Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to disclose any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

No interests were disclosed.

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

The action notes from the meeting held on 9 October 2012 were noted and agreed as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

·         The addition to action note number 33 (‘Being the Best’ – East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust Consultation) of: “Committee members highlighted the importance of local knowledge and local drivers particularly in the Fenland area.”

Relationship Between Portfolio Holders, Officers And Policy Development Groups

One Councillor queried the third action point at action note 34: “That a progress report be presented to the Scrutiny Committee in October 2013, including a summary of the progress of recommendations”. This related to operational improvements in the workings of the policy development groups. These were introduced following the appointment of the Community Engagement and Policy Development Officer. Councillors suggested that they should be involved in any changes before they happened instead of reviewing them when they had been operating for a year.

Action Point:

Include an item on how policy development groups’ work to the agenda for the Committee’s next meeting on 22 January 2012.

Work Programme

A Councillor requested that the names of working group members be included in the work programme to provide points of contact for any other Member with information or ideas.

Action Point:

Include details of working group membership in the Committee’s work programme.

Representatives from East Midlands Ambulance Service will talk about their ‘Being the Best’ consultation.

The Chairman welcomed three representatives from East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) to the meeting:

• Jon Sargent – Director of Finance
• Lynn Rutland – Service Delivery Manager
• Greg Cox – Operational Support Manager, Lincolnshire

Mr Sargent gave a presentation on EMAS’ ‘Being the Best’ consultation. The programme comprised a package of changes in respect of asset management, service provision, deployment and staff management. The document, which constituted an estate strategy comprised changes aimed to make the most of clinical staff and improve performance against key targets.

As part of the consultation, EMAS was talking to patients, the public and stakeholders. Key proposals included replacing 66 ambulance stations with 13 hubs/super stations and introducing 118 Community Ambulance Posts (CAPs). Five hubs were planned for Lincolnshire. The hubs would be the start and end point of the working day, providing a base for vehicle maintenance and the clinical cleaning, stocking and preparing of ambulances; these activities currently carried out by ambulance crews would be undertaken by dedicated staff. There would also be an educational facility, which would replace regional facilities, so that staff could be trained locally. Management/supervisory staff would also be available at hubs to brief and debrief teams as appropriate.

CAPs would replace standby points (points at which ambulances park in laybys, car parks, etc.) All CAPs would include a building which provided facilities for crews to rest. These would either be shared facilities with other local stakeholders, or when this option was not available, modular buildings. The location for CAPs was based on modelling work that identified the best places from which to respond to help EMAS provide a better service.

Councillors were reassured that the number of ambulances and the level of cover would stay the same. Throughout the strategy period, EMAS was working to reduce the age of the fleet from ten years to five years.

Deployment systems were also under review so that callouts received a proportional response appropriate to the incident. This would mean sending the most skilled paramedics to the most serious incidents. Shift patterns would also be staggered so that not all ambulances were off the road for changeover simultaneously.

The model proposed by EMAS had been successfully introduced by West Midlands Ambulance Service who reported good results, and the South Coast Ambulance Service. The model was also used internationally.

So that the feedback of local people could be fully incorporated within detailed proposals, Mr Sargent explained that the consultation was on the broad principles only. When local views had been fed in, more detailed plans would be developed. Consultation had taken a variety of formats which included public meetings, general meetings, media releases, EMAS’ website, social networking sites, free phone and free post. Consultation with staff was also underway.

Mr Sargent advised the Committee that EMAS hoped that all changes could be achieved from within existing resources.

The Committee was advised that proposals would be formally submitted to the EMAS board in January 2013 and changes would be implemented between April 2013  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The Committee will receive an update on the Council’s performance after the second quarter. This report will have a focus on the ‘good housing for all’ priority.                  (Enclosure)

The Performance Management Officer presented the quarter 2 performance report which had a focus on the council priority ‘support good housing for all’. The reports listed projects that had been successfully completed; three projects had been signed off (the purchase of a new electoral registration/elections software system, ‘tell us once’ and the outsourcing of careline alarms). It was hoped that the Gravity Fields Festival project would be signed off by the Performance and Programme Board by the time the Scrutiny Committee received its next update.

