| PRESENT: | |
| Committee members: | Councillors Andrews, Bright, Crack, Godwin, Sylvia Griffin, Hewett, Hicks, Hunter (Chairman) and Maisey |
| Substitute members: | Councillor Juby (for Councillor Stamp)
Councillor Shaw (for Councillor Hubbard) |
| In attendance: | Chief Inspector Peter De Lozey, Kent Police, Richard Hicks, Assistant Director, Customer First, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance, Julie Keith, Head of Democratic Services, Joy Kirby, Business Quality Assurance Manager, Phil Moore, Head of Highways, Caroline Salisbury, Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator, Mandy Thwaites, Head of Festivals, Arts and Theatres |
| 227 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting held on 7 July 2009 was signed by the Chairman as correct with the addition of the following to minute 114 (Petitions):
|
| "Decision:
|
| (vi) the grass court area should be cost-assessed for a hard surface area to allow for all year multi-purpose use with free tennis available."
|
|
|
| 228 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tony Goulden, Hubbard and Stamp. |
|
| 229 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillor Godwin declared a personal interest in agenda item 5(A) (Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder) as he was a Member of the Kent Police Authority. |
|
| 230 | SCRUTINY OF CRIME AND DISORDER |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Head of Democratic Services advised the committee that it had formally been designated as the Council's crime and disorder Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the report detailed what this would mean in practice for the committee. There was now a legal duty to scrutinise the work of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) at least once a year and there were legal obligations on partners to provide information, attend meetings and respond to any recommendations from overview and scrutiny.
|
| The Committee was asked how it wished to take this duty forward with respect to the timing and format for scrutiny of the CSP in 2009/2010 and future years, co-option of additional members and complementing the role of the Police Authority in holding the police to account.
|
|
|
| | > Scrutiny of crime and disorder (pdf file 132.8kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee agreed that:
|
| | (a) | there should be a briefing session on the role and responsibilities of the CSP, its priorities, performance framework and targets for the future together with an overview of the role of the Police Authority and a review of successful and effective community safety scrutiny work undertaken elsewhere to ensure that members of the committee have a sound grounding in the subject and scope of their new powers. All Members of the Council should be invited to attend this briefing session;
|
| | (b) | for 2009/2010 the activities and decisions of the CSP should be reviewed by way of a request to the CSP to present a formal report to the Committee in the New Year at which time specific community safety issues for inclusion in the work programme can be identified;
|
| | (c) | in future years an annual report should be requested to the Committee at its first meeting after Annual Council so that any new Members have a broad introduction to the CSP early on in the municipal year and that items for further detailed consideration can be definitively programmed at that stage;
|
| | (d) | senior members of the CSP should be invited to attend meetings of the Committee for the annual CSP report and other meetings where specific community safety issues are discussed throughout the year;
|
| | (e) | at this stage representatives of other organisations should be invited to attend and participate in overview and scrutiny meetings in an informal capacity only as appropriate for particular items of business. This would enable the Committee to revisit the option of appointing co-optees at a later stage in the light of experience of exercising these new scrutiny powers and emerging best practice;
|
| | (f) | a meeting should be arranged between the Chairman and Opposition spokespersons of this Committee and Anne Barnes JP, the Chairman of the Kent Police Authority, after the Member training session to explore in more detail how the work programme of this Committee and the Police Authority could be regularly reviewed to achieve a co-ordinated approach and to identify and collaborate on areas of shared interest and concern;
|
| | (g) | the development of a protocol for partnership scrutiny should incorporate specific reference to any areas and relationships of particular significance for crime and disorder scrutiny.
|
|
|
| 231 | MEMBER'S ITEM: ROAD RESURFACING SCHEME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Councillor Godwin introduced the item stating that he had serious concerns about how money was being spent on the road resurfacing programme and that the report did not answer the questions he had raised. The process for awarding priorities and resources to competing schemes should be open and transparent particularly as a high number of schemes were in Conservative wards. He clarified that he was seeking transparency for future years on how officers made the decisions to draw up the priority action list, as so much money was involved.
|
| The Head of Highways responded that the resurfacing programme was drawn up using the annual structural condition surveys only. All the facts were drawn together and the roads categorised for urgency (Category 1, 2, 3 and 4.) For the financial year 2009/2010 there had been further monies added to the budget to enhance the road network and address a backlog of maintenance. Once the budget had been set, officers were able to identify how many of the schemes identified for works could be financed.
|
| Two years ago, it had been decided that the list of roads to be resurfaced would be published, so that everyone could see the programme of works. This year, with the additional monies available, the Council had tendered for the works and the responses had been cheaper than predicted. This allowed other roads to come forward from next year's programme to be resurfaced this year. This had a knock-on effect allowing next year's list to be re-prioritised and re-published.
