Report - London Borough of Hillingdon

Community Partnerships & Economic
Development Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday 18 th October 2005
7.00 p.m.
Committee Room 6, Civic Centre, Uxbridge
....................
Committee Membership:
Councillors Anthony Way (Chairman)
Josephine Barrett
Frank Filgate
John Hensley
John Major (Vice-Chairman)
Richard Lewis
Norman Nunn-Price
Contact Officer:
Maureen Colledge
Democratic Services
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge, UB8 1UW
....................
Telephone: 01895 277 488
Facsimile: 01895 277 373
E-mail:
mcolledge@hillingdon.gov.uk
Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting and listen to the discussion in
Part 1 of the Agenda.
This Agenda is available online at
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/central/democracy/comm_reports/index.php
Smoking is not allowed in the Committee Room
Please ensure that all mobile phones are switched off
Parking is available to the public attending meetings – entrance in High Street, Uxbridge
DESPATCH DATE: 13 October 2005
David Brough, Head of Democratic Services

About Overview & Scrutiny
Overview & Scrutiny does:
- Hold the Council’s Cabinet to account.
- Examine areas of the Council’s service provision and performance.
- Seek to ensure that a high quality of service, cost effectiveness and
appropriate facilities are available for members of the community.
- Make recommendations to develop services and policies in the
interests of developing better services for its residents.
Overview & Scrutiny does NOT:
- Make day-to-day service decisions
- Investigate individual complaints
This Committee
Is responsible for performing the scrutiny function in relation to the Council’s
partnerships with external organisations and community groups, and the
economic development and regeneration of the local area.

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW &
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
18.10.05 AGENDA
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
(i) Apologies for absence and to report the presence of any substitute
members
(ii) Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting
(iii) Notes of the previous meeting (19 September 2005)
(iv) Exclusion of Press and Public - To confirm that all items marked Part 1
will be considered in public and that any items marked Part 2 will be
considered in private
1. Working of the Local Strategic Partnership –
Hillingdon Partners: evidence from Witnesses
Page 10
2. Working of the Local Strategic Partnership –
Hillingdon Partners: plans for future meetings
Page 14
3. Wider participation in Overview & Scrutiny –
encouraging the public: proposed timetable
Page 23
4. Beacon Council Scheme: Round Eight Page 27
PART 2 – PRIVATE, MEMBERS ONLY
(v) Any Business transferred from Part 1
6. Page
___________________________________________________________
INFORMATION ITEMS
(vi) Items listed below are for Members’ information. They will not be
discussed at the meeting unless specific questions are submitted prior
to the meeting. The classification of items in this section was agreed by
the Committee on 02/09/04. Please use the attached form to submit
any questions.

Terms of Reference
To perform the Overview and Scrutiny role in relation to the following matters:
1. To assist the Cabinet in the development of the Community Plan;
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Economic development, single regeneration budget, community
partnerships, voluntary sector strategy and community safety strategy;
Work in relation to the Local Strategic Partnership Forward Strategy and
Trust arrangements for regeneration;
Any other such responsibilities as may from time to time be allocated by
the Overview & Scrutiny Co-ordinating Committee.
To assist the Cabinet in the development of the Community Safety
Strategy and Youth Justice Plan.
To perform the Overview and Scrutiny role in relation to community safety.

OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY
AGENDA INFORMATION ITEM – QUESTION SUBMISSION FORM
Information items included in this agenda will not be discussed at the meeting
unless a Member of the Committee has submitted notice of specific question(s)
to the Overview & Scrutiny Team.
If you have a question on the content of an information report which is
listed in the ‘Information Items’ section of the agenda (below PART 2
items), please complete this form and send it to The Overview & Scrutiny
Team in Democratic Services. Alternatively, please contact the relevant O&S
officer by phone or email, ensuring that all the information requested below is
communicated.
The O&S Team will then inform the Chairman of the Committee and the
relevant officer(s).
Overview & Scrutiny Team Phone: 01895 277 733
Democratic Services 3E/05 Ext.: 7733
Chief Executive’s Office Fax: 01895 277 373
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge, UB8 1UW
* * * * * * *
Your name: Councillor……………………………………………………………
Overview & Scrutiny Committee:…………………………….………………..
Date of meeting:………………………………………………………………….
Title of report: ……………………………………………………………………
Question:……………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………..
………..………………………………………………………………………………
(please continue overleaf if necessary)
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 5
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 19 TH SEPTEMBER
2005
DECISIONS SHEET
Committee Members Present:
Cllrs Anthony Way (Chairman), Josephine Barrett, Frank Filgate, John Hensley,
Richard Lewis, John Major, Norman Nunn-Price.
Apologies: None.
Officers Present: Dorian Leatham, Guy Fiegehen, Martine Cazeau
Decisions Sheet for the meeting held on 16 th June 2005 – Agreed as
an accurate record.
Matters Arising
(i) Matters arising – With reference to the recent Hayes Town
‘walkabout’ visits, the Committee discussed the continuing problem of
un-cleared litter and the non-removal of graffiti, and it was questioned
whether information about the problem areas was being passed to the
relevant officers. In response to Members’ questions, the Chief
Executive informed the meeting that the Street Warden Scheme was
intended to address the issue of problems being identified and reported
to the appropriate service, but he could not confirm how far the scheme
had been rolled out across the borough. The Chief Executive further
advised that the review of Council contracts was due to be completed
by March 2006; this would also include measures to strengthen the
contract monitoring process.
One Member asked whether the Committee would consider a
‘walkabout’ in Harefield, because that area also had a number of
significant problems. The Chairman noted in response that the Hayes
Town ‘walkabout’ had arisen from last year’s review of Town Centre
Partnerships, which had also picked up issues from Harefield Village
Forum. The Chairman reminded Members that the Town Centre
Partnerships report was being finalised; he asked that it be completed
as soon as possible.
Action By
Hayes Town
Manager
Democratic
Services
The Chief Executive noted that in some authorities elected members
and officers carry out regular tours of their localities to meet with
residents and discuss any local issues arising.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 6
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

The following personal, non-prejudicial interests were declared:
Cllr John Hensley – Board Member, Learning Skills Council.
Cllr Major – Board Member, Hayes & Harlington Community Development Forum.
Cllr Filgate – Does occasional consultancy work for Laing O’Rourke Contracts at
Heathrow.
It was confirmed that the business of the meeting would be considered in public.
1
.
Major Review: The Working of Hillingdon Partners – Local Strategic
Partnership
The Chief Executive presented a report, which introduced the
background and key issues of the LSP and set the context for the
Committee’s major review. The review scoping report was tabled as
an aide-mémoire.
Key points were noted as follows:
• Hillingdon is relatively new to the LSP process; different
boroughs adopt different methods of working;
• The full Hillingdon LSP meets quarterly; the Executive meets
every 6 – 8 weeks, approx;
• The large statutory partners attend LSP meetings on a regular
basis but there needs to be better engagement with /
representation from the business community and the minority
ethnic communities; the Youth Parliament is not represented on
the LSP;
• At present the LSP is managed (partly) by two Policy Team
Officers (Paul Williams & Lorraine O’Dea); it is hoped that the
expected PSA Reward Strategy money will enable the setting up
of a dedicated support office to service the Partnership.
• We do not make best use of existing data (from the Police, PCT
/ Health Authority, GIS, etc.) to set our partnership priorities.
Agreed:-
1. To note the report.
2. To develop the review along the following lines:
Framework of questions for witnesses
o What should be the role of the LSP in helping to raise the
aspirations of young people?
o When LDA funding becomes available to appoint staff to
an LSP Office, where should those staff be placed
organisationally – will the office be part of the Council, or
with one of the other partners, or in some other
relationship yet to be defined?
o What evidence is there on how partners can best work
together – is there a difference between authorities that
have had access to Neighbourhood Renewal funds and
those that have not?
o How can the LSP do more to ensure that the full benefits
are obtained from sharing data / information between
partners?
Action By
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Democratic
Services
}
}
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 7
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

