Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were submitted on behalf of Cllrs Martin Waite and Zahid Shah.

There were no declarations of interest submitted.

[To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.]

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved signed as a true record.

There were no matters arising.

[Cllr Ian Angus and Shelia Collett will outline the work of the review to the date, and any key issues that are emerging]

Sheila Collett provided a summary of the work so far of the Scrutiny Review of Employability and Skills.

She advised the Panel that the review group have met on three occasions to receive evidence about the scale of the challenge, what is already in place and what are the barriers and to hear what more is needed from a business perspective (jobs and skills).

The Review group have one more evidence gathering session to gather evidence relating to learning and training from the Adult Education Service, the University, the College and training providers.

She advised that at the final session the review group would start to pull out the key findings and that several gaps in provision were emerging:

·         Support for older people – over 50 age group, skill levels and experience are not reflected by qualifications

·         Partnership working – needs to be strong, there are a raft of initiatives and work streams to work together

The Chair Cllr John Rowley indicated that one of the issues arising through the evidence was that the skills base was not adequate.  He highlighted that out of 72 participants from Wolverhampton on a recent interview process at Jaguar Land Rover 40 participants had failed to make it through the programme and there may be a preconception of the type of person the company want to employ.  Tim Johnson indicated that the standard required by the company needs to be reached and that it was good at this point to put into context the scale of the challenge.

Cllr Peter Bilson welcomed the review and echoed that points made so far, indicating that the issues for Wolverhampton are broader than learning skills, the issues take the softer employability skills into account such as having the right attitude; employers are looking to recruit work ready applicants.  He indicated that the employment and skills commission will identify the broader issues. 

The Chair thanked officers for their work.

Resolved:

That the update on the Scrutiny Review of Employability and Skills be noted.

The Chair, Cllr John Rowley clarified the order that the budget savings proposals would be considered and welcomed the Cabinet Members and lead officers.

He invited the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and City Prosperity, Cllr Peter Bilson and Tim Johnson, Strategic Director Education and Enterprise to the table to provide a brief summary of the ‘Economic Regeneration and Prosperity’ savings proposals. The comments of the panel were recorded.

Cllr Peter Bilson introduced the savings proposal for Resources port-folio holder relating to ‘Reduction in West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority Levy’. The comments of the panel were recorded.

The Chair thanked Cllr Bilson and officers for their attendance.

The Chair invited Cllr John Reynolds, Chris Huddart and Steve Woodward to the table to consider the City Services savings proposals. The comments of the panel were recorded.

Cllr John Reynolds invited questions on the Governance and Perfomance saving proposal relating to ‘Occupational Health External Clients’, noe were received and the proposal was noted.

The Chair thanked them for their attendance.

Resolved

That the table of comments be referred to Scrutiny Board for consideration:

[Ian Culley and Simon Latham to present report on the City Centre Area Action Plan (AAP). The AAP will provide the statutory planning framework to deliver investment, regeneration and jobs in the City Centre]

Simon Latham and Ian Culley were in attendance to present the report and respond to Panels questions. Simon Latham advised that the City Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) and draft plan were submitted as a pre-decision scrutiny item for Panel to feed comments into Cabinet 10 December 2014.

Councillors considered the ‘Historic Character’ and how a number of sites with local character and distinctiveness need to be designated to protect local character in All Saints, Blakenhall and Graiseley.  Cllrs Jacqueline Sweetman and John Rowley requested identified several sites in their wards which could be considered historic in character and requested clarification of which of these that fall on the outskirts on the ring road have been considered for inclusion.

Cllr John Rowley referred to buildings that are historic in character, but non listed and in a state of disrepair, he asked how the AAP takes account of buildings that have urban importance?  Ian Culley advised that the consultation document does contain a list of buildings for people to comment on.

Cllr John Rowley asked how officers encourage interest for revival schemes such as recent successes for the Sunbeam Land and the Springfield Brewery.

Cllr Jacqueline Sweetman asked what is the criteria for determination of revival schemes, does the Council identify the building then find the entrepreneur or is it the other way round. Ian Culley advised that it is a mixture of the two and that the regeneration team adopts a co-ordinator approach working with the interested parties.    

In response to a comment relating to the condition and untidiness of car parks on Dudley Street into the Town Centre, the panel was advised that the site although in need of maintenance was not in a condition which warrants enforcement action, but that  there could be a robust discussion with the car park owners to clean up the site.

Cllr Jonathan Yardley asked if the height of buildings was determined by the AAP.  Officers advised that AAP is not as prescriptive as determining the height, however there is some flexibility and officers will recognise where there are important views and vistas when determining planning applications.

Resolved:

1.    That the comments of the scrutiny panel are taken into consideration in the final report to Cabinet

2.    That this item was considered as pre-decision scrutiny and will therefore not be available to call-in once a decision is made by the Executive