Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Wildey (Children’s Social Care). 

The record of the meeting held on 12 March 2013 was agreed and signed by the Leader as correct. 

Councillor O’Brien (Community Safety and Customer Contact) declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 8 (Road and Pavement Resurfacing Schemes) because he and his wife owned a property in Station Road, Rainham. He left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this item.

Councillor Mason declared a personal interest in agenda item 4 (Community Safety Plan 2013-2016) given the reference to Rochester Fire Station and his appointment to the Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority.

Background:

This report provided details of the Community Safety Plan 2013/2016. The Plan was required under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which placed obligations on Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, also known as Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs), to produce a Community Safety Plan to formulate and implement a strategy to reduce crime and disorder, combat substance misuse, and reduce re-offending. The Community Safety Plan formed a part of the Council’s Policy Framework.

The report provided information on the operation of the partnership in 2012–2013 and the proposed Community Safety Plan 2013–2016, which was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

Members were advised that following a strategic assessment and discussions with partners the previous priorities had been streamlined down to five for the coming year:

·        Tackle drug and alcohol abuse 

·        Tackle ASB and enviro-crime

·        Reduce re-offending

·        Tackle domestic abuse

·        Reduce the Number of People Killed or Seriously Injured in Road Traffic Collisions.

Key performance against these priorities was set out within the 2013 - 2016 Community Safety Plan Action Plan, which was attached at Appendix 2 to the report.

The Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered this report on 11 April 2013 and its comments were set out in an addendum report. During the discussion of this item the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact referred to thenew Rochester Fire Station and Road Safety Centre, which had been identified by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for inclusion within the Plan. It was agreed that these should be referenced within the background section of the Plan.

It was noted that a Diversity Impact Assessment screening form was attached at Appendix 3 to the report, which showed that a full Diversity Impact Assessment was not required.

Reasons:

The Community Safety Plan discharges the council’s statutory requirement to produce a plan for community safety.

The Community Safety Plan forms part of the Policy Framework and the Constitution requires the Cabinet to finalise its proposals for the Council to consider having taken into account any proposals from Overview and Scrutiny.

Background:

This report outlined proposals for a new Housing Allocations Policy, the aim of which was to ensure that the limited number of social homes available was allocated to those in the greatest housing need, as set out in the legal definition of reasonable preference. In addition to specifying who was and who was not assisted under the scheme it also set out how to apply for re-housing and the standard of service that our customers can expect.

It was noted that Section 168 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) placed a duty on Council’s to have an adopted Housing Allocations Policy, which sets out how it would allocate social housing in the area. The rules governing the allocation of social housing was mainly set by the Government through primary legislation and the proposed Policy had been developed in accordance with the new Government guidance for local housing authorities, which was published in June 2012.

The main changes to the policy and the rationale for these were summarised within the report.

Members were advised that the proposed Policy had been developed following wide ranging public consultation. Further details of the consultation and engagement were set out in section 6 and Appendix 2 of the report.

Due to the need to undertake a number of administrative and procedural changes to implement the new Policy it was recommended that the new Policy be formally adopted and come into force from 1 August 2013. As part of the transitional arrangements officers would apply the new assessment criteria over that period.

The Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered this report on 11 April 2013 and its comments were set out in an addendum report.

It was noted that a Diversity Impact Assessment screening form was attached at Appendix 3 to the report, which showed that a full Diversity Impact Assessment was not required.

Reasons:

Section 168 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) places a duty on Council’s to have an adopted Housing Allocations Policy, which sets out how it will allocate social housing in the area. The proposed policy has been developed in accordance with the new Government guidance for local housing authorities and to reflect the feedback from a wide-ranging consultation process.

Background:

This report sought approval to amendments to the current Medway Special Educational Needs Transport Policy, so to align the Policy with legislative requirements and new statutory guidance relating to appeals.

These amendments followed the publication of revised guidance by the Department for Education in March 2013 and a review of Medway’s new Special Educational Needs (SEN) Transport Policy, ahead of Member training in April.

