Councillors Fry and Kennedy  sent apologies. Councillor Corais substituted for Councillor Fry.

None.

The Chair noted that item 11, reports for approval, now included the basis of a possible response from the Committee to the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Regulation 18 Consultation, which had not been specifically mentioned on the face of the agenda.

The Chair said he had agreed to Councillor Aziz’s request to  speak to item 8 (Approach to City Centre Public Spaces Protection Orders).

To approve the minutes of the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2019 as a true and accurate record.

The Chair drew the Committee’s attention to a communication received from the Board Member for Safer, Greener Oxford, Councillor Tom Hayes. Councillor Hayes was of the opinion that the minutes did not reflect strongly enough the view, expressed by the Committee, that street art had value as a social good.  After discussion the Committee confirmed that the draft minutes did accurately reflect the tenor of that part of the   previous meeting and therefore resolved to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 05 February 2019 as a true and accurate record.

The Scrutiny Committee operates within a work plan which is agreed at the start of the Council year. The Committee is asked to review and note its work plan for the remainder of the 2018/19 council year. The City Executive Board’s Forward Plan of decision is included for reference.

The Scrutiny Officer noted that a draft report from the Tourism Review Group would come to the the Committee on 15 May and that he was seeking further information from officers about the delayed Oxpens Redevelopment Update report to see if it would merit Scrutiny consideration.

The Committee agreed that items on Sustainability Strategy and Seacourt Park and Ride should be added to its Work Plan.

At the request of the Committee, Oxford Direct Services have been invited to give a brief presentation outlining their work, and current recycling rates within the City.

At the request of the Committee, Oxford Direct Services had been invited to give a presentation outlining their work and current recycling rates within the City. The Recycling Team Leader, Maria Warner and the Recycling Project Co-ordinator, Laura Boughan spoke to a presentation, a copy of which is attached to these minutes. Oxford was one of the best performing urban councils in respect of key recycling indicators. The work of the Oxford Direct Services Recycling Team was carefully targeted and differentiated in response to the detailed data held about recycling rates and demography in different parts of the City. While overall performance was very good there was of course room for improvement, ordinary household waste bins comprised 34% food waste for example. The Blue Bin Incentive Scheme continued to be effective and was now supported by Council funding, having originally been supported by government funding. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) was currently undertaking an important consultation  on “Consistency in Household & Business Recycling Collections in England” and  the recycling team would be responding to it.

The Committee noted the desirability of ensuring sufficient opportunities to segregate waste discarded in the public domain; targeting recycling information at the transient community of English as a Foreign Language students; and considering ways of doing more to encourage greater levels of commercial recycling.

Overall however the Committee was delighted to hear of the City’s good recycling  performance, of the team’s contribution to that and its evident commitment and enthusiasm to improving it still further. The Committee also confirmed its support for a continuation of the budget for the excellent work of the Recycling Team and Blue Bin League.

At its meeting on 13 March, the City Executive Board will consider an updated Corporate Plan. This item provides an opportunity for the Committee to make any recommendations to the Board if it wishes. Please note that this paper will go through a graphics review before publication.

The Committee had before it a report on the updated Corporate Plan, destined for the City Executive Board on 13 March.  The Leader of the Council, Councillor Susan Brown, introduced the report, reminding the Committee that this update was essentially a monitoring report, before work would begin on the plan for the period beyond 2020.

Cllr Simmons questioned whether the success measure “Implementation of measures to reduce the City Council’s carbon footprint by 5% each year” was expected to be met as claimed in the report, understanding, rather, that the latest figure was 4.3 %. The Leader said that the figures may refer to different reporting periods but that this would be checked for accuracy.

To consider a report concerning a city centre consultation process to determine the standards of acceptable behaviour and the acceptability and appropriateness of a City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order for tackling particular behaviours. This report will be considered by the City Executive Board on 13 March for decision.

The Committee had before it a report concerning a city centre consultation process to determine the standards of acceptable behaviour and the acceptability and appropriateness of a City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for tackling particular behaviours, destined for the City Executive Board on 13 March 2019.

The Chair introduced the item by reminding the Committee that the previous City Centre PSPO had lapsed and this report provided the first step in consideration of the desirability of a new PSPO and the form such an Order might take.

The Board Member for Safer, Greener Oxford,  Councillor Tom Hayes, said the report sought to introduce an additional layer of consultation prior to the introduction of a new PSPO. Before proceeding with a new PSPO it was important to establish a consensus about what the wider community see as acceptable behaviour and the appropriateness of a PSPO for tackling that which is  unacceptable; this is what the proposed consultation sought to achieve.  It was important to be very clear that the possible introduction of a new PSPO did not seek to criminalise rough sleeping.  The Council’s wish to help and support those who are rough sleeping was unambiguous and all steps were taken to encourage rough sleepers to access the services available to them.

Councillor Aziz addressed the Committee, citing examples of homeless people having been victims of extremely anti-social behaviour by others. She argued that all steps should be taken to protect their interests and that consideration should be given to a rough sleepers’ protection policy.

