OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME

							                                                      AGENDA ITEM NO. 6(a)

REPORT:                    Urban Renewal Policy and Performance Board

DATE:                      26th January 2005

REPORTING OFFICER:         Executive    Director,        Regeneration       and
                           Neighbourhood Services

SUBJECT:                   Policy & Performance Board Work Programme
                           2005/2006

WARDS:                     Boroughwide


1.0    PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1   To recommend a number of possible topics for the 2005 - 2006 work
programme.

2.0    RECOMMENDED: That

       (1)     Members of the Policy and Performance Board indicate
               target topic areas for potential scrutiny in 2005 – 2006; and

       (2)     details of the topic briefs be agreed with the Chair and Vice
               Chair of the PPB in conjunction with the Operational
               Director for Major Projects.

3.0    SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1    Each year the PPB identifies a number of areas that it intends to
       scrutinise in detail as part of its work programme for the year.

3.2    Currently Topic Groups are working on three issues: The maintenance
       of the Silver Jubilee Bridge, the sustainability of regeneration activity
       and Town Centres’ regeneration. These Groups are scheduled to
       report by the April meeting of this Board.

3.3    A list of possible topics is given below. This is not, of course, an
       exclusive list and Members are invited to add other topics for
       consideration.

3.4    Given that detailed scrutiny cannot be carried out on everything,
       Members are asked to target attention on a specific number of areas.
       Good practice based on experience suggests that a maximum of 3
       Topics is manageable. These are then to be worked up as detailed
       topic briefs and agreed with the Chair of the PPB in conjunction with
       the lead officer for this Board, the Operational Director, Major Projects
       Department. The Council’s Chief Scrutiny Advisor suggests that this


URB/26/1/1141/AC
          action is considered now so that an early start can be made on the
          scrutiny work.

3.5       In considering which are good topics to include in the work programme
          Members will need to keep in mind the Overview and Scrutiny
          Guide/Toolkit. Guidance on Topic Selection is attached as an aide-
          memoire.

3.6        Much of the work of this PPB will be cross-cutting and will impact or be
          of relevance to other PPBs.

3.7       Performance Monitoring of the Reporting Departments (Economic
          Regeneration, Major Projects, Planning, Highways and Transportation)
          will be received by this PPB.

4.0       POSSIBLE TOPIC AREAS (NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER)

4.1       The Council’s Best Value Performance Plan identifies a number of
          Shared Improvement Targets. These are summarised below::

         The Widnes Waterfront Economic Development Zone Masterplan lead
          commenced on site in 2004 and ERDF expenditure will be completed
          in 2008.

         Commence the physical development and regeneration of the
          Borough’s waterfront by 2006.

         A Watersides Strategy was agreed in 2004. This will detail proposals
          for improvements to the River Mersey frontage, St Helens Canal, and
          the Bridgewater Canal.

         Secure the necessary planning or Parliamentary approvals by 2006 to
          allow the New Mersey Crossing project to proceed.

         Ensure sufficient housing is built per annum to meet the UDP housing
          figures and in conformity with Regional Planning Guidance.

         Ensure that all social housing conforms to the Government’s ‘decency
          standard’ by 2010.

         Revitalise the three town centres, including (a) completion of
          development in North Widnes Town Centre, at Simms Cross (Widnes),
          (b) new retail development in Runcorn Town Centre, and (c) possible
          further improvements to Halton Lea, - with a view to maintaining viable
          town centres.

         Increase footfall in the town centres year on year.

         Increase the viability and vitality of the town centres as measured by
          average rents and by vacant units.


URB/26/1/1141/AC
         The development of proposals to revamp Runcorn Town Park.

         Delivery of the Castlefields Regeneration Masterplan in 2003-2007.

         Delivery of the Halton Biodiversity Action Plan in 2003 - 2010

          Whilst there is overlap with other areas suggested e.g. New Mersey
          Crossing referred to above and possible cross-cutting with other PPBs,
          these Improvement Targets could be considered as areas for scrutiny.

4.2       Other topics which could also be considered as suitable could include
          the Halton Show and Festival, tourism development, the modernisation
          of delivery of the Planning Service, traffic calming and speed reduction
          measures, accident reduction, innovation in derelict land reclamation,
          the impact of external policy-making on the regeneration of the
          Borough, the achievements of the inward investment enquiries service,
          the legacy of the SRB programmes and the impact of e-business on
          Halton’s economy. Members will doubtless be able to think of other
          suitable areas for scrutiny.

5.0       POLICY IMPLICATIONS

5.1       None at this stage.

6.0       OTHER IMPLICATIONS

6.1       None at this stage

7.0       LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS UNDER SECTION 100D OF THE
          LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

7.1       There are no background papers within the meaning of the Act.




URB/26/1/1141/AC
              OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME

                                Topic Selection Checklist
This checklist leads the user through a reasoning process to identify a) why a topic should be
explored and b) whether it makes sense to examine it through the overview and scrutiny process.
More “yeses” indicate a stronger case for selecting the Topic.

#    CRITERION                                                                                Yes/No
Why? Evidence for why a topic should be explored and included in the work programme
1    Is the Topic directly aligned with and have significant implications for at least
     1 of Halton's 5 strategic priorities & related objectives/PIs, and/or a key
     central government priority?

2    Does the Topic address an identified need or issue?

3    Is there a high level of public interest or concern about the Topic e.g. apparent
     from consultation, complaints or the local press

4    Has the Topic been identified through performance monitoring e.g. PIs
     indicating an area of poor performance with scope for improvement?

5    Has the Topic been raised as an issue requiring further examination through a
     review, inspection or assessment, or by the auditor?

6    Is the Topic area likely to have a major impact on resources or be significantly
     affected by financial or other resource problems e.g. a pattern of major
     overspending or persisting staffing difficulties that could undermine performance?

7    Has some recent development or change created a need to look at the Topic e.g.
     new Government guidance/legislation, or new research findings?

8    Would there be significant risks to the organisation and the community as a result
     of not examining this topic?


Whether? Reasons affecting whether it makes sense to examine an identified topic
9    Scope for impact - Is the Topic something the Council can actually influence,
     directly or via its partners? Can we make a difference?

10   Outcomes – Are there clear improvement outcomes (not specific answers) in mind
     from examining the Topic and are they likely to be achievable?

11   Cost: benefit - are the benefits of working on the Topic likely to outweigh the
     costs of doing so, making investment of time & effort worthwhile?

12   Are PPBs the best way to add value in this Topic area? Can they make a
     distinctive contribution?

13   Does the organisation have the capacity to progress this Topic? (e.g. is it related to
     other review or work peaks that would place an unacceptable load on a particular
     officer or team?)

14   Can PPBs contribute meaningfully given the time available?




URB/26/1/1141/AC