The following disclosures were made in the interest of transparency:

(i)         Councillor A Ahmed disclosed that she was employed by the Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

(ii)          Councillor Gibbons disclosed that he was a member of the NHS Foundation Trust Board and had previously taken a view in relation to the item on the 12 Month Trial Ban of Pavement Obstructions.

(iii)         Councillor Griffiths disclosed that he was a partner in a medical practice.

(iv)         Susan Crowe disclosed that she was a member of the Strategic Disability Partnership.

ACTION:       City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2016 be signed as a correct record (previously circulated).

(Claire Tomenson – 01274 432457)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2016 be signed as a correct record.

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item.  Certain reports and background papers may be restricted. 

Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic Director or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report. 

If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting. 

Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal. 

(Claire Tomenson - 01274 432457)

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.

Any referrals that have been made to this Committee up to and including the date of publication of this agenda will be reported at the meeting.

There were no referrals made to the Committee.

The report of the Care Quality Commission (Document “AH”) provides an update from each of the inspection directorates.

Recommended –

That the report be noted.

                                                                                    (Sarah Drew – 0300 0616161)

The Inspection Manager, Adult Social Care, Care Quality Commission, presented a report (Document “AH”) which provided an update from each of the inspection directorate within the Care Quality Commission (CQC).  It was noted that there were 213 active Social Care organisation locations in Bradford, 50 nursing homes that provided 2129 beds and 88 residential homes with 2336 beds.  The Assistant Director, Operational Services, informed Members that the Council met with the CQC on a regular basis and contracts were monitored alongside safeguarding.  It was noted that last year more providers had required improvement and work had been undertaken with the sector in order to reduce those on a warning down to ten.

Members then raised the following points:

·         In 2016 changes around payments were made, was there any association in relation to the number of organisations that closed?

·         62% of the active locations ‘required improvement’.  What percentage related to safety?

·         What were the inspection timescales and were they linked to previous inspections?

·         How were people informed of standards within homes?  How did they find out if the location was just within the ‘requires improvement’ category?

·         Was the standard based on points?

·         Would the public understand why the rating had been given?

·         Were there any statutory requirements for care workers and managers?

·         What qualifications were required for managers and providers?  Were there any minimum requirements?  Did they have to be from the medical profession?

·         A company could be established and owners had to be registered and prove that they could manage a home.  They were not required to be a registered nurse, unless they were managing nurses.  The majority of managers were qualified to NVQ Level 5 and it was very important to have good leadership in homes.  The staff needed to have a care certificate and the CQC looked for this along with training and development.  Clear pathways were required for carers in order for them to progress to higher levels.  A key part of an inspection would be to identify the training provision and robust processes.

·         Were the 65 locations that required improvement mentored?

·         Were the compliance actions related to the overall ratings?

·         Would the prioritisation process be used for all locations or just where serious incidents had taken place?

·         How would a change in the rating from ‘good’ be identified?

·         If a location was ‘inadequate’ how could it continue to operate?  How long would it take before it was closed down?

·         How would the judgement call be made?

·         There was a general trend towards improvement.

·         The information in relation to hospital inspections required further investigation.     

In response it was confirmed that:

·         Some organisations had closed as the new standards were higher and some providers could not afford to make the required changes.  Other companies had changed owners and if a provider went out of business it caused problems for the Council.

·         The locations were observed in terms of issues.  There were varying levels of ‘requiring improvement’ and advice was provided on what action was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

The City Solicitor will submit Document “AI” which presents the work programme 2016/17.

Recommended –

That the information in Appendix 1 and 2 of Document “AI” be noted.

(Caroline Coombes – 01274 432313)

The City Solicitor submitted Document “AI” which presented the work programme 2016/17.

The Overview and Scrutiny Lead officer informed Members that:

·         The report on the Council’s Contributions Policy, that had been scheduled to be considered at the meeting on 6 April 2017, had been delayed.

·         Dentistry would be discussed at the West Yorkshire Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting to be held on 24 March 2017.

Resolved –

That the Work Programme 2016/17 be noted.

Action: Overview and Scrutiny Lead

At its meeting on 7 March 2017 the Executive received a report of the Strategic Director, Place (Executive Document “BM”) and additional information that was tabled at the meeting (Addendum to Executive Document “BM”) which updated the Executive on the effectiveness and practicality issues of the 12 month trial ban on pavement obstructions in Bradford City Centre, Saltaire, Ilkley and on A647 Leeds Road between Thornbury Gyratory and Bradford City Centre.

