Thank you, Chair, so let's check, we have a little presentation here.
We can all see it, so fundamentally what I want, no, that's not the one which I want to share, sorry, that's the wrong one.
That's not the presentation which I wanted to share.
Apologies. The purpose of the presentation is, while we wait for the presentation to come, the purpose of the presentation is to present here overview and scrutiny members with an update on what has happened since we last discussed this report.
Luckily, I mean, to sum up already, previously, we are in a lucky situation to have reached agreement on the recommendations, I want to talk the members through, present what we have achieved and fundamentally end with a thank you to all the panelists and all the contributors to this panel.
I think that's five minutes in a nutshell.
Okay, then you're presumably happy to take questions from members of the commission about the report.
I will.
[BLANKAUDIO]
The same which I sent you, it's update, I just sent you a link, so it should have updated the underlying presentation.
[BLANKAUDIO]
I'm not seeing anything yet, apologies.
Once we've had the presentation and members have the opportunity to ask questions, there is a recommendation at 2.1 on the agenda paper, and I'll go through what our options are as a commission at that point.
[BLANKAUDIO]
Misbehaving, isn't it?
Technology.
[BLANKAUDIO]
If you all have started into the meeting, I can share it in the online meeting for my computer.
You can share it.
Yeah, that should be all right.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Okay, you all seeing that?
You want to share screen, Tony?
Yeah.
Okay, so as I said, this is some introductory notes to the report of the overview and scrutiny commission of the environment community panel report on themes water, which we have now from our perspective completed.
We all know why we have been undertaking this report. All of us collectively have been made aware of the problems our residents have with the issue of sewage and the pollution which they experience, and which prevents them from using the natural environment which they have here.
We have tried to find out what's the actual cause, what's happening. Is there some operator in famous water who's not flicking the right switch at the right time or is there an underlying issue, and what can we do about it collectively as right now for its counselors?
So next slide.
We have arrived at, in summary, four recommendations. I put them here together. On the right-hand side, you see the recommendation.
Panel recommendation one, that's the recommendation we discussed at our last meeting, which we took back to review.
In the new process has happened with the involvement of the offices, the recommendations were voted upon and agreed, and are represented now in the 20-point font, which you see on the bottom right.
Our recommendation one is that we want to cross function partnership to allow communication at our level between us, the counselors, and famous water and to, by that we tried to improve reporting.
So this report contains this recommendation written out. We will see what happens as an action following this report. We will review the whole thing in six months and take it from there.
Item two. We want also to signpost relevant publicly available information to support residents in making informed decisions.
We want to do that by hosting them on public information on the Brecken Forest Council's own website.
This is a link. This is links to information stored otherwise. We do not take ownership of that information. We signpost it.
I think that's an important distinction, which prevents us from buying into some sort of responsibility, which we can't really follow up on.
Item three. We also need to bring our own housing order. There are examples in the countryside, Oxfordshire for example, where we have reached an agreement with Thames Water, which allows a much better assessment of the impact of new housing developments on the sewage load, which it generates and how the system can cope with that.
We want to explore whether this can be implemented here in Brecken Forest as well, within our local planning framework.
Item four is clearly our big conclusion was, or what we can do is, it's relatively limited on a local borrower level.
The underlying, fundamentally the system behaves as it should behave. Thames Water does what it should be doing. Oxford supervises Thames Water.
It's all working as intended, but unfortunately the outcome which we are seeing is not what our residents want to see.
It's disappointing to find that in the 2023 plan there still contains a permission of discharging untreated sewage into our waterways by 2050.
And we urge the Executive to lobby the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Environment, etc.
Very helpful at this point. No worries. Present in teams. Here we go again. Sorry for the delay.
We want to urge the Executive to lobby the powers in being fundamentally to review this position,
because we really don't think that by 2050 we should still accept untreated sewage in our waterways.
Item five, which we had in our original proposal, was to provide officer support to our local residents to find their way through the whole network of sewage-related issues.
This is a non-statuary item, which means it's extra. We do not have to do that.
