Report - London Borough of Hillingdon

hillingdon.gov.uk

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

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines