Invitees:

All Cabinet Members & CMB

 

The Interim Chief Officer - Finance, Performance and Change presented a report that provided the Committee with the Council’s Corporate Plan 2018-2023 reviewed for 2021-22 for the Committee to consider.

 

The Chairperson thanked the Interim Chief Officer - Finance, Performance and Change and stated that there were details not yet put into the Corporate Plan and therefore the Committee could only comment on what was available, at the present time, because of the timetabling.

 

Members asked the following:

 

A Member referred to Page 57, the 5 Ways of Working - to focus diminishing resources on communities and individuals with the greatest need but asked how the needs, both of communities and individuals, were assessed and resources allocated.

 

The Chief Executive stated that this was a complex process and it would be different for different services. It was an underlying principle to protect the most vulnerable in society in different ways and resources were directed to those people in most need. He felt this was a good principle and one that most Members would support, but did not think it was a single process, but a whole range of statistics and evidence and processes that would lead to that conclusion. 

 

The Leader explained that local Members knew there were vulnerable individuals and people in need in all communities, whether those communities were described as affluent or disadvantaged.  There were individuals with high levels of need in some of the most affluent communities and individuals with low levels of needs in some of the most disadvantaged communities and those needs were different across the different service areas. It was a complex picture that would vary, whether that was mental health services, education, housing etc., which reflected the complexity of the communities.

 

A Member referred to Page 61, and asked for clarification of the area covered by the Valleys Regional Park.

 

The Leader stated that the Valleys Regional Park covered the whole of the Garw, Ogmore and Lynfi Valleys Gateway area of Bridgend County Borough. Bryngarw Country Park and Parc Slip Nature Reserve were two of the flagship projects.

 

A Member referred to a comment on page 46, paragraph 4.1 where clearly those that were involved in planning the Corporate Plan recognised the current challenging environment and asked how agile and flexible would the plan remain and what opportunity would the Committee have to revisit it, when documented evidence of what impact the pandemic had, became available.

 

The Chief Executive stated that as had been done this year the Corporate Plan could be refreshed and reviewed based on circumstances. This was an important document and a statutory document and consequently if the impact of the pandemic meant it had to be refreshed and reviewed, then it would be done.

 

A Member referred to the success indicators on Page 61 under priority area: improve learner outcomes and asked if the success indicators on educational attainment were dependent on the success of the blended learning schemes, and would there be an opportunity to scrutinise the actual success of blended learning parallel to the report.

 

The Corporate Director - Education & Family Support stated that there were two issues.  In respect of the success indicators, the final column was blank because the local authority had a directive from WG that comparative data in respect of learners, was not to published. With regard to other matters there was constant communication around arrangements for assessment at primary school level and examinations at secondary level this year and CSC were pushing heavily for a response.  As soon an update and a firm position was received, the information would be circulated to Members.

 

In respect of blended learning this was something the local authority was very keen on. CSC undertook a review of blended learning approaches across the region in November 2020 and that had been shared with Schools. CSC were currently working with all schools looking at the efficacy of the blended learning approach and also to monitor outcomes. WG and Estyn were extremely interested in the blended learning offer and last week WG had introduced new guidance in respect of live streaming of lessons. The key thing was to have faith in the expertise of Headteachers and Teachers to deliver an independent offer that worked best for their settings and their learners. As soon as the information from Qualification Wales, Estyn and WG was received, it would be shared with Members.

 

The Cabinet Member – Education and Regeneration stated that this was obviously an important topic, which had great importance during Covid-19 and ongoing importance afterwards. One thing that had been discovered was that people had different expectations about the online element of blended learning and sometimes made assumptions, which were incorrect. He suggested there would be value in inviting colleagues from CSC to a pre-council session.

 

A Member referred to Page 66 in relation to success indicators, ‘percentage of people presenting as homeless or potentially homeless, for whom the local authority had a final legal duty to secure suitable accommodation’. He asked if the 30% was a figure of those that the local authority were successful in finding suitable accommodation for. He also noted in respect of the ‘number of additional dwellings created as a result of bringing empty properties back into use’ that the local authority was off to a good start in 2019-20 , but didn’t seem to be setting overly ambitious targets for 2021-22. 

The idea of bringing empty properties back into proper use went hand in hand with preventing homelessness. People needed properties in which to live and was interested to learn why the target was so low.

 

The Interim Chief Officer - Finance, Performance and Change explained that the local authority could not necessarily dictate to private owners what they then did with the property. The local authority had been complying with the new guidelines in terms of temporary accommodation and was stabilised at the moment at about 150 families who were housed in temporary accommodation.  That wasn’t going to last forever and a whole variety of accommodation had to be utilised to do that. At the same time, there had been extensive discussions with housing associations. There was now a joint housing protocol whereby the local authority could work to house as many homeless as possible. There was a whole spectrum of those that were homeless with some difficult to place.

