Review Topic

(name of review)

Corporate Environmental Policy

Study Group Members

(Cllr’s involved)

Cllrs Patrick Greene, Biddy Hudson & Jean Fooks and/or secondees including Cllrs appointed to the prospective Energy Savings scrutiny review

Officer Support

(Scrutiny Review Officer lead)

Julian Hehir or Matt Bramall or a.n.other

Rationale

(key issues and/ or reason for doing the review)

• Protecting the environment has been identified as a key issue for the community from its high ranking among stakeholders in the Community Strategy consultation
• There is little evidence that the current policy is well implemented
• Concerns that whilst the Environmental Policy is a corporate priority area, there is a lack of Directorate/service commitment
• Concerns that comprehensive integration of environmental management into all services is not being achieved
• Desire for Member input into the prospective internal review of the current policy
• Assessment of the usefulness of current performance indicators (including the Audit Commission’s Community Well Being PIs), measurement of them and how they are being used for assessing environmental performance

Purpose of Review/Objective

(specify exactly what the review should achieve)

• To achieve significant improvements in the performance of the Council against the relevant Audit Commission and other PI’s
• To highlight issues which should feature in the new corporate policy, which should take into account new threats to the environment, eg climate change etc.
• To assess how, as a corporate body, the Council can reduce its adverse effects on the environment
• To review the effects/impact of the current policy to inform the production of the new environmental policy
• To achieve a commitment from directorates/services to sign up to the new policy

Indicators of Success

(what factors would tell you what a good review should look like)

• To have drawn up an Action Plan to implement the proposed policy which is realistic and achievable within a short timescale and to have convinced the Executive to instruct Directors to implement the relevant parts of the Action Plan in their areas
• Will have formulated recommendations to the Executive
• Will have evaluated alternative ways of doing things
• Will have identified "ball park"costs for the Executive of adopting review recommendations
• Will have assisted services to look at achieving cost savings in delivery of their services, as high costs affect the ability to provide services which protect the environment
• Improvement in achievement against relevant PI’s and agreed, new, local PI’s

Methodology/ Approach

(what types of enquiry will be used to gather evidence and why)

• Desk based review of papers
• Interviewing officers, witnesses
• Site visit(s) with a view to making comparisons with other authorities
• Focus group of officers from around the authority

Specify Witnesses/ Experts

(who to see and when)

• Susie Ohlenschlager & Liz Moore - Council’s Environmental team
• Executive member – Cllr Anne Purse
• District partners
• External experts& witnesses to be identified in consultation with SO & LM

Specify Evidence Sources for Documents

(which to look at)

• To be identified in consultation with SO & LM

Specify Site Visits

(where and when)

• Possible site visits to other authorities to make comparisons

Specify Evidence Sources for Views of Stakeholders

(consultation/ workshops/ focus groups/ public meetings)

• Council’s Environmental Team
• District partners
• (This section to be developed following Scrutiny Committee)

Resource requirements

• Person-days
• Expenditure

• 30-40 days
• £4 - 5,000 (eg for internal/ external experts consultancy

Barriers/ dangers/ risks

(identify any weaknesses and potential pitfalls)

• (This section to be developed following Scrutiny Committee)

Projected start date

N/A at this stage

Draft Report Deadline

To track the review of the current policy

Meeting Frequency

N/A at this stage

Projected completion date

Ditto