OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY SERVICES SUB GROUP

							Craven District Council

                            OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

                                         1st September 2010

Present – Councillor Mrs Firth (Chairman) and Councillors Barrington, Brockbank, Pam Heseltine,
Mason, Roberts, Solloway, Staveley and Whaites.

Officers – Deputy Chief Executive, Corporate Head for Financial Management, Strategic Manager
(Legal and Democratic Services), Strategic Manager (Neighbourhoods), Waste and Recycling
Manager, Partnerships Manager and Committee Administrator.

Apologies were received from Councillors Polly English and Quinn.


Start: 6.30pm                                                                       Finish: 9pm
Councillor Staveley arrived at 6.40pm.

The minutes of the 9th June meeting were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.


                                         Minutes for Report


OS.149                         REVIEW OF COMMUNITY GRANTS

The Partnerships Manager presented a draft revised format for the Council’s community grants
process and assessment criteria. Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) had reviewed the whole process
and criteria in 2008 to create a more structured and cohesive approach. Thereafter an annual
review took place to ensure that the process and criteria were ‘fit for purpose’ in line with Council
priorities. There were four funding groups and levels of awards: small (£100-500), medium (£500-
1000), capital (£1000-5000) and long-term ‘core’ funding (£1000-£40000). The total approximate
funding available was £21,000 (small/medium), £50,000 (capital) and £90,000 (core funding).

The Community Grants Working Group had considered the process content and cycle. A summary
of their improvement recommendations was attached to the report and incorporated into the revised
process format. Alongside this were the proposed criteria and a scoring mechanism.

The Council’s current improvement priorities ‘Strengthening Craven’s Economy and Promoting the
Well-Being of Craven’s Communities’ and ‘A More Cost-Effective and Efficient Council’ to some
extent focused on Council activities and equated less directly to the work of the voluntary and
community sector A more appropriate approach could be achieved through linking Council Plan
priorities with Craven Sustainable Community Strategy priorities. The strengths and weaknesses of
each approach were assessed and it was recognised that a practical balance needed to be struck.

Members considered in detail the proposed process/criteria. During the course of discussion,
various points were made:
Community and Council priorities
     Organisations often required Council funding to gain significant ‘match’ funding from other
       sources some of whom would only provide funding if there was local authority support. This
       implied the need for an effective flexible approach for wider benefits to the Council and local
       community.
     Larger funding awards were generally associated with the potential to offer more towards
       supporting the Council priorities. The proposed scoring mechanism reflected this.
     North Yorkshire County Council’s Craven Area Committee operated a grants process with
       each member allocated a grants budget for making awards to suitable recipients.



                                                                                       st
                                                        Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 September 2010
Craven District Council

       Local Strategic Partnership funding awards were also made through the Area Committee.
        There was a suggestion that reference to this could be included in relation to containing
        multiple applications.
Support and Guidance
    There was no direct association between the respective councils’ grants criteria - meaning
        that it was not impossible for a worthwhile cause to score poorly on both processes.
        However, the County Council supported local infrastructure organisations (LIO’s) who were
        effectively ‘umbrella’ organisations that provided support and guidance to the voluntary and
        community sector – this included developing good governance as well as support in writing
        quality grant applications.
    There was an awareness that some applicants could be just good at filling in forms,
        securing apparent local support etc and vice-versa some were not so good although their
        proposal might be more worthwhile. Some criteria such as linking with Council priorities
        could possibly be assumed for any application rather than requiring scoring. This all formed
        part of the assessment process which aimed to identify the most worthwhile and viable
        proposals.
Scoring applications
    Applicants might get a mixture of high and low scores and it was suggested that perhaps
        there ought to be a requirement to achieve a minimum score in some/all areas.
    It was felt that whilst parish council support was important, it needed to be treated with
        caution as often local issues prevented support even for worthwhile proposals. Support from
        district members was arguably more important although members needed to be encouraged
        in responding to applications.
    Some organisations might try to be environmentally-friendly but unable to afford to purchase
        local goods. Environmental sustainability was more broad – essentially good use of
        resources.
Proportionality
    There were concerns that organisations could put in a lot of work and cost but receive no
        award. It was suggested that an initial assessment of a proposal could be undertaken prior
        to an applicant completing a detailed application. However, working with officers offered
        applicants a decent chance of getting it right. For core funding, there was an expectation
        that some effort should be required from applicants most of whom produced business plans
        and completed multiple applications anyway so there was relatively little additional burden.
    It was recognised that there needed to be a sensible balance between keeping forms
        relatively simple and have sufficient guidance on the forms for applicants to be able manage
        and demonstrate some competence. It was also recognised that the quantity of paperwork
        needed to be reduced including making good use of electronic means.
Capital and Revenue
    There were separate capital and revenue funding streams. Applicants could obtain either
        type of grant but no more than one of each.
Delegated Grants
    To ease the burden on Members and allow them to better focus on larger capital and core
        funding grants, the Working Group had recommended that small/medium grants (under
        £1000) should be delegated to officers to decide in conjunction with the Lead Member
        responsible for ‘Stronger Communities. The recommended decisions would be sent to the
        Community Grants Sub-Committee. If no issues were raised then officers would confirm
        decisions to applicants.

