Agenda and minutes

There were none.  

The record of the meeting held on 29 October 2013 was agreed and signed by the Leader as correct.  

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

Background:

This report provided details of the outcome of consultation on the draft Masterplan to guide development on land at and bordering Rochester Airport. The Cabinet had agreed for consultation to be undertaken on the draft Masterplan on 9 July 2013 and the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the issue on 14 August 2013 and 3 October 2013.

The report stated that the Council had received 908 responses to the consultation held from 22 July to 20 September 2013. The majority of the responses (over 80%) were received in association with a campaign set up to object to the Masterplan proposals. The remaining 20% of responses were received via the Council’s website, email, and forms completed at the exhibition events or returned by post to the Council. 89% of the responses made on the pre-printed forms were strongly opposed to the proposals. In considering the responses received independently, more mixed views were seen, with a small majority in support of the Masterplan.

The report stated that the Council had analysed the comments made in response to the consultation. A summary of the main issues and points raised was set out in paragraph 4 of the report. All responses submitted were set out in detail in Appendix A to the report. A copy of the consultation draft of the Masterplan was attached at Appendix G to the report with a number of proposed changes set out within paragraph 4.47 of the report.

The report noted that the Council intended to adopt the Rochester Airport Masterplan as a Supplementary Planning Document, once it had adopted its new Development Plan. Until then it was intended that the Council approve the Masterplan as an amendment to the current policy framework. This would afford it weight as a ‘material consideration’ in decisions on planning applications for Rochester Airport.

It was noted that the reference to paragraph 4.43 as set out within paragraph 4.23 of the report, should have referred to paragraph 4.47.

Reasons:

The amended Masterplan will respond to concerns raised through the consultation process and progress work in bringing this site forward for economic development, and securing the future operations of the airport. The Masterplan will provide the framework to guide development on the site to realise economic opportunities as well as addressing wider amenity issues.

Background:

This report presented the Council’s draft revenue budget for 2014/2015.  In accordance with the Constitution, Cabinet was required to develop initial budget proposals before finalising the budget and setting council tax levels at the end of February 2014.

The draft budget was based on the principles contained in the Medium Term Financial Plan 2014/2017 approved by Cabinet in October 2013 and reflected the formula grant assumptions for 2014/2015 announced as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 Technical Consultation in July and September.

It was reported that the initial budget proposals showed a current forecast budget gap of £4.812 million which would increase to £17.053 million for 2015/2016.

It was noted that the Council would not know the definitive position in terms of to Government support until the final settlement in January 2014, although the provisional settlement due in December would provide greater certainty.

Budget proposals incorporating pressures were set out within the report and accompanying appendices. In relation to the capital budget proposals for 2014/2015 it was noted that, at this stage, it had been assumed that future investment would be restricted to the existing approved Capital Programme, supplemented by the Council’s expectations in relation to Government grant.

The report also set out details of the main factors and assumptions that would form the basis of the 2014/2015 Housing Revenue Account budget.

Reasons:

It is the responsibility of Cabinet to develop draft budget proposals for consideration by overview and scrutiny committees.  These draft proposals are the first stage of the budget consultation process leading to further discussion by Cabinet on 11 February 2014 and formal council tax setting on 20 February 2014.

Background:

This report provided details of the proposals for the expansion and relocation of Abbey Court Special School, based on an analysis of need, including actual and forecast pupil numbers for the next five years.

Abbey Court Community Special School was an outstanding school for pupils aged 3-19 with severe learning difficulties (SLD) and profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD), and was currently the only school in Medway able to cater for children with these most complex needs. The school was located on two separate sites, one in Rainham and the other in Strood, 12 miles apart.

The report set out the reasons for the additional provision, the benefits of relocating the school to a single site, together with the options for the relocation and expansion of the school.

Reasons:

The decisions will allow the Council to develop a detailed scheme to relocate and expand Abbey Court, which will:

·        deliver benefits resulting from the relocation of Abbey Court to a single site, set out in paragraphs 3.16 to 3.22 of the report;

·        deliver additional places to meet future demand set out in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.7 of the report;

·        enable a reduction in the number of children who would otherwise need to be placed in expensive independent and out of area schools set out in paragraphs 3.8 to 3.15 of the report. 

Background:

This report provided details of a proposal to declare 54 Northcote Road, Strood, surplus. The report stated that design work on a scheme to realign the A228 Cuxton Road under the Darnley Arch Rail Bridge at the junction of Cuxton Road, Darnley Road, Northcote Road and Priory Road was underway and that it was possible that the scheme would involve undertaking works within the boundary of 54 Northcote Road. It was anticipated that work on the scheme would commence in the Spring/Summer 2014 with completion by the end of the year.  Once the scheme had been completed the property would be declared surplus and sold.

Reasons:

To realise a capital receipt and to reduce revenue costs.

Background:

This report sought permission to commence the procurement of young people’s community substance misuse services in Medway.

This Gateway 1 report had been approved for submission to Cabinet after review and discussion at the Children and Adults Directorate Management Team meeting on 29 October 2013 and Procurement Board on 13 November 2013.

A Diversity Impact Assessment (DIA) screening form had been undertaken on the proposals, as set out in Appendix A. It was noted that the procurement of this project would not have an adverse effect on the equality of access to the volunteer centre service or voluntary sector support service.

An exempt appendix set out key information concerning finance and whole-life costings.

Reasons:

The proposed procurement will provide an opportunity to demonstrate best value by testing the market.

Background:

This report provided details of progress of the Family Group Conference (FGC) contract currently awarded to Family Action. The FGC model was an internationally recognised method of meeting the required outcomes for children on the edge of care and as such could prevent the escalation of a child into care. Additionally, the model supported increased safety of the vulnerable adult within improved family support and functioning.

This Procurement Gateway 4 report has been approved for submission to Cabinetafter review and discussion at Children and Adults Directorate Management Team meeting on 1 October 2013 and Procurement Board on 13 November 2013.

Reasons:

• To give time to implement the proposed action plan to increase the usage of the FGC provision;
• The need to monitor service usage and the number of referrals over the next year;
• To review if there is a need for the service provision to remain at this level or be reduced.