Agenda and minutes

To approve the records of the meetings held on 14 April 2011 and 25 May 2011 (Annual Council).

The records of the meetings held on 14 April and 25 May (annual council) 2011 were agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct subject to a correction to a figure at the bottom of page 10 of the minutes of 14 April 2011 (Question by Tristan Osbourne to Councillor Wicks) in that the figure of £28,000 required correction to read £281,000.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Filmer and Kearney.

Councillor Cooper declared the following personal interests:

·              Agenda item 8 (Leader’s report) in respect of reference to World Heritage Status and the Great Lines Heritage bid on the basis that she is a member of the Friends of the Great Lines Heritage Park.

·              Decision 74/2011 of the Cabinet meeting held on 5 July 2011 relating to the School Organisation Plan on the basis that she is a Community Governor of the Saxon Way Primary School which falls within Gillingham West as referred to in the Plan.

·              Agenda item 11 (Annual Review of the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2011-12) on the basis that Medway Council for Voluntary Service is referred to within the report and the Friends of Hillyfields, of which she is a member, is also a member of the Medway CVS with voting rights.

Councillor Etheridge declared a personal interest in any reference to the NHS Trusts on the basis that she is a Partner Governor for the Foundation Trust and a Shadow Governor for the Mental Health Trust.

Councillor Gilry declared a personal interest in any reference to Medway Maritime Hospital as she still works there occasionally.

Councillor Griffiths declared a personal interest in any discussion that may take place during the course of the meeting with reference to Medway Community Healthcare because he is a Non-Executive Director of the Trust.

Councillor Igwe declared a personal interest in any reference to the prison service or NHS as he is a mentor within the prison service and with NHS professionals.

Councillor Juby declared a personal interest in respect of the report on the update from the Medway NHS Trust contained within the report of the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 23 June 2011 on the basis that members of his family work for the Medway NHS Foundation Trust.

Councillor O’Brien declared a personal interest in any mention of the Health Service or the Hospital as members of his family work within the NHS.

The Mayor congratulated Councillor Sam Craven on her engagement since being elected in May.

The Mayor announced the following Mayoral events:

• Abigail’s Party at Medway Little Theatre on 27 September at 7pm.
• A cabaret night ‘When Frankie met Robbie’ on 13 October 2011 at 7pm at The Corn Exchange

Tickets for both events were available from the Mayor’s personal assistant.

The Mayor reminded members that the Medway Mile would be held on Wednesday 27 July in the Castle Gardens in the evening.

The Mayor reminded members that written copies of any amendments should be provided to the Head of Democratic Services.

There were none. 

The following petitions were received and referred to the appropriate Directors:

Councillor Maple presented a petition containing 39 signatures from residents in Hartington Street, Chatham asking for the introduction of speed calming measures.

Councillor Cooper presented a petition containing 14 signatures from residents of The Ridgeway and St Mary’s Road in Gillingham asking for provision of a salt bin because the road is dangerously steep.

Councillor Stamp presented a petition containing 23 signatures from residents in Rosebery Road calling upon the Council to completely resurface the section of road between Parr Avenue and Medway Road because the surface has now deteriorated beyond repair.

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

(A)       Miss K Mason of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks, the following question:

Where and when is the proposed school to be built in the Rochester and Chatham area and what is the proposed catchment area?

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks responded by thanking Miss Mason for her question. He stated that plans were at a very early stage and in line with government policy any new provision would need to be established as an Academy or a Free School. The Council would first seek expressions of interest to run the new provision, which would include the need to identify a site and set a timetable for completion.

Miss Mason asked a supplementary question asking whether Medway Council could publish a list of all organisations and stakeholders that were consulted in preparation of the new School Organisation Plan and who would be consulted on new plans?

In response, Councillor Wicks advised that the School Organisation Plan was already out for consultation and he would expect all those who needed to be consulted to respond. He confirmed that all those who needed to be consulted were included in the consultation process as required by law.

(B)       Miss K Green of Gillingham asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks, the following question:

Does Medway Council have any future plans to close St. Peter’s?

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks confirmed that there were no future plans to close St Peter’s.

Miss Green asked a supplementary question by querying whetherMedway Council valued the contributions of small schools within their local communities?

Councillor Wicks confirmed that Medway Council values all its schools and all the input that comes from the heads and the governors and the staff and indeed parents as well. Therefore he was able to confirm that the Council values the contributions of everybody.

(C)       Mrs B Franqueira of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks, the following question:

18 months ago, council officers were predicting a decline in birth rate numbers. Now they are saying there is a rise. Were they wrong then or are they wrong now?

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks thanked Mrs Franqueira for her question and confirmed that no predictions were made about the future levels of births as the Council used the actual birth rate and not predictions to forecast the demands for school places. He advised that Officers did not predict a decline in the number of births.

            Mrs Franqueira then asked a supplementary question asking whether

Medway Council agreed with Ofsted’s chief inspector that St Peter’s was achieving a good Ofsted with outstanding features in April 2011 which was no mean feat considering the school’s recent history?

Councillor Wicks responded by agreeing that the Ofsted inspection service is first class and that the Council always respected its findings.

(D)       Angie Burdett of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks, the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 208.

Discussion:

Members received and debated the Leader’s report, which included the following:

·        Opportunities and challenges for the next four years including the current financial situation, attracting inward investment, improving skills and addressing urban regeneration.

·        World Heritage Status including an announcement that the Prince William’s Bridge in Chatham had been recognised at the Institute of Civil Engineers South East England Excellence Awards on 24 June.

·        The celebration of National Armed Forces Day with a parade through Rochester High Street on 25 June.

·        The presentation of Medway’s bid for City Status in May.

Discussion:

Members received a report on Overview and Scrutiny activities. The following issues were discussed during the debate:

• Update from the Medway NHS Foundation Trust

• The Community Payback Scheme

• The possible introduction of a Citizen’s Charter

“Does the Portfolio Holder agree that in light of the Southern Cross care home scandal, that the involvement of private equity companies in the care of older and vulnerable people is creating a high risk to their safety and welfare, and making it very difficult to hold anyone to proper account when things go wrong?”

“Does the Portfolio Holder agree that in light of the Southern Cross care home scandal, that the involvement of private equity companies in the care of older and vulnerable people is creating a high risk to their safety and welfare, and making it very difficult to hold anyone to proper account when things go wrong?”

The Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake thanked Councillor Murray for her question and stated that he did not agree with her statement.

Councillor Brake advised that locally there were two Southern Cross nursing homes and confirmed that they would continue tomorrow as they did yesterday and as they did today – providing high quality care.

Councillor Brake explained that private equity was simply a funding model. It did not of itself put anybody at risk. The Southern Cross care homes in Medway were not sold-off, they were simply leased by their owners (who were registered care providers in their own right) and this was done to Southern Cross in order to benefit from the economies of scale of being part of a larger group.

The two Southern Cross care homes in Medway were profitable and sustainable businesses that would transfer from Southern Cross back to the owners. Relatives of residents could therefore be assured that their loved ones would continue to be well looked after in these care homes and he stressed that their safety and welfare had not been put at “high risk” as Councillor Murray had suggested.

Councillor Brake continued by explaining that regardless of the funding model there had never been any difficulty in holding people to account for the care provided in Southern Cross care homes. The individual registered care home managers and the Board of Southern Cross had always been personally and professionally accountable to the Care Quality Commission.

Councillor Murray in asking a supplementary question clarified that her question was about accountability and Councillor Brake seemed to be saying that he didn’t think it would be difficult to hold anyone to proper account when things go wrong. She therefore asked him if he had information that gave him equal confidence about the likely new owners of the homes in Medway?

Councillor Brake responded by stating that accountability was accountability. Councillors were accountable to the community and equally, the providers of a care facility, such as the two located in Medway that were part of Southern Cross were accountable. He added that as mentioned previously, these homes had chosen to be part of Southern Cross to get the benefits of scale with a larger organisation and that was quite a common way of doing things. With the homes reverting back to their original owners and original organisation, Medway Council would continue to ensure that accountability, not only was already in place but would continue to be in place and would be monitored on a regular basis.

“With the closure of Ridge Meadow School, and with other schools threatened over the last 3 years by the Medway Conservative administration, can the Portfolio Holder clarify how many teaching and support staff are to be made ‘potentially’ redundant from Medway schools during the period 1 April to 31 August 2011?”

“With the closure of Ridge Meadow School, and with other schools threatened over the last 3 years by the Medway Conservative administration, can the Portfolio Holder clarify how many teaching and support staff are to be made ‘potentially’ redundant from Medway schools during the period 1 April to 31 August 2011?” 

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks thanked Councillor Osborne for his question. He advised that the Employment Matters Committee had recently considered a report setting out the position across the whole Council and that this report had included schools. He referred Councillor Osbourne to this report.

Councillor Osborne then asked a supplementary question and in doing so clarified for Councillor Wicks that144 staff and support staff were threatened. Given that Councillor Wicks didn’t know this answer and given that he had totally mismanaged primary school change, lacked any credibility over the Woodlands fiasco and had snubbed thousands of residents and parents on the basis of poor statistics, was it now time that he showed some integrity, responsibility and backbone and apologised to all of those people who simply had no confidence in his ability to manage the education of Medway’s young people.

Councillor Wicks confirmed that he had nothing to add to what he had said previously.

“Can the Portfolio Holder clarify the extent and use of ANPR (Auto Number Plate Recognition) coverage across the Medway Towns, and specifically whether ANPR technology is in operation, on the approaches, or in, the Medway Tunnel?”

“Can the Portfolio Holder clarify the extent and use of ANPR (Auto Number Plate Recognition) coverage across the Medway Towns, and specifically whether ANPR technology is in operation, on the approaches, or in, the Medway Tunnel?” 

In Councillor Filmer’s absence, the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance, Councillor Jarrett thanked Councillor Osborne for his question. He confirmed that there were Auto Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras installed on the gantries on the west side of the Medway Tunnel monitoring vehicles travelling both east and west through the tunnel.

In relation to the extent of the use of ANPR across Medway, for a number of years the Police had used ANPR camera coverage across the Medway Towns. During 2009, in partnership with the Police, Medway Council started using the output to measure journey times on strategic routes inbound to Chatham centre and it was these results that were fed into the Council progress monitoring software called Covalent. The cameras were run by the police, rather than the Council, mainly for crime detection purposes.

Councillor Osborne stated that he appreciated the response from Councillor Jarrett in Councillor Filmer’s absence. He then referred to the fact that many other Councils and systems around the country that use ANPR also use it for tolling systems and on approaches to bridges with tolls therefore his supplementary question was to ask for a guarantee that the Conservative administration would never consider any proposals for a Medway Tunnel toll?

In response, Councillor Jarrett stated that never was a long time. However, he confirmed that the Council was not actively considering the introduction of a Medway Tunnel toll.

“Can the Leader please update me on the status of the ‘dynamic’ bus facility project in Chatham, both as regards the delayed completion of the project and specifically on the position of funding from central government?”

“Can the Leader please update me on the status of the ‘dynamic’ bus facility project in Chatham, both as regards the delayed completion of the project and specifically on the position of funding from central government?”

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers advised that the contractors had informed the Council that it was their goal to hand over the completed bus station at the end of August. Officers were in discussions with the various bus companies about transferring into the station some time in September, hopefully before the start of the school term.

The adjustments to the construction programme were as a result of factors beyond the Council and contractor’s control, and some of these were principally related to the rather severe winter experienced, the poor state of the White House, and the problematic ground conditions with significant issues relating to drainage and services which had now been dealt with.

The Council had recently received £12.5 million towards expenditure on the various Homes and Community Agency financed projects, including the bus station, and a final claim for £1.5 million against the HCA had been submitted. There was no indication that this would not be forthcoming.

Councillor Maple then asked a supplementary question and in doing so commented that his supplementary question related to the lead story in several of the local papers involving the impact of this particular project and the associated delays and roadworks. He referred to a statement from Medway Council and that such statement made no recognition of the hardship or difficulty caused to traders in Chatham. He therefore asked whether the  Leader would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the traders of Chatham for the impact that this project and its delay had caused?

Councillor Rodney Chambers responded by stating that he hadalways consistently said that the regeneration of Chatham was going to be the most difficult of the Council’s projects because of the competing demands. He did however stress that it wasn’t only Chatham High Street that was suffering in the recession, which was caused by the last Labour government. All high streets were having difficulty in trading and he was very sorry for the traders but it was difficult in retailing wherever traders were located.

“32% of private sector homes in Gillingham fail to meet the decent homes standard, the highest proportion in Medway. Given the recent cuts in grants available to homeowners and landlords to make necessary improvements, what practical steps are being taken to raise awareness of and focus these resources in the areas that need them most, and what target has the Council set to reduce the proportion of homes in Gillingham failing the standard?”