We decided that at this point in time it's maybe premature to commit to such a position.
Let's first see how our first four recommendations pan out and then see if such a thing which carries a cost penalty is actually required and mandated.
And that's the final slide. I want to thank our contributors.
Most of them are local councillors, some of them are members of the Executive, some of them are directors, and some of them are obviously members of organizations.
You see them all here on the slide. It was a very involved and useful exercise.
And also I want to thank my fellow panelists for bearing with us and carrying the load here. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Councillor Elberly. I think this is a very good example of cross-party working.
So does any member have any questions for Councillor Elberly as chair of the panel on this report?
Councillor Virgo.
Could I just ask a general question, because I think it's a really good report and I think we've got some great recommendations.
And I think it's got some pressure towards the various authorities, so I think that's really good.
But what I'm concerned at, I suppose, is going back to I think it was item number three actually.
And it's really to Andrew, I think, because if we decided that Oxfordshire was a good model and we could have a negotiation with Thames Water
or a certain amount of houses, and if there's more than those houses, they would have to have an agreement with Thames Water before they came to us with an application.
If that was the case and we wanted it, I'm just thinking of time frame, how would we do that in terms of our local plan?
How could we just put that regulation on the local plan very quickly?
Through you, chair, I think if you just look at the recommendation that's before you, it's to review our planning procedures rather than the local plan.
So our procedures are about validation of planning applications, which are much easier to change than doing a wholesale review to your local plan.
So the reason why we've set a three month review period to this one, because we think we can do that reasonably quickly in terms of replicating the West Oxfordshire approach.
And actually, we've already started to embed that in what we're doing anyway.
But we just wanted to be clear that this is the recommendations that's being taken forward before we do that formally.
Can I get assurance that when we look at big applications now that will be the procedure?
As I say, I think that's the procedure that we already operate, but just investigating exactly what West Oxfordshire do in their processes so that we replicate those where we're able to, we will do that.
That's what the intention of this recommendation is to achieve.
I think it's important, I'm really sorry.
If we go to a planning committee, we want to see on that application before that's before us that the developer has agreed with Thames Water that that infrastructure is capable of taking the service.
Is that a question Councillor?
It is a question. Sorry I framed it badly.
So for the purposes of planning, the intention is that any developer can connect to the network. What we're saying is that they need to show that there's capacity within the network.
And if there isn't, there would be the capability of doing the upgrades to make that capacity work.
So that's the process that you would go through and that would be set out in the planning committee report as to the process that would be followed.
Thank you very much.
Other questions to Councillor Eberle? If not I've got a couple I wanted to ask.
On item 5.53, you refer to a review period of three months in connection with the Series of Treatment Works and West Oxfordshire's approach.
Is three months too short a period for that to be assessed properly?
That's the first question.
The second question is on under number four, so 5.54, you've got the Prime Minister whoever that is going to be, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whoever that's going to be.
But you don't include local Members of Parliament, whoever they're going to be. I wonder whether we ought to include those under that heading as I think it would perhaps be beneficial to involve local Members of Parliament in that process.
Shall we start with the three month review period?
Can you hear me right? I think the three months review period as Andrew confirmed should initially be adequate. If you find that the three months are inadequate and we can't reach a conclusion within three months, well we review it fundamentally, we extend it.
We will find in the ongoing work plan that the Environment Community Panel has retained working with and about famous water and oil at its work programme.
We will test what comes back from these recommendations and eventually rephrase them, review them and share them again.
Regarding involving a local Member of Parliament, fundamentally, yes why not I think, but the Member of Parliament should be in their own interest to attach themselves to this motion, I think.
If we as a local council lobby the government it needs to happen somehow through a, how to say, there needs to be a framework in place which actually enables us to make a point.
So if the local Member of Parliament asks that question in PMQs or whatever, that might be a good way of introducing that into the parliamentary process.
Obviously we haven't planned that far ahead. We want our voice to be heard in Parliament about this particular situation.
What's the exact way of doing that? This is not part of our report. I think we want to, that's something which should be decided by the Executive.
Okay. Any other questions? Otherwise I've got one or two on the report itself.
On page 53 of our papers you've got 10 findings from the panel.
The number 10 refers to Bradwell Forest having no statutory duty to monitor water quality. However, there is a key concern to our residents. I'm sure that's actually true. But presumably you've got some empirical evidence to support that to demonstrate that it is actually a key concern.
I mean, clearly, as you might recall, we left the MSF campaign very strongly at the doorstep about local pollution and the pollution of our waterways.
We have been elected on Sandhurst resoundingly on this message. I think this is one point of proof.
It's obviously, clearly it is empirical. We do not have a massive set of data which demonstrates that this is the key focus of our residents but fundamentally this is from conversations at the doorstep and from being elected on this message.
I wasn't attempting to make this party political because we've all been elected. So I just wanted to make sure that if we're making statements in the report, then we obviously want to have the evidence to back it up.
Under good practice, the paragraph reads, The frequent pollution stems from regulatory inadequacies.
Well, actually, I should have thought that the frequent pollution stems from the water company releasing sewage into our waterways.
Whether or not there are regulatory inadequacies is actually a different matter.
So presumably what we're actually looking for is a change in the behavior of the water company and greater emphasis on regulatory supervision of the water companies.
What was exactly your question?
I don't think the water companies are releasing sewage into the waterways because of regulatory inadequacies. Are they? They're releasing it because they feel it's reasonable and appropriate for them to do so.
If there are any regulatory inadequacies, then that's a different matter.
Fundamentally, I think it's a pretty tricky point that you're raising here. The regulatory inadequacy is that they're actually permitted to do so in certain circumstances, which I think is fundamentally the core of the problem, isn't it?
It's not the practice in many other countries worldwide to permit this sort of behavior. This is what I would suggest is regulatory inadequacy. I think we can answer the first one to say something or…
Sorry, thank you.
We're in questions at the moment, so if you want to talk about it in terms of debate, then we can come on to that in a bit. But if it's a question…
It is a question. Sorry to interrupt. It was just on the good practice point that you mentioned, Cher. In the information gathering and the kind of 42 spillages that were recorded for 2022 and the similar expected for 2023, does that mean then that were all of those attributable to lack of capacity and named storms that took place?
And if so, would that have been entirely permissible under the existing regulations?
Just put up a slide two, and in the right-hand side, you see that's the same sort of discharge map from yesterday evening. And I don't think we had a named storm going on, and the dark red dots are what's active at this point in time.
So I would say it's unfortunately and regrettably part of normal operational practice. The outcomes speak for themselves, basically. We are not having rivers and waterways, which are in good ecological condition, and of what an environment agency up in arms about what's going on.
It's just a conundrum, which at the moment is not resolved. So it's a very complex matter, and Cher if you will question me on more details, I'm afraid that I'm not the expert to answer very detailed questions on that one.
This is my personal observation, which has found its way into the report, and which has been approved by the panel.
OK. Councillor Virga, do you have a question?
Well, we're talking about a report, maybe, in that question. I can frame it as a question, Mr Jacobs. I know you're being so regulatory about it.
Isn't it true that the real problem of this is the fact that the sewage companies, Bracknell, for instance, hasn't got enough storage to keep the sewage coming through, because the trouble is it's not just sewage, it's land drainage during these heavy downpours, and they haven't got enough storage.
So, because they haven't got enough storage, they would flood the site, and because they can't flood the site, because the whole thing would be contaminated, they have to let it out. That's, I think, the problem, isn't it?
That's your question to Councillor Meillert.
I think that's the problem on the very far down on the food chain, I'd say.
But, really, there's a capacity problem. It's also quite difficult, actually, to size your storage facilities correctly, so that you can treat the sewage which you are storing in adequate time scale.
And it's a system thing, honestly. I mean, I know how to design a sewage tank by my profession, basically, you sink something into the ground, that's fine, but I know that this is about 30% of the work.
