Agenda and minutes

The Leader announced that in addition to the main agenda there were two supplementary agendas. The first gave details of the discussion by the Children and Adults Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the Youth Justice Plan. The second contained three urgent items which he had agreed to consider as urgent matters: Gateway 3 Contract Award Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility (agenda item 10), Gateway 3 Contract Award: Chatham Road and Public Realm Improvements - The Brook (agenda item 11) and A228 Stoke Crossing – Project Update (agenda item 16).

Apologies were received from Councillor Phil Filmer (Front Line Services).

The record of the meeting held on 29 June 2010 was agreed and signed by the Leader as correct.

Councillor Mike O’Brien declared a personal interest in agenda item 4 (Youth Justice Plan 2010 - 2011) as he was a Youth Court magistrate.

Councillor Jarrett declared a personal interest in agenda item 16 (A228 Stoke Crossing – Project Update) because he had an interest in a company which owns adjacent land.

This report outlined the Medway Youth Justice Plan 2010 – 2011, which detailed the following key objectives for the Medway Youth Offending Team (YOT) to March 2011:

·        Reduce and prevent first time entrants into the Youth Justice System

·        Reduce the use of custody as a sentencing outcome

·        Ensure that YOT clients have access to both universal and specialist services

·        Reduce the rate and severity of re-offending by those already subject to court orders

·        Effectively manage risk, vulnerability and safeguarding issues within the YOT cohort

·        Support partnership agencies in achieving their strategic objectives

·        Work towards achieving the Every Child matters outcomes for all YOT clients

·        Ensure that the YOT can continue to deliver quality services within a climate of uncertain public finances.

The Youth Justice Plan had been developed following a capacity and capability self assessment and discussions and consultations with partner agencies. It was also designed to address the following key areas: resourcing and value for money; structure and governance; partnership arrangements; and risks to future delivery. Areas for development and improvement had been incorporated into the plan.

As a policy framework document the Youth Justice Plan would be referred to Council on 29 July 2010 for approval.

It was noted that a diversity impact assessment had been carried out in May 2008 and reviewed as part of the capacity and capability assessment validation exercise. The screening form, attached to the report, indicated that a full diversity impact assessment was not required.

The Children and Adults Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the Youth Justice Plan on 12 July 2010 and details of their consideration and recommendations were set out in an addendum report.

This report provided details of the progress towards developing a new Community Safety Partnership Plan 2009-2012. The Police and Justice Act 2006 had placed a statutory requirement to produce an annual rolling three year plan, underpinned by an annual strategic assessment, for the purpose of reducing crime and disorder and combating substance misuse.

The six priorities for 2009-2012, which had been reviewed and refreshed, were: Tackling Substance Misuse, Tackling Anti Social Behaviour, including criminal damage, Reducing Repeat Business of Violent Crime, Improving Local Street Scene, Reducing your worry of crime and disorder and Improving your confidence in Medway Community Safety Partnership.

The plan had been considered by the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 6 July 2010 and the Committee’s views were set out in section 6 of the report.

As a policy framework document the revised Community Safety Partnership Plan 2009 – 2012 would be referred to Council on 29 July 2010 for approval.

The outcome of a diversity impact assessment screening was attached to the report. It was noted that a full diversity impact assessment would be required as part of the planning process when the plan is rewritten in 2012.

This report provided an update on the initiatives contained within Medway’s Waste Strategy 2005-2020.

Medway’s current Waste Strategy had been published in 2005 to guide and forecast Medway’s progress in its duties, operations and targets through to 2020. It was noted that it was appropriate to review Medway’s progress and offer updated or additional advice, reflecting that the waste sector was in continual flux due to changes in consumerism, market conditions, legislation, economic and environmental drivers as well as technological developments. Section 3 of the report commented on the progress to date of each initiative originally set out within the 2005 document, whilst section 4 provided advice on future actions.

At the request of the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Waste Contract Task Group had considered this matter on 10 June 2010 and the group’s views were set out in section 7 of the report.

This report set out details of the Strood Environmental Enhancement Scheme and explained that the scheme, which had not been progressed in the absence of a funding stream, now acted as a constraint against growth and development. It was therefore recommended that the Strood Environmental Enhancement Scheme be abandoned, to allow transport options to be developed as an outcome of the evolution of masterplanning for Strood rather than a driver for it.

The report gave details of various property assets, illustrated on a plan attached to the report, that with the abandonment of the scheme would no longer be required. It was proposed that most of the land held for the scheme was declared surplus and disposed of, with the remainder being held for a possible small scale road improvement and a new library.

It was noted that the Strood Regeneration Cabinet Advisory Group and the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered this report and their comments were set out in the report.

This report gave details of the forecast outturn for the 2010/2011 financial year projected based on actual income and expenditure to May 2010.

It was noted that on 25 February 2010 the Council had set gross revenue spending at £625m and a General Fund net budget requirement of £182.713m for 2010/2011. The monitoring report indicated that after management action, the outturn forecast for 2010/2011 stood at a £1.597m overspend. After excluding the small forecast underspend on the dedicated schools grant funded services the overspend on the General Fund was £1.652m.

