Agenda and minutes

1.1  An apology for absence was received from Cllr Etti. 

1.2  An apology for lateness was received from Polly Cziok.

2.1  There were no urgent items and the order of business was as on the agenda.

3.1  Cllr Patrick stated she was a contributor to the Hackney Marsh Partnership Club.

4.1  Members gave consideration to the draft minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2018 and noted the matters arising.

5.1  Members gave consideration to the Annual Report of the Council’s Complaints and Members’ Enquiries Service.  It was noted that this item came to the Scrutiny Panel annually.

5.2  The Chair welcomed for this item:

  Bruce Devile, Head of Governance and Business Intelligence (BD)

  Cllr Rebecca Rennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Housing     Needs

5.3  Members asked for an explanation of the increase in the number of  Ombudsmans’ investigations which had been upheld and whether there were any underlying trends associated with them.

5.4  BD explained that the numbers here were small and the changes not significant.  Often the Ombudsman will agree with the Council but still find fault so it is not always an accurate measure.  Generally though they had not raised any issues and they had not felt the need to visit.  The Council promptly supplied them with whatever they requested and so the relationship overall was a good one.  On common issues, often this related to complicated cases where they would find fault with one small part of the process.

5.5  Members noted that the average response time for Members’ Enquiries had jumped to 15.5 days and expressed a concern that a many might be significantly over this.  One Member stated that on one case over one month a holding response had been sent to her but not to the complainant and this needed to be addressed.  BD stated that the lag related to the more complicated cases relating to benefits and Housing Needs because these take much longer.  Members also asked that they be kept informed when a case is likely to take a longer time so that the complainants’ expectations can be managed.

5.6  With ref to point 3.7 of the report (p.51) Members asked why the volume of complaints on Street scene and Housing Needs had increased so much.  BD replied that this related to varying quality and performance of schemes.  When an issue arises there is usually a flurry of complaints e.g.  the cycle super highway or the ‘no left turn’ onto Richmond Rd.  Cllr Rennison added that Members need to be aware that the Complaints Service is not responsible for the service complained about but rather the complaints process.  Much work was ongoing with the Housing Team for example on the learning from complaints.

5.7  Members asked if there was guidance on the best way to present Members Enquiries.  BD replied that they get c.2000 enquiries a year and very rarely do they need to refer back to the Member as the information provided is generally sufficient to properly investigate.

5.8  A Member stated that Cllrs were being used as a mailbox for complaints to MPs and suggested that Scrutiny Panel request the MPs to forward emails to the members enquiries  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  The Chair welcomed for this item:

  Ian Williams, Group Director Finance and Resources (IW)

  Tim Shields, Chief Executive (TS)

  Cllr Rebecca Rennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Housing  Needs

  Mayor Philip Glanville

And the Chair stated that the Panel received regular Financial Updates from the Group Director.

6.2  Members gave consideration to three reports:

a)  Overall Financial Position, Property Disposals and Acquisitions Report agreed by Cabinet in July

b)  Capital Update report agreed by Cabinet in September

c)  Presentation on ‘Funding Cuts and Challenges’, which was tabled

6.3  IW took Members through the reports and stated that on the revenue side the Council continued to experience significant financial challenges, however the overspend was just 5% of overall budget and the Council was in a very strong position vis-à-vis other local authorities in the country which were in crisis e.g. Northamptonshire, Surrey and Lancashire.

6.4  IW drew Members’ attention to point 2.8 of OFP report regarding the plans for a North London Heat and Power Project by the North London Waste Authority.  Hackney was one of the 7 councils involved.  This would represent the largest investment by the Council for many years and so there would be regular updates to Members as well as updates in the regular OFP reports. 

6.5  With reference to point 1.1 on p.62 of the OFP report and the £5.5m overspend, Members asked for clarification on how much the over spend would deplete reserves and how this would be handled and how for example expectations about potential lower council tax collection rates were factored in. IW replied that there would be no draw down of the Corporate Contingency and the Council wouldn’t factor in an assumption about overspend.  In the current situation it was too early to tell what the actual impact would be.  He described how in the past £2.5m had been used to fund emergency works.  Generally if council tax was raised 1% it would generate £800k but a 0.5% raise would just generate c£300k.  Members asked further what the depletion of reserves was last year.  IW replied that the Council was able to draw down agreed balances from the CCG which had meant that they did not need to dip into the reserves on that occasion.

6.6  Members asked about the financial challenges relating to Adult Social Care and CYP services.  IW replied that the adult and children’s social care came out of the general fund but SEND was funded from the Direct Schools Grant.  They factored in growth pressures and the costs of Looked After Children and of placement costs in Adult Care.  All things being equal they were confident that they would be able to manage the situation back to balance.  He stated that in London overall there was a £100m deficit with SEND.  As SEND was funded out of DSG the issue cannot be resolved through council tax. 

6.7  With regard to the financial impact of the North London Heat and Power project Members asked how evolved the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  Members gave consideration to a report to establish 4 time limited Scrutiny Task Groups for the purposes of budget scrutiny introduced by the Corporate Director Finance and Resources.