30% is getting the operation requirements right and make sure that the system as such works as it is intended. It's quite complex, the whole thing.
I mean, this said, it's not exactly a new problem, isn't it?
And we find ourselves in a situation where the situation is actually getting worse, instead of better, over the decades, and this is quite disappointing.
Okay. Are there any questions from anyone online? I don't want to hold the meeting, but I did have one final question on the report on page 54.
You talk about the development of a road runoff solution, pollution tool, which will be expanding to Bracknell Forest Council area. Do you have an indication of when that might happen?
Unfortunately not, as we do not own that tool. We can answer the question and find out what the time scale is. I'm happy to take that action.
Okay. Are there any other questions? If not, then we can move into debate.
Great. What we are seeing in the recommendation, is that the overview and scrutiny commission endorse the environment and the committee's overview and scrutiny panel's revised set of recommendations to the executive as set out of the panel report.
And paragraph 5.5 of this report, which, of course, sets out those in summary form. Now, clearly, we can not send the report to the executive, we can send it back to the panel, whatever, but I'm happy to move the recommendation in its current form. Do I have a seconder?
We are happy to second.
Okay. Thank you. We're now into debate. Does anybody wish to speak to that recommendation?
Councillor Frost.
Thank you, Chair. Just to say I'm fully supportive of the recommendations reached by the panel and to commend them for the work that's gone into creating the recommendations.
I suppose it's quite regrettable that as a local authority, we appear to be quite constrained in the oversight and power that we have ourselves. So I think any approach that collaborates with other local authority partners can only make us stronger.
I just wonder in terms of the incentives for Thames water if it stems from regulatory inadequacies rather than enforcement where the incentives are for them to undertake quite expensive refurbishment projects when there's no incentive for them to have to do so.
I suppose I would just like to say that I think the fact that the council has been very supportive of the recommendations and the recommendations, I think, is very important. I think that the council is very supportive of the recommendations and the recommendations.
I think that the perspective or prospect of reputational damage for Thames water is a strong enough indicator to bring them to the table. I suppose. Thank you.
We're into debate. You're going to presumably want to speak now. Okay.
I just wanted to add on to that. So we had Thames water. We interviewed them here in Bregman Forest. And clearly nobody gets up in the morning and says, Oh, let's pollute a river.
These people work within their own professional environment. They're actually keen to deliver good service to the community, but fundamentally they are also operating within the framework in which they operate.
So my first urge would be please play the ball, not the man. If you're discussing Thames water, these people also have a life, and I think they are motivated to deliver good service.
From our Bregman Forest perspective we are actually relatively lucky because the majority of our sewage works, which we have in the area, are due to be upgraded.
And we are double lucky because all of these upgrades are captured in the business plan, which has already been approved.
Not the business plan, which is currently circulated from late 2023, which contains a 54% increase of fees for the customers, which we can only speculate what will do with that.
But this is already fully funded and will be rolled out if they don't go bust, obviously. Thank you.
Does any other member wish to speak?
Thank you, Chair. I just want to speak further to this conversation around the role of the regulatory inadequacies as a proximal cause of the issue.
I think the reality, as my colleague has put it out, that nobody gets up in the morning and wants to go and pollute a river, but we live in a society in which the market is fundamentally driving the behaviour of many of these companies, and regulation is key to managing the behaviour of the market.
And so if we don't have a regulatory environment which actually discourages companies from doing that, and there are other economic benefits to them in doing so, it is sadly, unfortunately, almost inevitable that companies do do this, which is why almost every water company in the country is currently discharging sewers into our rivers, not just in Bracknell, but up and down the country.
I don't disagree with your point that it's not just the regulations, but I do actually very much want to support that point that the regulatory inadequacy is quite fundamental to the cause of this issue.
But I support that view, Jeb, because I think we should make this point that the regulator was asleep at the wheel, frankly, to allow a company to go into £14, £15 billion in order to survive.
You've seen the figures reported in the press. The investors of that company hardly put anything into the company but they took dividends out, and so the regulators, quite frankly, were asleep at the wheel, and I think as a nation, and certainly as a council, we should be very, very mindful of this.
