Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 7th March 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 7th March 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive from Members declarations as to disclosable pecuniary and other interests in relation to any Agenda item.

Councillor Mrs J Tavener declared a non-statutory disclosable interestin relation to Minute Number 87 as a tenant in a Luminus Property.

Councillor B S Chapman declared a non-statutory disclosable interestin relation to Minute Number 88 as a Cambridgeshire County Councillor and St Neots Town Councillor.

Councillor S Criswell declared a non-statutory disclosable interestin relation to Minute Number 88 as a Cambridgeshire County Councillor.

Councillor D A Giles declared a non-statutory disclosable interestin relation to Minute Number 88 as a Cambridgeshire County Councillor and St Neots Town Councillor.

A copy of the current Notice of Key Executive Decisions is attached. Members are invited to note the Plan and to comment as appropriate on any items contained therein.

The Panel received and noted the current Notice of Key Executive Decisions (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) which has been prepared by the Executive Leader for the period 1st April 2017 to 31st July 2017.

Representatives from Luminus Group Limited will be in attendance to discuss with Members their Regulatory Judgement from the Homes and Communities Agency.

The following representatives from Luminus were in attendance to discuss with Members the recent Regulatory Judgement on Luminus from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA): Dr Chan Abram, Group Chief Executive; Reverend Kevin Burdett, Independent Board Member; Andy Chapman, Director of Finance; Nigel Finney, Executive Director (Operations) and Mike Simpson, Independent Board Member.

In order to assist the discussion questions were submitted to Luminus in advance of the Panel meeting. In addition to these Members asked follow up questions in order to attain either clarification or additional information.

After a short period of introductions the representatives from Luminus explained that it has been a busy period for the company and that officers have worked hard in ensuring that HCA’s judgement is adhered to.

A Member stated that the Regulatory Judgement suggests that the Board did not have the necessary skills and knowledge to deal with the problem that was highlighted. They asked has Luminus recruited suitable qualified board members who can recognise and deal with all aspects of risk management. In response the Panel were informed that Luminus believe the Board is already sufficiently qualified to deal with commercial risk. There are three fully qualified chartered accountants on the Board and where new Members are recruited Luminus ensures that those Members have the required skills.

In a follow up question, Luminus were asked if Members of the Board did have the required skills then why did the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), through the Regulatory Judgement, say the Board did not? In response Members were informed that the matter of judgement is an issue for the HCA, however Luminus believe the board have the required skills. In addition where there is a judgement like the gas checks, it is the requirement of the HCA to review the Board so it doesn’t happen again.

Luminus were asked to clarify if they were taking the judgement seriously and were not underplaying it. In response Members were informed that Luminus were not underplaying the judgement and added that it is a difficult place to be in where there is a judgement and the HCA is seeking assurance.

On the Luminus webpage it indicated that two Members of the Board served on an Audit, Finance and Risk Committee. One of these appears to have recently left that Committee. Luminus were asked if this was because of the failure of that Committee which resulted in the Regulatory Judgement. In response Luminus informed the Panel that it wasn’t the failure of the Committee that has led to a departure of the Member. The Board has reconfigured the Committee and there has been a change but it has been an internal change.

On a point of clarification a Member stated that there was a failure as Luminus wouldn’t have received the judgement and subsequent downgrading. In response Members were informed that the failing was the missed opportunity to have valid gas safety certificates. In addition when the HCA find a failure they then review all processes and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

The Grounds Maintenance Service Review is to be presented to the Panel.

With the aid of a report by the Head of Operations (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book), the Grounds Maintenance Service Review was presented to the Panel. In addition to the report, the Head of Operations informed Members that all outsourced work is fully funded and therefore is not subsidised by Council. 

The additional £67k of funding agreed by Cabinet has been invested in the recruitment of seasonal staff in order to cope with the grass cutting during the growing season.

A Member asked about the maintenance of the County Council grass and how much money the Council are receiving for it. In response Members were informed that the Council are receiving about £20k. Last year the amount received was £40k however St Neots Town Council and Huntingdon Town Council have decided to take on the maintenance in their areas.

It was suggested that the Council makes it clear to residents that it is carrying out the work of the County Council however it was noted that this point was made last year and there is little appetite for it to be made again.

When asked if bush and shrub maintenance should be included in the report, the Panel was informed that a report covering this maintenance would be presented to them at the end of the growing season.

