Recommendations Made to Cabinet/Executive Member/Chief Officer at the Last Meeting

RECOMMENDATIONS MADE TO CABINET/EXECUTIVE MEMBER/CHIEF OFFICER AT THE LAST MEETING:

REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE OF EDF ENERGY:

Minute 1.4(c) – The Committee requested that the Director of Environment provide Members with information on exceptions that fall outside the EDF Charter standards.

Response:

The first report will be circulated to Members in early March 2005.

Minute 1.4(e) – The Committee requested that EDF consider moving their charter standards nearer to those of HCC.

Response:

A formal request has been sent to EDF asking them to consider this.

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS TOPIC GROUP – Minute 2.2(a) – The Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Topic Group.

Response:

The Director of Environment will be reviewing arrangements in order to improve communications with Members on Planning Obligations and will bring forward proposals shortly to the Planning Obligations Steering Group.

The Director of Environment is reviewing current levels of funding received through S106 and will prepare a Briefing for discussion with the Planning Obligations Steering Group to consider methods for increasing the sums received.

ENVIRONMENT PROPOSED RESOURCE BUDGET 2005/06 – 2008/09:

Minute 2.4(d) – The Committee requested that Cabinet increase the allocated monies for HWRC’s to £1.175m.

Response:

At their meeting on 7 February 2005, Cabinet agreed that the capital budget for Household Waste Centres be increased by £200,000 to £1,200,000 to allow the improvements at Stevenage, Rickmansworth and Royston to be progressed and that the £494,000 Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant for 2005/06 be applied to the funding of this.

Minute 2.4(f) – The Committee recommended to Cabinet that some of the additional road improvement budget be utilised by providing an additional £100,000 for development control to bring staffing levels up to current establishment levels and to recruit additional staff. They also requested that the discretionary fund allocated to Joint Member Panels be increased from £80,000 to £100,000.

Response:

These points were considered by Cabinet on 7 February 2005 and County Council on 10 February 2005.

UPDATE ON PETITIONS PRESENTED TO THE LAST MEETING:

Mrs M Mead presented a petition urging the County Council to supply passenger friendly buses for all users, not just the able bodied.

Response:

A letter was sent to Mrs Mead and the local member, Reg Smith on 15 February 2005. This explained that for commercial bus services the County Council can only seek to influence the type of vehicle that is provided and for it’s own contracted services, within the constraints of seeking best value it seeks to provide the best quality and most accessible vehicles. Regarding the specific route (Service SB1) on a Sunday the County Council is hopeful that it can secure an accessible vehicle from Spring 2005.
UPDATE ON PREVIOUS SCRUTINY ITEMS

ITEM / C’TTEE DATE / EFFECTS OF SCRUTINY / STATUS
(see endnote)
1 / Planning Obligations / 23/01/01 / The Resources Scrutiny Committee established a topic group and the first meeting was held on 27 November 2003.
The topic group members were B N W Hammond, R S Clements, R N Copping, M Green, S E Jones, D E Lloyd, S J Mills and R J Smith.
The topic group has met on a number of occasions and its final meeting was held on 20 October 2004.
The Committee received the Group’s final report and recommendations on 18 January 2005, and whilst they endorsed these they also made a number of additional comment. They identified a need for a quicker turn around of Section 106 Agreements within the County Secretary’s department and requested that Officers consider whether we are seeking the right level of works from planning obligations.
As such Members agreed to monitor this item through the update report. / Monitoring
2 / Managing S106 Agreements / 18/03/03 / On 21 October 2004 the Scrutiny Committee agreed that this report should go to the Planning Obligations Topic Group set up by the Resources Scrutiny Committee. The report also went to the Audit Committee on 11 December 2003. A progress report was received by the October 2004 Committee where Members agreed that no further reports were necessary but felt they should continue to monitor progress through the scrutiny update report. / Monitoring
3 / Withdrawal of the Traffic Warden Service / 18/03/03 / A Topic group was set up to discuss with Chief Supt. Burden the timetable for withdrawal and the principle of interim cover post 1 April 2004. The Group met and subsequently, the Assistant Chief Constable formally confirmed that Area Police Commanders had been requested to discuss transitional arrangements with District Councils. County Council officers meanwhile are supporting and facilitating District Councils in their feasibility studies and preparations.
At its meeting in January 2004, the Committee agreed that a second meeting be held between the Topic Group and the Chief Constable to discuss enforcement arrangements. It was also noted that the Community Services Scrutiny Committee had an interest in scrutinising this issue and that efforts should be made to co-ordinate the Council’s approach.
A meeting was held with the Constabulary in March 2004, at which assurances were given about the continuation of gross enforcement. Members were asked to contact their Area Commanders with concerns and to copy in Chief Superintendent Tony Burden.
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement is now in place in Watford, Dacorum, Three Rivers, St Albans, East Herts and North Herts Districts and is planned for the remaining districts as follows: Broxbourne - 9 May 2005, Stevenage - 1 June 2005, Welwyn Hatfield - 1 June 2005, Hertsmere - October 2005. / Monitoring
4 / Thameslink 2000 / 17/0603 / Initial meeting held on 2 September 2003. Scope of scrutiny further extended to include current franchise.
A brief report that updated Members on progress was submitted to the March meeting. The Committee requested the Topic Group press the appropriate bodies for better progress on the issue of disabled access.
As it was not possible to arrange a meeting with the SRA in time for the October 2004 meeting, Members of the Committee agreed that the Topic Group should continue and should seek a meeting to discuss previously identified issues and problems associated with the termination of services at St. Pancras.
The Topic Group will meet in March/April for an officer briefing, followed by a session with rail representatives. / Monitoring
5 / Review of Performance of EDF (24/7) / 17/03/03 / Representatives from EDF Energy attended the meeting in March 2004 to comment on its performance and to answer members’ questions. Whilst members welcomed the improvements in fault clearance and connections, they were still concerned that performance did not meet the council’s desired standards.
A progress report was received by the Committee in October 2004 and whilst Members acknowledged there has been some improvement in EDF’s performance, particularly in respect of dealing with faults, serious concern was expressed about the continued problems with new connections and the removal of old units. As such it was requested that performance tables be circulated to Members of the County Council on a monthly basis.
At their last meeting in January 2005 Members agreed that the Committee should continue to review EDF’s performance on a quarterly basis and that representatives from EDF need only attend on an annual basis unless the situation deteriorates. / Monitoring
6 / Category 1 (Highway Repairs) Topic Group / 21/10/03 / The Category 1 (Highway Repairs) Topic Group met three times during December 2004, twice in January 2005 and has undertaken two site visits. Their final report and recommendations is on the agenda for this meeting. / Investigation

