To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Hunt.

To receive any Declarations of Interest.

Cllr Sharma – Declared a personal interest as he works for First Group.

To confirm the Part I Minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED: That the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 22 November 2016 be approved.

To receive and consider the above report.

Gordon Oliver, Principal Transport Policy Officer introduced the report to Members and highlighted the following key points:

Ø  Cabinet was held at Charters School in September and this report was a direct result of issues raised around walking and cycling to school safely at that meeting.

Ø  Some of the issues raised included narrowness of foot paths, lack of cycle routes and excessive speeds on Charters Road.

Ø  Four options were recommended to address some of the issues which included:

o   Installing traffic signals at Dry Arch Road rail bridge with a pedestrian facility triggered via a push button unit similar to a Puffin Crossing.

o   Construction of a new footbridge on the western side of Devenish Road to the north of Elm Park.

o   Approach Heathermount School to discuss options for improving the narrow footway across their frontage.

o   Seek to secure a strip of land to the rear of the existing footway across the front of properties on Devenish Road that come forward for planning permission.

Ø  There were a number of options that were not recommended as they would mean removing well established trees or too narrow roads for widening footpaths

Cllr Beer stated he had a strong objection and disgust at three complicated items being notified to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel over the weekend and the day before the relevant meeting. It was in total conflict with Constitution Clause A4 relating to Overview and Scrutiny Panels which refers to Panels normally being notified three weeks before Cabinet. He added it was not good practice or democratic to expect thorough and in formed consideration and recommendations in such short timescales as was now becoming normal practice. Cllr Beer stated it was in total conflict with the intention of the LGA Act 2000 in relation to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny panels. Cllr Beer went on to say that it was exacerbated by the absence of full supporting data with reports to support the recommendations which did not enable to Overview and Scrutiny Panels to make a properly considered judgement. The provision of late details to Cabinet exacerbated the situation as that by passed the Overview and Scrutiny Panel and particularly, if in verbal statements the Cabinet is also denied the opportunity to properly consider any knock on effects. Cllr Beer stated that the whole process was being gone through so quickly that Panel Members were not able to give full consideration to recommendations. The Chairman stated it was because this report was such a serious matter; he had spoken with the Panel Administrator about why the report was so late and it was because it had been awaiting final sign off. The Chairman commented that the reports were also emailed electronically and the Charters Walking and Cycling report had been emailed three days previously; Members had the technology at home to read the reports. Cllr Grey stated that cllr Beer made some good points and the Council needed to endeavour to get things done on time.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Chairman has agreed to add this as an urgent item to enable Members to comment on the report prior to it going to Cabinet on 15 December 2016. Report to Follow.

Craig Miller, Head of Community Protection & Enforcement introduced the report and highlighted the following key points:

Ø  Cabinet approved in principle in June 2016 for officers to look at merging the civil enforcement offer and community warden roles.

Ø  Market research was carried out on the best way to merge the roles.

Ø  The paper included the updated research results including market intelligence and testing.

Ø  The new report requested a slight change in direction as the original proposal was based on work carried out by other local authorities such as Westminster. However, when officers looked more closely at what they had done, the roles were not to be as originally described which concerned officers.

Ø  The marshal service used by Westminster Council were civil enforcement officers by a different name which did not align with what the officers wanted the Borough’s wardens to do.

Ø  Members had also raised concerns regarding aligning the two roles together.

Ø  The market intelligence results had also raised some concerns.

Ø  The paper now requested to amend the proposal to remove the warden element and continue on the civil enforcement route.

Ø  The Lead Member approved a live pilot in the Borough to be conducted with a third party provider.

Ø  That was in operation and was live at the time of the meeting.

Ø  The recommendations were to agree to amend the original proposal and carry out a procurement exercise to see if a third party solution would work and then to appoint a contractor.

Ø  Community warden services had been taken out of the paper altogether and had been put alongside environmental services.

Ø  The Head of Community Protection & Enforcement said the team were looking at multi-skilling officers to preserve community services.

The Chairman stated he understood when the Panel discussed the paper in the past, concerns had been raised by Members so it was good to see that amended. He added that different schemes worked for different councils; community wardens were the eyes and ears of the community so removing them from the proposal was a good thing. Cllr beer stated he was fully supportive of the proposal and the new paper answered a lot of concerns. It was the right way forward. He was concerned regarding putting parking services to a third party as they would be in it for the profit. Simon Fletcher, Strategic Director of Operations stated the paper did propose that and it put the council in a position to go out to market and get the contract that was right for residents. The Head of Community Protection & Enforcement confirmed that parking was regulated and would be safeguarded so it would not be for profit making. Staff would be protected by TUPE so if Cabinet agreed the proposals, current staff would be protected. The Strategic Director of Operations said the team would test through procurement to maintain control of parking. The pilot was to see if the concept would work in the Borough. The council had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

To receive the above report.

Ben Smith, Head of Highways and Transport, introduced the report to Members and highlighted the following main points:

Ø  A paper had gone to Cabinet in June 2016 where Cabinet endorsed and approved agreement in principle for soft market testing.

Ø  The team had received bids back for three lots:

o   Lot one: highways management and maintenance, including winter service, street cleansing and projects.

o   Lot two: traffic management and ancillary services, including traffic signal maintenance.

o   Lot three: Highway and transport professional services, including highways development control and flood risk management.

Ø  Other areas within the department were already outsourced.

Ø  Key conditions relating to in house staff at Tinkers Lane Depot and planning staff were included in the lots.

Ø  Lot one was recommended to be offered to Volkers.

Ø  Volkers  had been procured in West Berkshire and Camden on similar work.

Ø  Lot three had been recommended to be offered to Project Centre

Ø  Project Centre were a small to medium sized business that worked with local authorities.

Ø  Lot two had received a bid from Siemans but, it was costly and was not what the team were looking for so the recommendation related to lot two was to not award and do further work on the contract.

Ø  Awards would deliver £90k of savings and then further savings would be made through the restructure of in house residual functions.

Ø  Volkers had their head offices in Hertfordshire but, they would use the council’s offices to operate the contract from.

Ø  Only one bid per lot was received. They would still provide good value for money as for street cleaning, that could be provided for less that the Borough currently paid. The team were unable to compare against other bidders as there were no other bidders but, it was still possible to see where the council would make savings.

Ø  The Head of Highways and Transport confirmed the contracts went out to the whole of Europe.

Ø  By contracting services out, although only initially saving £90k, would give the opportunity to realign the service to create further savings.

Ø  Some of the councils contracts were coming to an end so would need to go out to tender to replace current contracts.

Ø  Amey contract ended in March 2017 and also, the flexible elements of the contract had moved on so there was resistance from current contractor to continue to work in the same way.

Ø  Fixed pricing had been used and companies were reluctant to bid on fixed pricing contracts.

Ø  The specifications of each bid set out the challenges and risks if a job was not completed or carried out well. The council would also use key performance measures to measure success of a contract.

Ø  The retained highways and transport team would be charged with maintaining the contracts and dealing with customers and complaints. They would make sure the contracts delivered.

Ø  The waste contractor was outsourced and was delivering the council’s core values with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

To consider passing the following resolution:-

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 7 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 and 3 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act".