 

At the same time the local authority had put forward a whole raft of bids to get Capital monies, which were still in the process of being scrutinised by the WG.  The local authority played a conduit role but was part of the bid process putting suitable properties forward, and those were in the process of going through scrutiny and would then require planning permission. This was an ongoing problem and a huge pressure for those that were homeless and for the Council, in terms of the duty of care and also the financial resources needed to accommodate. She reassured Members that there were a number of different planks of attack on this and the local authority was doing as much as possible to get the temporary accommodation, that was suitable, and more importantly the permanent accommodation although not everyone wanted permanent accommodation and in some cases it was very difficult because they needed additional services. This wasn’t a problem that could always be solved by just putting a house in place. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Future Generations and Wellbeing stated in relation to the narrative to explain the 30% target, some of the indicators were national indicators and some local. She was not clear but felt this maybe a national indicator and that was why it was worded in such a way. She explained that she would take this away and have a look at it and if there was anything that could be done to clarify the wording then she would push for that. In terms of the success indicator, it was based on projections and the expansion of the duty and the target was based on the national average of Wales. In 2019-20, the target was the national average and the local authority achieved more than the target, so the target was always set on the national average. She noted the pandemic over the period of 2020-21 and didn’t see that gravely changing for 2021-22 as the economy restarted so felt this figure was conservative, but that was where the figure had come from. 

 

A Member noted that Scotland had removed the priority needs status resulting in making pretty much every one priority needs and wondered what sort of preparations were being put in place by the local authority, should WG go in this direction, which was recommended in their review in 2020.

 

The Interim Chief Officer - Finance, Performance and Change stated that she would have to come back on that as at present the WG hadn’t declared this. There were two sets of guidelines this year. The second lot of guidelines were pretty all encompassing but they hadn’t indicated that they would necessarily move down that route.

 

The Cabinet Member for Future Generations and Wellbeing stated that it was probably likely. She advised there was a rapid housing team with all the RSL’s in place and which they were looking to be kept in place so that people could quickly be moved into accommodation and this was one of the things being considered.

 

A Member referred to Page 66/67 in relation to priority area: better health and well-being.  It appeared quite strange that there was no reference to mental health, as one of the entry points into health services would be via the local authority, as well as partners. Had the local authority ever had a mental health indicator and was one needed now.

 

The Leader stated that the local authority would be developing a mental health strategy for children, young people and also for adults and this would be reflected in the Corporate Plan and planning process. It would be a multi-agency strategy and approach with a focus on early intervention and prevention and was particularly timely given the pressures and the role of the third sector and health, which would be critical to this as well, as would other partners including police and housing. That was why it was a strategy that potentially may go through the PSB and would need the support of partners in developing.

 

The Head of Children's Social Care confirmed that lead officers in SS&W had been identified to undertake the work and were working with colleagues in the Education & Family Support Directorate and other parts of the local authority, to drive those pieces of work forward. Reports had been taken to the PSB chairs and the joint partnership board, to agree the work was a priority and the governance arrangements for those. She emphasised the need to involve citizens in this work as well, and undertake a lot of engagement and consultation with children, young people and adults. This would inform the services to be developed in the future as well as part of the strategy.

 

A Member referred to Page 70 and supported the decarbonisation and environmental sustainability and asked, in relation to transforming the council’s estate, were there sufficient staff to be able to cope.

 

The Corporate Director – Communities explained that a key part of the 2030 agenda was about improving buildings and looking to reduce the net zero carbon but there needed to be some expedience set against the backdrop of the resources available. There needed to be a partnership for this, and it was not just about in-house resources delivering these initiatives because there wouldn’t be enough capacity so this was where a partnership approach would be looked at. The local authority would also look at using experts in this field to come forward, especially with contracting out some of the work to move at pace. It would be progressed as effectively as it could but needed to be realistic as well.

 

The Member explained that he was talking about the whole, process, so this also included of disposing of or releasing surplus land and buildings. Therefore, he was referring about the need for in-departmental collaboration and the resources to make that expedient.

 

The Corporate Director – Communities explained that the local authority did have a Corporate Landlord section but this did have some vacancies currently.  However, the local authority was using disposal experts and bringing in, as and when required, surveyors, etc., to assist with some of the disposals and people who had the commercial know how e.g., E J Hales and Saville’s, etc., on particular projects. It was right to bring in that expertise, as and when required to ensure getting best consideration for the lands and buildings, to be disposed of, responsibly.

 

The Cabinet Member – Communities explained that there were four areas within this strategy that were being looked at, not only land and buildings but energy, transport and also open spaces. It was a huge strategy and a massive challenge that was being undertaken that was all encompassing and no stone was being left unturned. At the end of the day the county borough was a leader in the community and should be leading on the climate change agenda.

 

A Member stated that he fully accepted within the MTFS that the local authority was looking to achieve a particular sum to reinvest in services but it also needed to consider the best consideration being around the value, rather than just being a cashable amount.

 

The Chief Executive stated that he agreed with the Member and explained that to an extent that was already happening.  It was not always just about getting the maximum cash. It was about recognising commercial impact, sometimes about design, community impact, etc., and those were considerations taken into account.

 

The Corporate Director explained that the local authority wanted to set up a set of social values measure, because some of the schemes coming forward, especially the energy schemes, washed their face financially, but also had tremendous social value. In addition the net zero carbon agenda had enormous social value with the measure of some of those things being non-financial e.g., what is the carbon footprint, what is the carbon reduction, how many jobs have been created, if it is open space, wellbeing effect, etc. Those things were not financial, but just as important to measure going forward.

