Agenda and minutes

Members of the public are welcome to attend our meetings to watch them in person at any of the venues across the County. Publicly accessible meetings held in County Hall will be webcast, which means they are available to be watched live or recorded on our website. Please see our webcasting notice here. The Committee may, in certain circumstances, resolve to hold part of the meeting in private. If this is the case, you will be required to leave the meeting.

Venue: Committee Room 'B' - The Diamond Jubilee Room, County Hall, Preston. View directions

Contact: Habib Patel  Tel: 01772 536099 Email:  habib.patel@lancashire.gov.uk

Media

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

Minutes:

None were received.

 

2.

Disclosure of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Members are asked to consider any Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests they may have to disclose to the meeting in relation to matters under consideration on the Agenda.

Minutes:

None were disclosed.

 

3.

Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 December 2015 pdf icon PDF 111 KB

Minutes:

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 December were agreed to be an accurate record.

 

4.

Our Journey So Far and Why - A Greater Understanding of the Changes Affecting Highway Authorities pdf icon PDF 84 KB

Karen Cassar, Highways (Asset Management), will be in attendance to deliver a presentation regarding the changes affecting Highway Authorities.

Minutes:

The Chair introduced Karen Cassar (Highways (Asset Management)) to the meeting who presented information regarding changes that would affect highway authorities in terms of their codes of practice and funding. Karen noted that the presentation would focus on Department For Transport (DFT) capital funding, which had not been affected by Government cuts, and, specifically, how this impacted the Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP).

 

Members were informed that the DFT were incentivising highway authorities to move away from a 'wish list' approach to an asset management principle with the utilisation of objective data, such as road condition data, which contributed to the derivation of the program of works. It was noted that there had been capital funding changes, the introduction of a 'self-assessment' questionnaire and new codes of practice issued for well-managed Highways.

 

Karen highlighted three key documents which had contributed to the DFT's adaptation of their methodology. It was communicated that in September, 2014, the Public Accounts Committee determined that the DFT's funding allocation methodology should incentivise efficiency and collaboration. It was explained that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Highways Maintenance, in October 2013, voiced concern that Highways, even under optimal conditions, would be inefficiently maintained. Moreover, within the National Infrastructure Plan, published in December 2014, it had been elucidated that high-quality infrastructure boosted productivity and competitiveness which was central to the Government's long-term economic plan.

 

Regarding the DFT's support for Highway authorities to deliver the changes, reference was made to the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP), a £6m sector led transformation program. It was noted that HMEP connected networks from across the highways sector and provided the resources to support leaders and managers to transform the provision of road services towards improved efficiency.

 

The Committee received that there remained a number of challenges; continued public pressure to tackle potholes, constraints on court revenue funding, the need to identify opportunities to prioritise, to innovate with tighter budgets and to account for escalating costs whilst meeting increased customer demand. 

 

It was explained that the DFT, in association with the HMEP program, had conducted a review of highway authorities' codes of practice during which they had identified potential implications resulting from amendments and omissions. It was noted that the DFT was advocating a risk based approach; for example, it was highlighted that the county council cleaned every gulley in Lancashire as an equal priority, however via utilisation of objective data, resources could be targeted towards gullies with particular issues and therefore catalyse a cost effective approach. Members were informed that the product of the codes of practice review was currently in draft form and was to be evaluated by DFT legal representatives to ensure that, in the event of a legal challenge against a local highway authority, the code of practice was robust. It was stated that the implementation date for highway authorities was currently to be confirmed, but would be two years from the issuing date.

 

The Committee were informed that the DFT had announced a £6billion fund to be distributed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Safe Trader Report pdf icon PDF 115 KB

Minutes:

The Chair introduced Amanda Maxim, Trading Standards Manager, to the meeting who delivered a report regarding the current status of the county council's Safe Trader Scheme in Lancashire.

 

The Committee were informed that the Safe Trader Scheme was established in 2009 with assistance from Help Direct and had acquired 1,300 members. It was noted that funding for the scheme ceased in March, 2015, and was currently being managed by the county council and Trading Standards. It was explained that the scheme was currently managed by the county council due to synergies with doorstep crime enforcement work.

 

Members were informed that the scheme enabled consumers to deal with traders they could trust and was available to all Lancashire's residents.

 

It was noted that five hundred complaints of doorstep crime were received annually, along with a multitude of complaints regarding sub-standard workmanship and overcharging.

 

Regarding the method for businesses to join the scheme, it was conveyed that traders had to apply and would then be visited by Trading Standards officers who would assess their suitability to join. If successful, businesses would sign up to a code of conduct outlining that consumers were to be treated fairly and charged reasonable prices.

 

The Committee were informed that the scheme was feedback based and in the event of dispute, officers would mediate and endeavoured to resolve issues.

 

It was noted that a small number of traders had been removed from the scheme, and a small number hadn't been allowed to join as it was deemed extremely important to maintain the integrity of the scheme itself.

 

Members received that businesses on the scheme were provided with assistance with legislation, received branded materials, stickers for their vans, and the logo for the scheme could be used. It was noted that in previous years when the scheme was fully resourced, award ceremonies were held and had been popular. However, the current arrangement was that businesses with sufficient positive feedback would receive a certificate that could be displayed for consumers.

 

It was highlighted that 75% of traders stated that they had received extra business since becoming members of the scheme. It was also noted that consumers had very positive feedback regarding the use of the scheme.

 

The Chair thanked Amanda Maxim for presenting the information and invited comments from the Committee.

 

CC Christian Wakeford queried whether businesses were contacted to be part of the Safe Trader Scheme, or contacted the service to be included. Amanda Maxim explained that traders contacted Trading Standards to become part of the scheme and that they would then be placed on a waiting list and assessed in due course. 

 

CC Christian Wakeford noted that the report stated 'victims of doorstep crime were over twice as likely to die or go into residential care within two years of an incident', and therefore requested more information. Amanda Maxim noted that rogue traders shared information between themselves, and as an example, informed vulnerable people that their roof was unsafe and acquired work using such methods. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Work Plan and Task Group Update pdf icon PDF 48 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Habib Patel made reference to the report on Flood Risk Management, scheduled for the meeting to be held on 26 February, 2016, and informed that the report would not be completed for the meeting as the acute elements of the flooding issues needed to be fully assessed. It was explained that the report would be delivered to the Committee at a future meeting.

 

The Chair explained to members that the OFSTED report scheduled to be before the Committee at this meeting had been moved to the recently established Children's Services Scrutiny Committee, as this fell within their remit.

 

Resolved: That;

 

The Work Plan and Task Group Update be noted.

 

7.

Urgent Business

An item of urgent business may only be considered under this heading where, by reason of special circumstances to be recorded in the Minutes, the Chair of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency. Wherever possible, the Chief Executive should be given advance warning of any Member's intention to raise a matter under this heading.

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

 

8.

Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee will be held on Friday, 26 February 2016 at 10:00am at the County Hall, Preston.

Minutes:

The next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee will be held on Friday, 26 February, 2016 at 10.00am at the County Hall, Preston, Cabinet Room 'B'.