Agenda and minutes

There were none. 

The record of the meeting held on 17 January 2012 was agreed and signed by the Leader as correct.

There were none.

Background:

This report provided details of the outcome of consultation on the future of the services at Balfour Day Centre, Robert Bean Lodge, Platters Farm Lodge and Nelson Court, following Cabinet’s earlier decision to approve consultation on 29 November 2011.

The report set out the background for each of the facilities including usage and budget levels together with the proposals. This involved the proposal to decommission the Balfour Day Centre and the proposals to outsource Robert Bean Lodge, Platters Farm Lodge and Nelson Court, to independent providers, including the sale of the Nelson Court site.

The consultation process was included in the report. This included writing to existing service users, carers and families, Medway Council Members, Medway Members of Parliament, Medway LINk, NHS partners and Social Care staff.  It also included presentations to the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee, on 26 January 2012.  Consultation meetings were held as part of the listening exercise.

The Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee received a presentation from the Social Care Commissioning and Voluntary Sector Manager on 26 January 2012 regarding the consultation with service users, staff and stakeholders in respect of the proposed closure of the Balfour Day Centre and the proposed outsourcing of Nelson Court, Platters Farm Lodge and Robert Bean Lodge. The Committee’s comments were set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

A number of petitions in respect of the proposals had been received, some of which were submitted at the Full Council meeting on 12 January 2012, as set out in paragraph 9.6 of the report.

The outcome of consultation for each of the facilities was included in paragraphs 10-13 of the report. This included a proposal from Medway Community Healthcare regarding the Balfour Day Centre. Diversity Impact Assessments for each of the facilities were included in Appendices 4-9 of the report.

The Cabinet accepted this as an urgent matter to enable the Cabinet to consider the outcome of consultation at the earliest opportunity, and to give service users and other stakeholders certainty over the future of services at Balfour Day Centre, Robert Bean Lodge, Platters Farm Lodge and Nelson Court.

Background:

This report provided details of the outcome of consultation regarding proposed changes to the council’s policies on charging contributions for non residential Adult Social Care services and the Major Adaptations Policy relating to the Disabled Facility Grant for adaptations, following Cabinet’s earlier decision to approve consultation on 29 November 2011.

This report set out the background to each of the proposals together with details of the consultation process which ran from 12 December 2011 – 9 February 2012. The consultation programme included writing to existing service users, carers and families, Medway Council Members, Medway Members of Parliament, Medway LINk, NHS partners and Social Care staff.  It also included presentations to the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee, on 26 January 2012, the comments of which were set out in Appendix 1 to the report.  In addition a total of five consultation meetings were held as part of the listening exercise.

The outcome of consultation was included in paragraph 5 of the report and Diversity Impact Assessment screening forms were undertaken on both of the proposals as set out in Appendices 3 and 4 to the report followed by a full Diversity Impact Assessment in Appendix 5 to the report.

The Cabinet accepted this as an urgent item to enable its views to be reported to Full Council on 23 February 2012.

Reasons:

Fairer Contributions Policy

The proposed changes to this policy will ensure that all people with eligible needs are treated equally but there is a recognition that some groups that will be financially assessed for the first time may be disproportionately and adversely impacted by the changes if reasonable adjustments are not put in place.

The personalisation agenda is such that the current approach to charging in relation to services rather than a personal budget will perpetuate an output-led rather than an outcomes-focused approach to adult social care.

The completion of a full diversity impact assessment, which takes into account the information gathered from the consultation process as well as intelligence gathering by officers, demonstrates that any disproportionate and adverse impact can be mitigated against.

Major Adaptations Policy

The policy will enable people to proceed with adaptations that are in excess of the £30,000 limit of the Disabled Facilities Grant so that they can live independently in their own home.

Background:

This report presented proposals for the capital and revenue budgets for 2012/2013. The Cabinet had considered initial budget proposals on 29 November 2011, which had been developed in accordance with the principles set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan 2012/2015. The implications of both the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 and Local Government Finance Settlement were set out in the report, together with proposed measures to address the 8.3% cut in government funding (excluding the Council Tax freeze grant).

The report gave details of the changes made since the Financial Settlement was reported to Cabinet in December 2011, summarised the budget build and gave details of the directorate savings proposals.

It was noted that the proposed capital programme for 2012/2013 and future years, incorporating existing schemes and new funding announcements to date, was approaching £90.3 million. The net revenue budget for 2011/2012 amounted to £332.2 million, which it was reported would not require an increase in Council Tax but was predicated upon receipt of Government grant that equated to an equivalent 2.5% increase.

The report set out details of the Council Plan, which had been developed alongside the budget setting process to ensure the link between resource and business planning was maintained. This was considered as a separate item on the agenda.

