Agenda and draft minutes

Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting.

None advised.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 May 2022.

The Chair advised that attendance at  the last meeting of the committee had been very poor and reminded members to send apologies and arrange a substitute if they were unable to attend.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee held on 17^th May 2022 be approved and signed as a correct record.

To receive communications from the Chairman.

The Chair advised that agenda item 5 – Highways and transport Contract Review would be a joint scrutiny item with members of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To receive a presentation on the Highways and Transport Contract

The Chair welcomed members of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, who would be joining the members of Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee to carry out joint scrutiny on the Highways and Transport Contract Review.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Phil Larratt the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Highways and Waste, Nick Henstock the Head of Highways and Transport, James Birch (Kier Highways) and Richard Brooks (Anthony Collins Solicitors).

Councillor Larratt introduced the item. Nick Henstock the Head of Highways and Transport provided the Committee with a presentation outlining the process with which the contract was awarded and the details included within the contract.

Richard Brooks of Anthony Collins Solicitors outlined the legal aspects of the procurement exercise, which was bound by the Public Contract Regulations 2015. The procurement involved a mathematical process for identifying the winning bidder.

James Birch of Kier noted that the current contract had been jointly operated by Kier and WSP which had led to limitations on how the contract could operate. The new contract would be operated by Kier only, with a new team and a focus on the customer, the environment and sustainability. Kier already had vast knowledge of the network and would promote a stance that was customer and member centric with an emphasis on community engagement.

The Chair welcomed the presentation and invited Members to ask any questions. The Committee made comments and asked questions. In response to questions, the following points were explained:

• Kier were the highest scoring contractor under every variant on quality and price
• The previous contract had no flexibility and was inadequately resourced. There would be more staff going forward as well as a 12.5% increase in funding
• The contract was a new opportunity and member support was needed for monitoring, scrutinising and reviewing.
• The Business Plan would be shared once available and a member Briefing session arranged.
• WNC and NNNC would share the same contractor which would provide flexibility and savings, but both Authorities would have separate contracts
• Supervisors will be ‘on the ground’ on a regular basis, rather than office based
• Kier wanted to increase the number of women employed across the business, particularly in operational roles.
• An inclusive recruitment policy would be pursued, including working with NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training), graduates and apprentices
• Financial Standing requirements had been considered and passed, and financial data analysed to assess any risks. The contract required Kier to settle any damage claims if they were found to be at fault. A web link would be sent to Councillors explaining the criteria.
• A ‘common sense’ approach would prevail. i.e. if a pothole was filled and a pothole nearby did not fulfil the criteria yet, it would be filled too.
• A more efficient use of the workforce was proposed, which would lead to an improved service provision
• Parish engagement would be welcomed and Parishes/NCALC be briefed on the proposals in July
• The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) would be shared with the Committee
• A sharing mechanism had been included in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Called in by Councillors:

Bob Purser

Wendy Randall

Gareth Eales

Emma Roberts

Janice Duffy

Cathrine Russell

Kyriakoulla Jolley

Keith Holland-Delamere

In accordance with 10.5.5 of the Constitution:

Item 10: UK Levelling up fund Round two

Decision:

RESOLVED: That Cabinet;

a.     Noted the activity made to date, timescales and next steps for the Levelling Up Fund applications.

b.     Delegated Authority to the Executive Director of Place, Economy and Environment in consultation with the Executive Director of Finance and the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Town Centre Regeneration and Growth and approved the final two bids being made to the LUF round two, subject to any Council funding contribution also being in place before submission.

c.     Recommended to Council Subject that, subject to the business case, and the capital and revenue implications stemming from it, being endorsed by the Chief Finance Officer and the relevant portfolio holders, that it approves the additional £21m.

b)     The Reason:

·       To challenge the process that was deployed in identifying projects that could be included in any submission.

·       To confirm that Ward Councillors are key stakeholders in their wards and to note that Ward Councillors were not included . The accompanying cabinet report stated “the council has engaged with key stakeholders” – elected members and resident / community groups were not among them.

·       We believe there should have at least been a level of pre-scrutiny prior to a Cabinet decision.

The Cabinet decision contravenes clause (d) of the Principles of Decision Making within the WNC constitution which states: “due consultation and proper advice is taken and consideration of alternative options before decisions are reached”

c)     The alternative course of action or recommendation proposed:

      i.          review the process by which recommendations are made to Cabinet so that the process for any phase 3 will be better and more inclusive of Ward member views.

     ii.          Given the purpose of the Levelling Up Fund, we also want to seek recommendations to ensure that left behind areas are not further left behind.

The Chair introduced the Call-In request and explained that upon the advice of the Monitoring Officer, the Call-In request had been through the appropriate channels and it was confirmed that the procedure had been followed. The Chair explained the procedure for the Call-In. The speakers would be invited to address the Committee – Mr Toby Birch, Councillor Wendy Randall and Councillor Sally Beardsworth. The Call-in Originator, Councillor Bob Purser would be invited to expand upon their reasons for concern.

Mr Toby Birch, the Chair of Community Spaces Northamptonshire, addressed the Committee and considered that ward councillors should be involved in the funding process, due to their knowledge of small charities and organisations in their local area. It was suggested that Southfields Community centre should have been considered for funding.

Councillor Wendy Randall addressed the Committee and was disappointed that ward councillors were not consulted, due to their local knowledge. The criteria should have been explained to councillors so that they were aware of the criteria and process.

Councillor Sally Beardsworth addressed the Committee and expressed disappointment with the ‘Levelling Up’ funding which should be utilised to help the underprivileged in areas of deprivation. Southfields Community Centre was desperate for improvements.

The Chair read out a letter received from the VCSE (Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise), which acted as a collective voice for the voluntary community. The organisation felt that there was a lack of transparency with the funding scheme and that a significant funding opportunity had been missed.

At the Chair’s invitation, Councillor Purser, Call-In Originator addressed the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee and expanded on their reasons for the Call-In. Councillor Purser felt that Cabinet had made fundamental errors by not consulting with ward councillors and that Cabinet had misunderstood the Levelling Up funding criteria. Ward Councillors should have been consulted on the initiative, particularly those in areas of higher need. The Levelling-Up funding appeared to disadvantage the most disadvantaged as many of the projects were from more affluent communities.

Councillor Purser proposed to Cabinet that:

1)    Ward Councillors are consulted early on in the process of a bidding programme

2)    Capacity is developed so that communities have schemes ready to go should funding opportunities arise

3)    Communities should not just be considered as geographical in nature. The needs of other groups that come together should also be considered e.g. ethnic groups, women’s groups

Councillor Purser was keen that lessons were learnt from the most recent funding process and changes made to improve the process for the future.

The Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee heard a comprehensive presentation by the Head of Major Projects and Regeneration, which explained the background to the bidding process and explained the criteria imposed in respect of the decision made.

The Committee then asked questions of the Head of Major Projects and Regeneration and the Executive Director - Place and Economy:

• The criteria imposed was strict and timescales short
• There was no call for project suggestions due to the short timescales involved
• The Southfields  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

To review and note the Committee Work Plan.

Due to the lateness of the hour, the Chair proposed that consideration of the Committee’s work programme is deferred to the next meeting.

RESOLVED:

That this item be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

The Chairman to advise whether they have agreed to any items of urgent business being admitted to the agenda.

There were no items of urgent business.