| 536 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting held on 3 January 2007 was signed by the Chairman as correct. In response to a request the Assistant Director (Communications and Improvement) undertook to provide further information to the Committee in relation to the 83 point inspection of bus stops referred to at the last meeting. |
|
| 537 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Esterson and Kieran Magee. |
|
| 538 | URGENT MATTERS |
| | | The Chairman stated that he had agreed to take a report on Investment Partners as an urgent item at the end of the agenda. This item needed to be considered in order that the Committee could make comments on it prior to it being considered by the Cabinet. |
|
| | > Exempt cover sheet (pdf file 6.9kb) |
| | > Investment Partners for Medway (pdf file 28.0kb) |
| 539 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillor Griffiths declared a personal interest in the item on the capital budget monitoring report as his wife works at Dane Court School. Councillor Burt later declared a personal interest in the same item as his wife works at Delce School. He stated that he would leave the room should the school be discussed. Councillor Wildey during the meeting declared a personal interest in the item on the revenue budget on the grounds that he uses Lordswood Leisure Centre. |
|
| 540 | DRAFT CAPITAL AND REVENUE BUDGETS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The comments of the individual Overview and Scrutiny Committees in relation to the draft capital and revenue budgets were referred to the Committee. |
|
| | > Capital and revenue budget (pdf file 23.2kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | That the Committee forwards the comments, from the individual Overview and Scrutiny Committees, to Cabinet for consideration when looking at the budget for the next financial year. |
|
| 541 | REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chief Finance Officer gave a brief introduction to the revenue budget monitoring report and responded to Members' questions.
|
| Discussion took place concerning the position with regard to the overspend in events and the Director of Community Services, in response to a question, stated that this matter was subject to a detailed investigation with a view to introducing measures to prevent the problem occurring again.
|
| Concern was also expressed about the overspend under the heading of leisure and sports particularly in relation to the decision to support Lordswood Leisure Centre by a further investment of £60,000. Some Members felt that the Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee could investigate the cost of keeping and maintaining leisure centres in Medway balanced against the need to provide such facilities for the community. It was felt that there should be facilities at an affordable price in order that as many people in the community could access them.
|
| The Committee therefore felt that the Council needed to determine what provision of leisure facilities was appropriate and then that the necessary budgetary provision was made to achieve that. The key concern for Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee was that Members felt it was unacceptable for an entirely discretionary service to be overspending.
|
| There were a number of queries in relation to the Medway Schools Forum agreement in principle to increase the Central Expenditure Limit for the authority by up to £1 million to accommodate the forecast overspend. The Director of Children's Services clarified the position and accentuated the fact that this was a very positive and helpful move on the part of the Medway Schools Forum, which recognised, and supported, the pressures on pupil related expenditure facing the authority.
|
| Some Members expressed concern that this approach may not be a legitimate one and, in view of the need for the Council to act with probity, asked for further clarification on this issue. The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that the approach was legitimate but undertook to brief Members on the detailed application including any potential effect on reserves. It was also requested that Children's Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee look at the possible impact, on smaller schools in particular, of the adjustment. |
|
| | > Revenue monitoring cover (pdf file 18.5kb) |
| | > Revenue monitoring appendix 1 (pdf file 9.6kb) |
| | > Revenue monitoring appendix 2 (pdf file 21.3kb) |
| | > Revenue monitoring appendix 3 (pdf file 26.7kb) |
| | > Revenue monitoring appendix 4 (pdf file 11.6kb) |
| | > Revenue monitoring appendix 5 (pdf file 11.6kb) |
| | > Revenue monitoring appendix 6 (pdf file 9.6kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | | (a) | Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee are requested to consider the budget position of leisure centres in Medway with a view to balancing the need for public access to such facilities (including location and cost of entry) against the escalating costs of running and maintaining them;
|
| | (b) | The Chief Finance Officer, on behalf of the Committee, to clarify the application of the Medway Schools Forum decision with regard to the increase of the Central Expenditure Limit and report back to Members.;
|
| | (c) | Children's Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee are requested to look at the possible wider impact, particularly on smaller schools, of the decision of the Medway Schools Forum.
|
|
|
| 542 | CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chief Finance Officer gave a brief introduction to the capital budget monitoring report and responded to Members' questions. Some Members questioned whether the capitalisation of revenue with regard to an overspend on the Change Team was legitimate on the basis that the Council did not have the funds to meet the costs.
|
| The Director of Community Services explained that the Change Team were now working solely on the Linked Service Centres scheme and that government funds had been delayed for this.
