Return to Agenda

Division(s): N/A

ITEM EN6(a)

ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE -
17 SEPTEMBER 2003

OPTIONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE COMMITTEE’S FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME

Report by Head of Democratic Services

Introduction

  1. At a meeting 1 September 2003 the Chair, Deputy Chair and the third Group Spokesperson constructed some options for the future Work Programme of this committee. The group have asked that these be circulated prior to the meeting.

  2. Members had before them a paper that described the Scrutiny Committee’s criteria for the evaluation of last year’s Work Programme and their outcomes, topics suggested during the last year, potential activities within the scrutiny function, methods of working and sources of evidence to inform the Work Programme. These included:

    • Strategic Plans and monitoring reports, for example the Local Strategic Partnership and Oxfordshire Plan priorities & Quarterly Performance Monitoring reports to the Executive;

    • The Director’s presentation to the Committee on key issues and drivers in the July Committee cycle;

    • The Best Value Review Programme;

    • Extracts from the MORI conducted local residents survey;

    • The corporate Project Management Handbook; and

    • Audit inspections of Council Services.

Choosing Priorities

  1. The Committee is asked to consider the options as recommended. If members are not minded to propose any or all of the options, it is recommended that their exclusion is justified according to the criteria below. If any new Work Programme item(s) is (are) proposed during the debate, it is urged that they are justified for inclusion according to the guidance and criteria which has been set out.

    • What are the big issues to look at for policy development in the next year?

    • What has the executive left out of its’ priorities which the evidence suggests should be there? – can we look at these areas?

    • What do the people of Oxfordshire most care about? – is this being addressed by the Council?

    • How can we keep track of whether the priorities and services are being delivered in the way promised?

    • Is the issue strategic and significant?

    • Will the scrutiny activity add value to the overall performance of the Council?

    • Will scrutiny involvement be duplicating some other work and how resource intensive will the activity be?

    • Is it an issue of community concern?

    • Is the activity timely? Is it likely to lead to effective outcomes?

  1. You will also need to be rigorous about monitoring the cost of and time that will be spent on any scrutiny activity or function, and how achievable desired outcomes will be.

  2. Some questions from the "ten question" approach, which you used for evaluating previous scrutiny reviews, may be applied to any options you may be considering for the Work Programme:

    1. Is this topic addressing the right issues?

    1. What is the best method chosen for dealing it – whole committee investigations during the meeting, small task groups reporting back, full-blown scrutiny review?

    1. How much value could it add (on a scale with 0 being "none", and 5 being "maximum")?

    2. Will this topic help the committee to challenge effectively?

    3. How robustly will the committee be able to use questions to interrogate the issue?

    1. How much community engagement will there be with the issue?

Options

Topic

Method of working

Reasons for choice

Air pollution
  • How do County policies impact on this?
  • How is this issue considered by planners and strategists?
  • What action is possible to regulate bus companies?
  • How can duration of idling time at bus stops be reduced?

Short period of small group investigation, followed by full committee Q&A session with relevant officers & stakeholders

  • Potential serious issue NOT addressed by Executive’s new priorities, by BVPP 2003, nor by PSA
  • City already expressed desire to join with County to look at this.

Affordable housing
  • We have targets but no strategy (one expected Oct ’03)?
  • What impact can the post of affordable housing officer have?
  • Can/should the County release land cheaply if it is to be used for affordable housing?

Scrutiny Review

  • Identified as key issue by R. Dudding
  • Identified as key issue by Oxon Community Partnership
  • Key Executive Priority for 2004
  • Fits with Priority 36 in BVPP 2003
  • Issue is strategic & significant
  • Findings from MORI survey show this as very high priority

Litter (& gum), vandalism & graffiti – deprivation and community decay

  • Does tolerating these ‘minor’ crimes lead to accelerated urban degradation?
  • Should we have ‘zero tolerance’?
  • How effectively do E&E policy makers involve Community Safety?

Scrutiny Review

  • Quality of public space to be given higher priority by central government
  • Town centre quality seen as Directorate priority but NOT other parts of urban space
  • May be room for County Scrutiny to set strategic direction and offer Districts some guidance based on evidence

Economic development strategy
  • Do we have one? Is it co-ordinated?
  • How good is County/ District liaison?
  • Does this issue fall between the gaps in Directorates?
  • Is their sufficient strategic thinking?

Short period of small group investigation, followed by full committee Q&A session with relevant officers & stakeholders

  • Identified as key issue by R. Dudding
  • Very cross-cutting issue in danger of being allowed to fall between the gaps
  • Issue is strategic & significant
  • Potential to add value by identifying significant gap in corporate performance

Inland Waterways
  • Is enough work being done on promoting and preserving them?
  • Is partnership working effective – do we have partners?

Short period of small group investigation, followed by full committee Q&A session with relevant officers & stakeholders

  • Identified as key issue by R. Dudding
  • Fits with Priority 18 in BVPP 2003 (little progress)
  • Potential to assess current situation fairly quickly – i.e. ‘quick win’

Waste disposal
  • Is the current policy direction right?
  • Are there better models – should we incinerate – what are the alternatives?
  • Where will we be in 10 years time – is the vision viable?

Scrutiny Review

(Important area but may duplicate other work – e.g. Best Value Review, E&E Base budget review)

  • BV Review found improvements to joint working with Districts needed – e.g. implementation plan delayed
  • Fits with Priority 19 in BVPP 2003 (little progress)
  • Issue is strategic & significant

*Local Transport Plan – members invited by Executive to join working group for policy development.

RECOMMENDATION

  1. The Committee is RECOMMENDED to prioritise which options it wishes to include in the Work programme for the coming 12 months.

DEREK BISHOP
Head of Democratic Services

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Matt Bramall, Scrutiny Review Officer, Tel: (01865) 810822

September 2003

Return to TOP