The Cabinet agreed to accept this report as an urgent item to enable the SEN Transport Policy to be compliant with legislative requirements at the earliest opportunity.

Reasons:

The amendments will align the current Special Educational Needs Transport Policy with current legislation and current Medway practices for non-Special Educational Needs transport.

Background:

This report noted that from October 2013 recycling and organics collections would be increased to a weekly basis. This service enhancement had been fully funded by Department for Communities and Local Government. Alongside this change, officers were recommending three service stances that could save significant revenue expenditure by reducing the cost of waste disposal and ensuring the collection fleet provides best value for Medway.

The report reviewed current policy positions, demonstrated the potential savings available and how they would be implemented. A summarised Communications Plan was attached at Appendix 1 to the report and a Contamination Policy was attached at Appendix 2 to the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services introduced a set of revised recommendations for Members’ consideration.

It was noted that a Diversity Impact Assessment screening form was attached at Appendix 3 to the report, which showed that whilst a full Diversity Impact Assessment was not required a number of issues would be considered at the next review.

Reasons:

For the majority of residents, weekly collections of recycling and organic waste will provide an increased level of convenience whilst overcoming a number of barriers to participation, e.g., storage of materials, fear of smell/flies from food waste, etc.

These  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Background:

This report provided a list of road and pavement resurfacing schemes for 2013/2014.

It was noted that the highways team compiled a list of road and pavement sites to be resurfaced on an annual basis. This list of sites was restricted by the available and allocated budget. The proposed sites for 2013/2014 were listed in Appendix A to the report.

Members were advised that at Council on 21 February 2013 it had been agreed that a further £480,000 of funding would be put forward for additional road and pavement schemes and the proposed sites were listed in Appendix B to the report.

It was noted that for all of the resurfacing works there would be prior consultation with transportation companies and emergency services. For some of the Rainham sites it would also be necessary to consult with private property owners regarding works adjacent to the private forecourts in Station Road.

Reasons:

This decision will assist with the Council’s priority of ‘Everyone benefiting from regeneration’.

Background:

This report set out details of a 6-month review of the Council’s corporate business risk register.

The Council’s corporate business risk register, which was last reviewed by Cabinet in October 2012, had been reviewed by ‘risk owners’ and the Corporate Management Team and the report set out a number of proposed amendments.

It was reported that the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered this report on 3 April 2013 and its additional suggested changes were set out in section 5 of the report. It was noted that the Chair of the Strategic Risk Management Group supported the Committee’s proposals.

Reasons:

The establishment of a corporate framework for risk management was recommended by CIPFA and SOLACE and would complement and support the work already being carried out within each directorate to manage risks.

Background:

This report presented information on vacancies that officers had requested approval to commence recruitment for, following the process agreed by Cabinet on 7 January 2003 (decision number 9/2003).

Appendix 1 to the report provided details of the posts, with details of one further post tabled at the meeting.

Reasons:

The posts presented to Cabinet will support the efficient running of the Council. 

Background:

This report explained that the duty to secure early education places for vulnerable young children and those from low income households required provision for around 1,400 children.

The report identified the number of additional places required and proposed a capital programme across 2013 and 2014, drawing upon the additional capital grant funding allocated to Medway by the Department for Education for this purpose.

It was proposed that Medway adopted a carefully targeted capital programme; focusing primarily on small works that would maximise additional places within good quality local establishments; and supplemented by a small number of projects in targeted localities. This represented a sustainable approach, utilising existing buildings, making improvements to local community infrastructure, and ensuring that places were provided in the communities in which eligible families lived.

Details of the informal consultation undertaken was set out and it was noted that the Cabinet Advisory Group for the Children and Adults Capital Programme had endorsed this report for consideration by Cabinet.

Additions to the capital programme, where the funding source was not ring-fenced, was a matter for Full Council. The Cabinet therefore agreed to consider this as an urgent item to enable this matter to be referred to Full Council on 25 April 2013. The new statutory duty to secure sufficient places for eligible families commences in September 2013 and therefore deferral to a later meeting would not allow sufficient time for works to be carried out prior to the introduction of the duty.

