Agenda and minutes
Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 6th October, 2011 10.30 am
Venue: Committee Suite 1,2 & 3, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach CW11 1HZ. View directions
Contact: James Morley Scrutiny Officer
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 1 September be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Declarations of Interest/Whipping Declarations
To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and /or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda.
There were no members of the Committee present who wished to declare any interests.
Public Speaking Time/Open
A total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to make a statement(s) on any matter that falls within the remit of the Committee.
Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes, but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned, where there are a number of speakers
There were no members of the public present who wished to address the Committee.
To receive a verbal update on the Community Safety Wardens Service from the Head of Safer & Stronger Communities
The Committee received a oral update, from the Head of Safer & Stronger Communities, on the Community Safety Warden Service. The update was related to the report the Committee received on 3 March 2011 after the Committee had conducted a Task and Finish review. The Committee received budget analysis comparing the budgets for Community Wardens in 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Committee also received operational statistics detailing the various incidents that the Community Safety Wardens had dealt with between quarter 3 of 2010-11 and quarter 2 of 2011-12.
The Head of Safer & Stronger Communities explained that there were eight Community Safety Wardens split into two teams, North and South, four in each. The North and South teams were based at Police Stations in Macclesfield and Crewe respectively. The Committee’s Task and Finish Group on Community Safety Wardens had recommended in its report that there needed to be more joint working with the Police to remove duplication of services. By operating from the Police Stations the Community Warden teams were able to work more closely with the Police and separate their activities more effectively; this freed up the Police to deal with more pressing issues. The operational statistics showed increases in activity across all areas in quarters 1 & 2 of 2011-12 compared with quarters 3 & 4 of 2011-11; which was attributed to the improved co-ordination and joint working with the Police and concentration on the activities listed in the operational statistics.
The budget analysis attached to the agenda of the meeting showed significant savings, between 2010-11 and 2011-12, while performance of the service had improved.
The Head of Safer & Stronger Communities suggested that the Police were greatly appreciative of the work being done by the Community Safety Wardens Service.
That the oral update be received and noted.
That the Committee welcome more focused and better value for money
That the better co-ordination with Police be noted.
(d) That the Committee look forward to the next update in six months which will also include quarterly figures for budget and operational statistics.
The Head of Safer & Stronger Communities left the meeting.
To receive a presentation on Risk Management from the Risk and Business Continuity Officer
The Committee received a presentation, from the Risk and Business Continuity Officer, on Risk Management. The objective of the presentation was to provide information that the Committee needed for a basic understanding of risk management within Cheshire East Council. It was the Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Committees responsibility to monitor the Risk Management process to ensure it is being carried out effectively.
The Risk and Business Continuity Officer gave the presentation; questions were asked and the following information arose.
The Corporate Risk Management Group develop, monitor, review and
report on Corporate and Significant Risk Registers. The Group
challenged and monitored risks to make sure they were assessed
consistently. The risk register documented the Key Corporate Risks,
risk owners, action being taken to deal with risk and future
Corporate risks were not confidential and all Risk Management
documents were available to Members and Officers on the
It was very necessary to manage risk as the consequences of failure
in key areas could have created serious issues for the
organisation. The costs associated with managing each risk, in
terms of budgets and officer time, had to be balanced with the risk
appetite and the effect failure would have.
The risk owners were officers at the strategic level of the
organisation however risks were dealt with by the managers within
the department associated with the risk. Portfolio Holders were
also held responsible for risks and each Portfolio Holder received
regular reports on the risks affecting their portfolio.
Risks were rated very high, high, medium or low based on their
impact on the Council and their likelihood of occurring. Of the 17
Key Corporate Risks, 9 were high risk, 5 were medium risk and 3
were low risk.
· Of the 17 Key Corporate Risks, three of them were part of the Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Committee’s remit. They were:
o Information, research & business intelligence – High Risk
o Partnerships – Medium Risk
Community Safety – Low Risk
That the Risk and Business Continuity Officer but thanked and the
presentation be noted.
That the Committee receive more information relating to; the
Information, research & business intelligence risk;
partnerships risk; and community safety risk. The Committee should
be kept informed about any significant changes to these three risks
when they arise.
(c) That the 14 Key Corporate Risks not relating to Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Committee be offered to the relevant Scrutiny Committee for monitoring.
The Risk and Business Continuity Officer left the meeting.
To discuss the 15 September 2011 meeting of the Committee and agree next actions
The Committee discussed the meeting held on 15 September 2011 in Macclesfield and agreed next actions of their ad hoc review of Libraries.
(a) That the Committee offer a short synopsis of the information they have collected so far to the Cabinet.
To review the documented feedback from Member site visits to the CCTV Control Room in Macclesfield
The Committee reviewed the draft report documenting the feedback Members gave at the previous meeting on their visits to the Macclesfield CCTV Control Room. The Committee discussed changes to the report and further questions they had on the CCTV service.
That the report with the agreed changes be forwarded to the Safer
and Stronger Communities Portfolio Holder.
(b) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to ask the following questions of the Head of Safer & Stronger Communities.
i. Are members of the public allowed to review CCTV footage themselves?
ii. Are CCTV tapes subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
To give consideration to the Work Programme
The Committee discussed the Work Programme and considered possible items for inclusion.
That an update on the progress of the Local Development Framework
Panel be added to the Work Programme.