|
| The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that Cabinet had agreed to seek further funding approvals for the scheme and that this would feature in the report to Council on 1 march 2007. |
|
| | > Capital monitoring cover (pdf file 19.3kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 1 (pdf file 9.3kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 2a (pdf file 9.0kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 2b (pdf file 8.2kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 3a (pdf file 25.5kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 3b (pdf file 14.4kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 3c (pdf file 18.4kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 3d (pdf file 14.5kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 4a (pdf file 38.4kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 4b (pdf file 10.0kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 4c (pdf file 11.3kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 4d (pdf file 11.5kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 4e (pdf file 9.7kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 4f (pdf file 12.0kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 5a (pdf file 8.7kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 5b (pdf file 13.4kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6a (pdf file 36.2kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6b (pdf file 18.8kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6c (pdf file 18.0kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6d (pdf file 14.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6e (pdf file 11.2kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6f (pdf file 13.7kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6g (pdf file 15.5kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6h (pdf file 17.4kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6i (pdf file 13.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6j (pdf file 13.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6k (pdf file 16.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6l (pdf file 16.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6m (pdf file 16.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6n (pdf file 16.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6o (pdf file 16.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 6p (pdf file 16.9kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 7a (pdf file 48.3kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 7b (pdf file 14.2kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 7d (pdf file 15.3kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 7e (pdf file 16.2kb) |
| | > Capital monitoring appendix 7f (pdf file 17.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | | (a) | The report was noted;
|
| | (b) | The Committee reminds officers throughout the Council that supplementary estimates should be submitted to the Council for additional spending requirement in the current financial year.
|
|
|
| 543 | CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director (Communications and Improvement) gave a brief introduction to the critical success factors for the third quarter and responded to Members' questions.
|
| With regard to the improvement areas in Regeneration and Development Councillors were advised that there is a new vehicle being provided to deal with graffiti and this was being promoted by the portfolio holder. In respect of domestic burglaries it was noted that this was more a matter for the Police and difficult for the authority to improve on. |
|
| | > Critical success factors (pdf file 148.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | | (a) | The report was noted;
|
| | (b) | For future critical success factor reports Officers were reminded of the need to provide phased figures for in year reports.
|
|
|
| 544 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman advised that the portfolio holder for Customer First and Corporate Services would now attend the March meeting.
|
| The Assistant Director (Legal and Contract Services) advised Members that the report on properties for potential rationalisation or disposal needed to be delayed to the June meeting as the building condition survey would not be available until 31 March 2007.
|
| In response to a query the Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator advised that the task group on energy may not be able to meet until after the election. |
|
| | > Work programme report (pdf file 12.1kb) |
| | > Work programme appendix (pdf file 13.6kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | | (a) | Councillor Janice Bamber is invited to attend the March meeting;
|
| | (b) | A task group comprising Councillors Kenneth Bamber, Griffiths and Guichard, is set up to consider practical ways to reduce the Council's energy consumption in accordance with the report;
|
| | (c) | The report on property rationalisation or disposal is delayed to the June 2007 meeting. |
|
| 545 | INVESTMENT PARTNERS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Head of Medway Renaissance introduced a report on investment partners in Medway and responded to Members' questions. He referred to a supplementary report which had been handed to the Committee setting out the various options open to the Council and the associated risks.
|
| Councillor Griffiths, stated that following a meeting of Medway Riverside Advisory Group he had requested this report should be considered at this Committee in addition to Regeneration and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee and thanked officers for making it possible. He stated that he had also been responsible for requesting further information which he felt had been helpful in providing fuller details.
|
| The point was put forward that any potential partner would be looking to intensify build on land to maximise potential income but, for the Council's part, it was felt that the social, community and environmental aspects were equally important and must be protected. It was also felt that in any potential partnership the Council should take the opportunity to reduce spend on accommodation and service delivery points as part of the negotiation process.
|
| The Director of Regeneration and Development explained a number of options open to the Council with regard to development on any site through planning powers and through the Regeneration Development Partnership in particular.
|
| It was felt there could be problems with the Regeneration Development Partnership being scrutinised by Members who had been involved in the planning process and officers were asked to look into this to ensure that correct governance arrangements were in place.
|
|
|
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommends to Cabinet that:
|
| | (a) | The current line of seeking private sector investment is endorsed as it has the benefits of giving the Council more control of the regeneration programme than it would have by responding to a piecemeal approach from the market;
|
| | (b) | Officers enter into an exclusive negotiation for a period of 6 - 9 months with the preferred developer with a view to agreeing a proposal for a long term Partnership for the purpose of delivering the agreed regeneration programme;
|
| | (c) | The partnership should seek to provide a mechanism for the Council to benefit from the development process rather than just the sale of the sites under its control;
|
| | (d) | The partnership should seek to secure the retention of surplus funds (currently due to be returned to the Treasury) for 'recycling' in Medway regeneration projects;
|
| | (e) | The partnership should provide a mechanism to create infrastructure for the regeneration programme;
|
| | (f) | Medway Council enlists the support of English Partnerships (EP) in the negotiation process to tap into their experience on such matters and to establish the potential for infrastructure funding for the future from EP. EP is represented on the Medway Renaissance Partnership Board;
|
| | (g) | To maximise protection of the Council's position, only sites which have a development brief relating to them should be included in the initial mixed portfolio of sites to be offered as the Council's investment in the project.
|
| | (h) | The Council should be looking to maximise opportunities to reduce spend on accommodation and service delivery points as part of any negotiations;
|
| | (i) | The Council should ensure that the correct governance procedures are in place to oversee the process of investment partnership. |
|