“32% of private sector homes in Gillingham fail to meet the decent homes standard, the highest proportion in Medway. Given the recent cuts in grants available to homeowners and landlords to make necessary improvements, what practical steps are being taken to raise awareness of and focus these resources in the areas that need them most, and what target has the Council set to reduce the proportion of homes in Gillingham failing the standard?”

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe thanked Councillor Stamp for his question. He responded by stating that the Council kept overall figures for Medway and the recent figure for Medway was 20% but it was higher in specific areas and the Council continued to target those areas with the highest incidents. Resources were targeted in these areas specifically to address particular issues and the Council worked with colleagues in social care, health, police and other agencies to identify vulnerable clients who required assistance. The main reason for the failures were around energy and efficiency and the Council had identified £390,000 which was available this year and further funds had been identified from the EU and energy providers which were being spent in other target areas.

In addition, specific training and systems had been put in place with colleagues from health and social care to identify households at risk where advice and sign posting towards the available assistance was needed.

Overall, in Medway the target was to assist 2,700 households in the private sector to improve their living conditions. He agreed that it was something that had to be constantly worked on and something which was of concern because no matter what action was taken there were always some people who just would not apply for grants. All the Council could do was keep on putting out information and communication.

Councillor Stamp thanked Councillor Doe for his answer and commented that it would be helpful to know over what time period the 2,700 households in Medway were going to be assisted and he asked a supplementary question enquiring as to what enforcement action could be taken against rogue landlords who consistently failed to co-operate with the Council by failing to ensure their properties were up to an acceptable standard and made safe for their tenants.

Councillor Doe responded by stating that there were a number of answers to the question. Firstly, there were condition surveys. The problem however, was that there were a number of tenants who did not want to come forward because they feared the effects on their relationship with the landlord. The Council had to go in and inspect the property in order to make sure that the Council has a good schedule of what was wrong before it could take enforcement action. However, he gave an assurance that if tenants came forward then the Council was prepared to take enforcement action. He added that the Council actively encouraged landlords to improve their properties and to become good landlords. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 215.

The recent end of year performance report for 2010-11 showed that more than 95% of those under threat of homelessness had their case decided within 28 days. What proportion of these homelessness decisions were made within 7 days?

The recent end of year performance report for 2010-11 showed that more than 95% of those under threat of homelessness had their case decided within 28 days. What proportion of these homelessness decisions were made within 7 days?

The Portfolio Holder for Community Services, Councillor Doe commented that statistics showed that more than 95% of those who made a homeless application had a decision within twenty eight days, and this equated to 60 families.  Local Authorities were required to meet their statutory duty, which was 33 days to make decision and the reason for this timeframe was that the Council had to make appropriate enquiries and ensure that investigations were complete. The Council was constantly trying to improve in these areas and in fact did manage to deal with just over 10% of cases within seven days. Wherever possible the Council tried to prevent homelessness. He added that for the year to date more than 930 households had approached the Council for housing assistance and less than 60 had actually had to make a homelessness application. This was because officers worked hard to prevent homelessness through a variety of different routes, including mortgage rescue, negotiation with landlords, debt advice or supporting the use of private sector accommodation through the Homebond scheme. The Council sought develop this service and that is why it was called the Housing Solutions Section because it was finding housing solutions in most of the cases.

Councillor Stamp confirmed that he did not have a supplementary question but thanked Councillor Doe for his answer and congratulated the Housing Team for its improved performance over the last two years since the Audit Commission audited the Council in November 2009.

This report seeks approval of the Community Safety Partnership Plan as part of the Council’s policy framework.

Discussion:

Members received a report seeking approval of the Community Safety Partnership Plan as part of the Council’s policy framework.

Councillor O’Brien, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact, supported by Councillor Jarrett, Deputy Leader and Portfolio for Finance, proposed the recommendation contained in the report.

Councillor Harriott, referring to Priority 7 of the Community Safety Plan, bullet point 14, requested that this be amended to include ‘mobility scooters’.

Councillor O’Brien confirmed that in accordance with paragraph 11.4.2 of the constitution, he was happy to incorporate this in the motion.

Decision:

The Community Safety Partnership Plan be approved as part of the Council’s policy framework with the addition of ‘mobility scooters’ in bullet point 14 of Priority 7 of the Plan. 

