Agenda and minutes

To approve the records of the meetings held on 24 February 2011 and 3 March 2011.

The records of the meeting held on 24 February 2011 and the meeting held on 3 March 2011 were agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chishti, Stamp and Hunter. 

Councillor Tony Goulden declared a personal interest in any reference to Chatham Dockyard as he is a trustee.

Councillor Griffiths declared a personal interest in any discussion that may take place during the course of the meeting with reference to Medway Community Healthcare because he is a Non-Executive Director of the Trust. 

Councillor Sutton declared a personal interest in any reference to Napier Road School as she is a governor.

Councillor O’Brien declared a personal interest in any reference to the NHS as members of his family work in the NHS.

The Mayor stated that, as this was the last meeting of the Council before the local elections on 5 May he wished to place on record a vote of thanks for the contribution of those Councillors who had decided not to stand for re-election.

Later in the meeting Councillor Andrews presented to the Mayor, to accept on behalf of the Council, a boxed gavel and block, which he had made.

The Mayor welcomed Mr Dance, representing the Independent members of the Council’s Standards Committee, to the meeting.

He then reminded Members that Council meetings were now recorded to assist in producing an accurate record of supplementary questions and answers to questions.  He also reminded Members that a written copy of amendments to any proposals should be provided to the Head of Democratic Services.

Councillor Kenneth Bamber then took the opportunity to thank Members and officers for their letters, emails and flowers sent to him and Councillor Janice Bamber following the recent sad death of their son.

There were none. 

The following petitions were received and referred to the appropriate Directors:

Councillor Bhutia presented a petition with 280 signatures objecting to the development of a mobile telephone aerial and equipment on the site Bankside/Links.

Councillor Bowler presented a petition with 38 signatures requesting that Binnacle Road be made into a one-way road.

Councillor Carr presented a petition with 130 signatures requesting the Council to provide a public bus service to run along Childscroft Road, Berengrave Lane and Chalky Bank Road, Rainham.

Councillor Hubbard presented a petition with 69 signatures requesting a bus shelter at the bus stop (outbound from Strood) at the junction of Fulmar Road/Darnley Road.

Councillor Juby presented a petition with 42 signatures requesting the Council to reduce the height of the humps in the Ridgeway.

Councillor MacKinlay presented a petition with 235 signatures requesting that the 20p charge in the Pentagon toilets is scrapped at least until the new free toilets are opened in the new bus station.  The petition also requested that the toilets in the bus station upstairs are re-opened.

Councillor Mason presented a petition with 20 signatures requesting double yellow lines in Wainscott Walk both sides from Wainscott Road to outside of 1 and 22 in case of emergency fire ambulance and refuse collections.

Councillor Sutton presented a petition with 36 signatures requesting the Council to re-develop the disused play area on Ottway Street into a communal garden that could be divided up into allotments.

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

(A)       Chris Irvine, on behalf of Kelly Tollhurst of Borstal, asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

“What are the Council’s initiatives to support businesses in Medway?”

Councillor Chitty responded by thanking Miss Tollhurst for the question.  She stated that in spite of the need for the Council to make substantial savings the Council took its responsibilities regarding economic development seriously in Medway.  The current climate supporting local businesses was seen as very important.  She stated that the Economic Development Unit delivered a number of initiatives based on the principle that start up and established businesses require the following:

·        Impartial business advice – Economic Development currently had a Service Level Agreement with Business Support Kent to support this and the Council was a partner in the Kent and Medway Innovation and Growth Team who had a specialist advisor based at the Innovation Centre

·        Business accommodation with flexible terms – This was very important as this allowed businesses to grow in the best way possible.  The Council owns and runs 3 workspace sites totalling 107 units.  This included the new Innovation Centre, which provided state of the art IT services

·        Start up and growth funding – Medway Council Partners for Growth scheme provided interest free loans to establish growth businesses and since Autumn 2009 had been supporting start ups with business planning training and £1,000 grants – 43 grants had so far been awarded.  In total Partners for Growth had supported 197 businesses, levered a combined investment from the Council, the businesses and the Banks in excess of £10 million and protected and created 2726 local jobs.

