Venue: Havering Town Hall, Main Road, Romford
Contact: Richard Cursons 01708 432430 Email: richard.cursons@oneSource.co.uk
The report before Members detailed the call-in of a Non-Key Executive Decision relating to the transfer of Newham’s Council Tax and Benefits Service back to the council
A requisition signed by Councillors David Durant & Phil Martin had called-in the Non-Key Executive Decision (17/36) dated 15 May 2017.
The reason for the requisition was as follows:
“The decision indicated problems with the oneSource merger with newham and a fuller explanation of the implications of this decision would be useful”
During the debate Members asked for and received several points of clarification which were provided by the Council’s Chief Executive and the Managing Director of oneSource. Members also received a short briefing from the Cabinet Member for Housing Company Development and oneSource Management.
Members were advised that the Mayor of Newham had requested Havering and Bexley Councils to transfer the Newham element of Council Tax and Benefits service from oneSource back into Newham Council’s responsibility.
A chart in the report detailed the efficincies that Havering could deliver on its own and also showed the shortfall in savings that Havering could not deliver on its own.
The compensation offered by Newham Council covered the first, second and part of the way into the third year to enable Havering to identify additional savings.
Since the proposal had been put forward officers had been identifying alternative proposals to make up the shortfall in possible savings to ensure there was no ongoing impact to the service.
Officers confirmed that the Council Tax and Benefits service was a separate service but had been identified for future savings further down the line.
Members noted that Newham Council had had to formally request, to the other two councils to remove the service from the shared service.
Officers advised that Newham Council had identified several services that they wished to create small business models for and this was one of them.
The vote for the decision as to whether to uphold or dismiss the call-in was carried by 15 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.
Councillors Morgon abstained from voting.
It was RESOLVED that the call-in of the Non-Key Executive Decision (17/36) dated 10 May 2017 be dismissed.
CALL-IN OF A NON-KEY EXECUTIVE DECISION RELATING TO THE HIGHWAYS CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2017/18
The report before Members detailed the call-in of a Non-Key Executive Decision relating to the Highways Capital Programme 2017/18.
A requisition signed by Councillors Ray Morgon & Keith Darvill had called-in the Non-Key Executive Decision (17/35) dated 8 May 2017.
The reasons for the requisition were as follows:
· There was a lack of detail in respect of the business case for each intended works.
· There was no clear policy on the prioritisation of highways works to meet the Council’s statutory duty.
· There was a lack of detail as to why each scheme was in need of urgent attention.
· There was a lack of data to provide evidence to back up the business case. There were no figures on the number of requests received for works to be done in each road, details of input from the ALO’s and results from the UKPMS survey.
During the debate Members asked for and received several points of clarification which were provided by the Council’s Director of Neighbourhoods and the Group Manager for Streetcare.
Several Members commented that roads previously prioritised for improvements had been chosen incorrectly as there were other roads throughout the borough that had been in more need of improvement works.
Members were advised that there were approximately 700km of roads and pavements in the borough but that the budget for improvements was fairly small at approximately £1 million. To put this into perspective officers advised that it cost on average £1k to resurface one linear metre of carriageway which equated to 1km a year out of the 700km in the borough.
Members noted that there were three types of highway improvement works these were:
· Reactive (pot holes etc.)
· Preventative (to extend the life of)
· Planned (works were a resurface was required)
Officers were currently investigating the business case for more planned works rather than reactive works on roads that had been previously repaired a number of times. Officers advised that it was a balancing act between invest to save planned works which would be offset by increased insurance claims from areas where reactive works were not carried out.
Members also noted that roads were prioritised 1, 2 or 3 depending on their need for improvement.
Previously the Council had not used any software packages that would highlight and prioritise which highways needed improvement. A new software package (Horizon) had been purchased, for approximately £70/100k, which would enable officers to enter data which would help prioritise areas of need. Although the software was in place there was currently a lack of data from surveys, inspections and complaints as data collection was in its infancy.
Officers advised that currently the works chosen were inspection based. Inspections were carried out to every road in the borough either by foot or by car every year.
Safety assessments of roads were carried out where reports of repairs had been received from the public and Councillors and this information was analysed along with any history of insurance claims. Officers advised that the Havering had a good ... view the full minutes text for item 25.