| 664 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting held on 13 January 2009 was signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
| 665 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Griffin and MacFarlane. |
|
| 666 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillor Godwin declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5(D) Community Safety Partnership Plan in view of his membership of the Kent Police Authority. Councillor Tony Goulden declared a personal interest in the same item in view of his membership of Kent Fire and Rescue Authority. Councillor Clarke, during debate, declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5 (B) Petitions as his mother-in-law lived in the area referred to in one of the petitions. Councillor Mrs Haydock declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5 (A) Portfolio Holder for Community Services in attendance on the basis of the fact she uses the free swimming sessions. |
|
| 667 | PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES IN ATTENDANCE |
| | | Councillor Doe, Portfolio Holder for Community Services addressed the Committee about the following matters within his portfolio:
|
| | • | Castles - outlining recent improvements made
|
| | • | Museums - including events relating to Medway Park
|
| | • | Events - explaining the section had done better than breaking even and referring to the success of the Under Siege event and Dickens Festivals
|
| | • | Greenspaces - in particular relating to the Quadrant contract and Cozenton Nursery partnership arrangement with Hadlow College
|
| | • | Theatres - referring to the great success of the pantomime, the Fuse festival and the Dance programmes at the Brook
|
| | • | Playbuilders funding - 20 play areas will be invested in
|
| | • | Culture and design awards - improving the way people feel about Medway
|
| | • | Sport - mainly focussed on Medway Park project but also referencing compliments about the new judo hall from the Chairman of the British Judo Association
|
| | • | Medway Park project
|
| Councillor Doe responded to Members' questions regarding:
|
| | • | Pentathlon sponsorship
|
| | • | Gillingham Park lottery bid
|
| | • | Medway Museum
|
| | • | Details of the Quadrant contract, including the "hit" team used to deal with urgent requests for grass cutting etc
|
| | • | Sales of surplus plants at Cozenton Nursery through Hadlow College
|
| | • | Advertising of Medway Park
|
| | • | Cozenton Festival which it was confirmed would run in 2010
|
| | • | Free swimming initiative - source of funding and future of the initiative
|
| | • | Eastgate House - its future use
|
| | • | Use of Dockyard Museum - the possibility of working in partnership with the Dockyard
|
| Councillor Doe was thanked for his helpful presentation.
|
|
|
| | > Portfolio Holder for Community Services in attendance (pdf file 121.8kb) |
| 668 | PETITIONS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman welcomed the petitioners present at the meeting. Members agreed that no further debate was required in connection with the petition relating to traffic calming measures in Haig Avenue. He then invited Mrs McGrath to address Members in support of the petition relating to a request for an alleygate system on the alley between Rochester Street, New Street and Ordnance Street to counteract anti social behaviour.
|
| Mrs McGrath addressed the Committee explaining why the petitioners were dissatisfied with the response provided by officers. She advised that a number of houses backing onto the alleyway had suffered damage to their property and that there had been a range of anti social behaviour in the alleyway. 42 petitioners had signed the petition and only three were not happy with the gating proposal. It was noted that a number of incidents had gone unrecorded she felt that this was because the home owners did not always contact the Police because the offenders had usually moved on in which case the Police were not able to come to the incident.
|
| The Chairman then checked with Committee members that everyone had received the emails from petitioners for and against the petition. This was confirmed. Photographs of the alleyway, which it was confirmed where provided by officers, were also made available to each political group.
|
| The Head of Safer Communities responded by explaining the Council's powers under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and stating that evidence had been sought from Kent Police, Kent Fire and Rescue Service, the Health Service and Medway's Safer Communities Service to see if reported incidents of anti social behaviour supported closure of the alleyway. He urged residents concerned about anti social behaviour to log their complaints with the Police Force Control Centre as it would then produce a recorded statistic, which could be used in future. He stated that he had visited the area recently and offered to ask the graffiti team to remove the graffiti if the residents wished but emphasised that as it was on private property he would need their agreement. He also stated that members of his team would now visit the area daily to remove rubbish and any drug related items.
|
| Councillor Godwin, who submitted the petition to the Council meeting, stated that the alley was an area that attracted drug use/supply and prostitution and that there had been displacement from other areas because of vigorous policing in the town centre. He queried the use of CCTV in the area and whether there had been a complaint from a resident that the cameras were invading their privacy. He also asked whether, in view of the fact that most of the anti social behaviour happened at night, the area was lit well enough for people to be seen on CCTV.
|
| The Head of Safer Communities stated that he had spoken to the Head of Operational Buildings and the situation had now been resolved after a conversation with the resident. He accepted that there was a problem with the low level of light in the alleyway and stated that residents would need to be consulted if this were to be increased. He also confirmed, in response to a question, that the alley was a public highway.
|
| Councillor Godwin then suggested it might be helpful to have a site meeting with residents and officers to see what could be done as it was not a clear cut situation.
|
| At the conclusion of debate the Chairman stated that a letter would be sent to the petitioner and objectors to set out the decision of the meeting.
|
|
|
| | > Petitions (pdf file 56.3kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | | (a) | That the response and appropriate officer action in relation to the petition concerning Haig Avenue is noted;
|
| | (b) | That a site meeting should take place in connection with the petition relating to the alleygate request, involving the residents/petitioners, local Councillors and officers and a representative of the Neighbourhood Policing Team to discuss potential solutions;
|
| | (c) | That officers consider serving section 215 notices on those residents whose properties back onto the alleyway between Rochester Street, New Street and Ordnance Street where they are considered to be in unacceptable condition.
|
| | (d) | That officers consider installing improved lighting and CCTV if that was felt helpful.