And when it comes to bills, I think we have to think very carefully, because the whole system has let us down, frankly, and I would blame Thames Water, but I would also blame the regulators, frankly.
They were absolutely hopeless at this. So, anyway, thank you, Michael.
If no other member wishes to speak, and I don't think anybody online has indicated that we should speak, we'll then move to a vote. So all those in favour of the recommendation to send the report in its current form to the executive, please show.
That's unanimous. Thank you very much, and thank you very much, Councillor Eberly.
The next item on the agenda is going to be the work programme update, as we've reordered it slightly, and I was actually going to ask Councillor Eggleston to provide an update first, if you're happy to do that.
Thank you, chair. So the health and care panel, we have more or less completed our sexual health review. We met on the 8th of May, we had a private meeting to discuss recommendations.
We will then meet again on the 10th of July, which will be a public meeting to discuss and agree the report and the recommendations, and then the report will be submitted at the overview and scrutiny commission for approval on the 29th of August.
So at the moment, all the evidence gathering and research is now complete, and work is in progress to complete the review report.
The report was due to be submitted on the 4th of July, but has been deferred to the 29th of August.
I will then move on to what happened on the joint overview and health. Joint overview and scrutiny commission with Frimley Park Hospital.
So myself and Councillor Virgo went to Surrey Heath on the 17th of May. The chair and vice chair were elected. The chair just for your own interest is Trefoghog from Surrey County Council, and Bill Withers, who is going to be vice chair, and he's from Hampshire, just in case you need to contact them at any point.
Thank you, sir. I'd like to say we didn't have any questions back from the public, but they have said from now on they will let everyone know earlier, so councillors and the general public can get any questions in.
So if you can sort of keep a lookout for that. The meeting was recorded, so if you want to sort of have a look at it, it's on the Surrey County website, and the link is available from the Butler Forest overview and scrutiny page.
So please take a look. It's actually quite interesting, so I'm sure you'll enjoy it. There were five representatives from Frimley Park Hospital and Frimley Integrated Care, which included details about the progress so far, the site selection, the process, and the next steps.
Future meeting dates being arranged, and there will be monthly meetings in the diary and obviously be cancelled if they're not needed.
Frimley ICS covers about 800,000 residents, and we have an aging population and differing demographics across the area covered.
There was great important stress that good quality care at the current hospital will remain.
Queries around, obviously, the most important thing at the moment, the planning of the new site included the size required.
They're looking at between 25 and 50 acres. To give you an idea, the current Frimley is just over 25 acres.
So that's the sort of site they're looking at at the moment.
They explain to us they are currently silent bidding.
There's four sites they are looking at, but obviously they've got to sort of silent bid at the moment.
So some of the questions we were veering to and were discussed until the site is discovered.
They don't know exactly what they can do on that.
Queries around the planning of the site included the size of the site and within five miles of the current site and ideally a brown belt site.
Deadlines so far are met to date. The site selection is to be decided by the end of the summer. So they were talking June, July time.
So hopefully we should hear quite soon on all of that.
So the decision criteria is based on national design and a schedule of accommodation to be worked out.
It was questioned obviously as we had had it mentioned. On the old site we did have accommodation for staff.
They are not sure whether at the moment it would be something they could do. It depends on the new site that's chosen.
But they are looking to do key worker housing alongside social housing for workers.
But once again that all depends on what site is chosen.
Urgent care vision. They want to look at that as being developed and part of a clinical strategy.
Included assumptions about increase in community beds and virtual care.
There's going to be a hundred beds at the hospital and that's an extra hundred beds.
We did discuss with them at the time that if you have an older relative or somebody lives on their own having the single space.
Although we can appreciate obviously it is infection control.
Have they thought of anything to look at people who might not have any visitors?
We also asked what I asked a random question. Is it going to have a window? Which as yet they don't know.
So it seems like that that obviously we will be going into a lot of detail.
Because I know if I was in there and you know you can't have someone with you all the time.