Following a question regarding the type of lawnmowers the Council has, including the lawnmowers that the service had problems with last year, Members were informed that the Council do have the same mowers however it does have a mixed set of equipment to deal with different conditions.

The Panel was informed that the service cuts the grass on a fortnightly basis but when the growing season ends it could be cut less. However Members were informed that cutting the grass less would not necessarily save money as longer grass can take more man hours to cut.

A Member asked if a proportion of the £20k saving should be given back to St Neots Town Council and Huntingdon Town Council as they are providing the maintenance of County Council grass. In response Members were informed that as both Town Councils are receiving funding from the County Council for the maintenance there is no basis for requesting a rebate from the Council.

When asked how the service could improve the rate of service requests that have been resolved within five working days, Members were informed that the service needs to be proactive to ensure that there are less service requests to begin with. This way if there are less then it would be easier for the service to resolve any requests within five working days.

(At 9.13pm, during the consideration of this item, Councillor R Fuller left the meeting and did not return.)

Members are to receive a verbal update on the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership from the Panel’s representative.

The Panel’s representative on the Huntingdonshire Community Safety Partnership, Councillor Mrs J Tavener, provided Members with an update on the Partnership. Councillor Tavener stated that she had attended the last meeting of the Partnership and that several matters were discussed.

The Panel was informed that the Partnership discussed its Terms of Reference where it was agreed that it should include resilience which it was deemed important particularly to the voluntary sector.

The Partnership also discussed the definition of vulnerability and who can be deemed as vulnerable. In addition, a report on Child Sexual Exploitation was presented which highlighted areas that are specific to Huntingdonshire.

A Member requested that, in future, could reports be presented in writing. In addition, they asked how often the meetings are held, to which Councillor Tavener stated that the Partnership meets quarterly.

When Councillor Tavener was asked did she feel a part of the meeting, the Panel was informed that a participant at the meeting can put a point forward, comment and ask questions.

Members are to receive the final report of the CCTV Task and Finish Group.

With the aid of a report by the Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny), on behalf of the CCTV Task and Finish Group (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book), the CCTV Task and Finish Group Final Report was presented to the Panel.

In introducing the report the Chairman briefed Members on what the Task and Finish Group had done and thanked the Members of the Group and the Head of Community Services and Democratic Services Officers (Scrutiny) for arranging the meetings and assisting the Group in writing the report.

The Executive Councillor for Commercialisation and Shared Services explained to Members that a welcome but unintended consequence of the Task and Finish Group has been the improved communications with Parish and Town Councils. He added that big businesses have a matrix which they use when deciding to locate to a town and that CCTV scores highly on that matrix. In addition, Members were informed that some businesses would not be locating in the towns without CCTV.

The Executive Councillor for Commercialisation and Shared Services did explain to Members that there was a lack of quantitative evidence of how valuable and useful CCTV is to the Police. The Head of Community Services provided Members with some examples of where CCTV has made a positive difference in crime detection.

A Member suggested that recommendation one doesn’t go far enough and suggested that the word ‘high’ is inserted to recommendation so it reads “recognise the high value of the Council’s CCTV service to Huntingdonshire’s residents, businesses and Cambridgeshire Constabulary”. The Panel agreed with the amendment.

In response to the question is there a CCTV system which can automatically detect activity, the Panel was informed that certain cameras can automatically detect activity as they are located in areas where it is recognised that at certain times of the day there should be no activity, however as for detecting suspicious activity on the high street, the service is reliant on the skill of the operator.

To consider the work programmes of the Economy and Growth and Performance and Customers Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

The Panel received and noted a report by the Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book), which contained details of studies being undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Panels Economy and Growth and Performance and Customers.

(At 10.01pm, during the consideration of this item, Councillors D Brown, Mrs A Dickinson, R B Howe and D Watt left the meeting and did not return.)

To consider a report on the Panel’s activities.

With the aid of a report by the Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book), the Panel reviewed the progress of its activities since the last meeting.

A conversation ensued regarding the closure of the Council’s customer service centre and the proposed closure of the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) Office in St Neots. Regarding the closure of the customer service centre, the Panel noted that it was disappointing and will invite the Executive Councillor for Transformation and Customers to attend the next Panel meeting in June 2017. Regarding the CAB Office, clarification will be sought as the understanding of Officers and other Members was that CAB had an obligation in their contract to provide a face to face service in all of the District’s towns.

It was suggested that a topic about patients coming out of care should be added to the work programme.