|
|
|
| 669 | MEMBER'S ITEM - VISITS TO BEIJING FOR OLYMPICS AND PARALYMPICS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Councillor Godwin introduced his Member item in relation to details of recent visits to the Olympics and Paralympics in Beijing, China in 2008. He stated that he had requested the item because of a lack of information with regard to the visit. He felt that there should be a process by which officers taking decisions under delegated powers were more proactive in advising Members of Overview and Scrutiny of their actions in situations where their decision was likely to be controversial. He said that the first he knew of the visit was an article he read in a daily newspaper. In such instances he felt it would have been useful to be briefed before such a decision was taken.
|
| He then queried whether the secondment of the member of staff involved in the visit to South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) was actually a good thing as he felt that Medway may lose the influence and benefit of that person.
|
| The Medway 2012 Manager responded to Members' questions in relation to the secondment and stated that it did work as a benefit to Medway and that it had been made clear who the countries were that the Council was in discussion with to preserve Medway's interests. The Deputy 2012 Manager would also be in a position to promote Medway while on secondment.
|
| Responding to a question he also confirmed that in paragraph 3.13 of the report the visits were authorised by the Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holder, as none of the Portfolio Holders had individual decision-making powers.
|
|
|
| | > Member's item - Olympic visits (pdf file 21.6kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | That the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture be asked to draft a criteria for Members, in a briefing note, for officers to follow about the point at which Members of Overview and Scrutiny would be briefed before decisions were taken under delegated powers. This criteria would suggest a trigger point based on the level of expenditure and how potentially contentious the decision was. |
|
| 670 | COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP PLAN |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Head of Safer Communities gave a brief introduction to the Community Safety Partnership Plan and explained the reason for it being brought to Members again after being agreed last year. This was because the Police and Justice Act 2006 required an annual rolling three year plan to be developed. He explained there would be an annual refresh around the actions and priorities set out in the Plan.
|
| The following comments were made:
|
| | • | The executive summary third paragraph line four to remove the word "include" and insert the words "will be"
|
| | • | Reference should be made to the Kent Fire and Rescue Service having been audited as the top Fire and Rescue Service in Britain
|
| The comment was made that the Committee should be complimented on its strong recommendation to Cabinet, to adopt the fire sprinkler systems guidance for new Council buildings, which had been accepted. This made the Council at the forefront in the country in adopting such a policy and was being referred to as good practice.
|
| In response to a question the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture confirmed that the new academies being built in Medway would be fitted with sprinkler systems.
|
|
|
|
|
| | > Community Safety Partnership Plan 2009-2012 (pdf file 25.2kb) |
| | > Appendix 1 (pdf file 296.6kb) |
| | > Appendix 2 (pdf file 28.7kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the above comments and recommended the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2009-2012 to Cabinet and to Council. |
|
| 671 | CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Business Quality Assurance Manager gave a brief introduction to the critical success factors for the period April to December 2008. She referred to Members' comments when the critical success factors were last considered and stated that the new style of reporting gives a detailed action plan. In relation to the request for annual data on a more frequent basis by providing interim targets this would hopefully be available in the next financial year.
|
| She explained the areas of poor performance but also highlighted the areas of improvement.
|
| Members referred to the fact that a number of issues keep returning as poor performing areas and felt that more substance was needed around the action plans in the red areas in particular to find out why the problem has happened and what was behind the assumptions made regarding performance.
|
| Responding to Members' queries, briefing notes were promised regarding the following issues:
|
| | • | Staff sickness, setting out what the Directorate had put in place to address the issues and the types of sickness (whether caused by staff shortages/working conditions etc)
|
| | • | Libraries - to explain the drop in figures (although the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture did state that the figures for this period (18%) were an improvement on last year, which was 26%)
|
| | • | Stage 2 complaints - to explain the issues involved
|
| | • | Numbers of prosecutions for enforcement action on flytipping along with how many were successful
|
|
|
| | > Critical success factors - third quarter (pdf file 16.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | | (a) | Members asked for detailed action plans for those indicators showing as red or amber together with assumptions made regarding performance against targets;
|
| | (b) | The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture is asked to provide briefing notes as detailed above.
|
|
|
| 672 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator explained that she had received notification from Councillor Godwin that he would like a Member item at the next meeting on reduction in hours for free swimming for under 16s. Councillor Tony Goulden also requested an item on the removal of the Sir John Hawkins flyover to be brought to the Committee at the June 2009 meeting.
|
| Members requested that the item on the museum should come to the July 2009 meeting with details of possible funding and location.
|
| A request was made that the Local Development Framework should be considered at the next meeting. In view of the volume of business for the April meeting it was agreed that the Sport and Recreation Strategy should be moved to a later meeting.
|
|
|
| | > Work programme (pdf file 17.8kb) |
| | > Work programme - appendix (pdf file 16.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | | (a) | A Member item from Councillor Godwin is to be brought to the next meeting in relation to the reduction in hours for free swimming for under 16s;
|
| | (b) | It was agreed that a report on traffic flow in Chatham town centre (including whether problems have arisen as a result of the removal of the Sir John Hawkins flyover and what actions are proposed to deal with them) is brought to a future meeting in Autumn 2009;
|
| | (c) | It was agreed that the 'Local Development Framework (LDF) Options and Issues' report on the Cabinet Forward Plan is brought to the next meeting on 7 April 2009 as pre-decision scrutiny;
|
| | (d) | It was agreed that a report on possible funding and location for a dedicated museum is brought to the July 2009 meeting;
|
| | (e) | It was agreed that a report on verge parking ban criteria is submitted to Members via a briefing note and removed from the work programme;
|
| | (f) | It was noted that the information due to have been submitted to the meeting on the new working hours of the Community Safety Team has already been sent to Members by way of a briefing note.
|
|
|