 Status definitions:

Investigation – The scrutiny committee has commissioned work, which could be from a topic group, officers, consultants or other parties which is not yet complete but will report to the main committee in the future.
Work outside scrutiny – an item which has been raised by the scrutiny committee where work is being taken forward through another mechanism in response to the item being raised by scrutiny– a panel, external body or officer mechanism for example.
Monitoring – Items which the scrutiny committee has scrutinised in the past where it has asked for occasional or regular updates. This update could be a planned report, in which case the dates should be given, or monitoring through the update report. Items where there is work outside scrutiny can also be monitoring items.
Awaiting Action – Items the committee wishes to scrutinise or review where the timing is unclear due to awaiting events or the outcome of other investigations. e.g. government guidance

FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME

ITEM / DATE / SCRUTINY FOCUS
1. / Review of Performance of EDF Energy / June 2005 / To receive a report reviewing the performance of EDF Energy.
2. / Review of Performance of EDF Energy / October 2005 / To receive a report reviewing the performance of EDF Energy.
3. / Environment Resource Budget / October 2005 / As agreed in January 2005, to receive a report reviewing the effects of additional expenditure within development control.
4. / Review of Performance of EDF Energy / January 2006 / To receive a report reviewing the performance of EDF Energy (representatives from EDF to attend meeting).
5. / Representation to DEFRA on Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Set-aside / After the announcement (due in early 2005) of the changes to agri-environment schemes, brought about by the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. / Requested by Nigel Agar (October 2003).

Note: Each meeting will also have Budget Monitor, Traffic Light Monitor (except January) and Scrutiny Update & Work Programme report (including scoping documents).

Agenda Item 6 Update Report

APPENDIX 1

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

SCOPING DOCUMENT

TOPIC: / Large Scheme Bids in South West Herts
Raised by: / Chris White / Date: / November 2004
Issue(s) of concern:
Are schemes coming in at a final cost over and above the budgeted cost?
What impact is this having on other works?

Initial comments (if any) of:

Chief Officer: / Some initial estimates, and hence early budget allocations, for schemes have been exceeded by their final costs. This is partly explained by the elapsed time between the initial estimate and the final implementation which can allow further deterioration or changes following public consultation processes
Head of Scrutiny: / This piece of scrutiny would identify whether there is a real or a perceived problem with estimates for this type of work.

FRAMEWORK FOR SCRUTINY:

Issues and Questions to be addressed:

How have outturn costs compared with initial estimates?

Method (Committee/ Topic Group/ or other informal meetings or visits)

Committee report

Likely sources of evidence/ witnesses:

It is not proposed to call witnesses for this item.

Resources

Lead officer: / Rob Smith
Meeting Administrator: / Nicola Hayden
Specialist Advisor:
Other: / Staff supporting this work would be those engaged currently on servicing the category 1 defect topic group, the preparation of the integrated works programme, and the development of LTP2. Extensive scrutiny may impact on those work areas.
Scope approved by Scrutiny Committee on : / 18 January 2005
Listed for Scrutiny Committee on: / TBC

TOPIC GROUP (if required)

Membership:
Remit:

PROGRAMME: (timescales and current position)

The Environment Scrutiny Committee received scoping report on 18 January 2005 and agreed that once the Category 1 Topic Group had completed it’s work, this issue should be scrutinised.

OUTCOME(S) (when scrutiny completed)

Agenda Item 6 Update Report