 

The Chief Officer - Legal, HR & Regulatory Services confirmed that that best consideration was set out in law and there was a substantial amount of case law around it. Unfortunately, the local authority’s hands were tied in so far as what it could take into consideration but there were other ways social value and wider impact on the community, could be considered.

 

A Member referred to Page 72, in relation to success indicators on gas and electric consumption and was surprised there wasn’t any historical baseline data. In respect of the decarbonisation areas he was pleased that the local authority was looking towards hydrogen energy and electric charging points but this was very ambitious and was not going to happen overnight. He also felt it would benefit from having a number of targets on fleet management, in relation to decarbonisation, just to show the direction travel that has been made and to what extent progress was being made in this area.

 

The Corporate Director – Communities explained that part of the action plan, was outlining some timescales for delivery of things such as fleet replacement, a move over to electric vehicles. Electric was being used for smaller fleet and possibly looking at in the future whether hydrogen could be used in the HGV fleet.  This would be within the action plan and once it was approved, it could be incorporated as a future target in the Corporate Plan.

With regard to some of the indicators, especially with the consumption piece, it had been a very strange year in that there hadn’t been the energy consumption that would ordinarily be expected.  The idea was to baseline it from April onwards, when hopefully, there would be a return to a new normal. This would be then used as a baseline to look at carbon reduction, rather than looking back at consumption.

 

The Chief Executive explained that he would build on what the Corporate Director – Communities had said and the key point was about the fact that this had been a unique year, not just in terms of energy consumption in buildings, but clearly, there had been less movement of vehicles and a whole range of things. That meant that actually using the energy consumption for the year before was probably now irrelevant to set a baseline on new ways of working. The data was available, but it probably needed to be put in a different context. 

 

A Member referred to Page 72, and felt that in relation to the success indicators the local authority should sign up to Fields in Trust, which was set up to protect areas of open space for the public to use. It was something, perhaps a target, the local authority should be looking at. In relation to these targets, the Member felt these should be more ambitious and should also be worded differently so it was understood what was trying to be achieved.

 

The Chief Executive stated that in respect of the Member’s point about Fields in Trust that this would need to be explored further. He reassured Members of the long-term ambition about green spaces but reminded all Members that one of the challenges in setting this year’s Corporate Plan was that the main priorities remained around public health and the pandemic.

 

In terms of setting ambitious targets, discussions had taken place about setting more ambitious targets but realistically while priorities remained around public health, the roll out of the vaccine, protecting people, there were some things, though  not unimportant, that for a short while, couldn’t be prioritised. That was the challenge at the moment and one of the challenges of the second lockdown was that expectations were very different from the first, and the local authority had to act the way it had always run, plus these additional services, which was a huge challenge.

 

A Member referred to Pages 82, under the Wellbeing Assessment it stated ‘the benefits of our tree planting programme’ and noted that that the Valleys Regional Park did not cover the whole County Borough. He suggested the text be amended to show that the whole County Borough was being looked at, and not just the northern half.

 

The Member also referred to Pages 83, in relation to ‘aWales of cohesive communities’. He felt that in future Corporate Plans, the PSB’s survey that was undertaken in August 2020 needed to be referenced, noting that 95% of people had said they would use green space more in the future.

 

The Chairperson felt that Members were all in agreement and that green spaces were very important and this pandemic had underpinned that fact.

 

A Member who was unable to stay to this point in the meeting asked in relation to Appendix B, section 3, should not there be an assessment for Children because of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act and is the local authority meeting its legislative requirements?

 

The Senior Democratic Services Officer – Scrutiny confirmed that she would arrange for the question to be confirmed and forwarded to the Head of Children’s Service and the Chief Officer - Legal, HR & Regulatory Services.

 

A Member stated that he knew that scrutiny was non-political but this was a very important document and he noticed that the Scrutiny Chair and Leader of the Conservative Group was no longer present. He suggested that if Members left the meeting, it should be announced, or at least they should say they are leaving. He noted there was silence from some people and this was a very important document and all parties should be taking part.

 

The Chairperson confirmed that the Member had indicated that his PC was shutting down, so presumably he had difficulty logging back in.

 

A Member stated that he felt that this was the most important Corporate Plan that the Council had ever put out in its history because it was how it now moved forward after Covid-19. He thought that one thing that needed to be asked was if the local authority was in a more robust position today to adapt to any new virus or pandemics that came down the line.

 

The Chairperson agreed and stated that this should be a future FWP item for all Scrutiny Committees to really examine, have we learned and have we adapted and have we improved.

 

The Chairperson thanked Officers for their attendance. She felt it was important to state at this stage that the Committee hadn’t had the full Corporate Plan with MTFS information completed and that the Committee could only consider the recommendations and report with its current content.

 

RESOLVED:                      That the Committee noted the draft Corporate Plan 2018-2023 reviewed for 2021- 22 for onward consideration at Cabinet and Council in February 2021,, subject to the comments made by Members..