2
.
partners?
o What steps need to be taken to ensure better involvement
of women, people from minority ethnic / faith
communities, the voluntary sector?
o Are changes needed to the accountability arrangements
to ensure that the LSP is not left in the position of having
to audit itself, e.g. in achieving targets (i.e. is there a
‘democratic deficit’ in the current arrangements)?
o Does a clearer distinction need to be made between the
role of Partners as custodians of the LSP process and
their role as those responsible for delivering services and
targets?
o Scale / scope of activity: Does the LSP need to focus on
fewer priorities, building on areas of success? Does the
current all-encompassing approach make it difficult for
people to relate to the LSP?
o What impact are the major changes pending in the
borough (e.g. redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site,
Hillingdon Hospital rebuild, 3000 more students at Brunel
and Terminal 5) likely to have on LSP priorities?
o How do witnesses think they themselves can contribute to
the LSP’s continued development?
Future Meetings
o To consider themed witness sessions over two or three
successive meetings, comprising employers (BAA,
Uxbridge shopping centre, Hillingdon Business Forum);
providers of public and / or caring services (Fire Service,
Police, PCT, Voluntary Sector); Learning & Skills / ‘Trust
Funds’ (Brunel University, Job Centre, Hillingdon
Chamber of Commerce).
o To defer a decision on whether or not to visit a best
practice authority (noted the visit might need to be
arranged for during the day) and in the meantime to make
use of the information on LSP best practice held by Policy
Team.
Any Other Business
It was noted that Martine Cazeau was attending her final meeting as
Scrutiny Advisor supporting Community Partnerships & Economic
Development OSC; this role would be taken over by Maureen
Colledge, who would be joining the Council on 29 th September.
The Committee thanked Martine for her contribution to the work of
CPED OSC and extended a warm welcome to Maureen.
Next Meeting
Tuesday 18 th October 2005, 7.00 p.m. in Committee Room 6.
Meeting closed at 9.15 p.m.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Democratic
Services
}
}
Democratic
Services /
Policy
Action By:
Members
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 8
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

This is a summary of the Community Partnerships and Economic Development
Overview & Scrutiny Committee proceedings. If you wish for more detailed
information on any of the above please contact Martine Cazeau on 01895
250692.
Circulation of this decisions sheet is to Members of the Community
Partnerships and Economic Development Overview & Scrutiny Committee,
Members of the Overview & Scrutiny Coordinating Committee, the Cabinet
Member for Performance, Partnerships and Regeneration, Leaders, Chief
Whips and appropriate Officers.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 9
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

WORKING OF THE LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP:
EVIDENCE FROM WITNESSES
ITEM 1
Contact Officer: Maureen Colledge
Telephone: 01895 277 488
REASON FOR REPORT
The Committee decided at their last meeting that this first session of the
Overview and Scrutiny review of the Working of the Local Strategic Partnership
(LSP) should have a “jobs and business” theme.
Confirmed witnesses at this first session are:
• Rachel Davies, Principal of Uxbridge College, Vice Chairman of
Hillingdon Chamber of Commerce and a member of the LSP.
• Tony Dunn – Chimes Shopping Centre Manager and member of the
LSP.
• Peter Sale – Manager, Hillingdon Education Business Partnership, BA
Community Learning Centre.
Suggested questions for discussion with the witnesses are attached and are
based on the key questions identified within the review’s scoping report and the
Committee’s discussion at the 19 September meeting.
OPTIONS OPEN TO THE COMMITTEE
1. To adopt, vary and supplement the questions as appropriate.
2. A number of members of the business community and the LSP were
approached and willing to help but unable to make the meeting, the Committee
may wish to consider sending the questions to these people for written
responses.
INFORMATION
In the Appendices as background on business involvement and this review are:
• Progress report to Hillingdon LSP on the Prosperous Borough theme
• London Borough of Croydon Strategic Partnership’s business
involvement – given as good practice on the IdeA website
• Business in the Community’s Partnership Academy prospectus
• ODPM’s LSP Delivery Toolkit “Involving the private sector: a practical
guide”
• This Overview and Scrutiny Review’s Scoping Report
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 10
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Suggested questions for the witnesses follow.
SUGGESTED SCRUTINY ACTIVITY
Ensure questions meet the Review’s objectives.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 11
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Suggested questions to Rachel Davies, Vice Chairman Hillingdon
Chamber of Commerce and Tony Dunn, Manager of Chimes Shopping
Centre – both LSP members
1. Please tell the Committee about your organisation and your involvement
with the LSP?
2. In your opinion, where has the LSP been most effective so far? And
where has it been less effective?
3. How can a Council best work together with its business partners and
with its other partners?
4. Have you any views on how the LSP could ensure that the full benefits
are obtained from sharing data and information between partners?
5. What do you think should be the role of the LSP in raising the aspirations
of young people?
6. What steps could the LSP take to ensure wider involvement in its work?
7. Some people say there is a “democratic deficit” in the way the LSP
operates currently? Have you any views on this? For example is it
reasonable that the LSP audits itself in relation to its own targets?
8. If funding became available for an LSP office where would this be best
placed - in the Council, with one of the Partners or in some other
arrangement?
9. Does the LSP need to focus on fewer priorities – is its current approach
making it difficult for people to relate to it?
10. In your opinion, what major changes coming up in the Borough are likely
to have an impact on future LSP priorities and/or the way the partnership
works?
11. In what ways do you think businesses in Hillingdon could contribute to
the LSP’s continued development? Are there ways you feel you could
contribute to the LSP’s continued development?
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 12
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Suggested questions to Peter Sale, Manager, Hillingdon Education
Business Partnership, BA Community Learning Centre.
1. Please tell the Committee about the work of the Hillingdon Education
Business Partnership?
2. How can a Council best work together with its business partners and
with its other partners?
3. What involvement do you have or have you had with the Local Strategic
Partnership?
4. Where do you feel it has been most effective? Where has it been less
effective?
5. Is anything LSP members could do to support the type of service
provided by HEBP?
6. In your opinion are the Council and its Partners doing enough to raise
the aspirations of young people in the borough?
7. In your opinion could the LSP do more to promote its objectives and
engage with young people?
8. If extra staff resources were to become available to take forward
partnership working, where could they be used most effectively – within
the Council or within Partner organisations or in some other
arrangement?
9. Do you have views on how can the Local Strategic Partnership do more
to ensure the full benefits are obtained from sharing information/data?
10. Could the Local Strategic Partnership do more to encourage wider
involvement with its work?
11. In your opinion, what major changes coming up in the Borough are likely
to have an impact on the way the partnership works?
12. In what ways do you think businesses in Hillingdon could contribute to
greater partnership working and to building a prosperous borough?
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 13
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