Especially older people or people just on their own.
It's going to be very very lonely which I don't think is something that we had really considered at the time.
So that's it for now we're just waiting really for updates.
Any other questions from anyone or would you like to add anything Tony while you're here?
No I think you've done it very well.
I mean the thing that we also questioned was that at the moment there's about 700 beds I think in the hospital.
And they were saying that they're planning on just 100 extra for the next 30 years or 40 years or something.
It seems to me very small considering we're an aging population.
And also all these authorities, us, Hampshire, Surrey are getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
So that didn't seem to stack up.
Their answer to that was a lot of it will be done by the local authority.
Good luck on that one.
And also there will be a lot of virtual health systems.
So you won't have to go into hospital, you can do all the stuff over a link in your bed at home.
So all that's very questionable but as you say early days frankly.
I think the chairman of Verness would like to come in at this point.
Councillor Pickering.
Thank you very much and thank you for that update Councillor Eggerson, Councillor Virgo.
You mentioned four sites and that's something we've heard for some time.
Do you know when we might get more detail on where those are and what they are?
Thank you.
We couldn't really probe because they wouldn't have told us.
It was literally we're looking at these four places and until negotiations are done,
all we know is it will be a five mile from where the current hospital is.
But obviously we don't know in what direction.
I saw Councillor Eberle first.
Okay, thank you Councillor Eggleston, Councillor Virgo for the report.
I think you're asking the right questions and I agree with your sentiment that stuffing old people into a capsule hotel
would be not really conductive to mental health and getting well soon.
My question is were you able to discuss anticipated staffing levels for this hospital
and how this differs in a rate from staff to a clinical bed?
To be honest, they didn't go into much detail regarding that.
We did ask if they were looking because of the way the hospital is currently going to be set up,
would they have more support workers?
And that is something they would look into
but what we sort of took from it was it's going to be, although it's going to be an acute hospital,
it seems sure to stay, very much get them home, local authority looks after or virtual.
Thank you. I think you're asking the right questions. Carry on please.
Councillor Webb.
Thank you Chair. Just a quick question. I asked when we had the meeting when Romilly came in, I think it was two meetings ago,
how many beds they were going to have for ICU.
Bearing in mind that we've been through one pandemic and we probably will have one at some stage
and they didn't give me an answer. Do you have any idea whether they're going to have any ICU beds or how many? Thank you.
No, they didn't elaborate on that. We were, well, other members of the J-HOS were asking whether this is going to be entirely acute
with obviously more community or that's why we're sort of discussing other places doing some of the care
but we didn't get any answers like that. I don't think they honestly know at the moment. It's just literally finding the site at the moment.
Thank you.
Just a quick question.
Thanks Chair. I think one of the great problems is that they seem to think that in order to have not a big increase in beds,
they would push a lot of people onto the local authority. I mean, we have to be clear about that because there's nowhere else they're going to go
and, you know, and we didn't say but we haven't got those places at Bracknell, but there seemed to be a sort of, you know,
that was the indication. Whether this came from government and the government told them it could only be 100 extra beds,
I don't know, but that's what we will pursue that question I think.
Councillor Watts.
Thank you. You said that they are considering key worker housing but they're not making it a priority for the site
and if they can't do that, are they ensuring that staff can reach the new site with, you know, good travel links etc.
and are they getting new input from staff as they go or are they relying on the original survey?
From what we could gather, they are more or less going on the original survey but they have been talking with staff who are really happy and excited regarding the new site.
They didn't sort of say, I suppose because they don't know where the new site is going to be and haven't looked at any problems that could come up.
Thank you.
We did push them on this, actually, and we said that, you know, if you're building a new hospital you have got to find places for your staff.
You can't expect that to be provided by the local authority or by housing associations because it's not going to happen quickly.
I think they got that message coming in, didn't they?
Sorry.
I'm not going to leave you now so you'll be very pleased about that.
Yes I understand that Councillor Leggo has to leave.
Thank you Councillor Eggleston for that very useful and informative update.
