Transcript

Transcript

Welcome to the excursion. I've just got to read out the case of the emergency. There's no planned fire drills. Hear the fire alarm sound, please. It is a real emergency to evacuate the building via the nearest safe escape route. The nearest escape route is via the stairs to your chamber gallery. Exit via the door at the back of the building. This can't be used in the event of an emergency. Building in advise it's safe to do so. So item number one on the agenda. Apologies. I've got apologies here from their monster, which is why I'm chairing today. Councillor Brody Councillors Robertson and Councillor. Next item agenda is. Everyone had a chance of repeating the minutes. Have a proposal as to their accuracy. Councillor. Thank you. And a seconder Thank you, Councillor diva. And. And is everyone agreed that the minutes are accurate? I see. I see notes. Thank you. items. Nope. And I've been told that we don't have any written public questions, and it doesn't appear that there's anyone in the public gallery to ask any questions. Item number five. General exception decisions. Urgent decisions. I'm told that there are none. So we need to be considered. So we can move to. The progress update to receive an update on the progress against outcomes arising from previous meetings and to provide an update on any outstanding actions page 13. So the first one on here is the forward plan to the 10th of January. The corporate scrutiny requested a copy of the review of the leisure centres once it has been completed. And the update is that on the seventh of May reporters in the final stages is awaiting end of the financial year. I don't know if we've got any further update as to that, or if it's just the end of the financial year. I'm told very helpfully, but it's on the agenda for next month. The only matter that I was going to raise, and if there's a matter that others would like to raise, is this, that I understand that there was a report that was disclosed to Cabinet in December of 2022. And I wondered if that report is going to be appended, as it were, to the to the now updated or will be updated report and disclosed generally. I think we could provide that report, Chairman, but the events have overtaken us since then and things have moved on significantly, so it wouldn't necessarily be relevant. And that's the other reason why we're waiting for the closure of the financial year, so we can be accurate on up-to-date figures in terms of costs. I mean, I don't know what committee feels. I think it would be quite good to see that report, whether it's appropriate to disclose it in advance or simply disclose it as part of the history when the up-to-date report is available. But I don't know if anyone on the committee has got a strong view, but I would have thought it would be quite good to see the existing report with the updated figures thereafter. That report was actually completed, was it? I think that was just a sit rep at the time, wasn't it? Yeah, it wasn't a full report. It was looking at the situation as it was then, as Mr Whelan said, things have moved on significantly. I suppose you want to think about what does corporate security want to get out of the report and what value can it be really helpful, what value can bring to the report and the service? Well, I suppose it's difficult to know until one's seen it. That's the answer, I suppose, to that. It was disclosed to cabinet. So unless there's any confidentiality issue, I would have thought that it could be disclosed more widely. I think we'll take that away, German, and come back to you on that one. We've got the asset management, property rationalisation, Kingston Marine Park, first established in 7th February 2023, and the update is that it's held up by film industry strikes, but work is still underway on the draft heads of terms. Are you able, Councillor Jones-Evans, to give us a more precise update, for example, what heads of agreement have been agreed and what are outstanding? I don't have the details of what the lawyers from either side are still discussing, but I know there's actually a meeting today about it, so things are progressing very well and moving towards a, well, lots of evidence being gathered at the minute to enable them to put in a planning application sometime this year. Thank you for that. I just wonder if it would be possible, I don't want to increase officers' workload, but I just wonder if it would be possible to have a, if committee feels it's the case, to have a brief report, simply a progress report, setting out, for example, what heads have been agreed in principle, heads of agreement have been agreed in principle, and what's outstanding. It would be nice, I think, to have something a little more concrete. If I may, Councillor Spinks, there's obviously there's some commercial sensitivity around this as well, and I think there's still, they've had a meeting today, I'm not privy to what was said at that meeting, it's working with lawyers and with our property team. Again, you know, it's about working with partners as credible partners for a good outcome for the island here, so I don't know what's in the heads of terms until they've been agreed with legal and with our property team, that they're working there. I don't, you know, I think we're working in a, say, commercially sensitive field, so I'm not sure what you're hoping to bring, you know, I'm hoping to add to the discussion, or what we're going to gain out of it. I think it's really important that we are, that we work with our partners in a commercially sensitive way when it's appropriate, and I believe at the minute this is appropriate. Well, yes. Councillor Critchison. Question to Councillor Jones, so is there any timescales we know? I think maybe that's something we're trying to get out of this sort of report going forward, that perhaps we have some rough timescales of where we're at now that the strikes are over, perhaps, and that it's moving on to the legal team. Yes, I mean, it absolutely is moving. I said there's actually a meeting today with their lawyers, they're meeting with Planning on Friday, so there's a lot of activity, and they say they've got a lot of evidence being gathered, like environment ecology surveys at the site, for example. So, yeah, we should be having a Planning application lodged. It will be this year, all things going well. So, it may even be this summer. I'm not going to give a timescale because I'm not privy to the individual, you know, running shy of detail, but all I know I can tell you is there's a lot of activity, and they want to get on as soon as they can. But, you know, I don't know how lawyers work, they seem to, it's a mystery to me how things take so long, but there we go, that's just me. Is it, the Planning application, is that key to the sort of agreement, so getting that in and having the Planning agreed? I think