The main suggested changes to the draft formats were:
     Incorporate a financial viability requirement – demonstrating that an organisation was
       financially robust with a proper business plan etc. This was distinct to long-term financial
       sustainability although ideally an organisation would demonstrate both well. There was an
       expectation that organisations would be aiming to be as self-sufficient as possible as well
       as achieving year-on-year efficiencies in line with the wider public sector.



                                                                                      st
                                                       Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 September 2010
Craven District Council

        Budget allocation considerations for the different types of funding would be difficult to
         undertake at the current time with wider public sector budgets to be confirmed. Therefore
         this section would be removed.

Resolved – That the draft Community Grants process and assessment criteria - subject to
           incorporating a financial viability requirement and removing budget allocation
           considerations – be presented to the Policy Committee on 8 September.



OS.150                       BULKY WASTE COLLECTION REVIEW

Further to Minute OS.143, the Strategic Manager (Neighbourhoods) presented an update of the
Bulky Waste Collection Service following the introduction of charging for the (formerly free) service
from 1 April 2009. Overview and Scrutiny had received updates in September 2009 and June 2010.

The costs of the service had decreased significantly. The free service had cost approximately
£50,000 per year comprising of around £30,000 (staff overtime costs for working on Saturdays) and
£20,000 vehicle costs (fuel). The charging service cost approximately £4,000 in fuel with staffing
costs absorbed in the mainstream waste collection service and generated income of around
£20,000. So the net cost benefit was £66,000.

There were notable environmental benefits with the number of requests for free collection (5840 in
2008/09) significantly reduced to 985 (2009/10). Allowing for individuals making their own legal
disposals and other factors such as people retaining goods longer in the recession, this was still a
significant reduction in the environmental impact of landfill as well as the reduced financial cost of
landfill. More use was also probably made of reuse/recycle outlets and retailers who provide a
disposal service. It was also hoped that the Craven Furniture Scheme would be resurrected in the
near future.

However, there had been a significant increase in fly-tipping of domestic goods. In 2008/09, 58
items had been reported and collected. This increased to 93 (35 extra) in 2009/10 although the first
quarter for this year (April – June 2010) had seen a relative decrease with a year-end projection of
68 items. Commercial fly-tipping such as builders’ rubble had increased although this was not part
of the bulky waste collection service. The net fly-tipping cost (based on commercial rates) for
collection the extra 35 items was around £1,400 so the net cost benefit becomes £64,600.

Fly-tipped items were generally collected en-route by staff during their normal rounds although
some deviation might be required. Indicative costs (based on commercial estimates) of collecting
fly-tipped items were included in the report. A number of initiatives were being pursued to tackle fly-
tipping using a two-fold approach of enforcement and education. These included identifying culprits
using various tools – CCTV, searching for evidence tracing the source etc. Environmental
Protection staff are training Yorkshire Dales National Part rangers to develop evidential gathering
skills, and to issue fixed penalty notices for littering and dog fouling. Education included informing
house-holders of their ‘duty of care’ to ensure that they use reputable contractors and for
contractors to be reminded to retain ‘waste transfer notes’ for inspection.