An analysis of the budget position for each directorate, including details of significant risks, were set out in the report and accompanying appendices.

Due to the economic climate the Cabinet considered a proposal to amend the recruitment freeze process so that all self-funded posts, externally funded posts and joint funded posts were no longer excluded from the recruitment freeze process.

This report gave details of the capital monitoring position for the period to May 2010, with a forecast outturn for 2010/2011 and future years.

It was noted that on 25 February 2010 the Council had approved a capital programme for 2010/2011 and future years of £116m. Having incorporated schemes rolled forward from the 2009/2010 capital programme and some further funding announcements the capital programme now approached £123m.

The report commented on the delivery of the capital programme, which was now in excess of 200 individual schemes, and updated Members on a number of issues. The current forecast showed that £100.1m of the programme was forecast for spend during 2010/2011.

This report set out details of the procurement of a contractor for the Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility.

It was noted that when the Gateway 1 report was considered by Cabinet in November 2009, it was confirmed that prior to entering into the main construction contract with the appointed contractor a further Gateway 3 report would be considered by Procurement Board and Cabinet, at such time as agreement was reached with the contractor on the contract sum. This report sought approval to delegate the appointment of Morgan Sindall for the main works contract for the construction of the Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility to the Assistant Director of Housing and Corporate Services in consultation with the Leader and the Portfolio Holder for Finance.

An exempt appendix provided details of the evaluation process, including a report from the Council’s cost consultant.

The Cabinet considered that the decisions set out below were urgent and should therefore not be subject to call-in. In line with rule 16.11 of Chapter 4, Part 5 of the Constitution, call-in could be waived where any delay likely to be caused by the callin process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the Public’s interests. It was considered that a call-in of the decision set out below would jeopardise the development programme and the ability for the project to be delivered within the funding period (before March 2011).

It was noted that the Chairman of the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee had agreed to waive call in on this report on the basis that this matter is reasonable in all the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency.

This report set out details of the procurement of the works contract to undertake the road widening and public realm works to the Brook.

The works would include demolition of a number of existing structures, road widening and realignment, construction of retaining structures, resurfacing and landscaping works. It was noted that these works form the final element of the phase 2 road improvements and public realm improvements to be carried out in Chatham within this funding period.

An exempt appendix provided details of the evaluation process, including a report from the Council’s cost consultant.

The Cabinet considered that the decisions set out below were urgent and should therefore not be subject to call-in. In line with rule 16.11 of Chapter 4, Part 5 of the Constitution, call-in could be waived where any delay likely to be caused by the callin process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the Public’s interests. It was considered that a call-in of the decision set out below would jeopardise the development programme and the ability for the project to be delivered within the funding period (before March 2011).

It was noted that the Chairman of the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee had agreed to waive call in on this report on the basis that this matter is reasonable in all the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency.

This report reviewed the bids submitted following Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the Household Waste Recycling Centres. It considered the options presented and proposed the Most Economically Advantageous Tender option.

An exempt appendix identified the tenderers for the contracts and provided details of the procurement and evaluation processes.

It was noted that the Procurement Board on 30 June 2010 and the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 6 July 2010 had considered this report. Both Procurement Board and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had supported the recommendations as set out in the report.

During the discussion on this item it was noted that at 4.1.3 of the report “compromises” should read, “comprises”.

This report recommended the award of home to school passenger transport contracts to local taxi and bus companies via the existing Local Transport Framework.

Special Educational Needs (SEN) Home to School transport is provided under Medway Council’s statutory obligations. Taking into account the needs of the children and the sensitivity of the re-tender, the need to establish continuity and manage change with minimal disruption has been shown to be of the highest importance to these vulnerable children and their families.

An exempt appendix identified the tenders for the contracts. 

It was noted that the Procurement Board had considered this report on 30 June 2010 and had supported the recommendations as set out in the report.

This report updated Members on the Homecare Services contract performance and management of the service. It also highlighted performance issues that were being addressed by the Social Care Commissioning Team.

The report sought agreement for a contract extension up to 31 March 2012 to allow full consultation with key stakeholders in line with the personalisation agenda in the context of the council’s policy relating to Fair Access to Care Services.

It was noted that the Procurement Board had considered this report on 30 June 2010 and had supported the recommendations as set out in the report. At the request of the Procurement Board the report presented additional information relating to value for money as set out in section 3 of the report.

The Cabinet had awarded the contract for this project at its meeting on 8 June 2010. This exempt report sets out the primary risks to the delivery of the project and the options available to address them.

It was noted that previous references to ‘Birse Construction’ was incorrect. The company that had tendered for this project was ‘Birse Civils Limited’.

The Cabinet considered that the decisions set out below were urgent and should therefore not be subject to call-in. In line with rule 16.11 of Chapter 4, Part 5 of the Constitution, call-in could be waived where any delay likely to be caused by the callin process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the Public’s interests. The Cabinet accepted this as an urgent report to ensure works could start in August.

It was noted that the Chairman of the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee had agreed to waive call in on this report on the basis that this matter was reasonable in all the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Rule 16 (Special Urgency) of the Access to Information Rules (Part 2 of Chapter 4 in the Constitution).