in a way it's important, because obviously to put a Planning application together is very expensive, so until the heads of terms have been agreed for the site, you know, nobody wants to be, you know, investing in something, I would have thought so. So, yeah, I think it's, these things have to sort of line up, as it were, with any property deal, if we were buying a house, you know, as well, you want to know you had security before you went and did a Planning application. Though, of course, you can put a Planning application without owning a property, but, you know, so I say I'm not privy to all the money shy detail. I was giving you some headlines and a sort of a feeling that, you know, things are moving, you know, quite, I say quite quickly now, quickly in council terms. Mrs. Prayer, I think you might be able to give us an update on that. Thank you, Chair, and if I may, without wanting to speak for the Director of Corporate Services, who I know is online watching this, Sharon Betts, it would be appropriate for a short briefing to be provided to the committee. That can either be done in the intervening period or you could put it on the agenda for July. That would be a briefing update for corporate scrutiny that could give a position statement as to where we are with this project to date. It could outline a high level timescale that we're aware of having had discussions with the potential purchasers. It would not be appropriate to give the detail of the heads and terms of the heads and terms, but we could describe matters that were still outstanding for negotiation. I think that would be very helpful and thank you for that. I don't know if committee has any view as to whether or not we should ask, as it were, for it to be on the agenda and have a report available for the next meeting, or if the committee feels that a report could be made available before that. Does anyone have a strong view about whether it's an agenda item with a report in time for the next meeting or a report as soon as possible? Doesn't seem to be a strong view about that. Shall we put it on the agenda for the next time? And then that gives officers a reasonable amount of time to do what only has to be a brief report. It doesn't have to be in the standard sort of format with all things considered, just an update. Thank you. And then finally, the Councillor Red drop asked a question at the last meeting, which has now been answered and circulated. So everyone should have a copy of that or have been served with a copy of that. So the item seven committee's work plan to identify any items contained within the council's forward plan, which would benefit from early consideration by scrutiny. I've had a look by no means conclusive as it were, but I wasn't like not really aware of anything that we need to put on, which isn't already there. There are some changes in terms of matters being taken off. Just bear with me for a moment. Sorry, that's on our work plan, isn't it? Not on the forward plan. So is there anything that anyone would like to raise that should be on our work plan, which is on the forward plan and that we should look at? And then the committee's work plan, just to let you know, there's a couple of items. Yep. School place planning. There's a children's meeting coming fairly soon and school place planning has been taken off for the 9th of July, but will be on at the following meeting. Is that right? The timeline for school place planning has changed due to the general election period. So it has been taken off of corporate agenda for July. There is going to be an additional children's meeting on the 23rd of July to discuss that particular matter. But does that mean it will be coming back to corporate scrutiny at another date? It hasn't been determined at the moment when the best time to bring it back to corporate will be. And I think there's the flood risk management that has been moved to October and there's been future governance has been added to the July meeting. So turning now to the perhaps the more substantive matters, item number eight, the right town. I'm very pleased to say that we've got the Mr Holbrook, the recently appointed chair of the town board, he's very kindly come to explain to us a little bit about it. In the main, it's really the to try and understand what the town plan, which is, I understand, is still being obviously finalised. But what sort of matters it will cover the funding and the thinking as it's being developed for the future. And we're all very grateful to you, Mr Holbrook, for giving up your time. We know you're very busy, but giving up your time to to be here. So if you could please just give us a brief update, that would be very helpful. Thank you. OK. Hello, everybody. So in terms of this specific question on plan funding future. So as of today, tomorrow, very imminent future, we'll be going to start the process of going to the public and getting the public engagement, which the view is to try to speak to as many people in ride across demographics as possible. So that's been targeted in many, many ways. There'd be direct action into the schools to speak to students directly, speak to teachers directly in terms of that lower age group from year six, year seven onwards. They'll be using the facilities which are already in place in ride, such as Aspire, the library, the new NatWest Bank as fixed opportunities to engage with the public. There'll be a QR code which will be going out, which will allow everybody, the residents, to scan on the QR code, which will give the questions and then the questions will come in and then be collated. So we're going to try to get every touch point we can to engage with as many ride residents as possible to get that feedback from the town. There's also on top of that, nationally, the government have commissioned an agency who will be doing their own online work across all 55 of the towns which have been selected to gauge feedback from in a different way via that option. It should be very targeted and it will be online and is driven through an external group to do that which will then add into our feedback. So in terms of what we have to do, we have to first engage with the community and to find out what it is that the community wants. And that's where the questionnaire has been designed around getting that. And hopefully you can make it as scientific as we can. Once we have the feedback from the public and the community of RIDE and Binstead, we will then be looking as a board at all the different options, all the different projects which are being put forward in terms of those which are known, an opportunity for people to present plans and ideas. At that point, we have a very, very tight timeframe in order to put the one to three year plan together and then also a more wide ranging 10 year view, along with the vision and mission of the board of what it's trying to