Reasons:

The local authority is obliged to meet the new duty within the Education Act 2011 to secure sufficient early education places for eligible children aged two-years.

The development of a capital programme working with existing good quality providers in the private, voluntary and maintained sectors across the next 12 months will provide a secure basis for expansion of places whilst maintaining a focus on high quality provision for both the child and the family as a whole. 

Background:

This report sought permission to commence the procurement for the operation and administration of Medway’s Local Welfare Provision Scheme from 1 July 2013 for a 21 month period, with potential for extension subject to funding.

It was noted that as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, the Discretionary Social Fund scheme administered by the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) had been abolished.  The responsibility for part of this discretionary scheme had been transferred to local authorities to develop Local Welfare Provision Schemes.

This Gateway 1 report had been approved for submission to the Cabinet for review and approval by the Children and Adult Management Team and the Procurement Board. 

It was reported that the Children and Adults Directorate Management Team had recommended that this procurement project be approved as a Category B High Risk procurement project at Procurement Gateway 1 by Cabinet.  This was because although this procurement project was a Services Category B High Risk procurement with a total contract value above £250,000, there were political implications and/or service sensitivities that Cabinet should be aware of.

An exempt appendix set out key information in respect of finance and whole-life costings.

The Cabinet agreed that this report and 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 can be waived where any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public’s interests. The Cabinet agreed to accept this as an urgent item because the service must be procured in accordance with EU Procurement Regulations and be in place for 1 July 2013. 

It was noted that the Chairman of the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committeehad agreed that the decisions proposed were reasonable in all the circumstances and to them being treated as a matter of urgency and to waive call-in. This was because the Council took on the responsibility of part of the Discretionary Social fund from 1 April 2013. The interim arrangement of 3 months allows for sufficient time for the Council to procure the longer-term contract. The value of this longer-term procurement requirement is above the EU Procurement Threshold for Services of £173,934 and in order to procure the service for the required date of 1 July 2013, the procurement process must commence in April 2013.

Reasons:

As part of the Welfare Reforms, limited Central Government funding has been made available to provide a Local Welfare Provision Scheme.

Although this funding has not been ring-fenced, the Council has an obligation to support vulnerable local people in an emergency or crisis situation.

This service provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Background:

This report sought Cabinet approval to delegate authority to declare the Napier Unit as surplus and to consider the options for the reprovision of the respite service for adults with learning difficulties.

It was noted that following decisions by Cabinet and Council in February 2013 a contract had been awarded to Agincare for the sale of Robert Bean Lodge and Nelson Court and the re-provision of services by the company on these sites. This award included the sale of the freehold for both properties, which had raised discussions on the future of the Napier Unit, as this was part of the same building as Robert Bean Lodge.

The Napier unit was an 8-bed respite service for adults with a learning disability and there were no permanent residents at the unit. Two possible options for the re-provision were set out within the exempt appendix, as it was commercially sensitive and part of the ongoing negotiations with Agincare regarding Robert Bean Lodge and Nelson Court.

It was noted that subject to Cabinet approval to explore the options for the re-provision of the Napier Unit, consultation with services users, family carers and staff would be undertaken. Members were advised that the Council had the option to maintain the current service but this was an opportunity to develop a new service to replace the existing facility in consultation with service users, family carers, staff and other stakeholders.

The Cabinet agreed to consider this as an urgent item, as the progress of the sale of Robert Bean Lodge and Nelson Court was premised on the outcome of the discussions on the future of the Napier Unit. The mobilisation of the sale was planned over the next 6 weeks subject to agreement on the Napier Unit. The timescale and progress of the proposed sale was such that to bring the paper to the next Cabinet would have delayed the process significantly.

Reasons:

To ensure that options to secure the best provision possible for services users and family carers are fully explored and the opportunity that arises from the sale of Robert Bean Lodge is carefully considered.