|
| Members raised questions about the technicalities of how the underlying data was gathered during the road condition surveys and were advised that a system where data is compiled by vehicle video survey (used nationally by all Local Authorities) was operated which analysed the condition of the road. This information was shown as a graph and a line showed the 'intervention level' for each defect found.
|
| The Committee expressed its gratitude that the programme of resurfacing works was now publicised and that all roads were inspected on an annual basis. Members asked that officers were more ambitious when seeking funding through the Local Transport Plan for 2011 onwards, particularly as Medway was an expanding area with a lot of regeneration works in progress and therefore more monies would need to be spent on roads, especially through the towns.
|
|
|
| | > Member's Item - Road resurfacing scheme (pdf file 172.9kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee:
|
| | (a) | endorsed the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture's processes in procuring and implementing carriageway resurfacing schemes;
|
| | (b) | requested that future road resurfacing scheme information sent to Councillors included the full list of all the roads showing which roads were category 1, 2, 3 and 4.
|
|
|
|
|
| 232 | LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT 2008-2011 (LAA2) PROGRESS ON PERFORMANCE |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman reminded Members that this report built on the two joint events between overview and scrutiny and the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) last year. It gave details on the performance against targets included in the LAA2 at the end of the first year of the agreement (2008/2009). The report also detailed the LSP's focus on delivery to achieve the targets in the LAA and paragraph 4 of the report highlighted the events that had been held to encourage focus on delivery including workshops, seminars, drop-in sessions and pursuing external funding.
|
| Members were advised that there were eleven National Indicators relevant to this committee of which six were on track, four were currently slightly off course but expected to improve and one was at risk of missing the agreed target. Chief Inspector De Lozey of Kent Police was in attendance in order to answer any questions about targets where the Police were the lead partner.
|
| Members discussed the indicator NI 8 'Adult participation in sport' and officers advised that the data had been measured using the 'Active People' survey but there were concerns over methodology and local surveys indicated a higher takeup. However, actions were being put in place through a structured programme of activities together with the launch of a 'Get Active' website which would list all sporting activities across Medway for people to access.
|
Members also asked for the definition of 'sport' in the context of the NI 8 target and were advised that this meant physical activity measured as three, 30 minute sessions each week. This was not just exercise at a gym or Leisure Centre but also included other physical activities outside of that environment, such as walking etc.
|
|
|
| | > LAA 2008-2011 progress report - Appendix (pdf file 48.8kb) |
| | > LAA 2008-2011 progress report (pdf file 233.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee:
|
| | (a) | noted the progress made to date;
|
| | (b) | requested that any future reports with a red indicator should include further information on the action being put in place to address this;
|
| | (c) | requested that a report is submitted to the next meeting detailing the programme of activities and proposed measures being put into place to address the shortfall indicated by the red status of NI 8.
|
|
|
| 233 | FIRST QUARTER PERFORMANCE REPORT 2009/2010 |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Business Quality Assurance Manager introduced the report explaining the red, amber and green (RAG) scoring system against each target. Members were advised that 14 indicators had 2008/2009 data from the 'Place Data' survey but due to concerns about the reliability of that data, the Council had commissioned a residents opinion poll.
|
| Members were also advised that each of the five areas in the remit of this committee - clean and green environment, safer communities, people travelling easily and safely in Medway, everyone benefiting from the area's regeneration and other priorities were all performing at an overall 'green' level but each of the five areas had indicators within it with their own individual ratings.
|
| The Committee asked what the question mark indicators meant and were advised that the data for these was collected every four months, so nothing was available at the end of the first quarter (3 months).
|
| Members also asked for clarification about why the five areas were classed at an overall 'green' rating, even though the indicators within each category were individually reported as a mixture of red, amber, green and several with no data available. Officers undertook to provide a briefing note on this matter.
|
| Members also discussed the tables in the report advising that they would find it helpful to see the data from the same quarter in the previous year as a comparison.
|
| A number of other queries were raised and officers undertook to provide the information via briefing notes.