achieve and how it intends to do that. That has to be in by midnight on the 31st of July. So that's an incredibly tight timeframe. As of this afternoon, we appointed or are in the process of appointing today, the company and the group which will then help in writing that document. Writing that document is a very significant part of it because it lays out the plan for the board, but then it has to be ratified by government to get their seal of approval in order for us to then be able to move forward with a level of confidence in terms of the projects and what we want to achieve. So the timeframes, as they have been in this entire process, are incredibly tight and it's not helped by an election being called right in the middle of that process because that does obviously create lots of unknowns. It means the goalposts can shift and there's, of course, even the possibility that after the election, the entire project could be pulled. None of this is within anybody's ability to say 100% one way or the other. The general view when that's being posed to the civil service and everybody who's running the project and current government is they feel it's unlikely as the towns which are benefiting are very much a broad brush of political areas. So they think it's very unlikely that it would be in the interest of either the more likely potential future governments to pull the funding because it would very much politically not necessarily be advantageous to either of them to do so. So the general view is whilst it's not guaranteed that the funding will continue post the election, even though obviously it's not guaranteed. Then from the 31st, we will then simply be in a process of waiting and there's not that much which can happen after that process until the government come back and say, yes, it's approved or no, it's not or this is a feedback. So it's going to be quite a while before we're really in a position to start engaging and having the money released in order to be able to do the projects. I think there's also quite a lot of confusion about the levels of the money, when that money is available. Twenty million isn't available in year one. In terms of capital money, it's actually only just over four hundred thousand pounds available in year one to spend on capital projects. So the view that there's over a million pounds in year one just isn't true. And the other factor is time that money actually gets released, which is once we've gone through all these processes, they'll probably only be close to five months, if not less left in the year anyway. And that would be the time we're actually starting. So in order to have very much impact in the first year, it's going to be very difficult because the timeframes don't allow it and the processes don't allow it. So some of the challenges will be how we then able to kind of show that we're moving quickly when we're not able to move quickly. And obviously that creates an air of frustration and people think things aren't happening. That's not the case. But the reality is the first year will be quite slow. Post year one, the money in terms of capital, which is the money split between capital and revenue. Post year one, the split is around one point two million, I think in year two, got anything that's right. And then it's about seventy five, twenty five from that point onwards in terms of revenue and capital. Both capital and revenue can be carried forward for a three year window. So anything which isn't spent in year one, two can be carried forward to year three. But after year three, the revenue and capital money which isn't spent, then it's lost. And that will continue for years four to six, six to nine accordingly. The other point I would mention is it is also possible to bring money forward through different methods of borrowing. So if there was a project earlier which were higher in terms of their capital requirements, there would be an opportunity to look at different models where the board could borrow to allow those projects to happen. So I think in terms of outline, engagement starting now. One three year plan has to be in 31st of July and then it'll be with government from the 1st of August. That's the immediate and very aggressive and quick timeframes. That's where we're at. Thank you, Mr Holbrooke. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Councillor Drew. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate given the timescales that you've alluded to, it's probably going to be difficult. But in terms of auditing the investment plans, is there any proposal for an outside body to audit those or would that not be possible given the timescales? I'm not quite sure what investment plans you're meaning. Well, just in terms of the actual investments direction, whether there's going to be the opportunity for that to go to an external party, as it were. The government are effectively the external party. So the plan is put to government and government will be looking at that plan. So the civil service is probably the answer to your question. OK, fine. And in terms of obviously the engagement with the right community, you know, the difficulty, as always with these things, is that there can be a level of apathy. So it's sometimes the people with the loudest voices who have the biggest say in the outcomes. So the steps that are going to be implemented, which would ameliorate that potential danger? I think it's getting out as wide as possible. So it's by having those engagements in places like the library and that West Bank, but also going out to shows and events and communicating with people in those areas and going into schools. So an example is one of the schools we're going to go into as we will give it an assembly. We'll talk about it and then it will be the school will have all the questionnaires for several hundred students. And they'll be asked to complete those in their form times between then and the end of the week. And then we'll have them back. So I'll be an example of an entire demographic of years six to 13, which will be actively engaged with in terms of that part of the demographic. And we'll be looking to do the same sort of outreach in all areas of the community by trying to alleviate exactly those points, because we reaching a very wide area is what we want to do. And we hope in the QR code, which allows people just to scan it completely at home will help. But obviously for people who don't have phones, places like the library is a is a good balance to that. Councillor Downer. Thank you, Chairman. Yes. Just thought to ask, how are you going to ensure that with different projects that they don't go over budget and provide the best value for money? OK. So in terms of all projects, it may be that they don't go over budget. That's that's the same for any project you do. We'll go out to quote, go out to tender. And then the person who's successful in the tender will be held to that process. And depending on the details of whether there's penalties or pullbacks or whatever it is, that will be on a very individual basis. In terms of getting best value of money, we'll be following the usual procurement processes with a focus that Isle of Wight businesses, ride businesses will be looked upon favourably because the idea is that investment and rebuilding of ride in that community and. Wider than that, the Isle of Wight. So that will be weighted accordingly as much as we can within the rules. Councillor Jarman. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you. There was a very good document issued just recently by Chris Ward, our 151 officer, which sets out many of the issues important to this debate, particularly around the role of the Isle of Wight Council, his personal role within it, and the issues of auditing and governance of the spend and in particular authorisation of any plan and expenditure related to. Could I suggest that that also gets distributed to to the committee? Yes, thank you, Councillor Jarman, for that suggestion. That's very helpful. Thank you. Anyone else have a question for Mr Holbrooke? In that case, I've just got a few questions, if I may, please. Part of the government guidance, as I'm sure you know, is that it's very important that the board is seen to be open and transparent in the way that it deals with matters. And I'm pleased to see that on a section of the right town council website, the minutes of various meetings are now being published and have started to appear. Would it be possible also in the spirit of being open and transparent and indeed involving the community to publish? I think there's now a written constitution that you have, or at least that it's in draft form. I don't know. Is it actually written constitution yet or simply a draft? I don't think we have anything which is in the form of a constitution. We certainly have our terms of reference. Could I encourage you please to put the terms of reference on your website, or at least on the portion of the website that the town council has given you. And also the details, the minutes of the, I have spoken to Mr. Rowland about this, so it's not a surprise, the detail of the minutes of the committee that appointed you as chair, which I think was organised by Solon Partners. Correct. So that could be put on there. I know Mr. Rowland's got that in hand and it will go on there very shortly, I understand. I was advised, Chairman, that that will be on tomorrow. Thank you. That is very shortly indeed. Thanks. The other thing that I thought was perhaps important and indeed to encourage, as it were, community involvement would be perhaps to have the, I mean, it's not uncommon on, for example, the Isle of Wight Council website and also on Town and Parish Council website. To at least have the name, possibly a picture of the members and a description of why they're on there. So whether they're on there to represent what's already available at the NatWest building, there's a portfolio of everybody on the board with their pictures and a brief bio. So, in fact, we don't have a website up yet because we have got the funding through in order to sign all those things off. That's why that would be delayed as and when there's a right town board website that would be on there, but it is already available at the NatWest building. I wasn't aware of that. Is it worth it? There's going to be some delay in the website preparation, which is understandable. Just brief descriptions being put on the on the portion where the minutes are now on the town board. I can look at that again. It's not an issue, it's any resource. So, yeah. Well, thank you. It's just that when I looked at the portion of the website of the council, it was difficult. The names, for example, are only contained in who attends at minutes and a lot of the names didn't mean anything to me. And so for the community involvement, I think it's good to be able to see who's on there and why they're on there, what they do, whether they're either white councillors or champions of local business. The plan is obviously for the right town board to have its own website, its own logo, its own mission, vision, values, the whole lot. It's been put together at a speed of knots, but obviously it has to go through a procurement process and we've only just started. So we're working incredibly fast to catch up. The only reason that isn't there is because the actual website itself doesn't exist yet. As soon as it does, it will be there. But in the short term, I'd encourage people to go to the NatWest building, because that's the first point where you can actually engage. And if it's, if right town council have the scope to have all that then put onto their site on a temporary basis, I'm not going to speak for them because it's probably a lot of work for them to go up to come back down. But in the same way, if the, I can ask for the, when the website for the railroad town boards put together, that's something that's prioritised and goes up because I agree that it's important and it adds value. Thank you. It may be sufficient just to put a reference in that case on the portion of the town council website that the board is on to explain that if you go to the NatWest building, there's much further additional information. Do they actually have to go there or is it online via the NatWest building? No, you need to go there. It's all up on big boards. But that would be quite good, I think, to have a, you know, an explanation that your own website will be set up as soon as possible. And in the meantime, further information can be obtained by visiting the NatWest building. Sure. Thank you very much. Chair, as the Isle of Wight council is the administering authority on this and also has a fiscal and therefore legal responsibility and is covering elements such as audit, et cetera. It would seem sensible that some references made to this on the Isle of Wight council website, where in short term, I'm sure much of what you've discussed could be held. And as and when a website is available specifically for the right time board, I'm sure the Isle of Wight council website could provide a link to that. That seems to be a very simple operation. Yeah, that sounds fine in theory. I'm not a technical person, but it expedites the matter and simplifies it because we don't know what the timescale is for the other issues to be addressed. Thank you, Councillor Chairman. I think that's, unless there's any difficulty with that, Mrs Pereira, that would be quite helpful. Thank you. But if there are no further questions, I thank Mr Holbrook on behalf of the committee for coming here today. And it's been very pleasant to meet you and put a face to the name. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Cheers. On the traffic review item number nine, to review the traffic regulation order proposals for Bryston, Freshwater, Rookley, Shell Fleet, Shorrell, Totland and Yarmouth, and public feedback ahead of cabinet on the 13th of June. That's pages 31 to 100 of our bundle. And no doubt committee members will have seen that there are a number of documents, but including diagrams of the orders, as it were, street diagrams, together with the comments and responses during the consultation period. I should say that I received very helpfully from Mr Rowland an answer today to an inquiry on behalf of Freshwater Parish Council, the new chair of Freshwater Parish Council, Emma Cox. I did send it to everyone, but it was only was sent to me this morning. And by the time I got back from the appeals committee here, I forwarded it at about two o'clock. So I don't know if everyone's had an opportunity of seeing that. It relates in the main to Freshwater. I'm able to read the email if my computer fires up, I'm able to read the email to anyone who hasn't seen it if they wish, but it does really relate individually to Freshwater. Like that to be read or you contend that it's in your computer somewhere. I don't know if anyone has any questions about any of the traffic orders, whether they're in your area or not, and would like to consider them. We're not here, if I may say so, as I understand it, to look at whether you agree with the traffic order. But we are here to make sure that the public consultation has been properly taken into account and that there are valid reasons if the decision isn't in accordance with public consultation. I've got to declare a non-pecuniary interest, depending on whatever the chairman of Freshwater Parish Council said, but the chairman is a friend of mine, so if that could be admitted, please. Thank you, Councillor Fuller. Thank you. Councillor Jarman. I'm not sure if we need to declare an interest. I'm not a member of the committee, but I am, of course, a member. It does include my ward, and I am a member of both Holland and Freshwater Parish Councils, so I wear several hats here. But I'm not a member of the committee, so I'll note my role that I play and I wear all those hats. So I do have a question which is related to process, and thank you for circulating the note earlier, but also to note my apologies for Councillor Medland, who's not able to be here this afternoon, to represent Freshwater itself. As you know, I've been covering for him on quite a number of bodies recently. The question related to private roads, and thank you for the additional information. I would like to understand what the process is regarding private roads, because I read it and I thought about it, and I still was left in some doubt as to does it require all of the people who live on a private road to agree to a request to us before we can do something? Or is it simply that we can do something outside an individual's house on a private road, and do we have a continuing liability as a council if we then install double yellow lines on a private road? And by private here, I'm using, I'm noting the other wording that was used, which is that it's not designated formally as a private road or as a council road, but is effectively a maintained road of some sort by us. And then secondly, if it is only a maintained road by us, but nominally regarded locally as private, can the council unilaterally put double yellow lines onto that road without the agreement for the people who believe it to be their private road? Sorry if that sounds a bit confusing, but at the next level of detail, I assume. I understand the questions, Councillor Jarman, but I would have to take those away and provide you with a written answer on those because I'm not aware of the technical details of those answers to those questions. I did pick up the point that was made about it being a private road but within council control, so therefore arguably it's not necessarily a private road, it's just a road that's not on the highway network that's managed by Allen Road. So there is a distinction there, but in terms of the other questions, I'm afraid I'll have to take those away and get a more technical response on those. Just moving on from there. Is that sort of information that cabinet should be aware of before it moves to consider the traffic regulation, the relevant traffic regulation? I can get that technical answer before the cabinet meeting so that they are aware of that distinction before the cabinet meeting. Thank you, that's very kind. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. I just want to say that there are a number of pieces of highway or bits that have never been put on the project network. For instance, there's a triangle, so near Scotland Farm in Godsell, not Scotland Corner. And that has been on the on the road network since nineteen hundred and eight, but it was never put onto the project network. So I imagine there's other pieces like that. Thank you. Councillor, it's correct that there are some pieces of highway around the island that were never adopted because of the audit process and the due diligence that was done before the contract was let that we manage as the Alawite Council. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to have a few questions on some of the areas I concentrated on the ones that were near my area, really, rather than going all the way to freshwater because I have had an issue on a previous one. I wanted to make sure that the public consultations have been done properly because I've got an issue in Whittle that has now got to come back because the consultation wasn't done correctly and some of the comments weren't taken into consideration. So I just wanted to check a couple of the ones on the military road, the China Lane section, that there's more objections than support on this one. And I got the feeling locally that it was kind of necessary on that junction. But I would like to have that checked that they are actually the relevant concerns on that area. And also the one in Rookley, not my area, but obviously there's a lot of objections to that. So it looks like there is something needed, but it's not necessarily going to work for the people in that area. So I would like to check that the public are being listened to on those points, please. Thank you. I think it's just worth talking about the process that we go through for the TROs. The TROs are generally created as a result of safety concerns that are raised by the residents or through accident statistics. And what we're doing is a programme of going around the island and trying to deliver on changes to the network as a result of those. Now, we go back, we go out to consultation on the results of those and the proposals that go forward. And it's a balance between the objections to members of the public, often people in that direct neighbourhood of that particular TRO versus the overall safety considerations. That balance is then put forward as part of the report with an officer recommendation and then it's incumbent upon cabinet to balance that themselves and make a decision based on those observations. So in terms of following the process, I would assume that we followed statutory process, which is very heavily in favour of consultation, particularly with local residents. But then we have to make that balance between safety versus public objections and other objections in terms of practicality of delivery. I hope that answers your question in terms of general, but in terms of specific ones, it's the same issue in terms of that balance. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I know that the previous one that I've had in my area that's got a problem, the consultations were started during the Covid times and I think they weren't as thorough as they perhaps could have been. Whereas on this one, there was other areas that would have been on this but have been taken off beforehand. So that was brought into the consultation period. So I understand that I just wanted to make sure that the objections from the residents were being taken into consideration. The full list of objectives, particularly on that example I shared earlier, gives an example of all the objectives that are actually coming forward, either positively or against the proposal. And again, that forms the basis of making that balance judgement. Absolutely that. Thank you, Chair. We've just gone through the same TRO stuff for District 2. So apologies, my question is probably a bit broader than specifically the ones looking ahead, but it is to do with TROs. My understanding is the process is becoming more efficient and the reviews will start hopefully be going through more efficiently as we proceed. So in a sense, I'm really pleased about that because much of these are really welcome. The slight concern I've got is, and I know with the number of the ones in my area is, when we talk about parking restrictions, what that then does is displace parking from one area. But likely moves on to another. So as we start to ramp up these things, what consideration is being done to the wider impacts of where the vehicles may start moving to? And does that then feed into how we assess future TROs? Because it will start to become too much for certain areas. I just kind of want some assurance that that's been considered. I think we do have to consider that because any restrictions in parking will shift an area that will shift that parking issue somewhere else. And we do need to make that overall consideration in a particular area. It's more subjective than a straightforward consideration of whether we need the TRO or not, but it is something we need to consider. And it's just a very similar issue when we put TROs in place as a result of planning applications. We are having to think about the wider implications of those decisions. And the other thing as well is that residents, they hold their parking dear and they will let us know if there is an issue impacting on their parking ability to park. So we have to take all that into account when we're making those decisions. Just a follow up to that as well. There are instances in TROs as well where, and I appreciate the regulations on the spaces, perhaps there are some disabled bays in terms of the TROs that are then removed. And what consideration is given to those spaces, isn't it? Because it's limited where those people can then go once that happens. So is there much consideration given to ensuring that those spaces can then be passed on to another place or is that difficult? There is a consideration, but it's not always able, we're not always able to fulfill it because of the fact that we've taken away the existing spaces. But it is a consideration that we bear in mind when we're actually looking at making those decisions. Any other questions on that item? Councillor Jarman. Just the one which is about the site at Freshwater Bay, and I know this has been a long standing discussion. I see what's on the map and I've read the objections that came in from the Albion and from others during the process. And I understand that there does need to be continuous access to the Esplanade and to the slipway which is related to it. That was the crux of the matter. So one of the things which was also agreed at the time was not only the additional restrictions and the clarification of those, but the clarification of the signage which is associated with that point. So can I just confirm that the signage for these locations will also be modified, particularly the one at the Albion to remove the ambiguity? I would imagine so, but I will confirm that as part of the conversation that goes back to Canada again. Thank you. Is there any further? Oh, Councillor Cook. Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure if this is the email that you circulated because I didn't receive that copy, but I was sent an email from Freshwater Parish Council who asked me to make representation on their behalf. They considered a meeting, I believe, specifically around the Albion Hotel TRO. They were concerned that the TRO was misadvertised as F59. And that a request for a site visit was not met. So they were asking that the decision not be delayed so they could meet and discuss it with officers. But they also questioned why TROs on private roads were included. We discussed that earlier and seeing that double yellow lines are not enforceable and they considered that they should not be paid for by the public. So I mean, could you clarify, is that the case? And I mean, essentially, why have double yellow lines if not enforceable? I might be able to assist a little bit there, Councillor Cook, on this basis that the email that you're reading from is Councillor Cox's email, which I think I'm right in saying I forwarded to Mr Rowland. Try to remember that, but I forwarded it to Mr Rowland and he very kindly then sent an answer. I wonder if I could ask you, Mr Rowland, if you could, given that Councillor Cook has raised it and he hasn't received your reply. I'm afraid I didn't have you on my, in my mind, I'm afraid, when I sent it to all the members on here, I don't have your email, but I'll remedy that, your email address. So if that could be read, if you wouldn't mind reading that. And then, Councillor Cook, if you've got any further questions arising out or anyone for that matter, any Councillors, then please feel free to ask a further question. Thank you. Yes, I'm just going to try and find the, email the question so I can read it. Right. In respect of the F49 and F15, that was an error, which was laterally corrected and then re-advertised. So that, I think it was amended to re-advertise between 16th February and 8th of March. So that was amended on that respect. As for private roads, and again, I'm not being technically completely au fait with