WORKING OF THE LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP –
HILLINGDON PARTNERS: PLANS FOR FUTURE
MEETINGS
ITEM 2
Contact Officer: Maureen Colledge
Telephone: 01895 277 488
REASON FOR REPORT
The Committee decided at their last meeting to consider themed sessions over
the next 2 to 3 meetings and to defer a decision on whether to visit a good
practice authority.
This report proposes a theme for the next meeting on 22 November 2005 and
seeks the Committee’s views on whether they wish to go ahead with a possible
visit in December 2005. It also seeks the Committee’s views on the progress of
the review from December onwards
OPTIONS OPEN TO THE COMMITTEE
To approve or vary plans for future meetings and to decide whether to visit a
good practice local authority.
INFORMATION
Proposals for future meetings follow
SUGGESTED SCRUTINY ACTIVITY
Members ensure that their meeting plans provide opportunities to gather the
necessary evidence for this review.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 14
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

WORKING OF THE LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP – HILLINGDON
PARTNERS: PLANS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
1. The suggested theme for the next meeting on 22 November is that
the Committee review the work of the Local Strategic Partnership in
relation to the community and voluntary sector.
2. Key questions would be around the engagement of community and
voluntary sector and accountability to the public.
3. Relevant to this are some of the initiatives described in the paper on the
Working of Hillingdon Partners that was presented to the Committee’s
last meeting (copy attached as annex A). This describes plans for rolling
out Local Area Agreements and the new Neighbourhood Partnerships
that went live in June this year. The latter have met monthly to deal with
problems in Uxbridge and Hayes. The impact of these developments
on partnership working and the work of the LSP could be explored.
4. Potential witnesses might be:
5. A representative from Hillingdon Association of Voluntary Service
(HAVS)
6. A representative from Disablement Association Hillingdon (DASH)
7. A representative from Connecting Communities or a similar organisation
involved with ethnic and faith communities.
8. A representative from a local Community Forum
9. Representatives from local residents groups – possibly one from the
south and one from the north of the borough
10. A representative from an organisation connected with young people in
the Borough.
11. Lead Council Officer and Police representative for the Neighbourhood
Initiative.
12. The Committee might consider having a round-table discussion with
some or all of these witnesses. Suggested questions to discuss would
be prepared in advance.
Possible visit
13. At the last meeting, the Committee decided to defer a decision on
whether to visit a good practice authority and meanwhile to make use of
available information on LSP good practice.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 15
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