During the course of discussion, various points were made:
    Fly-tipping was a particular concern and needed to be tackled including commercial fly-
       tipping. Statistically the 35 extra items equated to a 46% increase so statistics needed to be
       interpreted carefully, in this case it was based on a relatively small original number (58).
    The variety of enforcement and education measures being used to tackle fly-tipping needed
       to be pursued. For the casual (non-commercial) user disposing goods at the tip, North
       Yorkshire County Council still required a form to be filled in if domestic goods were being
       taken to the tip in a commercial vehicle which might put people off resulting in fly-tipping.
       The Waste Management and Recycling Manager suggested that he could liaise with the
       County Council over their permit scheme for any potential streamlining.
                                                                                       st
                                                        Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 September 2010
Craven District Council

       Any improvements in the bulky waste collection service such as reduced landfill also
        needed to be highlighted including any fly-tipping decreases. Likewise the main groups of
        culprits, e.g. commercial contractors, needed to be highlighted.
       It was recognised that introducing charging had been based on the Craven Furniture
        Scheme providing increasing collection capacity. It was hoped that the Scheme would
        materialise again later in the year so would offer an environmentally friendly option of
        reusing items.
       The Council was not intending to provide direct financial assistance to the Scheme but
        would be supporting it ‘in-kind’, e.g. advice and guidance from the Council’s Waste
        Minimisation Officer.

Resolved – That the report was noted.and officers requested to continue monitoring the use of the
           bulky waste collection service and to log fly-tipping incidents.


OS.151                       REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDING

Councillor Roberts, Chairman of the Discretionary Funding Working Group outlined the background
to this review, the various issues, options and recommendations. The Group had reviewed three
specific areas of discretionary funding that the Council provides – housing benefits, national non-
domestic rate relief (NNDR) and concessionary bus passes (free travel for people generally aged
over 60). Each of these areas had a statutory basis which the Group were aware of when
considering the discretionary elements – whether criteria for awarding discretionary funding was ‘fit
for purpose’ and whether the levels of funding were value for money.

Housing Benefits
The discretionary elements were actually quite rigid with little scope for flexibility. Nevertheless the
various elements had been explored – and allowing for the rigid scope – were deemed to be fair
with limited potential to make any changes or savings. Staff appeared to be doing a good job.
Therefore the Working Group recommended that no changes were required.
     During discussion, an example was given of a residential tenant who had defaulted, secured
        housing support but appeared not to be financially vulnerable. It was not possible for officers
        to comment on individual cases but any concerns about apparent fraud could be reported to
        housing benefit officers.

NNDR
This was funding support for voluntary and community organisations such as sports clubs and
village halls. As well as mandatory rate relief of an organisation’s rates bill (percentage of relief
dependant on the type of organisation) which was provided from central government’s NNDR
funding pool, this could be topped-up by local authorities. In theory, the combined rate relief could
be 100% of a recipient’s bill. In practice, it was less. The process was reviewed every few years
(last review in 2007).

The current process seemed fair and generally provided value for money. Staff again appeared to
be doing a good job. In the current economic climate there was a wish to support local
organisations providing a community benefit. Potentially some savings could be achieved though,
and as the regular assessment of recipients was due, the Working Group recommended that this
should take place later this year with officers reporting back in January 2011.

Concessionary Bus Passes
This had proved to be quite an involved study with many issues and interests to consider. A
number of peripheral issues had also emerged. The Working Group had met concessionary fares
managers including from North Yorkshire County Council as well as some bus operators.

The Government had a national scheme whereby anyone aged over 60 (gradually being raised to
mirror pension age of women) was entitled to free bus travel anywhere in England between 9.30am


                                                                                        st
                                                         Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 September 2010
Craven District Council

– 11pm (weekdays) and any time weekends (and public holidays). The Government provided local
authorities funding for this.

Local authorities were also allowed to provide local enhancements whereby residents could travel
free for some extra time. Local authorities had to fund any enhancement out of their own budgets.
The majority of costs were for reimbursing bus operators and the remainder mainly comprising of
administrative elements.

Currently a North Yorkshire Concessionary Fares Partnership existed involving all the North
Yorkshire district councils and York. This was managed centrally by Harrogate with the partners’
government funding effectively being administrated centrally. The Government had decided that
management of concessionary fares schemes needed to move to upper tier authorities who would
receive all the central funding.

North Yorkshire County Council were due to assume this responsibility and were currently
undertaking a consultation exercise. In essence, they were hoping to make £400,000 annual
savings by adopting the national entitlement period across North Yorkshire and York with no local
enhancements. All the partners currently allowed a local enhancement (free travel from 9am
weekdays) whilst Craven’s enhancement allowed free travel any time before 9.30am weekdays.
The County Council were also running a parallel review on proposed reductions in bus services.

