(a)

the number of jobs that would be lost due to the re-location of the service;

(b)

the number of days that wedding ceremonies would be held in the Council House;

(c)

the loss of revenue due to the uncertainty of whether the service would be relocated;

(d)

the re-location of the emergency operations centre equipment from the Temeraire room;

(e)

the lack of detail regarding how the working process would support the revised working model;

(f)

the difficulty of accommodating the service within the confines of a democratic hub;

(g)

the loss of revenue due to the Council House not being able to accommodate the same level of wedding ceremonies;

(h)

the lack of options contained within the report regarding other potential locations such as the Guildhall and Pounds House;

(I)

whether consultation had been undertaken with members of staff from the Registration Service and members of the public;

(j)

concerns regarding whether the Contact Centre would be able to process the additional calls for the service (when registering births and deaths) and whether these calls could be prioritised;

(k)

the locations across the city where customers would be able to register births and deaths;

(l)

the need to look at the requirements of the service rather than the location.

(1)

support the disposal of the Lockyer Street site, for a capital receipt, as detailed in the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan;

(2)

support the principle of improving accessibility to services;

(3)

recommend to the Cabinet Member that proposals to relocate the registration service into the Council House are not acceptable, must be reconsidered and alternative accommodation must be explored; in particular the Cabinet Member should consider -

?

whether spaces such as the interview rooms and Members’ rooms in Ballard House are currently being effectively utilised; 

?

how death registrations may be provided seven days a week;

?

an additional exploration of Pounds House as an alternative wedding venue;

?

wider consultation with Members and the public on the use of the Council House.

(a)

the potential benefits of transferring services to another vehicle;

(b)

the savings or earnings that could be achieved through such a venture;

(c) 

the risk of ‘breaking’ Delt by expanding the organisation;

(d)

the risk to the future political control of transferring some strategic services to this venture;

(e)

currently there was no proper trade union recognition agreement in place in Delt (the staff forum was not an acceptable model).

(f)

why other local councils had not taken the opportunity to join Delt;

(g)

the importance of having trade union representation when dealing with staff transferring to Delt;

(h)

concerns that the focus for the new venture would have to change to ‘revenue hunting’ which could have an impact on the public sector service;

(i)

the proposed services that had been included within the scope and whether they were a best fit for this model;

(j)

concerns that with no trade union agreement in place, terms and conditions could be diluted;

(k)

assurance that the right governance arrangements would be in place with such a venture;

(l)

the importance of Plymouth City Council having overall ownership of the venture;

(m)

concerns that there was no elected member representation on the Delt Board;

(n)

what the process would be to develop the business cases including service specifications.

(1)

the Scrutiny Committee supports the  mandatory outcomes, as set out  within the report but with the addition of ‘jobs and investment being retained on the peninsula’ and ‘that partners are based in the public or voluntary community sectors’ as mandatory rather than desirable outcomes;

(2)

Plymouth City Council to work with Delt to achieve Trade Union recognition before proceeding to business case and service specification development;

(3)

subject to recommendation two, that a cross party working group is established to consider the business cases as they are developed;

(4)

Trade Unions in the Council continue to be involved in the process through the Joint Strategic Consultative Forum;

(5)

the Scrutiny Committee will further consider business cases and service specifications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

(a)

the need to develop a performance dashboard with 2016/17 data used as the baseline for the indicators;

(b)

when the review of the assisted bin collections would commence;

(c)

concerns that a private sector company was advertising for enforcement staff within Plymouth and the wider implications of outsourcing the public protection service; 

(d)

the current waiting time for the bulky waste service;

(e)

the current waiting time for the provision of a green/brown bin;

(f)

concerns that new homes and customers with broken bins were having to pay £15 for a new/replacement bins; once the bins had been delivered the broken bins were not being removed;

(g)

the amount of revenue generated through charging for new/replacement bins;

(h)

how the service would enforce bins left on the highway;

(i)

concerns regarding the increase in street litter and the number of incidents of fly tipping.

(1)

a performance dashboard with quarterly performance trend against indicators using 2016/17 as baseline data, should be developed and available as soon as possible for Committee members;

(2)

new homes and customers with broken bins should not be charged for new bins, the current charging policy is to be emailed to members of the Committee;

(3)

future scrutiny to review the performance and enforcement in November 2017.

(1)

Select Committee Review – Gypsy and Travellers;

(2)

 Waste (November 2017).