| 13 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting held on 27 March 2008 was signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
| 14 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Harriott. |
|
| 15 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillor Griffiths declared a personal interest in relation to items 5B (Review of Key Business Risks) and 5C (Finalising the negotiation of Medway's second Local Area Agreement 2008/2011) as he was a non-executive Director of Medway's Primary Care Trust.
|
| Councillor Juby declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to the land at Railway Street, Gillingham in item 5A (Call-in: Various property disposals) and left the room during the discussion of this site. |
|
| 16 | CALL-IN: VARIOUS PROPERTY DISPOSALS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | It was agreed that each location would be discussed and a decision made one at a time and Councillor Griffiths and Councillor Juby gave their reasons for the call-in as each location was discussed. Councillor Griffiths added that despite the report stating that the Labour Group had not given a reason for their call-in he had discussed the reasons with officers.
|
| Members also suggested that the decisions on land disposals be recorded with different decision numbers to avoid the calling in of a number of properties unnecessarily and that more information, particularly figures relating to usage/income be provided with future reports regarding land or property disposals.
|
| Land at Railways Street, Gillingham
|
| Councillor Griffiths explained that this was a well used commuter car park and therefore proposed that the sale of the land be dependant on the identification and creation of alternative commuter parking within the vicinity. However, on being put to the vote this was lost.
|
| Robin Hood Lane Car Park, Walderslade
|
| The Committee agreed for Ward Member Councillor Burt to speak on this location. He spoke in favour of retaining both the car park and the recycling facility at the location, explaining that both were well used. In terms of the privately owned car park referred to in the report he explained this was owned by a retail store which was soon to introduce a CCTV system that would identify people parking there for more than two hours and hence this would result in the demand for the Robin Hood Lane car park to increase. Other Members agreed with the ward Member, suggesting that the disposal of this land would have a detrimental impact to the area's economy. However, another Ward Member suggested that the car park was not well used; unlike the recycling facility and the WC which he felt should be retained.
|
| Some members felt there was insufficient evidence of its use to support the disposal of this land and it was moved that the site be retained until sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate that the land was no longer required. On being put to the vote this was lost.
|
| Jezreels Tower site, Gillingham
|
| Councillor Stephen Kearney spoke to the call-in request, explaining his view that the site should be made entirely into a car park as there were parking problems on the surrounding roads and he felt if the whole site was opened up as a car park the demand for it would be high. He proposed that Cabinet be asked to review the disposal of this land and instead utilise the whole site for car parking purposes, however, on being put to the vote this was lost.
|
| King Street, Rochester
|
| The Chairman updated the Committee on the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services' view of the future of this site, explaining that he would be happy for half of the area to be retained as a car park.
|
| Councillor Griffiths spoke to the call-in request and explained that he had requested some figures on the usage of the car park but had not received this information. He proposed that Cabinet be requested to retain the car park until evidence was available to demonstrate the usage was low. However, on being put to the vote this was lost.
|
| The Committee agreed for Ward Members, Councillors Bowler and Murray to speak on this item. They explained that the car park was situated in a densely populated part of Rochester, was a popular commuter car park and was used as an overflow when festivals were held in the area. They reported that the Chairman of the area PACT was very unhappy and that a task team of the PACT had found from a survey they carried out that the top crime for the area was inconsiderate or crushed (?) parking. They also updated the Committee on development or planning permissions that had been agreed or were being built in the area and named nine developments within half a mile radius and felt that this only increased the need for the car park to be retained.
|
| Land at the Broadway, Gillingham
|
| Councillor Griffiths spoke to the call-in request, explaining that the reason was to be more explicit about the potential usage of the site as he felt that the sale of the land should be conditional on its use being for a low level elderly peoples dwelling development. |
|
| | > Call-in of various property disposals (pdf file 10.8kb) |
| | > Appendix Call-in - Various property disposals (pdf file 1.0Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | It is recommended that Cabinet:
|
| | (1) | Continue to declare the land at Railway Street, Gillingham as surplus and authorise its disposal but ensure that every effort is made to find alternative car parking,
|
| | (2) | Continue to declare the Robin Hood Lane Care Park, Walderslade as surplus and authorise its disposal but that the toilet and recycling facilities be resited, although this should not be a condition of the sale,
|
| | (3) | Continue to declare the Jezreels Tower site, Gillingham as surplus and authorise its disposal but that 16 parking spaces be retained and be built into a new scheme on the site,
|
| | (4) | Review their decision with regard to the King Street Car Park, Rochester, taking into account the comments raised by the Committee,
|
| | (5) | Continue to declare the land at the Broadway, Gillingham as surplus and authorise its disposal but that the sale of the land be conditional on its use being for a low level elderly people's dwelling development.