14. Good practice advice on LSP working in relation to business
partnerships is contained in the Appendices. Similar information is
available on working with the community and can be provided for the
next meeting.
15. If the Committee wishes to visit a good practice authority, officers’ advice
is that Croydon is a suitable authority. It is also given on the IdeA
website as an LSP good practice authority. Initial enquiries with
Croydon suggest that it might be possible to arrange a visit during the
day for some or all members of the Committee to meet officers and
some LSP members and/or sit in on an LSP meeting.
December 20 th Meeting and afterwards
16. It is suggested that the Committee might consider emerging conclusions
and recommendations from this review at the December 20 th 2005
meeting.
17. The draft report and conclusions could be presented at the February
2006 meeting (the January meeting is usually concerned with voluntary
sector grant monitoring), and a final report at the March 2006 meeting.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 16
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Annex A – The Working of Hillingdon Partners – Local Strategic
Partnership (paper presented to the Committee’s last meeting)
LSPs are ultimately not simply a partnership between key provider
organisations, but a link, through the local authority, to the democratic
accountability of local public services to local people. Evaluation of LSPs
Governance.
1. The Council has a statutory responsibility under Local Government Act
2000 to produce a Community Strategy for the borough in partnership with
other local service providers, both in the public and private sectors, and
community representatives. The Council does this through a Local Strategic
Partnership – Hillingdon Partners. LSP are non-statutory, non-executive
organizations which operate at a level which enables strategic decisions to
be taken and are also close enough to individual neighbourhoods to allow
actions to be determined at community level. The purpose of an LSP is to
develop long-term strategies and plans for the local area, monitor their
delivery, and bring about effective change.
2. Hillingdon Partners is central to the Council’s partnership working. It was
established in 2001 and tackles key issues for local people, such as crime,
the environment, jobs, education, health and housing. It is a key means of
the Council fulfilling its statutory community leadership role. Hillingdon
Partners has recently produced a 10 year Community Strategy 2005-15,
which outlines the communities top priorities and how they will be
addressed for the next 10 years. The LSP is composed of public, private,
community and voluntary sector organisations. (A list of members is detailed
in appendix A). Public, private, community and voluntary sector
organisations all have a part to play in improving quality of life and these
organisations will all work together to deliver the Community Strategy.
Structure and Composition
3. The LSP is composed of the LSP Executive, the LSP and 7 theme
partnerships. The LSP Executive’s membership is the PCT Chief Executive,
Borough Police Commander, Council Chief Executive, Brunel University,
Ealing Family Housing and Cabinet Portfolio Holder. Its role is to help set
direction and agenda for the LSP development and its development. It
meets monthly and is chaired by the Council Chief Executive. The LSP is
composed of the chairs of all theme groups and up to three additional
representatives from each theme group and representatives of community
and voluntary sector organisations. Its role is to oversee production of the
community plan and the development of the LSP. It meets 6 times a year
and is chaired by the Council Chief Executive. The detailed terms of
reference of the LSP, LSP Executive and theme partnerships, a structure
chart and accountabilities are outlined in the Hillingdon Partners Protocols –
Structures, Procedures and Working Protocols for the Local Strategic
Partnership
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 17
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Terms of Reference & Accountabilities
4. The full LSP is accountable to
the public through consultation and the regular reporting of progress
each other by delivering the actions agreed in the community plan
theme groups for support , advice and guidance , feed back and,
where appropriate brokerage
existing decision making bodies such as the Council and the Primary
care Trust for budgets and budget management
5. The LSP Executive is accountable to
the full LSP for demonstrating leadership in the development of the
community planning process
6. Theme Groups are accountable to
their members for the development of their theme and making
recommendations to the LSP
the full LSP for reporting progress
the community and their own Executive bodies for the delivery of
their theme.
Community Strategy targets
7. It is the responsibility of the full LSP to prepare and implement
Hillingdon’s Community Strategy which sets an overall vision for the
borough, as well drawing up an action plan to deliver this vision, monitoring
progress and reporting progress regularly to the community. It is the
responsibility of the LSP Executive to produce the community plan, to
monitor its delivery and to review performance across the LSP themes,
making recommendations and taking action as necessary.
8. The Community Strategy has targets in 7 themes areas, the areas of the
theme partnerships. The targets are short, medium and longterm, 1 year,
three year and 10 year. There is a timetable in place for monitoring the
Community Strategy for 2006-07, which has been agreed by the LSP
Executive and Leader. (Appendix C)
Engagement with the Community
9. Engagement with partners, the business community and the community
is critical to the success of the community planning process. The LSP’s
commitment to developing engagement is demonstrated in each of the
Community Strategies it has produced and the reports of the 3 community
conferences which have taken place since the launch of the LSP. The
community conference has been the main tool for engagement so far,
however, this has been supported by consultation undertaken by partner
organisations and by the theme partnerships. Examples include the Crime
Audit, the PCT locality events, and the council’s 3 year MORI survey. The
development of community engagement is a key issue for the LSP in the
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 18
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

