committee received a report that outlined the recommendations of the Planning in conservation areas scrutiny challenge session for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  The objectives of the challenge session were to answer the following questions:

1. What changes to planning policy or practice are possible, which still protect the character of conservation areas; and
2. What improvements could be made in the planning application process in relation to extensions in conservation areas.

As a result of consideration of this report the Committee welcomed this report and RESOLVED to endorse the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION 1:

The Council should recognise the detrimental impact that some planning restrictions are having on residents and the social capital of an area and redress the balance in favour of planning applicants, whilst still seeking to protect and enhance the Borough’s heritage.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

Amend DM27 to:

• be more permissive towards extensions, particularly mansard roofs within Conservation Areas;
• be more specific about what may and may not be appropriate within individual Conservation Areas (rather than having a blanket policy); and
• rely more strongly on the individual Conservation Area Assessments for decision-making on extensions

RECOMMENDATION 3:

Individually refresh the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Documents for the eight Conservation Areas with family dwelling houses where householders submit the most planning applications:

• Appraise properties within each Conservation Area and categorise them according to their suitability for extensions;
• Identify criteria where it would be possible to build additional roof storeys and back extensions and possible restrictions;
• Include detailed technical notes for repairs and restoration work and for extensions, back up by photo visuals to avoid ambiguity.

RECOMMENDATION 4:

Write a policy for underground extensions and basements as part of the Local Plan refresh.

RECOMMENDATION 5:

Consult with residents in Conservation Areas on the use of Article 4 Directions to further restrict development as part of the Local Plan refresh.

RECOMMENDATION 6:

In line with any new approach to permitting roof extensions, create new Supplementary Planning Guidance for mansard roof extensions in Conservation Areas (and following this other issues) in order to help people plan, and understand the decision making process and the reasons why some changes be acceptable or not. The guidance should:

• Be clearly illustrated with examples of best practice to allow it to be readily and easily understood by non-professionals;
• Be prescriptive and consistent where materials for extensions and renovations are not appropriate.
• Set out permitted standard designs for additional roof storeys and rear extensions where planning is approved.
• Incorporate the principles of this guidance when refreshing the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Guidance.

Finally, it was noted that the Working Group’s report will be submitted to Cabinet for a response to the recommendations.

Action by:

Owen Whalley (Service Head Planning and Building Control, Development & Renewal)

The Committee received and noted the following brief verbal updates from the Scrutiny Leads.

Councillor Joshua Peck (Chair Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

The Committee agreed that when it considered the report on Poplar Town Hall the independent legal adviser would be required to be in attendance.  In addition, the Mayor’s apologies for absence for the last two Spotlight Sessions should be drawn to the attention of the Commissioners.

Councillor John Pierce (Scrutiny Lead for Communities and Culture)

It was noted that the Challenge Session: Improving Cycling Safety was to take place on 29^th January, 2015.

Councillor Dave Chesterton (Scrutiny Lead for Development and Renewal)

It was agreed that the Challenge Session on Section 106 Decisions and the quality of Section 106 Funded Social Housing should be widely publicised to maximise participation from a broad cross section of the community (e.g. a reference in East End Life).

Councillor Abjol Miah (Scrutiny Lead for Resources)

The Committee noted that the spotlight session on Waste Management planned for the 19^th January, 2015 was to be re-scheduled.

Councillor Denise Jones (Scrutiny Lead for Children’s Services)

The Committee noted that the first session regarding the review of Children’s Services was to be re-scheduled.

As a result of discussions on this item the Chair Moved and it was:-

RESOLVED that the updates be noted.

To consider and agree pre-decision scrutiny questions/comments to be presented to Cabinet.

(Time allocated – 30 minutes).

The following pre-decision question was submitted to the Mayor in Cabinet [07 January, 2014].

Agenda Item 6.2: Rights of Light- City Pride Development & Island Point Development

Question: OSC Committee asked Cabinet Members:

1.         Is this an appropriate use of the relevant legislation; and

2.         Has the impact on residents been taken into account, and if so, how.

Summary of response received at Cabinet is set out in Appendix 1

To consider any other unrestricted business that the Chair considers to be urgent.

Nil items.

No motion to exclude the press or public was passed.

Nil items.

To consider and agree pre-decision scrutiny questions/comments to be presented to Cabinet.

(Time allocated 15 minutes).

Nil items.

To consider any other exempt/ confidential business that the Chair considers to be urgent.

Nil items.