Budget proposals had been referred to all the Overview and Scrutiny Committees for consideration. The Overview and Scrutiny Committees’ views were detailed in the report, with the recommendations of the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee set out for Cabinet consideration.

The summarised Housing Revenue Account was set out in Appendix 4 to the report with the capital component in Appendix 2 to the report. A report setting out details of proposed rents for 2012/2013 was considered as a separate item on the agenda.

The schedule of fees and charges was attached at Appendix 5 to the report.

The report set out the requirements under equality legislation and a diversity impact assessment, that aggregated the impact of reductions in funding to services, was attached at Appendix 6 to the report.

The Cabinet agreed to consider this report as an urgent item to enable its recommendations to be forwarded to the Budget Council meeting on 23 February 2012.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance proposed a number of changes to the revenue budget (as set out in decision nos. 24 and 25/2012 below), which represented a call on reserves amounting to £1.175m. These would be financed by £340,000 of balances in ‘earmarked’ reserves that were no longer required, £200,000 from the unspent budgets allocated to the Sure Start centres and £143,000 from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) reserve, leaving £492,000 to be taken from the general reserve balance.

These measures would result in the funding for the Freedom Pass, free swimming, apprenticeships, graffiti removal and Christmas parking being built into future years base budgets. There were one-off funding streams for the 2012  year of celebration, opposition to the airport proposals, investment generation and additions to the DSG. The £300,000  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Background:

This report presented the Council Plan 2012-2013 prior to consideration by Council on 23 February 2012. The plan had been developed by taking into account recent developments including continuing financial pressures, the Munro Review of child protection and changes in the education and health systems. It was noted that monitoring of the Council Plan would continue on a quarterly basis, focusing on the key measures of success.

The Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered this report on 2 February 2012 and the views of the Committee were set out in paragraph 6 of the report. 

It was noted that a Diversity Impact Assessment screening had been undertaken on the draft plan. It was found that there was no need to carry out a full assessment. It was noted that officers would continue to assess and monitor the plan, both prior to its agreement by Council, and throughout the life of the plan, to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements.

Reasons:

Strong business planning processes and a clear strategic framework are regarded as best practice, and will enable the organisation to demonstrate how it is using resources to meet locally specific objectives.

Background:

This report provided details of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) revenue and capital budgets for 2012/2013 including the impact of the new self-financing regime from 1 April 2012. The report also provided details of the proposed rent and service charges levels for 2012/2013 and provided information around rent charging inconsistencies in two areas and the proposals for correcting these.

It was noted that the proposed average rent increase would be £5.39 per week or 7.26%, whilst the average service charge (excluding supporting people eligible charges) increase would be 29p per week or 6.99%.

The Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered this report on 2 February 2012 and its views were set out in Appendix E to the report.

Reasons:

Full Council is required to carry out an annual review of rents and notify tenants not less than 28 days prior to the proposed date of change. The Council is required under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to ensure that the Housing Revenue Account does not fall into a deficit position.

Background:

This report presented the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy for 2012/2013. The strategy incorporated the Treasury Management Policy Statement, Annual Investment Strategy and Minimum Revenue Provision Policy. Treasury Management Practices were also set out.

The annual presentation of a Treasury Management Strategy was a requirement under the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management, adopted by the Council on 25 February 2010. It covered the various aspects of the treasury management function and was based on the treasury officers’ views on interest rates, supplemented with leading market forecasts provided by the Council’s treasury adviser, Sector.

The Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered this report on 2 February 2012 and its views were set out in paragraph 18 of the report.

A Diversity Impact Assessment screening had been undertaken and was set out in Appendix 8 to the report. It was not necessary to proceed to a full impact assessment. It was noted that the Treasury Management Strategy did not directly impact on members of the public as it dealt with the management of the local authority’s investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks.

Reasons:

Cabinet has the responsibility to make recommendations to Full Council on the approval of the Council’s Treasury Management, Investment Strategy and Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement along with scrutinising the Treasury Management Practices and associated schedules.

Background:

This report provided details of the outcome of the consultation to the draft  primary and secondary co-ordinated admission schemes and arrangements for 2013 admissions.  The schemes set out how the Local Authority would co-ordinate the processing of applications to schools and the arrangements set out the relevant entry arrangements (oversubscription criteria) for Community and Voluntary Controlled schools. Academies, Voluntary Aided and Foundation schools undertook their own consultation on entry arrangements (oversubscription criteria), but had to co-ordinate with the Local Authority schemes.

The report also provided the outcome of consultation and analysis with regards to proposals to move the Medway Test from a number of test centres to individual schools.

The report had been considered by the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 19 January 2012 and its comments were set out in paragraph 9 of the report.

A Diversity Impact Assessment screening form had been undertaken on the proposals around testing in own schools for the Medway Test and the proposals to change the denominational criteria for voluntary controlled schools.