|
|
|
| 17 | REVIEW OF KEY BUSINESS RISKS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chief Finance Officer introduced the report and explained the appendices to the Committee. The Committee then asked the officer a number of questions which included; Medway Tunnel and whether this should be a separate risk, communication with the public, review frequencies and mechanisms on reporting information to overview and scrutiny. It was also requested that the phrase 'political fall out' on page 57 of the agenda, be reworded or removed. |
|
| | > Review of key business risks - report (pdf file 23.3kb) |
| | > List of corporate key risks - Appendix A (pdf file 9.9kb) |
| | > All Risk Matrix - Appendix B (pdf file 14.3kb) |
| | > Corporate Risks MATs - March 08 Appendix C (pdf file 103.2kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended to officers that effective communication with the public be established as a strategic risk, the phrase 'political fall out' on page 57 of the agenda be reworded or removed and a mechanism be devised by which adverse information and outcomes of reviews on such risks be brought to the relevant overview and scrutiny committee for their consideration. |
|
| 18 | FINALISING THE NEGOTIATION OF MEDWAY'S SECOND LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT 2008/2011 |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director, Communications, Performance and Partnerships introduced the report and circulated an updated appendix 3. She then answered questions which included; achieving agreement by the deadline of end May on the 14 targets that had not yet been formally accepted by the Government, how Medway would be judged on both the chosen 35 priority performance indicators and all 198 national indicators (NI), Comprehensive Area Assessments, the importance of Medway Youth Trust having a greater role where relevant, the absent base line for NI 17 (perception of anti-social behaviour) and the targets set for NI 39 (Alcohol-harm related hospital admission rates).
|
| Members also spoke about the key role of the Council's overview and scrutiny committees in supporting and challenging the Council and its partners in the delivery against the identified priorities. They suggested that a mechanism would need to be in place for the reviews of performance against the targets to be reported to overview and scrutiny. It was suggested that one way of overview and scrutiny getting involved would be to meet with sub-groups set up for a particular issue to then understand the difficulties and work together collectively with partners to improve on outcomes.
|
| The Assistant Director added that detailed action plans would be created for each of the 35 performance indicators, which overview and scrutiny could then use to challenge and review performance. She added that the Local Strategic Partnership Board would be considering the LAA performance indicators at their forthcoming meeting where they would be challenging partners that they are each ensuring their plans and strategies work towards delivering the agreed targets.
|
|
|
| | > Negotiating 2nd LAA (pdf file 53.0kb) |
| | > LAA app 1 (pdf file 18.2kb) |
| | > LAA app 2 psa targets (pdf file 24.0kb) |
| | > LAA app 3 (pdf file 40.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | It is recommended to Cabinet and full Council:
|
| | (1) | That, in terms of the performance indicators relating to children and young people, there be a much greater role for the Medway Youth Trust.
|
| | (2) | That, in relation to National Indicator (NI) 39 (Alcohol-harm related hospital admission rates), whilst the challenge of the target set is acknowledged by Members, partners are encouraged to over-achieve on this target if possible.
|
| | (3) | That, it is ensured that mechanisms are put into place for reviews of performance on the 35 priority targets to be referred to the relevant overview and scrutiny committees.
|
|
|
| 19 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Members considered the Committee's work programme. |
|
| | > Work programme report (pdf file 16.6kb) |
| | > Work programme schedule (pdf file 13.6kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | It was agreed that indicative dates are input for items on the work programme that are currently labelled with 'date to be determined', or if such items are no longer necessary to be brought to a meeting of the Committee, then they be removed from the work programme. |
|