Performance in development management, the abandoned call rate, the percentage of the housing stock which met the decent homes standard and sickness levels were highlighted and updates provided. Councillors questioned why, despite improved performance, the sickness level showed as red and questioned whether it should be amber. Because of previous performance in this area, the tolerance between achieving a target and not achieving a target was tight. It was up to the service manager and head of service to determine how performance should be represented.

The Head of Development and Growth provided an updated on actions that had been taken to improve performance against development management planning targets. A performance clinic had been held which led to a number of recommendations. Performance measures were based on the average amount of time it took to determine planning applications unlike the old best value performance indicator measure which had a single target. It was recognised that ways of working needed to reflect this change.

Officers were becoming more proactive in respect of applications chasing up applicants required to submit additional information. Development officers were also working more closely with statutory consultees to improve the speed with which applications are determined. Additional meetings of the Development Control Committee had been called to help catch up with the backlog of applications.

It was hoped that by quarter 1 in 2013/14 performance would be meeting targets and could be maintained for the full year.

Councillors asked questions about the circumstances under which officers could refuse applications because additional information was required but not supplied promptly. It was suggested that officers could issue a deadline for the applicant to provide responses; failure to meet that deadline would see that application being put forward for decision on the facts available. There was some risk attached to determining applications without sufficient information.

The Head of Development and Growth explained that the determination period through which performance was measured, began when an application was validated. An application was validated when it was received with all information required within a local checklist. When officers found an application that did not include sufficient information, the applicant was contacted immediately.

In response to a question from a Committee member, the Head of Development and Growth provided an update on Section 106 officer. The Council had a dedicated officer who monitored trigger points and ensured that payments were made to the appropriate place at the correct time.

The Head of HR, Customer Service and Performance explained the roles  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Committee will receive a presentation from the Property Development Manager about the Council’s grounds maintenance arrangements and how the contract is monitored.

The Team Leader for Operations from Property and Facilities and the Grounds Maintenance Supervisor gave a brief presentation which outlined the current grounds maintenance contract in relation to grass verge cutting and flower maintenance. This contract was due to end in 2013 and work was underway to develop a new, more robust contract, which would cover the whole county. The countywide contract would begin in 2014, so officers were negotiating with the current contractor to extend their contract to fill the gap.

Councillors were advised that Lincolnshire County Council paid SKDC to cut verges; this was then contracted out to Veolia. Officers added that historically SKDC had cut verges more often than was paid for by the county council.

Officers explained that the Council had received a number of reports over the summer when the contractors had not performed the cutting of verges within the contract specification; this was partially attributed to bad weather. While officers had brought failings to the attention of the contractor, it was felt the current contract was too lenient in times of contractor failure. Councillors felt that monitoring had been an issue and acknowledged the work that officers had undertaken.

Members of the public and parish councils had helped considerably in the monitoring of the contract by directly contacting the Council with their complaints and had assisted officers challenging the contractors for not fulfilling the requirements of the contract.

Some concern was expressed about the gap between the cessation of the current contract and the start of a new contract, and negotiating with the existing contractor to continue work in the interim. Officers explained that Procurement Lincolnshire was developing the new contract, which had to fit with other authorities in the county. Working with Procurement Lincolnshire offered the opportunity of economies of scale. Councillors emphasised the importance of providing a quality service.

One village in the district had taken over the maintenance of open spaces; they were paid by the district council at the same rate as the current contractor. The village had, through its parish council, increased the precept so it could make further improvements to this service in the local area. In response to a question about whether parish councils could take on the responsibility in their areas following the implementation of the new contract, the Council would do everything it could to ensure those that wished to do so could. This would involve serious negotiation with parishes to make sure they were aware of the level of commitment they would be taking on and to also make sure that they had sufficient resources in place.

The chairman thanked the officers for their presentation.

The Committee was advised that officers were now in place at the Welland Deepings Internal Drainage Board.

Councillor Russell had attended the last meeting of the Lincolnshire Health Scrutiny Committee. The committee asked that the Council appoint him as an authorised substitute.

The meeting was closed at 14:30.