Report - London Borough of Hillingdon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Community Partnerships & Economic D
Page 3 and 4: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS & ECONOMIC D
Page 5: OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY AGENDA INFORMAT
Page 9 and 10: This is a summary of the Community
Page 11 and 12: Suggested questions for the witness
Page 13 and 14: Suggested questions to Peter Sale,
Page 15 and 16: WORKING OF THE LOCAL STRATEGIC PART
Page 17 and 18: Annex A - The Working of Hillingdon
Page 19 and 20: future. Current developments includ
Page 21 and 22: looking into how partners can share
Page 23 and 24: WIDER PARTICIPATION IN OVERVIEW & S
Page 25 and 26: Methodology • Best practice examp
Page 27: BEACON COUNCIL SCHEME: ROUND EIGHT

Report - London Borough of Hillingdon

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?