I'm going to turn to Councillor Watts, who's wearing a new hat as chairman of the panel, which is education skills.
Councillor Watts, could we have an update please on the work of your panel?
Yeah, absolutely.
So there are slides to go with this but I'm just going to give a general summary because I'm quite new to this and I don't want to mess it up.
So 96 of the 113 actions within the WSOA have now been delivered and the impact for families and schools is closely monitored by the DOV and Quality Care Commission in review meetings approximately every quarter.
Bye Tony.
The Council has entered into a safety valve agreement with the DOV as of March 2024, which enables us to continue our improvement journey.
Funding has as we know been secured for two free new schools for children and young people, one with autism due to open late 2026 and one for SEMH due to open late 2025.
Funding has been secured to build two new secondary specialist resource provisions specialising in autism and communication needs.
The College Hall Pupil Referral Unit will close, this is following a public consultation and appropriate places will be found for the students who currently attend.
The new digital service has been launched for children and young people unable to attend school due to their medical needs and a review of commissioning arrangements for high cost independent non-maintained schools is underway.
Thank you very much.
Any questions please to Director Gu Enterprise she knows much more than me.
Chief Executive.
Just on the point of Granya, unfortunately she hasn't been able to join online so I will look to cover off any questions.
Chief Executives, Councillor Barter, just to say very briefly because unfortunately I have to leave, I'm looking forward very much to working with Councillor Watts on this and the work that's been outlined, so thank you for that everyone, thank you.
Thanks Gareth.
Thank you Councillor Barnard.
OK so those were verbal updates for which we are very grateful to receive those.
Now we move on to, are there only two Kevin?
Sorry Chair I think I have an update to make as well.
I thought you were going to say something Councillor Eberly yes.
There you go.
You were moving on.
When I was just checking that there are only two updates to be given I thought you had your panel might have something to add.
A little bit. Fundamentally I just want to report back on what we did over the last, well it's been nearly a year hasn't it. And the comments last July, keep that in mind.
I think as newly elected Councillors it was interesting, it was quite a journey to go through to use this phrase again.
And clearly I wouldn't say struggle but we had to find our way and thank you Kevin for signposting that.
Ultimately it took us two attempts to get this report through and I think we learned a lot on the pathway.
I hope that the following reports will go a little bit smoother.
The follow-up activities, which we want to undertake on this report is clearly the reviews in three and six months which are planned for that.
We also have a work plan but I think this is a separate agenda item tonight for which we follow up.
We are on the work programme update.
That's our programme update. Fundamentally we are happy that we are where we are.
We have the review of our current report planned in, as I said.
The other big topic we want to look into is housing.
That said, I think we need to restart in the sense that reconvene, have a meeting and discuss where we want to go from there.
So that's my report. Thank you.
Thank you. OK, so now we move on to the final item on the agenda tonight, which is the overview and scrutiny annual report, which you have had an opportunity to read I hope.
This is a report that goes to Council and the Chairman will present it to Council.
But I suppose the first thing I will ask is does any member have any questions in relation to the report?
No, if there are no questions, then I don't know, Councillor Pickering, do you want to say anything about the report?
Only to thank the officers for their hard work that they put into it and to the EdmundsAlgernon committee commission for the last year's work and all the effort that has gone into the panel's valuable work that's been done which is all set out in the report.
Look forward to presenting it to Council.
OK, so I think the recommendation that we have tonight is to approve the report for the Chairman to present at Council on the 10th of July.
Are we content to do so?
Fine, that's agreed then. OK. Well thank you very much everybody for your participation and you'll be delighted to know Councillor Pickering will be back at the next meeting.
So, Councillor Watts.
I just wanted to congratulate you on your new role as Vice Chair.
Thank you.
And to Georgia for continuing to be Chair.
So, thank you very much everybody. Good evening, I declare the meeting closed.
Thank you.
Councillor Pasternak.
Thank you.
Councillor Pasternak.
Thank you.
Councillor Pasternak.
Thank you.
Councillor Pasternak.
Thank you.
Councillor Pasternak.