Councillor Chitty explained that In Autumn 2009 Medway Council launched “Seeds for Business Growth” outlining 10 practical initiatives to support businesses during the economic downturn.   In addition she listed the following initiatives:

·        Micro Enterprise Graduate placement scheme

·        Medway Apprenticeship scheme

·        Medway Retail Champions scheme

·        Employ Medway programme

·        Transmarche Enterprise Network

·        Eco-Advantage scheme

·        Creative industries business support

She explained that this was designed to ensure that businesses got the support they deserved to create jobs and a good economic climate in Medway.

Chris Irvine asked a supplementary question about how the investment in a new apprenticeship scheme announced at the budget Council meeting on 24 February would help young people in Medway?

Councillor Chitty stated that this was a crucial area to concentrate on for the future and that the Council had an exemplary record for helping young people into employment and apprenticeships and had one of the lowest figures in the South East for young people who were unemployed.  She stated that the Council, Connexions and other local partners had joined to form a partnership and that Medway was one of the first areas in the country to be selected for this initiative. A designated co-ordinator from the National Apprenticeship Service was working with the partnership over 100 working days to deliver pledges by 100 Medway employers to create 100 new apprenticeships.  This was a government  ...  view the full minutes text for item 970.

Discussion:

Members received and debated the Leader’s report, which included the following:

·        Council tax

·        Protection of front line services

·        Regeneration projects

·        Residential development at Victory Pier

·        Free swimming

·        World Heritage Site bid

·        Forthcoming festivals

·        Strood academy

Discussion:

Members received a report on Overview and Scrutiny activities.  The following issues were discussed during the debate:

• A request for car parking charges to be considered at Overview and Scrutiny

• Concern about the proposed reduction of Overview and Scrutiny task groups as it was felt these had been very valuable

According to the latest (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) Residential Letting Survey, 40% more Chartered Surveyors reported rents rising rather than falling in the three months to January.

Can the Portfolio Holder tell me what proposals he has that will alleviate that situation locally and how soon they will be executed?

“ According to the latest (RICS) Residential Letting Survey, 40% more Chartered Surveyors reported rents rising rather than falling in the three months to January.

Can the Portfolio Holder tell me what proposals he has that will alleviate that situation locally and how soon they will be executed?”

Councillor Doe thanked Councillor Sutton for her question and stated that the figures quoted related to the national figure but that he kept a close eye on the local picture.  Rents for 1 bedroom properties for example fell by 5% but there had been a 3% increase for 2 bedroomed properties and no change for 3 bedroomed property rents.

While changes in rent levels did have an impact on tenants they did influence the willingness of private landlords to remain in and invest in the market and so help increase the supply.  He stated that it was important that the Council offered a range of assistance to those households experiencing difficulties in meeting their housing costs.  This could be achieved by working in partnership and funding a range of organisations, including the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, and through the housing benefit and housing options services, which offered a range of advice and assistance in securing and maintaining tenancies.  Specific assistance including the Court desk, HomeBond and Debt Advice was available which were effective in helping people to manage their finances.

Councillor Sutton asked a supplementary question by asking about the Council disposing of the Team Leader and two supporting officers that assisted people to find suitable properties particularly bearing in mind the supply and demand and whether he felt that this would worsen the situation locally and if so if he would consider reversing the decision?

Councillor Doe said that the Council would be meeting targets with the present levels of staff.  The situation would be monitored and if there was an increasing problem this would be tackled.  He said that the situation was more to do with people’s ability to pay rent and the housing benefit applicable to those rents.

As demobbed armed forces personnel and their families are now being treated as a key priority group for social and affordable housing, ahead of 'key workers', will the Portfolio Holder tell Council what Medway Council is doing to put this into practice?

“As demobbed armed forces personnel and their families are now being treated as a key priority group for social and affordable housing, ahead of 'key workers', will the portfolio holder tell council what Medway Council is doing to put this into practice?”