7.2  As regards the Membership of the Groups, the Chair proposed that the following Members would serve on Fees and Charges Scrutiny Task Group: Cllr Gordon, Cllr Patrick, Cllr Lynch, Cllr Stops and Cllr Joseph.

7.3  It was further noted that the Fees and Charges Scrutiny Task Group would commence its work immediately and the membership of the other three Scrutiny Task Groups would be agreed at the next meeting of Scrutiny Panel in January as they would not commence their work until the new year.

7.4  Members’ agreed the report.

8.1  The Chair stated that she had invited the Chief Executive and the Director of Communications, Culture and Engagement to this meeting to discuss the Council’s approach to consultation and Members gave consideration to the following documents:

a)  Report from the Consultation Team

b)  Consultation Principles – Code of Good Practice published by Cabinet Office (April 2012)

c)  LBH Consultation Guide

d)  Analysis of survey of Members’ views on the consultation service

8.2  The Chair welcomed to the meeting:

  Tim Shields, Chief Executive (TS)

  Polly Cziok, Director of Communications, Culture and Engagement (PC)

  Florence Obinna, Consultation and Engagement Manager (FO)

8.3  Members asked whether there was an appetite for a shift to more democratic or inclusive means of engaging with residents. PC replied that there was a shift to a more engagement led model but there was a dichotomy between consultation and engagement.  The Hackney A Place for Everyone exercise was a game changer in that it had used many creative new approaches which led on to the current ‘Dalston Conversation’ and the ‘Young Futures Commission’.  There was a clear difference between the large number of statutory consultations which the Council had to carry out each year e.g. involving road closures or parking etc and the larger more strategic ones which were more deliberative.  Most of the former were uncontroversial but a small number did create a lot of heat.  The Group Director of Neighbourhoods was pushing for more pre-consultation engagements in order to forge solutions prior to going out to consultations on something specific.  Members stated that often there were tensions because a consultation was done about one road and then the next, when there should be a more holistic approach.  FO replied that the Place Based Approach to consultation which was now being tried should help remedy this by working with the technical officers and looking across service areas and aiming for a more coordinated approach.

8.4   Members asked whether more work could be done to link consultation activity with Ward Forums and make the latter a platform for some of these pre-consulation conversations.  A Member stated that attendance at the Forums was generally not very representative unless there was a big contentious issue under debate. 

8.5  FO replied that the London Fields Ward Forum had been an example of this when there had been major concerns about traffic changes in the area.  When an issue was contentious and if there was an information vacuum on it, then residents would turn up to their Ward Forums seeking answers.

8.6  A Member expressed the concern that residents thought consultations were referendums and this idea needed to be challenged.  PC stated that with CPZs for example there was a need to legally consult and a process laid down in statute had to be followed.  There was however also a need to supplement that with more meaningful engagement exercise and this was the reason behind initiatives such as the ‘Dalston Conversation’.  A Member stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1  The Chair welcomed Mayor Glanville to the meeting for the regular Mayor’s Question Time Session.  Also attending for this item were Tim Shields (Chief Executive) and Ian Williams (Group Director Finance and Resources).

9.2  The Chair stated that the Mayor had been asked to answer questions on:

(a)  Progress on implementation of the 2018 Manifesto commitments

(b)  The financial resilience of Hackney Council

(c)  The Impact of Brexit in Hackney

9.3  The Mayor described the progress being made in planning for implementing the 157 individual commitments in the manifesto.  They had been narrowed down to 10 key areas of focus which would shortly receive Cabinet sign off.  They would also be the key building block of the Corporate Plan, to be agreed in October.  The intention was to make the documents as interactive as possible.  They were also phasing the commitments and planning the engagement that must be done on them early on.  Several could be described as ‘business as usual’ and many were of course cross-cutting.  Some involved capital investments and new projects e.g. future plans for King’s Hall.  He was also pleased that a lot of the manifesto commitments could also be included in the next iteration of the Local Plan. 

9.4  On the issue of financial resilience the Mayor stated that many of the issues had already been covered in item 6.  The increasing challenge of supporting SEND and No Recourse to Public Funds cases would offset the savings that would have been provided.  Also it was not year clear what the full impact of Universal Credit will be.  There was no obvious end in sight to austerity for local government and instead for example the goal posts keep shifting on plans for retention of business rates, he added.  The latter had not been built into base budgets because the government’s position kept shifting. The current overspend of £5.5m was the first in a very long time and other London councils had deficits of c. £20m and many in west London were complaining that they didn’t have any reserves to deploy. 

9.5  On the issue of Brexit the Council would be lobbying hard and standing up for its values.  It would impact on workforce development, on procurement to name just two areas.  The Council would ensure that support was offered both to EU citizens who live in the borough and those who work for the Council.  The Council would be holding event with the EU Commission at Hackney House at the end of the month. 

9.6  A Member asked about the redevelopment of King’s Hall Leisure Centre.  The Mayor replied that it was a manifesto commitment.  He stated that much detailed work on the options appraisal would need to be done. Lessons could be learned from the consultations on London Fields and Britannia Leisure Centre.  The options were broadly refurbishment or building a new facility and closing Kings Hall completely but then what would be done with a Grade II listed building, he added.  His personal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.1  Members gave consideration to the latest update on the work programme for the Panel for the year.