future. Current developments include the appointment of a Community
Leadership Manager whose role is to develop partnership working at a local
level and the Neighbourhood Partnerships initiative where partners work at
a local level.
10. The Hillingdon Business Forum was initiated in September 2004 with
the intention of:
identifying community issues affecting businesses in Hillingdon
co-ordinating corporate skills and resources to make a positive difference to
people living and working in the area.
11. There are currently seven companies funding the Hillingdon Business
Forum:
Aurora Hotels
Stockley Park Consortium
Allied Irish Bank
United Biscuits
BAA
Xerox
British Airways
12. Key priorities are education & skills development, employment of local
people and transport. Its’ overall purpose is to provide Forum members with:
13. Networking opportunities, as part of discussion events held around
the priority issues identified above.
Opportunities to engage in relevant community projects that make a
difference to the people of Hillingdon
Opportunities for companies and the public sector to work together on
issues that effect the people who live and work in Hillingdon
Future Development of Hillingdon Partners
14. Future issues for the LSP will be delivering and reviewing the
Community Strategy; performance management; widening engagement with
communities, including hard to reach people; consolidating and developing
partnership structures and processes; particularly the new theme
partnerships; consolidating and reviewing membership; sharing information
and assets. These priorities can be compared against the priorities of other
LSPs for the period 2004-06 in the recently published ODPM research
document – National Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships –
Report on the 2004 Survey of all English LSPs.
Implications of Local Area Agreements (LAAs) on LSPs
15. The second phase of LAAs agreements was announced in January
2005. The Government has committed itself to LAAs, and has now agreed
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 19
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

to roll LAAs out across England over the next two years. LAAs take overall
responsibility for ensuring that all the delivery bodies make appropriate
commitments to delivery of the outcomes within the Agreement, and for
challenging them if they fail to play their part.
16. The LAA process is intended to provide a focus around which the work
between local authorities and their partners through the community strategy,
the LSP and other partnerships is strengthened. It should be a catalyst for
wider development of the process of developing a community strategy, the
operation of the LSP and the relationships between constituent members of
the LSP and between the LSP and other local partnerships. The
implications on the development of Hillingdon’s LSP are as follows:
17. A strong LSP is very important with strong existing support for locality
priorities as LAAs are drawn up & delivered by Councils & LSPs in
conjunction with central government
Strong ‘locality leadership’ is vital as LAAs involve making decisions on
priorities & competing public interest
Local partnership arrangements are vital- as existing relations & trust are
relied upon
Robust governance arrangements are required for partnerships as LAAs
involve real decisions on resource allocation
18. To conclude the development of LAAs is placing some fundamental
issues of governance and accountability back on the agenda for LSPs.
New Initiatives
Neighbourhood Partnerships
19. The partnership went 'live' in June this year and has met monthly to
deal with problems in Uxbridge and Hayes through Safer Neighbourhood
Teams and other partners. It is looking at how the partnership and local
people can make a difference to anti-social behaviour. Initiatives are aimed
at tackling crime and disorder and providing better amenities and activities
for young people through joined-up working. It is responsible for 2 projects,
an alcohol project and an anti graffiti initiative and focus groups that will
carry out the actions identified in Hayes and Uxbridge. It publishes a bimonthly
newsletter for its partners and reports to the LSP bi-monthly. The
LSP has agreed to pilot information sharing in the context of the
neighbourhood partnerships initiative.
Asset Management
20. A Hillingdon Asset Management Strategy (Appendix E) has set out
principles to guide the development of principles for asset management for
the LSP. A Partner Asset Management Forum has been established,
engaging the key partners - LB Hillingdon, Hillingdon Primary Care Trust
and the Police, to drive asset management throughout Hillingdon. It is
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 20
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