On the basis of the trial’s findings a number of potential options for the continuation, revocation or amendment of the policy related to pavement obstructions in the future were presented for the Executive’s consideration and determination.

Executive resolved –

That the retention of the pavement obstruction ban be approved with the following modifications:

a)            The current trial zone ban areas be retained;

b)           Arrangements to allow licensing of pavement obstructions be incorporated into the Council’s approach.

c)            That the development of details of the licensing arrangements including the approval of policy for determining locations suitable for placement of obstructions and levels of license fee to be charged be delegated to the Strategic Director: Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place

The decision of the Executive has been called in by Councillors Dale Smith and Sharp

(i)         The reasons for Cllr Dale Smith requesting the call-in are:

The proposals give scant regard to the Equality Impact Assessment and subsequently do not sufficiently ameliorate the disadvantage those most affected particularly those with Visual Impairment or the need to use wheelchairs etc.

The evidence presented and upon which the decision was partially based, regarding the charge for a Licence is unrealistic, containing conflicting figures and presented alongside unconvincing evidence submitted by businesses regarding their claimed financial losses due to the removal of A-Boards, with the latter having been given too much emphasis.

A letter from the Ilkley Chamber of Trade was tabled but not circulated to members of the public and thus could not be challenged.

The loss of the Mobility and Inclusion Officer reduced the Council’s contact with service users, with the result that awareness of the decision to be taken at the Executive meeting was poorly advertised, thus reducing the opportunity of those whose mobility is to be most affected, to get quick access to the report in an appropriate format and have their voices heard.

The costing information provided for both the trial and the proposals are inadequate.  

The absence of adequate, detailed information detailing which other Local Authorities were implementing an A-Board ban or making a charge for any Licence, along with the outcomes, undermines the validity of the report upon which the decision was based, as this information would provide a much clearer picture of what to expect.

The absence of criteria for identifying areas where A-Boards can and cannot be placed undermines the validity of the decision taken, as this information would again provide the Executive and the vulnerable citizens who should benefit from any new policy.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 89.

The Highways Services Manager presented Document “AJ” and explained that the decision of the Executive in relation to the operation and effectiveness of the 12 month trial ban of pavement obstruction (Executive Document “BM”) had been called-in.  He informed Members that the reasons cited were, amongst others, in regard to Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) concerns; insufficient evidence; information not provided to the public; inadequate costings; information submitted that had not been scrutinised; and the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee not being adequately reflected.  It was noted that the responses to the issues raised were covered in the report.  With regard to the associated cost, it was acknowledged that Year 1 had amounted to £61,400, however, a reduction would be expected in Year 2 and onwards and the projected total would be approximately £36,000.  This was an unbudgeted cost for the Service.  The Highways Services Manager outlined that if an extension of the ban into a larger area was undertaken then the costs would not be reduced until Year 3 and 4.  He confirmed that the criteria for the location would be based on National Guidance from the Department of Transport.  In conclusion he stated the differences in the reports submitted were due to consultation undertaken at the request of the Committee and a request from the Executive to include financial and licensing information.  

The Regional Campaigns Officer, Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) was present at the meeting and made the following points:

·         The Local Authority had a responsibility to give due regard to decisions made under the Equality Act 2010.  This applied to changes and new policies and it was believed that this had not been undertaken.

·         Guidance stated that an EIA should be undertaken at the start of a process, however, it had been reported that it would not be undertaken until the Licensing Policy had been completed.

·         The proposed Licensing Policy required an EIA and this would inform whether the policy should be implemented.

·         Information and evidence gathering needed to be undertaken.

·         Information from the trial ban and representations from groups should be included in the EIA.

·         Due process had not been followed as the EIA had not been undertaken.

·         The letter from the Ilkley Civic Society mentioned other obstructions.  The RNIB had a ‘Street Charter’ and would encourage the Council to give it due consideration.

·         Details of other licensing schemes for comparison had not been provided within the report.

A letter from a member of the public, who was present at the meeting, was read out by the Overview and Scrutiny Lead officer and included the following comments:

·         The trial ban had been introduced due to the Council’s lack of control over A-boards.

·         A ban was still required due to the failure of businesses to take notice of the Code. 

·         A survey of A-boards had been undertaken in Ilkley during January 2015 and only 6 out of 33 had been cited in accordance with the policy, however, no prosecutions had been undertaken.

·         Under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.