Agenda and minutes

To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members. 

Apologies were received from Councillor Oliver Forder, with Councillor Kiera Bentley standing in as substitute member.

Apologies were also received from Councillor James Cox.

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the chair. 

Chair welcomed the committee and stated that there was no urgent business.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

Councillor Sally Povolotsky declared that in relation to agenda item six, she works for Ford, and was a vehicle engineer.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Scrutiny Committee minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2023.

The minutes of the meeting on 30 January 2023 were agreed as a correct record and the chair will sign them as such.

To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak. 

Mr John Salmons addressed the committee regarding agenda item six. The committee were invited to ask questions of clarification, and the chair thanked Mr Salmons for his contribution to the meeting.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the call-in of an officer key decision taken on 20 June 2023.  The decision relates to the provision of grounds maintenance, toilet cleaning and facilities service vehicles.

The call-in request was made by Councillor Katherine Foxhall, chair of Scrutiny Committee, supported by vice-chair Councillor Judy Roberts, and scrutiny committee members Councillors Hayleigh Gascoigne, Robert Maddison and Sally Povolotsky, for the following reasons:

• The rationale for the decision is unclear and further explanation is required to address the climate and ecological implications of this decision – as laid out in the officer comments.
• While this decision taken in itself is relatively minor, there are clear implications for future decision-making in relation to waste contracts (e.g. EV charging on the council estate), and the Vale’s commitment in its Climate Action Plan to reducing its carbon emissions by 75% by 2025.

The head of legal and democratic has accepted the call-in request as valid and has called this committee meeting to consider it.  The call-in request is deemed valid as:

1. It was made within the five days call-in period, and
2. The decision was called in by the chair of scrutiny committee and more than three supporting members

The effect of this call-in is that the decision will not be implemented until Scrutiny Committee has considered the matter. 

In making the decision, the Head of Development and Corporate Landlord, in conjunction with the Head of Finance and in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, considered the information contained in the delegated authority officer decision notice. The Lead Officer explained the information set out within the decision notice to the Head of Service, and that included how flexible the procurement framework would be in light of the ongoing Grounds Maintenance transformation process and the ongoing improvements with electric vehicle capability.  The decision notice was circulated to all members the day after the decision was made.

In accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules in the council’s Constitution, the Scrutiny Committee has the following options:

1. The committee may refer the decision back to the decision-maker (the Head of Development and Corporate Landlord)  The committee must define the nature of its concerns. 
2. The committee may accept the decision as made and advise the decision-maker accordingly. 

Following the Scrutiny Committee meeting, the following may happen:

1. If the Scrutiny Committee refers the decision back to the decision-maker for reconsideration, the decision-maker (Head of Development and Corporate Landlord) shall reconsider the decision, along with Scrutiny Committee’s comments.  The decision-maker may take the final decision by either incorporating amendments or confirming the original decision unchanged.  There is no scope within the Constitution for any further call-in. 
2. If the Scrutiny Committee does not refer the decision back for reconsideration but instead agrees with the decision, then the decision can be implemented immediately. 

The chair welcomed Simon Hewings (Head of Finance), John Backley (Technical Services Manager), Andrew Busby (Head of Development and Corporate Landlord), and Dominic Lamb (Climate and Biodiversity Team Leader) and Councillor Mark Coleman, Cabinet member for Environmental Services, who introduced the delegated officer key decision and gave a summary of the context of the decision.

The call-in request was made by Councillor Katherine Foxhall as chair of Scrutiny Committee, vice-chair Councillor Judy Roberts, and scrutiny committee members Councillors Hayleigh Gascoigne, Robert Maddison and Sally Povolotsky, for the following reasons:

Reason a) The rationale for the decision was unclear and further explanation was required to address the climate and ecological implications of this decision – as laid out in the officer comments.

Reason b) While this decision taken in itself is relatively minor, there are clear implications for future decision-making in relation to waste contracts (e.g. EV charging on the council estate), and the Vale’s commitment in its Climate Action Plan to reducing its carbon emissions by 75% by 2025.

Members of the committee were invited to ask their questions. The following is a summary of the discussion and responses to the above reasons for the call in:

Explanation for call-in reason a)

In response to questions, officers and the cabinet member explained the rationale for the decision in more detail. The rationale was that the Pretium framework for vehicle leasing provided much more flexibility, meaning that the council could opt-out by giving 28 days’ notice. This meant that the council would be able to trial a variety of different vehicles with no long-term commitment. There was financial benefit to the move – currently, the leasing day rate was higher than the new contract proposed. The decision also supported the transformation project to move grounds maintenance in-house and create efficiencies. Therefore, a delay would cause further expense. The new Pretium framework benefits were explained by officers as being a gradual move to more zero emissions vehicles, whilst reducing the cost to the public (£12k per year). Officer felt that the Pretium Framework will improve likelihood of meeting targets, as you can change vehicles as desired, and test the vehicles before commitment to purchasing in the future.

The Pretium framework had many companies listed from a shortlist of suitable options, and officers evaluated that one was easily the best option. The choices had already been through a value for money exercise. The rationale was to benefit multiple areas – for cost savings, a move towards trialling zero emissions vehicles on a flexible basis (vehicles for public toilet cleaning, facilities and parks teams are the first to become EV and can be charged in carparks) and making sure that we continue to keep grounds maintenance’ operational with suitable vehicles for staff to carry out their work efficiently.

Regarding the climate implications, the Climate and Biodiversity Team Leader was present to give his views, as members were conscious of the comments provided by the Climate Action team, within the comments section of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item Sc6