the details, and also our parking manager, our sort of technical manager is away this week. So we've basically taken the information from what we've seen in the documentation. The council can install parking restrictions on private roads with landowner's permission. However, for this case, freshwater F59, freshwater is not listed as private, but as maintainable at public expense on the national street gazetteers page. So what we'll do is we'll make sure that you get a copy of this email, because as I said, I passed it to the chair, hoping that he could pass it on to various members of the committee. But that's the answer to that question. The other part of the question was probably related to the hotel and the hotel and their expectations on the TROs, which we didn't necessarily agree with entirely. And that's picked up on the consultation summaries. And again, I've copied, I appended a copy of the consultation summaries on that particular TRO to this email. So if you get that, you can have a look at that and consider that. If there's anything else, come back to me before the cabinet meeting and we can, again, like the other questions that have been asked this evening, we can put those forward to the cabinet members. Just to say, I have now just forwarded the email to you, Councillor Cook, so it should be in your inbox. Excellent. Thank you. And my apologies, Councillor Cook, I simply didn't have you on my address list or in my mind for some reason, but I hope that that's a satisfactory way of dealing with it. Jarmon? I didn't want the point to be lost from what Councillor Cook said, and not to be too pedantic about it. But given that you're coming back with technical issues anyway, maybe we can make sure this one's on the list. If a road is designated as maintained by the Albright Council, although we don't own it and it's not private, it's somehow maintained by us, are WL lines on land which is maintained by us enforceable by us? Again, that is a technical question that I will need to go back to officers to answer. Well, yes, we will get the answer for that one. Yeah. It's just been on that particular site. The enforcement issue has also been quite an important point for a long time. I suspect they are, because what would be the point of putting down the LOW lines if you couldn't enforce them? But I will get that technical answer to that question shortly. And if I may, Chair, just one further point about process here. So there were a number of representations made by the local parish councils, I think both Freshwater and Tottland, about passing places and putting WL lines on passing places. Because we do have a problem in the area, particularly during the summer months, when camper vans, not that I want to single out camper van owners, but camper vans in particular, park for long periods of time in the passing places on several of our roads. And we did request that all passing places would therefore have WL lines on to avoid that issue. And I noticed that that wasn't part of the consideration. I don't know whether that's a separate matter or not, but maybe that's another one to add to your list. I think that's a separate matter, but we will come back on that particular issue. I would imagine that's not an issue specific to our parishes. I can imagine there are other places on the island which have a similar issue. Thank you. Thank you. No one else has any further questions then. Having said that, before I move on, do we simply need to note that we've considered the paper or what should we do, Melanie, in terms of our recognition of the paper? It's up to the committee, really. You can vote to agree to the recommendations that are in the cabinet report to cabinet, or you can make a note that you agree in principle, depending on some of the particular answers, to be put forward to cabinet that have been raised here tonight. That might be the better way of going about it. If committee agrees, we could say that the contents are noted and are subject to further information, which will be forthcoming very shortly. Is everyone in agreement with that? Good. Thank you. Item 10, Policy Framework Annual Review, pages 101 onwards, to review the council's list of policies to ensure that they are being reviewed and refreshed timely and effectively. I don't know if anyone has any questions on that. If so, now is the time to ask them. [No audio] Perhaps we'll, Councillors, thinking if they want to ask any questions. I just have a couple of questions. On page 104, a number of the financial policies aren't in date. I can see there, four no's, as it were, and they seem to be out of date since 2018, they were due for renewal. I see the comment that it's in hand, and there's been various staffing issues, which I understand. But are we putting the, if I could ask a general question, perhaps, Mrs. Prairie, you might be able to answer. Are we, by being out of date or not having renewed those policies, are we putting the council at any form of risk or liability? And if so, could you just outline what that is and how quickly we can do something about it? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. There are two levels at which the council operates in terms of the four matters that are set out in the list. They're covered by two different approaches. So the financial regulations that the council has that it works to are one area, and then the policies that are listed here supplement those financial regulations. So, for example, the financial regulations that recently came to full council at last, was it last full council or the one before? I can't remember. There was an update of the financial regulations. Included within that was reference to the approach to bidding for grant funding and needing for sign off on grant funding, the approach to income and charging, the link to ensuring that we use appropriate increase in income and charging on a regular basis and our responsibilities as accountable body. So we are mitigating risk by the regulations that we've updated. And we will be covering off these last four areas in terms of detailed policy by the deadline that we set in this table, which is September 24. Thank you. I don't have a supplementary on that. I don't know that anyone else has supplementary or not a supplementary, but wishes to ask a question on that or any other matter. Councillor Lita. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I'm potentially pushing the reach of the items again. But so these policies are specific to the annual government statement and the review process is now embedded as business as usual activity. It's a similar thing happening. This is just a handful of policies in terms of council wide. The same thing happening broader than this. As perhaps a strange example, I know we've got an out of date crossings policy. So I'm just conscious of the fact that the council is potentially hamstrunging ourselves by not having policies in place to allow us to do some work that needs doing. So I'm just wondering how more broadly the council gets on top of its policies. If I may, Chair. Thank you. There are a number of policies that the council has to have in place and that for good governance reasons, it has in place. And those are picked up through the statement. There are a number of policies that, through full council, have to come forward to full council for approval. Those are set out in the appendix to this report as well. Other policies that the council puts in place are a local matter for the council to decide if it wants to have a policy in place about something or determines that a policy is needed. So in one respect, that could be kind of, you know, ad for an item. You can always add policies in. But service areas should be aware of the policies that they are working to and when required should be updating those policies on a regular basis. If we are aware of a number of policies that council consider to be out of data and needing to review, please raise those with the service areas in question and we can program that into two work programs moving forward. Does anyone else have any, any councilors, any further questions on this item on the agenda? Well, that leaves us with members question time, but before we, I'm so sorry. I have that problem as well. Take them off, I can't see. Chair, it's probably worth noting that on page 104, you'll see that there's reference to the DBS policy. And whilst that policy at the moment refers to DBS in terms of staffing arrangements in particular and staffing for those service areas which require DBS, there was some consideration at full council some time ago now as to what level of DBS checking should be appropriate for councilors, whether in specific roles as chairman or involved with service areas. And a matter that we may be considering as part of the future governance arrangements is exactly that issue as well. Particularly when you consider the importance of all councilors in terms of their corporate parenting role. So there may be at some stage an options paper coming forward that looks at where we take DBS in terms of councilors as well. Thank you for that. Moving on the last, following on from that very quickly, is there a time scale in relation to the DBS check? Because I think, I mean, as you've alluded to, Chief Executive, that that was something we've we've ventilated quite a few times, I think, in various committees. And I would certainly be very keen to have that brought forward as soon as possible and potentially before the, as it were, the next election cycle. So I think it would be great to have something in place so that new councilors coming forwards would be aware of that policy. What are the sort of timescales and could we exploit those? We can look at timescales to bring that forward to full council for consideration and can do so in advance of the next election round. The issue will be, the issue for council to consider is there is no mandatory DBS check for all councilors, so it will be a local consideration as to whether, as a council, you would wish to go down that route or not. But we can bring forward a paper to full council and we can confirm the timescales for that. I just trying to remember that we did have them years ago. I believe Councillor Jones-Evans and Councillor Fuller would remember that. But it was, and Councillor Critchison has just reminded me, it was CRB, wasn't it? Something like that. Yeah. But then that, that didn't continue. I suppose that was when the DBS came in. I think that's correct. Thank you, Chairman. I think that's correct. I don't know if, say, I think that is correct. Yeah. Councillor Jarman. There are somewhat different beasts. Criminal records, which is, I think what Councillor Downer was talking about, is somewhat different to the disbarring service, which has a different role and is actually managed and processed in a different way and can have a recurring element as well. I guess we'll wait to see what the paper comes forward with, but the issue will be how far do you want to take that? Does it include within the DBS only their criminal element, if any? Would it include a financial element, if any, in terms of the directorships or in terms of being barred from being a director or from being on a credit watch or other issues? It's a bit of a can of worms, in effect. Just a slight voice of concern that we, as we head down a path, that we understand what the scope and intent of that would be. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jarman. I don't know if you've any comment that you'd like to make in respect to that, Ms Brera. Well, clearly anything that we bring to full council will set out the options that full council can consider moving forward. And part of that will be the scope that it wants included or not, as the case may be. If there's no further questions on that, we can move to members question time, last item. Before we do, I was asked by Councillor Jarman about at least two, but there may be more than that, questions that he asked at previous corporate scrutiny meetings, to which he's not had, in his view, a satisfactory reply. I did take some instructions on that and the best way of dealing with it, because there's no agenda item for matters arising on the minutes. And we thought the combined wisdom is that the best way of dealing with it would be that if you, Councillor Jarman, either outlined, I think, just briefly now, and perhaps by email, we could then put it on the corporate scrutiny progress on actions and outcomes. So it could then become a matter for the next meeting to see you to make sure then that you've received a full answer, rather than you simply asking the question again, which is simply repetitive. I'm very happy with that, Chair. They are questions asked by me and by this committee, some of them, to which answers are outstanding. Some of those going back to the 12th of February this year, and some to the 7th of May, the last meeting. And in fact, one of the answers was completely erroneous because it referred back to a different committee's meeting to a working group that actually doesn't exist. So that was not at all helpful. So I've sent them in, they have them electronically, I think Megan's got them over there at the end as well, and Democratic Services. So I'm very happy for them to be appended and noted as outstanding. Some of them outstanding for several months, some of them for a shorter period of time. Thank you, Councillor Jarman. I think that would be, unless I'm told differently, that would be a satisfactory way of dealing with it. Thank you. So we'll deal with that. Are there any other members questions? Well, thank you very much for all attending. And that is the end of the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]