Reasons:

The Council is required to undertake a detailed consultation exercise prior to the determination of its school admission arrangements and schemes. The decisions take into account the responses from consultation.

Background:

This report provided details of the draft South Thames Gateway Building Control Partnership Business Plan for 2011/2014 (incorporating the financial Plan 2011-15), and also provided details of the proposal for agreement for Medway to continue in the Partnership for a second term.

On 8 December 2011 the South Thames Gateway Building Control Joint Committee agreed the draft South Thames Gateway Building Control Partnership’s Business Plan for 2011/14 as set out in an exempt appendix. This encompassed the comments already received from the Partner Authorities. However, the three year business plan extended beyond the first term of the Partnership agreement. Therefore, at the Joint Committee, Members also considered a report regarding the Partnership continuing for a second term and unanimously supported the proposal.

Gravesham Borough Council’s Cabinet agreed to continue in the partnership for a second term and agreed the Business Plan at its meeting on 9 January 2012.

A Diversity Impact Assessment screening form had been undertaken on the Business Plan and it was found that it was not necessary to carry out a full impact assessment.

Reasons:

The Constitution of the Joint Committee requires approval of the Business Plan for the following year by the Cabinet of each Partner Authority and each authority requires approval of Cabinet to carry on to a second term.

Background:

This report detailed the revenue budget forecasts as at the end of Quarter 3 (October - December 2011).

It was noted that the returns from budget managers forecast a potential underspend of £195,000 compared to the potential overspend of £5.1m reported in quarter 2. Management action to control expenditure, less than anticipated demand on some services and additional income receipts, had combined to achieve a significant reduction in forecasts.

The Cabinet agreed to accept this report as urgent to enable Cabinet to receive and consider the third quarter budget monitoring information at the earliest opportunity.

Reasons:

Cabinet has the responsibility to ensure effective budgetary control to contain expenditure within the approved limits set by Council. Where a budget overspend is forecast, Cabinet supported by the corporate management team must identify measures to remove any excess expenditure

Background:

This report presented details of the Council’s performance for the third quarter of 2011/2012 against the Council Plan 2011-2012 objectives. The Council Plan was a key part of the Council’s budget and policy framework.

Appendix 1 to the report, provided a table showing whether the performance indicators met the required standard whilst Appendix 2 provided an update on the six Cabinet priority areas. Overall, performance on 59 key performance indicators were rated in quarter 3, of which, 42 had achieved or outperformed the target, 5 were below target but within acceptable variance limits and 12 were outside acceptable variance limits.

The Cabinet accepted this report as urgent to enable it to receive and consider the third quarter monitoring information at the earliest opportunity.

Reasons:

Full and accurate performance reporting to elected members is consistent with best practice, and allows them to review the Council’s performance. 

Background:

This report presented the capital monitoring forecast for the period to December 2011 (the end of the third quarter), with an outturn forecast for 2011/12 and future years.

It was noted that the approved capital programme for 2011/12 and future years was £154.5m, being £53.1m in respect of brought forward schemes and £55.7m in respect of new approvals. The report commented on the delivery of the capital programme and updated Members on a number of issues, including a number of virements and proposed additions to the Capital Programme.

The Cabinet accepted this report as urgent to enable Cabinet to receive and consider the third quarter budget monitoring information at the earliest opportunity.

Reasons:

Cabinet has the responsibility to ensure effective budgetary control to contain expenditure within the approved limits set by Council.

Background:

This report presented information on vacancies that officers had requested approval to commence recruitment for, following the process agreed by Cabinet on 7 January 2003 (decision number 9/2003).

Appendix 1 to the report provided details of the posts.

Reasons:

The posts presented to Cabinet will support the efficient running of the Council.

Background:

This report reviewed the progress of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) school TransportContracts that began in September 2010 withcontracts awarded to various contractors as highlighted within paragraph 2.1.2 of the report. These contracts provided both scheduled Home to School and ad hoc respite care transport to students with special educational needs. The report set out a number of options together with their respective advantages and disadvantages.

An exempt appendix provided key information in relation to finance and the whole life costings for this contract.

Reasons:

The contracts awarded are running successfully; with all operators meeting the required level of service and carrying out their routes in line with the necessary specification. This has allowed Medway Council to maintain its statutory duty of providing free home to school transport to those passengers who have qualified for the service.

The contracts having been awarded as a result of a competitive tender process, having ascertained the most economically advantageous operator, the contracts still represent best value.

Background:

This report provided a post project review/appraisal of a contract completed at Woodlands School to deliver improvements to the nursery, reception and Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision as highlighted within paragraph 2.1.2 of the report. This was a one-off construction contract and the works were completed in accordance with the contract terms.

An exempt appendix provided key information in relation to finance and the whole life costings for this contract.

Reasons:

The project has been completed to specification and within budget.