Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mike O’Brien (Children’s Services) and Rupert Turpin (Business Management).

The record of the meeting held on 8 March 2016 was agreed and signed by the Leader as a correct record.  

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Adrian Gulvin (Resources) stated that whilst he had previously declared an interest in items relating to the Youth Service (agenda item 5 - Future Integrated Youth Support Services (IYSS) Delivery Specification refers), this was no longer necessary because his brother no longer worked for the Youth Service.

Background:

This report provided details of the outcome of informal consultation in respect of the proposed reconfiguration of Council services for very young children and their families, to reflect changing statutory duties, government policy, local priorities, and the financial position of the authority over the coming four years.

The Cabinet had agreed that informal consultation be undertaken on the proposals at its meeting on 12 January 2016. It was noted that the proposals would not involve closure of any centres, nor changing the range and nature of services currently provided for children and families. Rather, the proposal was for change to commissioning arrangements, management and administration, and back-office coordination.

Details of the informal consultation undertaken was set out in section 4 of the report with the outcome reported in section 5 of the report. It was noted that the very large majority of representations focused on giving views on how best the proposed reorganisation be implemented, in particular the prioritisation of services; targeting need and cluster organisation. Paragraph 5.11 of the report provided a response to comments from the informal consultation process.

A Diversity Impact Assessment was set out in Appendix 1 to the report, as summarised in paragraph 6.7 of the report.

Reasons:

Compliance with statutory duties, whilst setting a balanced budget with very reduced resources, requires consideration of how to reorganise services within available means.

Background:

This report provided details of the work undertaken to prepare Medway Integrated Youth Support Services (IYSS) for future outsourcing to reflect the changing financial position of the Council, following Cabinet’s decision on 12 January 2016 that the three Medway young people’s services, Youth Service, Youth Offending Service and YES IAG service be commissioned out in a package from January 2017.

It was noted that a consultation exercise about the outsourcing of these young people’s services had been undertaken and information collected had been incorporated into this IYSS specification. Specific details on the outcome of consultation were set out in section 6 of the report.

The service specification (Exempt Appendix) was circulated to Members in Supplementary Agenda No.2 and a risk register on outsourcing the IYSS was also set out in an Exempt Appendix. It was noted that the priority areas of work to be delivered by the new provider would be:

• Youth Justice interventions
• Open access youth work provision (centre based, detached and outreach)
• Unbiased information advice and guidance support focusing on young people’s participation in education, employment and training
• Young people’s health and wellbeing
• Reducing permanent and fixed term school exclusions.

A Diversity Impact Assessment had been undertaken at the proposals, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report.

Reasons:

The outsourcing will provide security and continuity for Integrated Youth Support Services for at least the next 5 years.

Background:

This report provided details of the development of a Draft Service Model for Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Services in Medway and plans for stakeholder and public consultation during April to June/July 2016.

It was noted that the proposed changes represented a substantial variation to healthcare. Regulation 23 of the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 required relevant NHS bodies and health service providers (“responsible persons”) to consult a Local Authority, in this case the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, about any proposal which they had under consideration for a substantial development of or variation in the provision of health services in the local authority’s area.

Therefore, a 90 day consultation period on the proposals would be undertaken with the outcome of consultation scheduled to be reported back to the Health and Wellbeing Board, Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet in the Autumn.

The report provided details of the consideration of the proposals by the Health and Wellbeing Board and Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as set out sections 7 and 8 of the report respectively.

A Diversity Impact Assessment had been undertaken on the Local Transformation Plan, as set out in Appendix B to the report. It was noted that at this stage there was too much scope for flexibility within the final potential model and service specifications to finalise the Diversity Impact Assessment.

Reasons:

It is necessary to consult on the proposals in accordance with the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013.

Background:

This report provided details of a proposal for the Council to act a Guarantor for the Developing and Empowering Resources in Communities (DERiC) initiative.  The DERIC projects would work to improve outcomes for vulnerable people of all ages by enhancing the quality of support through a focus on personalisation (direct payments), which should result in reduced demand on base budget funding and utilising social capital that would reduce latent demand on services.

It was noted that this was an innovative community development approach initiated by DERiC which worked in partnership with communities in Walderslade (WALT), the Hoo Peninsula (wHoo Cares), Medway Council and Medway Clinical Commissioning Group.

Reasons:

A guarantee from Medway Council will allow DERiC to invest in the communities of Walderslade and the Hoo Peninsula to build resilient communities.

Background:

This report provided details of a proposal for the Council to enter into agreements and grant leases together with any necessary rights in respect of the following Council owned assets: Riverside 4 building, part of the Chatham Riverside pay and display car park, part of Waterfront Park, Chatham and the council owned bed and soil of the river fronting Gun Wharf to facilitate the development of a marina.

The report stated that the Council had held detailed discussions with the Crown Estate, which owned the bed and shore adjacent at Chatham Waterfront on the proposal for a contractual Joint Venture agreement with the Crown Estate regarding the opportunity to take a long lease of the land/building and riverbed. It was noted that consultants and specialists acting for the Council and the Crown Estate were of the opinion that there would be interest from private sector developers and marina operators in this opportunity.

Reasons:

The development of a marina in Chatham will enhance the regeneration and visual appearance of Chatham Waterfront and the tourist offer. This is a key to part of improving Chatham Town Centre, complementing the council’s ongoing investment in the public realm through the Local Growth Fund and the Place making project. In addition the proposal will generate a rental income from any lease or leases granted.

Background:

This report provided details of proposed changes to the Council’s Constitution, following completion of a review commissioned by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services. The report set out the scope of the review which, in summary, was to ensure it would be up to date and consistent with current legislation and established practice. Appendix A to the report set out a high level summary of the principal changes proposed to the Constitution. A copy of the Constitution which highlighted all the recommended revisions as set out in Appendix B to the report (Supplementary Agenda No.1).

It was noted that the Chief Executive, Directors and Deputy and Assistant Directors had been consulted on proposed changes to the Constitution and had assisted in identifying updates required, and that Group Leaders had been informally consulted on the proposed changes.

It was also noted that a recommendation from the Audit Committee concerning an annual report on all debt written off had been reflected within Appendix B to the report and the Planning Committee, on 6 April 2016, would be considering minor changes to the Planning Code of Good Practice and the procedures for escalation of planning applications to the Committee for determination.

The Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be reviewing the redrafted Overview and Scrutiny Committee rules at its meeting on 14 April 2016 so that the comments of the Committee can be reflected in the final report to Full Council.

Reasons:

The revisions to the Constitution proposed in this report demonstrate that the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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).

Details of the posts were set out within Appendix 1 to the report.

Reasons:

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

Background:

This report provided details of the contract award for the provision of the Social Impact Bond. The scope of the contract would include Family Functional Therapy (FFT) interventions to both prevent children going into care and support children to return home where it was safe to do so, ready investment, performance management and reporting and outcome and payment metrics.

The report noted that there was only one supplier in the market which could deliver the contract, Evidence Based Social Investments (EBSI) Ltd.

The report was considered by the Procurement Board on 16 March 2016, as set out in section 5 of the report.

Reasons:

EBSI is the only provider to have secured funding for the Council from the Cabinet Office to part fund the Social Impact Bond, and as such the market the Council could use was reduced to a single supplier.