In a wide ranging discussion the following points were raised by the Committee among others:

• An appraisal of people’s views, via the consultation,  of acceptable behaviour was welcome but there was perhaps too much of a focus on a PSPO as a possible means of addressing unacceptable behaviour
• The data provided showed that recourse to the previous PSPO was very infrequent which begged a question about the need for a new one. On the other hand, that it was only necessary to have recourse to the PSPO on  6 occasions out of 1000 was evidence of it being a successful deterrent
• The period now underway without a PSPO in place provided a useful opportunity to see whether its absence was detrimental
• A new PSPO might   however provide a useful tool for the Council to help keep the City safe for all members of the public, in relation to certain behaviours such as the discarding of drug paraphernalia.
• The existence of a PSPO did not sit comfortably alongside the Council’s other multi-disciplinary approaches to supporting and helping those who are homeless or rough sleeping
• It was imperative that a consultation was truly inclusive, gathering the views all those with an interest in the matter
• It would be helpful to have a clearer idea of the police’s role and views about prevention, deterrent and enforcement in this area.
• While it was clear that there was no intention to victimise those who were homeless or rough sleeping,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

To consider the Q3 performance information for Fusion Lifestyle and the outcome of the Committee’s recommendation concerning an audit of Fusion Lifestyle’s performance data.

The Chair reminded the Committee that it had been intended to receive the detailed audit report of Fusion Lifestyle but, regrettably, it was not available in time for this meeting. The report would, however, be going to the Audit & Governance Committee the following week. In the meantime the Committee had before it the Q3 performance information for Fusion Lifestyle.

The Active Communities Manager, Hagan Lewisman ,  and Fusion Divisional Business Manager,  Mark Munday spoke to these latest data which presented a “positive direction of travel”. Council and Fusion Lifestyle staff were working hard to drive improvement. The challenges faced by the sector at a local and national level, as previously rehearsed, remained. New senior staff were in post at the Leys and Marston Ferry Leisure Centres.  Customer engagement and internal auditing were improved and marketing was more focused. Customer satisfaction rates were above the national average and cleanliness levels had improved, though were recently as low as 68%. All five of the Council’s leisure facilities remain accredited to the UK quality award scheme for sport and leisure, QUEST.

Given the volatility of some indicators,  the Committee questioned the reliability of the latest data as at previous meetings. MM  said the audit report was robust and would address the point. It was also acknowledged that that the particularly poor performance in 2017 distorted the overall picture to some extent and recent  improvements, while very welcome,  were coming from a low base.

The poor performance in 2017 had elicited the response that there was a need to reconfigure services, was that need still there? MM cited examples of changes that had been made at a site level and which had contributed to the recent improvements.

In response to questions about the credit rating of Fusion Lifestyle the Committee was assured that the company’s financial position was monitored regularly and closely.

The Committee was pleased to hear about the positive direction of travel but drew attention to a number of detailed concerns of which they were aware or had been reported to them: cleanliness at Marston Ferry and the Leys; older residents finding the pool temperature at the Leys too cool; the unavailability of sessions for mothers with toddlers at appropriate times; an absence of female lifeguards at some women only swimming sessions; and  the desirability of women only sessions being screened from public view. HL and MM agreed to consider these suggestions.

The Chair drew attention to an observation from Cllr Fry that   a breakdown of year-on-year figures for participation by centre and activity would be useful, though it was noted that this level of detail may be difficult to provide.

The Committee looked forward to receiving the detailed audit report and service improvement plan at their next meeting.

To consider the Quarter 3 performance monitoring report for Council services.

 This report was before the Committee, principally for information. With the Committee’s agreement the Chair said he would pass on a number of detailed observations made by Councillor Fry in advance of the meeting.

The Committee is asked to approve their draft report and recommendations concerning Street Art and Graffiti, as transcribed from the meeting held on 5 February 2019. The report will then be submitted to the City Executive Board on 13 March 2019.

The Committee had before it a draft report and recommendations concerning Street Art and Graffiti, flowing from the meeting held on 5 February 2019. The Committee agreed that the report should be submitted to the City Executive Board on 13 March 2019.

The Committee also had before it the basis of a possible response from the Committee to the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Regulation 18 Consultation. The Committee agreed that a response should be submitted on its behalf and that the Chair and Vice-Chair be mandated to make such further changes to it as necessary to reflect the strength of the Committee’s views about the matter. It was agreed that the response should also make reference to the Government’s Clear Growth Strategy, which required certain ‘green’ standards in development.

At its meeting on 12 February 2019, the City Executive Board considered the Committee’s recommendations in relation to the Rent Guarantee Scheme and the 2019/20 budget. The Board’s response to both sets of recommendations is attached.

At its meeting on 12 February 2019, the City Executive Board considered the Committee’s recommendations in relation to the Rent Guarantee Scheme (RGS) and the 2019/20 budget. The Board’s response to both sets of recommendations was before the Committee.

It was agreed that the City Executive Board’s response to the RGS was unclear and that its response of “partially” to the recommendations of the Committee  should in fact be “No” based on the comment provided. The Chair agreed to report this back to the City Executive Board.

To receive a proposal to replace on a permanent basis one member of the Companies Panel for another, for the remainder of the Council Year.

It was agreed that the Chair should replace Councillor Landell-Mills on the Companies Panel for the remainder of the Council Year.

The next meetings of the Scrutiny Committee and its panels are scheduled as follows:

Standing Panels

·        Housing Standing Panel: 8 April, 27 June, 3 October

·        Finance Standing Panel: 4 April, 01 July, 5 September

·        Companies Panel: 28 February, 17 April, 3 July

All meetings start at 6.00 pm

Standing Panels

·         Housing Standing Panel: 8 April, 27 June, 3     October

·         Finance Standing Panel: 4 April, 01 July, 5 September

·         Companies Panel:17 April, 3 July

All meetings start at 6.00 pm