looking into how partners can share overheads to rationalise expenditure.
Examples include: joint training between the statutory partners on the Race
Equality Scheme, exploring joint procurement potential, sharing of
translation and interpretation.
21. Key guiding principles include:
Service delivery, customer accessibility and efficient use of built assets must
drive collective asset needs/wants
All future developments to consider cross partner multiple uses as a matter
of course
Recognition by all partners that the disposal of assets at highest capital
receipt is not always the best option. At times higher savings can be made
as a result of reaching the highest value for service users
The mapping of all partner assets onto a Geographical Information System
No assets to be declared surplus before circulation of the details to the LSP
Partners through the Asset Management Forum
No future procurement of premises related support functions should take
place without discussion with other partners. A Service Matrix must be
compiled highlighting key partners premises related suppliers for major
supply contracts and shared through the Asset Management Forum
Share 1, 5, 10 year visions for our asset developments/strategy and look to
work them together through the Asset Management Forum with partner
organisations
Business cases will always drive asset developments and will be reflected in
all partners business plans, where relevant, and the Council Plan
Recent Research on LSPs
22. Two recent ODPM research publications on LSP are included as
appendices for information and reference. The National Evaluation of Local
Strategic Partnerships – Report on the 2004 Survey of all English LSPs
gives an overview of findings regarding organisational arrangements,
activities and outcomes and future prospects of all English LSPs surveyed
in 2004. This report comprises two main parts. Part 1 provides an analytical
commentary of findings across all LSPs, and highlights key differences
between LSPs in NRF and non-NRF areas and in different local authority
contexts. A concluding section summarises key findings. It can be read in
conjunction with the tabulated data in Part 2, which details responses to all
survey questions. Its conclusions for non- Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
(NRF) LSPs are as follows:
Non-NRF LSPs are, overall, significantly less advanced.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 21
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Membership is less comprehensive and overall non-NRF LSPs see more
need in the next two years to devote substantial energy to ‘process’ issues
such as engaging partners and communities.
Non-NRF LSPs can draw on lower levels of staff and financial resources,
and overall have made significantly less progress towards outcomes and
adding value.
23. The disparity between NRF and non-NRF LSPs cannot, of course, be
dissociated from the availability of NRF resources for NRF LSPs, coupled
with the greater pressures from government on NRF LSPs to achieve
progress on neighbourhood renewal, and the substantially higher levels of
support from government and Government Offices which NRF LSPs have
received.
As NRF LSPs tend to have been established for longer than those in non-
NRF areas, this may be a factor behind their greater levels of progress.
24. The Evaluation of LSPs Governance reflects the work of an action
learning set comprising 11 LSPs. It has been commissioned by the ODPM
and DfT to provide guidance materials -specifically developed from local
perspectives - to support other LSPs and local, regional and central partners
and policymakers. It presents 4 models of LSPs and analyses the
governance issues of each model as well as analyzing the emerging
general governance issues.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 22
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

WIDER PARTICIPATION IN OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY –
ENCOURAGING THE PUBLIC : PROPOSED TIMETABLE
ITEM 3
Contact Officer: Maureen Colledge
Telephone: 01895 277 488
REASON FOR REPORT
The Committee agreed the scoping report for this review at its meeting in July.
This report proposes a timetable for the work.
OPTIONS OPEN TO THE COMMITTEE
To approve or vary the suggested timetable.
INFORMATION
The scoping report with a proposed timetable follows.
SUGGESTED SCRUTINY ACTIVITY
Members to ensure that their meeting plans provide the opportunities to gather
the necessary evidence for this review.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 23
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