Councillor Doe stated that the Council was aware of the contribution that those who have served in the armed forces had made and acknowledged the role of those considered as key workers within the community.  He stated that in respect of affordable housing in Medway the priority given was primarily assessed in terms of those who were in greatest housing need, as set out in the Housing Act and relevant guidance, rather than prioritising on the basis of either current or previous employment or service.

However, through Medway Council’s Allocations Policy, servicemen and women suffering medical or social problems that live in accommodation that was not suitable for their needs would receive additional priority based on those needs, as would members of the public.

Following recent announcements and changes to the allocation of affordable housing introduced through the Localism Bill there would be a need to review the Allocations Policy.  The opportunities to award additional priority to members of the armed forces would be looked at following consultation with the public so that others were not disadvantaged.

In terms of shared ownership there had been a number of schemes specifically funded to support key workers into home ownership, these had now been merged with schemes open to all households looking to purchase a home.

He stated that the Government had also established a number of housing schemes that were available to the service and ex-service community, which although not run by the Council were actively promoted, including the Ministry of Defence Referral Scheme and Homebuy which had a priority status for certain Ministry of Defence personnel.

Councillor Sutton asked a supplementary question relating to the Royal Engineers being based in Medway and being mindful of dangerous engagements in Iraq and Pakistan and whether the Portfolio holder felt that concerted efforts should be made to make sure that empty homes should be made available to them?

Councillor Doe explained that homes were left empty for a variety of reasons and by no means all of them would be suitable.  He stated that the target for bringing empty homes back into use had been increased. 

Would the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services give the expected total cost to Medway and its residents of holding the Modern Pentathlon European Championships at Medway Park?

 “Would the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services give the expected total cost to Medway and its residents of holding the Modern Pentathlon European Championships at Medway Park?”

Councillor Doe stated that the Modern Pentathlon European Championships in July were a very significant landmark for Medway.  Not only did the competition bring World and Olympic champions to Medway but the event was an official Olympic qualifier and he thought people would be interested to go to it.  The Council should be proud that it was coming to Medway.

He stated that Councillor Crack should be fully aware of the funding arrangements from Medway Council for the event as he had been provided with the information in October last year and had raised it at the Council meeting that month.

He confirmed that an agreement had been made with Pentathlon GB to provide financial support not exceeding £175,000.  This was monitored through an event steering committee chaired by the Assistant Director for Customer First, Leisure, Democracy and Governance.  To put this into context UK Sport evaluated the direct economic benefit from major sporting events to be at least three times the investment.  In this case, the direct economic benefit was likely to be around £525,000.  This figure had been corroborated by an indicative assessment undertaken by the Sports Development Manager at Medway Park.

Councillor Doe stated that in addition to the direct economic impact there were a number of other benefits to Medway, which included:

• Attracting additional events linked to the Modern Penthathlon.  If the Council had not staged the World Cup then Medway would not have been considered for the European Championships.  There would be increased media coverage and some 24 countries would be taking part in the European Championships, which would enhance the area’s reputation.

• The ultimate aim was to inspire local people and for them to take more of an interest in sport and as such he felt there was nothing to apologise for.

Councillor Crack asked a supplementary question querying whether expenditure of £175,000 of Council money on something like the Modern Pentathlon could be justified.  He felt that the event had a small following and minimal media coverage was likely to be forthcoming and that the money would be better to bring back the staff who had lost their jobs to ensure that empty homes were brought back into use?

Councillor Doe stated that he felt this to be a prejudiced view.  He stated that sponsorship had been generated and more was in the pipeline.  He felt that this was not just a minority sport and that Councillor Crack was out of touch with events.

Would the Leader of the Council explain why he is pushing ahead with City Status at this time when there are far more important local issues including finance that need addressing?

 “Would the Leader of the Council explain why he is pushing ahead with City Status at this time when there are far more important local issues including finance that need addressing?”

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, responded by stating that he disagreed with Councillor Crack if he felt City Status was not an important local issue.