The main issues that had emerged were:
    Impact on rural/remote areas with limited services who might lose free travel before 9.30am
      weekdays but then have to wait a few hours before their next available bus.
    Potential savings of around £13,000 if the Council agreed to no local enhancements (this
      figure was based on unifying with partners to free travel from 9am weekdays but a higher
      figure if no local enhancement, i.e. free travel from 9.30am weekdays)
    That operators had raised the scenario that people might simply catch a later bus thereby
      negating some of the potential savings, i.e. operator reimbursement still required and
      possibly additional costs if extra later services required. This could also impact on the
      viability of the earlier buses.
    That rural parts of Craven had very limited evening bus services so already obtained
      reduced benefit from concessionary passes.
    That the health and well-being of residents needed to be supported. During discussion, it
      was mentioned that people may be disinclined to move into an area with reduced mobility.
    That North Yorkshire was very rural so it could be assumed that other districts were giving
      the proposals serious consideration.
.
The Working Group’s recognised that simply maintaining the status quo was unrealistic and
recommended two options as the most viable:
    Secure support from the other North Yorkshire district councils for a unified scheme allowing
      free travel from 9am weekdays
    Failing that, agree to the proposed 9.30am weekday start but with an allowance to apply for
      route exemptions (retaining early free travel in areas with limited services)

The report was due to be presented to Policy Committee on 20 October with the County Council’s
consultation concluding on 31 October.

Resolved – (1) That the report and recommendations were agreed and the report will be
           presented to the Policy Committee on 20 October.

             (2) That a meeting is arranged with North Yorkshire County Council’s Craven Area
             Committee to seek their support for the recommendations.

             (3) That the Chief Executive is requested to write to and/or meet the County Council’s
             Chief Executive to highlight the issues raised and options.

                                                                                      st
                                                       Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 September 2010
Craven District Council


OS.152                     PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY WORKING GROUP

The Chairman gave a verbal progress report informing Members that the Performance Scrutiny
Working Group had held regular performance monitoring meetings. The most recent had involved
an experiment attempting to provide electronic information during the meeting using the TEN
performance management software. However, there had been some technical hurdles resulting in
the lead officer paraphrasing monitoring content. Prior to the next meeting, a test run would take
place to see if the electronic approach could work effectively otherwise the Group would revert back
to paper reports.

Resolved – That the report was noted.


OS.153           SKIPTON TOWN HALL (FUTURE OPTIONS) WORKING GROUP

The Chairman had previously notified all Members of the Council of a proposed working group to
consider the options for the future use and management of Skipton Town Hall. This was scheduled
to take place on Wednesday 29 September (17.30 – 18.45) in the guise of an informal ‘drop-in’
session. Essentially it was an opportunity for all Members (and officers) to table and discuss ideas.

Small splinter groups would be informally chaired by an O&S Member, assisted by an officer, and
collate the various ideas and fine-tuning of the ideas. It was hoped that a structured ‘short-list’ of
viable ideas for exploring further would emerge. These would then be considered at the public
meeting on 21 October at Skipton Town Hall. It was recognised that the Town Hall was one of
Craven’s central assets and that all residents had an interest.

A report was provisionally for Policy Committee in December although it was probable that an O&S
report would not be required.

Resolved – (1) That Councillors Barrington, Mrs Fairbank, Mrs Firth, Roberts and Solloway agreed
           to volunteer as ‘informal’ chairman for the Working Group meeting.

              (2) That any Member interested in an informal tour of the Town Hall should get in
              touch with the Deputy Chief Executive or Legal and Democratic Services.


OS.154                    DISABLED FACILITIES GRANTS WORKING GROUP

The Chairman explained that the Council provided disabled facilities grants to allow adaptions to be
made to residential properties to help support vulnerable people living in their own homes. Much of
the funding was mandatory and provided by the Government whilst the Council provided some.
There were some issues such as the scope for reducing the Council’s funding level and ensuring
long-term benefit was obtained from the adaptions

Resolved – (1) That Councillors Barrington, Mrs Fairbank, Pam Heseltine, Mason, Roberts and
           Solloway are appointed as Working Group Members, with Councillor Solloway to be
           the Chairman.

             (2) That the first Working Group date is Wednesday 15 September (6pm) to agree
             Terms of Reference and for background information about disabled facilities grants.


                                                                             Chairman




                                                                                        st
                                                         Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 September 2010