Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

To declare if any issues to be covered in the Agenda are under party whip.

There were no declarations of party whipping.

Minutes to follow.

3.1       RESOLVED that: The minutes of the meetings held on the 25^th of November 2019 and the 2^nd of December 2019 were approved and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

3.2       The Chair explained that the minutes of the Special MGL meeting held on the 19^th of December 2019 would be circulated to Members once finalised.

4.1   There were no public questions.

To receive any petitions and deputations provided that no such petition or deputation is in relation to:

·         Matters relating to individual Council Officers, or

·         Matters relating to current or pending legal proceedings

5.1    There were no petitions or deputations.

To receive the latest version of the Committee’s work programme and the Council’s Forward Plan.

6.1       The Committee considered the Work Programme and the Council

Forward Plan.

6.2       Members stated that they would like to consider the Festivals and Events Programme report at the Committee’s 3^rd of February 2020 meeting. Furthermore, they requested that the Culture Trust Update be considered before the Committee at the 2^nd of March 2020 meeting. Finally, Members asked that the climate change manifesto and a future MGL update be added to the work programme.

6.3 q   RESOLVED: a.) that the Festivals and Events Programme report is added to the work programme for the 3^nd of February 2020 meeting b.)  that the Culture Trust Update be considered before the Committee at the 2^nd of March 2020 meeting, c.) that the climate change manifesto and a future MGL update be added to the work programme.

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Environment which provides a summary of the basis for a settlement of a contract dispute with Amey related to the delivery of the Waste and Street Scene Contract.

7.1      The Cabinet Member for the Environment presented the report and outlined key elements. In particular, he highlighted the benefits of the new Deed of Settlement, Release and Variation between Amey and the City Council. As an example, the new deed now passed some of the risk to Amey in relation to the quality of recyclates collected and included remedies for the Council should Amey ‘s performance fall below standard.

7.2     Councillor Wilson asked for clarification on the legal implications of the new deed. He pointed to paragraph 10 which sets out the potential risk that the deed would be regarded as sufficiently substantial to render the contract materially different to the original one. The Corporate Director advised that the Council ‘s lawyers OneLegal had outlined the risks for thoroughness, however they considered the risk of challenges to be insignificant. The deed was not a change of contract and had not been publicised as such.

7.3   Councillor Stephens questioned whether the risk register had been updated since the deed had been agreed. The Corporate Director responded to say that the risk register had not yet been updated, however that it would be updated in the next cycle which took place every 3 months.

7.4      Furthermore, Councillor Stephens asked whether the quarterly strategic meetings between Amey and the Council would resume. The Corporate Director explained that the meetings had been stopped during the dispute with Amey as it was considered that carrying on with the meetings would be counterproductive. However, as the dispute had now been resolved, the meetings would resume.

7.5      Councillor Stephens stated that whilst he welcomed the changes contained in the deed, he was concerned with the recycling which was left behind by the Amey crews where it had not been sorted properly by households. The Waste, Recycling and Streetscene Manager advised that progress was being made to improve this using all the available resources. Moreover, assistance was being provided to those who needed help with their recycling. As an example, on the 6^th of January 2020, recycling had been collected at 11,400 properties, and only 220 properties or approximately 1.9% of properties had their recycling left behind because it had not been sorted out properly. The Corporate Director added that the Council had been discussing this issue with Amey and asking them, to take a pragmatic approach to this. Given that on average only about 2% of households were not sorting out their recycling properly, the crews should, in theory, have capacity to deal with any problems.

7.6      Councillor Hilton echoed Councillor Stephens’ concerns. In particular, he suggested that certain areas within his ward such as Oxford Street and other terraced streets were hotspots for non-collection and issues with litter.  The Waste, Recycling and Streetscene Manager stated that the Council was aware of issues around Oxford street and other terraced areas. The problems could be attributed to both the fact that these areas typically had a larger number of Households in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), and perhaps  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources which considers the Council’s performance against key measures in Quarters 1 & 2 of 2019/20.

8.1       The Leader of the Council who was representing Councillor Norman, the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, presented the report and outlined key elements. He expressed his thanks to the recently appointed Performance & Improvement Officer for the work involved in producing the report. Lastly, he opened the floor to questions from the Committee.

8.2      The Chair questioned the wording in the second paragraph of Performance Indicator CST8, where it is written that “we will guide staff to inform customers about the complaints escalation process without prompting level 2 or 3 complaints where issues have been resolved”. They suggested that this could be interpreted to mean that the Council would discourage Customers from prompting level 2 or 3 complaints where issues have been resolved. The Corporate Director responded to say that this was a strict reading of what was written.  Rather, a difference of emphasis in the words was required in order to understand what was stated here.

8.3       Furthermore, the Chair asked whether statistics were available to highlight whether the 74.8 % drop in footfall in Key Performance Indicator (KPI) CST1 in Quarter 1 was due to customers contacting the Council through other channels, for example more digital methods, or whether this was due to customers not presenting themselves at all. The Head of Policy and Resources informed him that a written response would be circulated to Members.

8.4      Councillor Stephens queried why there were only 15 KPIs. Moreover, he expressed his concern with the Council’s telephone waiting times and asked whether information could be provided highlighting average waiting times.  The Head of Policy and Resources explained that there were currently only 15 KPIs as these were the key areas for assessing performance. However, there was no reason why these could not be changed in the future. In relation to telephone waiting times, he explained that the Council ‘s Contact Centre solution would be going live this month which would enable better reporting on waiting times.  Councillor Stephens then asked whether there would be KPIs attached to this. The Corporate Director advised that there would be KPIs attached to this.

8.5      Pointing to KPI H23, Councillor Haigh asked whether statistics could be provided in relation to how many, if any, families were placed in temporary accommodation both out of city and out of county. The Head of Policy and Resources informed her that a written response would be circulated to Members.

8.6     Councillor Pullen suggested that the complaints procedure was difficult to find on the website and asked whether this could be made more prominent. He was informed that Cabinet and Officers would look at this and send a written response.

8.7    RESOLVED: - that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee asks Cabinet to respond to the following questions:

1.)  In Performance Indicator CST1, it is shown that there was a drop 74.8% drop in footfall in Quarter 1. Could you please provide statistics on whether this fall was due to customers contacting the Council through other channels, for example  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

3^rd of February 2020.