|
|
|
|
|
| | > First Quarter Performance report 2009-2010 - Appendix 1 (pdf file 334.9kb) |
| | > First Quarter Performance report 2009-2010 - Appendix 2 (pdf file 1.3Mb) |
| | > First Quarter Performance Report 2009-2010 (pdf file 499.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee:
|
| | (a) | noted the performance in the first quarter of 2009/2010;
|
| | (b) | requested that, in the future, indicators shown in the report also contain a column showing the same quarter from the previous year for comparison;
|
| | (c) | requested a briefing note explaining how individual red, amber and green ratings become overall 'green' status for each category;
|
| | (d) | requested a briefing note on further information and background to the "Medway Scrapstore" (detailed on page 71 of the agenda);
|
| | (e) | requested a briefing note providing Members with an up-to-date list and contact details on a ward by ward basis (page 100 of the report. Code CP 1.3.5 'Develop the role of safer communities as custodians of the public realm.') |
|
| 234 | CULTURAL STRATEGY |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director, Customer First, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance introduced the report showing two short films (one showing the highlights of the Fuse Festival and the other being a visual version of the Cultural Strategy) together with a powerpoint presentation.
|
| Members were informed that the purpose of the strategy was to establish Medway as a regional cultural capital supporting 'place-shaping', establishing pride in Medway, bringing prosperity and putting Medway on the map. Officers advised that for some, there was a 'mystique' around culture and the Council was aiming to break that down. For example, sporting and leisure activities were included in the strategy and the Fuse Festival was intended to take art out onto the streets to demonstrate that culture was accessible for all.
|
| The four strategic priorities, together with associated projects within the strategy were:
|
| | • | Stewardship
|
| | - | Museums
|
| | - | Rochester and Upnor Castles
|
| | - | Eastgate House and Temple Manor
|
| | - | Gillingham Park
|
| | - | Playbuilder
|
| | - | Great Lines Heritage Park
|
| | - | World Heritage status
|
| | • | Engagement and Participation
|
| | - | address barriers to experiencing our cultural offer
|
| | - | raising awareness of and promote our cultural offer
|
| | - | festival funding
|
| | - | change public perception of library facilities and offer, establishing community hubs
|
| | • | Contributing to economic prosperity
|
| | - | work and retail space for creative practitioners
|
| | - | buildings fit for purpose
|
| | - | night-time economy
|
| | - | students living, learning and working in Medway
|
| | • | Health and wellbeing
|
| | - | establishing Medway Park as regional centre of sporting excellence
|
| | - | capitalising on the 2012 Olympics
|
| | - | increasing participation in sport and active lifestyles
|
| | - | creating opportunities for local people to participate.
|
| Members discussed various aspects of the strategy including:
|
| | • | partnerships with the local universities, especially the University of Creative Arts and asked that the references with this university were strengthened within the strategy
|
| | • | the museum offer
|
| | • | visitors to Rochester Castle - projects to bring people back for repeat visits, rather than just a single visit
|
| | • | success of the 'Medway Mile' - suggestion for the introduction of a half marathon and running/cycling routes at Capstone Park
|
| | • | that it was an ambitious strategy that tried to reach a wide audience but there might be a possible danger of too much going on and not enough time and effort spent on the key areas
|
| | • | a request that officers consider taking events out to other areas within Medway and not just in the town centres. It was appreciated that the Fuse Festival was achieving this but moving events to different places such as Twydall, Luton and the White Road Estate was recommended, as these were areas where residents might not see culture as 'being for them'. |
|
| | > Cultural Strategy - Appendix (pdf file 742.4kb) |
| | > Cultural Strategy (pdf file 176.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended that the Cabinet adopts the Cultural Strategy with the following amendments:
|
| | (a) | following the success of the Medway Mile event, a feasibility study is included in the strategy for the introduction of a regular half-marathon event in Medway;
|
| | (b) | that the strategy considers providing events in other areas in Medway outside the town centres.
|
|
|
| 235 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman advised that he had been informed of the receipt of two letters of dissatisfaction to petition responses. One requested to be heard at the next meeting on 21 October 2009 and the second requested to be considered at the meeting on 2 December 2009.
|
| The Committee was also advised that a report on the new Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) would be considered by the Cabinet in November and as this was a policy framework document it would be added to the work programme for the next meeting on 21 October 2009. |
|
| | > Work Programme - Appendix (pdf file 117.9kb) |
| | > Work Programme (pdf file 160.7kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note that the petition requests would be added to the work programme for both 21 October and 2 December 2009 meetings;
|
| | (b) | note that a report on the Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) would be added to the work programme for the meeting on 21 October 2009;
|
| | (c) | request a briefing note on the Chatham World Heritage Management Action Plan before it is considered by Cabinet on 13 October 2009;
|
| | (d) | note that the report on the Social Regeneration Strategy Review and the report on the Disabled Parking Bays task group had been deferred until 21 October 2009;
|
| | (e) | note that the report on traffic flow in Chatham town centre would be submitted to the meeting being held on 2 December 2009;
|
| | (f) | update the work programme to include the revenue and capital budgets 2010/2011 for consideration at the 13 January 2010 meeting. |
|