This report seeks Council approval to add £45,000 to the Capital Programme to enable 89 Beechings Way, Gillingham to be converted into a flat.

Discussion:

This report sought approval to add £45,000 to the Capital Programme to enable 89 Beechings Way to be converted into a flat.

Councillor Jarrett, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance, supported by Councillor Doe, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services  proposed the recommendation contained within the report.

Decision:

It be agreed that £45,000 be added to the Capital Programme to pay for the cost of conversion once planning consent has been obtained for the conversion of 89 Beechings Way into a flat. 

Council Notes:

1. That the private care home provider Southern Cross is now being wound up following several months of financial difficulties.
2. The financial difficulties of Southern Cross arise from its status as a private equity firm, which operates a high-risk business model depending heavily on borrowing.
3. Southern Cross has been responsible for the provision of two care homes in Medway: Copper Beeches and Frindsbury Hall.
4. Council statistics predict that over the next decade we will see the population of over-65s in Medway increase by 47% (16,300 people), a rise 8.3% greater than the national average.

Council Believes:

1. The presence of private equity firms in the provision of care homes has the potential to create financial instability.
2. The problems created by struggling care home providers such as Southern Cross are compounded by the added pressures of:
   1. Local authority budget cuts to adult social care
   2. Growing demands placed on services due to ageing populations
   3. Struggling property markets
3. Instability in the care home system can lead to:
   1. Lack of continuity in care
   2. Inexperienced providers
   3. Poor quality care
   4. Upheaval for vulnerable and elderly residents

Council Resolves:

1. To provide assurances that Medway’s care home residents will not be negatively affected by Southern Cross’s failure
2. To provide assurances that measures will be put in place to safeguard care home residents in Medway
3. To ensure:
   1. Rigorous quality regulation of care home providers
   2. Stringent financial regulation of care home providers
4. To provide value for money for taxpayers and decent working conditions for care professionals.

Council Notes:

1. That the private care home provider Southern Cross is now being wound up following several months of financial difficulties.
2. The financial difficulties of Southern Cross arise from its status as a private equity firm, which operates a high-risk business model depending heavily on borrowing.
3. Southern Cross has been responsible for the provision of two care homes in Medway: Copper Beeches and Frindsbury Hall.
4. Council statistics predict that over the next decade we will see the population of over-65s in Medway increase by 47% (16,300 people), a rise 8.3% greater than the national average.

Council Believes:

1. The presence of private equity firms in the provision of care homes has the potential to create financial instability.
2. The problems created by struggling care home providers such as Southern Cross are compounded by the added pressures of:
   1. Local authority budget cuts to adult social care
   2. Growing demands placed on services due to ageing populations
   3. Struggling property markets
3. Instability in the care home system can lead to:
   1. Lack of continuity in care
   2. Inexperienced providers
   3. Poor quality care
   4. Upheaval for vulnerable and elderly residents

Council Resolves:

1. To provide assurances that Medway’s care home residents will not be negatively affected by Southern Cross’s failure
2. To provide assurances that measures will be put in place to safeguard care home residents in Medway
3. To ensure:
   1. Rigorous quality regulation of care home providers
   2. Stringent financial regulation of care home providers
4. To provide value for money for taxpayers and decent working conditions for care professionals.

Councillor Brake, Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, supported by Councillor Mason, Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services proposed an amendment that the motion be replaced with:

This Council notes:

1.                  That the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which independently regulates health and social care, has rated 98.9% of care providers in Medway as ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’

2.                  That when the Southern Cross issue arose, the Council worked with the company to ensure that the future of the two homes they operated in Medway (Frindsbury Hall and Copper Beeches) was secure and sustainable.

3.                  That the landlords for both homes are well-known care operators registered with the CQC.

4.                  That the Council has given a public assurance that residents will not be negatively affected by the Southern Cross issue.

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was carried and agreed.

Decision:

This Council notes:

1.         That the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which independently regulates health and social care, has rated 98.9% of care providers in Medway as ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’

2.                  That when the Southern Cross issue arose, the Council worked with the company to ensure that the future of the two homes they operated in Medway (Frindsbury Hall and Copper Beeches) was secure and sustainable.

3.                  That the landlords for both homes are well-known care operators registered with the CQC.

4.                  That the Council has given a public assurance that residents will not be negatively affected by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 219A)