SCOPING REPORT
Community Partnerships & Economic Development
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
“ Wider participation in Overview & Scrutiny – encouraging the public”
Aim of review
To identify methods for extending public awareness and participation in the
Overview & Scrutiny local democracy mechanism, especially in relation to the
identification of topics being reviewed.
Background and importance
Overview & Scrutiny is a democratic process, all OSC meetings are open to the
public, however only when contentious issues are ‘called in’ do members of the
public (typically only those directly affected by the decision called in) attend.
Local democracy typically suffers more from constituent apathy and lack of
awareness amongst those resident in the area. To address this, members of
the public need to be informed of how the democratic process works, and how
they can influence it. Overview & Scrutiny is a system for checks and balance
and should be representative of the community and ensure that its focus
reflects that of the concerns of the local residents.
Drivers for change
• Low political involvement by the local community at large.
• CPA soon to judge the effectiveness of Overview & Scrutiny and its role
within the Council.
• Overview & Scrutiny has developed substantially over the last two years,
public awareness and involvement is seen as the next step to allow
continued development.
Key questions (Terms of Reference)
• Determine whether there is an audience for Overview & Scrutiny in the
local community.
• What scope is there for public involvement in Overview & Scrutiny?
• What are the current barriers to public involvement?
o Meeting times & access
o Knowledge and awareness of
• The role of O&S
• The impact of O&S
• The committees and their work
o Relevance of work programmes
• How can Overview & Scrutiny publicise itself better / encourage public
involvement?
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 24
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Methodology
• Best practice examples from other boroughs
• Evidence from Centre for Public Scrutiny / Improvement & Development
Agency
• Analysis of Overview & Scrutiny attendance survey returns
Stakeholders and consultation plan
• Overview & Scrutiny Team
• Community involvement HIP project
• Head of Democratic Services and Elections Office
Connected work (recently completed, planned or ongoing)
Community involvement HIP project may have connected work ongoing, but
this is unlikely to be overlapping.
Plans for improving voter turnout may influence and be influenced by the
outcomes of this review, the review should consider what has been done / is
planned in increasing democratic participation across Hillingdon, not just in
relation to Overview & Scrutiny.
Proposed timetable & milestones
Meeting Action Milestone
1 Consider turnout and democratic
20 Dec participation in Hillingdon
2005
2
18 Jan
2006
Receive information on what schemes
have been done in the past to address
public involvement.
Consider the current characteristics of
O&S meetings, agenda distribution and
public engagement – assess whether there
are inherent obstacles to public
involvement.
Gain understanding
of the local
participative culture
Review current
situation
3
21 Feb
2006
4
23
March
2006
Receive best practice examples of public
participation (possible expert witnesses
from CfPS / IDeA)
Consider whether best practice methods
would be achievable in Hillingdon.
Consider draft final report
Agree draft
recommendations
Edit / Sign-off
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 25
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Risk assessment
There may not be an audience for Overview & Scrutiny due to deep-seated
indifference to local governance, the resources open to Overview & Scrutiny
may not be sufficient to off-set this. Longer term objectives wider than LBH
O&S function may be required.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 26
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

BEACON COUNCIL SCHEME: ROUND EIGHT ITEM 4
REASON FOR REPORT
Contact Officer: Maureen Colledge
Telephone: 01895 277 488
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced themes for Round Eight of
the Beacon Councils Scheme in September 2005. The Committee might wish
to note that one of themes relates to overview and scrutiny:
“Neighbourhood and Community Champions: The Role of Elected Members”.
The report of the Beacons Advisory Panel, available from IDeA , says:
“This theme would respond to suggestions made by a number of organisations
during the previous consultation exercise that Local Authorities are keen to
seek out examples of effective neighbourhood and community leadership. It
would profile examples of innovative methods of supporting elected members
to play a pivotal role within their neighbourhoods and within community
planning processes.
Such a theme … would emphasise the crucial role that elected members play,
not only in setting priorities and improving local authority services, but also in
liaising with and influencing other public, private and voluntary organisations for
the benefit of the community, be this through Local Strategic Partnerships or
innovative scrutiny arrangements.”
The application process for Round Eight will be launched in Spring 2006.
OPTIONS OPEN TO THE COMMITTEE
1. To note at this stage.
2. To consider next Spring whether the Committee’s work and major
reviews this year might form the basis for a bid.
Community Partnerships & Economic Development OSC report – 18.10.05 Page 27
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS