Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute Members (if any).

There were no apologies for absence.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

Members were reminded of the need to make declarations of interest where appropriate.  There were no interests declared under this item.

To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

The following members of the public asked questions:

Goff Welchman

My questions refer to 3 Rivers, about which I have asked previous questions, but have received replies which were, in my opinion vague.

In view of my time limit, I’ll just summarise, by number of each lesson learned, the ones to which I would like to receive an exact reply.

The Chairman commented that many of these questions, or similar variants had been answered over the past year and a fairly detailed response was provided to Mr Welchman at our last meeting. However, to ensure further transparency she would allow these additional follow up queries.

Question 1. Lesson 1/. Were two external directors with relevant specialised skills, who were unrelated to the Council, in place from the outset?

Response: As confirmed on numerous occasions directors were appointed with the relevant specialised skills from the inception of the company - this decision was made by the Council after securing external professional legal and financial advice.

The Council did make 2 external appointments following additional advice at significant cost. It would be interesting to reflect how these additional overheads placed further financial viability pressure on the company at a time when their pipeline of potential development opportunities was being constricted.

Question 2. Lesson 3/. How was the board independent, when 3 directors were a Councillor and 2 Council officers, and exactly when was external banking advice sought, and from whom?

Response: At the outset, all directors were either seconded or recharged to the company - as was and is the case with many Council controlled trading entities. The Council was very clear on maintaining ethical walls and division of duties to minimise risk, both perceived and real.

Again professional external advice was secured prior to the Council making these appointments. External banking advice was secured when the company was set up - this came from NatWest Bank.

Question 3. Lesson 4/. Safeguarding and auditing of loans. Is it true that a 3 Rivers director, who was also a Council officer, requested loans, which were then signed off by another senior Council officer? Were there any checks or audits in place to safeguard these taxpayers’ funds?

Response: There was clear separation of duties and a number of officers involved in the authorising of loans to the company. All sums related to invoices received from external suppliers were checked prior to releasing any payment.

As part of these checks, Council officers only ever approved amounts that were in full compliance with the approved sums agreed in business cases and the ultimate business plan agreed by the Council. These were also linked to approved loan agreements.

Question 4. Lesson 5/. Was St George’s Court properly put out to tender, or was it just handed to 3 Rivers even before the company was fully set up?

Response: St George's Court was awarded to 3 Rivers by the Council as one of its earliest developments. It was then up to the company to decide how it would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on Monday 15 January 2024. Also to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on Monday 18 December 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2023 were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Chairman.

The minutes of the last meeting held on 15 January 2024 were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Chairman.

To consider any decisions made by the Cabinet at its last meeting that have been called-in.

The Committee NOTED that none of the decisions made by the Cabinet on 6 February 2024 had been called in.

To receive any announcements that the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee may wish to make.

The Chairman had no announcements to make.

To review the existing Work Plan and consider items for the committee’s future consideration, taking account of:

a) Any items within the Forward Plan for discussion at the next meeting;

b) Suggestions of other work for the committee in 2024/25.

The Clerk to the Scrutiny Committee took the Committee through the Work Plan for 2024 – 2025.He pointed out that various regular reports had been added and that the Committee would hear from two Cabinet members about their portfolios at the next four meetings of the Scrutiny Committee. He also pointed out that there was plenty of room within the plan to add other matters to scrutinise.

To receive a Verbal Report on Whistleblowing from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste

The Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste gave a verbal report that Mid Devon District Council had received no whistleblowing reports in the past six months until recently when a whistleblowing incident had been raised. That incident was now being investigated.

Discussion took place with regard to:

·         Concern about the absence of whistleblowing and whether there was an environment that inhibited people from whistleblowing. The Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste replied that the Council promoted a culture of openness and transparency and whistleblowing incidents were treated properly and confidentially.

·         The recent whistleblowing incident was the first occurrence of this nature for at least five years.

·         The distinction between a complaint/grievance and whistleblowing. Whistleblowing was where there was an issue cited that was of public interest and concern.

·         Whether there was an expected number of grievances annually. The Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste said that that depended upon a number of factors, particularly what was happening within the Council at a particular point in time as well as other factors. The Corporate Manager said he was happy to look at what data could be potentially shared with Members in future reports but would need to ensure that both data protection and appropriate levels of confidentiality were maintained around any statistics published.

To receive the annual review of the Establishment from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste

The Committee had before it and NOTED a report on the Establishment.

The Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste replied to the question from Mr Quinn that, the Establishment report made clear on the front cover that a full establishment structure chart would be circulated once the current consultation on the Corporate Management Team had been completed.

The Operations Manager for Human Resources introduced the Establishment Update. The three key metrics were, sickness, agency spend and staff turnover.

·         Sickness was at its highest for four years and new ways of working were being found such as inoculations being offered to members of staff.

·         Agency spend this year was down by 37% year on year.

·         Staff turnover was down by 3.7% year on year with the current projections for 23/24 down by 16.5%. Initiatives and new ways of working continued including the rollout of Mental Health Champions across the Council, reviewing employee benefits and supporting staff with access to seasonal vaccinations.

·         Work was underway on the staff survey action plan.

·         The negotiations for the 2024/25 pay award had begun.

Discussion took place regarding:

·         The fact that the Council’s use of agency staff had decreased.

·         Greater scrutiny and discussion about the establishment.

·         Vacancies were reviewed on a weekly basis to decide whether they should go forward for recruitment or delay the appointment.  There had been a shift in the market with the workforce preferring secure employment rather than agency work.

·         Whether there was a correlation between delays in filling staff vacancies and staff sickness – the Operations Manager for Human Resources said that he would investigate that further. However, Mid Devon District Council’s sickness levels ran very similar to other Councils across the country. Trends and patterns were being looked at. Further recruitment training was being offered to managers to make sure that they recruited the right person with the correct experience.

·         The calibre of applicants and how they were recruited.

·         The Appraisal process varied from organisation to organisation, roll out of the new process would be this year so that employees could understand how they were contributing to the Council. The Appraisal Policy should be collaborative.

·         Managers will involve employees with the setting of objectives although managers may set the focus or direction. On the whole it is a collaborative process, but employees are encouraged to give their views so that it should be a beneficial process both to manager and member of staff.

·         Mental Health – there were a cohort of staff across the Council who were ‘Mental Health Champions’ and the Champions themselves received support from an Employee Assistance Programme staffed by people who were trained counsellors. However, on a one to one structure the first point of call for any staff member should be their line manager, it was important that staff felt that they were able to raise issues.

·         Staff Survey – how did staff who did not have their own e-mail address get a chance to respond?  Staff were employed over a variety of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To receive a report from the Working Group on Inclusivity and Diversity - Community Engagement - does local government work for women?

Councillor Westcott introduced the report from the Inclusion and Diversity Working Group which followed on from Motion 564 passed by Council in 2021. The first discussion with women Councillors had taken place. Discussions had taken place around the appointment of those candidates who work. The Group had not restricted themselves to just looking at issues faced by women candidates, they had also looked at disability access in conjunction with the Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Group chaired by the Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager.

The interim conclusions of the working group were that there should be training on protected characteristics, more interactive training for the Chairs and Vice Chairs of committees regarding inclusivity which might include more experiential things like the ice-breaker sessions that Councillors had at the start of their training, the Group would also like the questionnaire to be put to all Members regarding the timing of meetings and removing obstacles to any group.

The Chairman thanked the group for the work that they had done so far.

Discussion took place with regard to:

·         Whether the group were consulting with officers as well as Members about meeting times.

·         That the Council should lobby Central Government to allow Members to vote when attending meetings on-line.

The Recommendations of the Working Group were:

• Democratic Services arrange in house training for all Councillors in protected characteristics
• In addition to the existing training for chairs and vice chairs, they should receive interactive training in inclusive practices. Following the assessment of current training completed by Members currently under way, Democratic Services are preferably requested to source and commission a suitable external agency to offer this training to Councillors and officers.
• The working group should work with Democratic Services to conduct a survey of all councillors on their views on increasing inclusion and diversity, and any preferences about timing of meetings.
• Further conversation should take place on how best to mitigate obstacles for women, people with caring responsibilities and other defined groups in becoming Councillors and in fulfilment of their role.

A vote was taken on whether to accept the recommendations made in the report which was CARRIED.

To receive a report from the Director of Place and Economy regarding Planning Enforcement

The Director of Place and Economy introduced the Planning Enforcement Policy Update. The aim of the update was to bring the Planning Enforcement Policy up to date and to provide clarity. The Policy had been through the Planning Policy Advisory Group (PPAG) and the Planning Committee.

Discussion took place with regard to:

·         Lower priority cases would be investigated when commitments to higher priority cases allowed.

·         There were a lot of discrepancies and a lack of detail.

·         The impact upon human lives and the cost to the Council of failing to enforce planning decisions.

Councillor Duchesne made the following proposal:  In the light of what we have heard today and the detailed comments made by members of the public, who clearly have had time to go into this matter in far greater detail than we have been able to, may I suggest that this policy is not ready to be passed to Cabinet and that it should be returned to the Planning Policy Advisory Group where it can be discussed and amended as required. All Councillors are able to attend PPAG so I suggest that we all attend the meeting that will be discussing that and make sure that our concerns are dealt with. 

Councillor Gilmour seconded the proposal.

Councillor Buczkowski proposed an amendment that the policy was sent to Cabinet rather than back to PPAG so that it could be discussed and Cabinet could refer it back to PPAG if necessary.

Councillor Knight seconded the amendment.

Discussions took place regarding:

·         The role of the Scrutiny Committee was to scrutinise not just to pass on to Cabinet. Once it had been revised by PPAG it should be brought back to the Scrutiny Committee. The Director of Place and Economy had no problem with that approach and wanted the policy to be a robust document. There were no legal time constrictions which had to be complied with.

·         Key Performance Indicators to be added to the policy.

·         If this was referred back to the PPAG it might be a waste of time as the last time that this policy was before the PPAG it was a well-attended meeting, lots of good points had been made at that meeting and the recommendation bringing this document to the Scrutiny Committee had been unanimous.

·         The administration had inherited a legacy and were only nine months in place, there was still a lot of work to do. The budget they had inherited had a black hole of just under one million pounds, that hole had been plugged without loss of staff and the staff were motivated.

·         The PPAG would stay involved and not ignore planning enforcement.

The amendment was not supported.

The original proposal was voted upon and was CARRIED