He felt that City Status would be a fitting recognition of how Medway had emerged from the dark days of the closure of the dockyard to become the successful place it was now.  Like two thirds of Medway residents he believed being awarded City Status next year would help to promote Medway more effectively on a national and international stage.  With the squeeze on the public sector purse and the downturn in grants from central government, gaining City Status would give a golden opportunity to gain yet more investment from the private sector for Medway and continue Medway’s successful regeneration.

There were potentially significant gains to be had, with very little downside and he felt Councillor Crack would do well to consider why so many important business and organisation backed the campaign.  He felt that it was because they could see the potential for the bid for City Status for Medway.

Councillor Crack asked a supplementary question by asking whether given the lack of interest in the community what was the point of the City cards and what would happen to them if the application for City Status did not get approved?

The Leader, Councillor Rodney Chambers, responded by stating that they were intended to give people preferential treatment in businesses in Medway which also benefited the businesses who took part in it. 

Following my previous questions, could you give a further update on the funding for the "Dynamic Bus Facility" specifically from Central Government?

“Following my previous questions on 13 January and 30 March could you give a further update on the funding for the “Dynamic Bus Facility” specifically from Central Government?”

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, responded by stating that the Government had made money available for the new bus facility to replace the current substandard bus station inside the Pentagon.  The financial claims for the works would not be submitted to the Homes and Community Agency until the end of May. There were allocations for snagging, accruals, works substantially completed and materials on site post completion.  He stated that he could not give a more definite response as the accounts had not yet been completed and would not be submitted until the end of May but he was not anticipating any problems with financing the completion of the agreed works from Government and external finance.

Councillor Maple asked a supplementary question by requesting a firm commitment that the funding for the bus facility would be available?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, stated that he had no reason to believe that the funding would not be available.

This report presents changes and additions to the Council’s Capital Programme and Revenue Budget for 2011/2012 following approval by Council in February 2011.

Discussion:

This report presented changes and additions to the Council’s Capital Programme and Revenue Budget for 2011/2012 following approval by Council in February 2011.

Councillor Jarrett, supported by Councillor Mason, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision: 

(a)               The Council approved the additions to the capital programme as set out in section 3 of the report;

(b)               The Council approved the increase in revenue budget as set out in section 4 of the report.

This sets out the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report for the period April 2010 to March 2011. This report gives an update on Member Conduct issues, and the work of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer.

Discussion:

This report contained the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report for the period April 2010 to March 2011, which gave an update on Member conduct issues, and the work of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring officer.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, supported by Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendation contained in the report.

Decision: 

The Council noted the report and comments from the Standards Committee.

This report asks the Council to consider a draft programme of meetings for the 2011/2012 municipal year for recommendation to the Annual Meeting of the Council.

Discussion:

This report set out a draft programme of meetings for the 2011/2012 municipal year, as set out in the attached appendix, for recommendation to the annual meeting of the Council.

Councillor Kenneth Bamber, supported by Councillor Wildey, proposed the recommendations contained in the report with one alteration, which was to move the Council meeting, scheduled for 14 July 2011 to 21 July 2011 to avoid a clash with the summer concerts.

Decision: 

(a)                     The Council approved the programme of Council and Committee meetings for 2011/2012 to the annual meeting of the Council, as set out at Appendix A, with the exception of moving the Council meeting scheduled for 14 July 2011 to 21 July 2011;

(b)                     The Council noted and agreed the proposed reduction in in-depth scrutiny review work as set out in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.4 of the report and that proposals for how this should be coordinated and managed would be presented to the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

That Council notes:

The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is a sustainable, good quality pension scheme that benefits from being funded and locally managed. It is valuable to employers and employees alike. Successive governments have failed to recognise the distinctiveness of the LGPS in setting policy, most notably in the proposal announced by the Chancellor in the last Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) to impose an extra 3.2% contribution tax on scheme members, increasing scheme average member contributions from 6.6% to 9.8%. This tax does not benefit the scheme or scheme members or employers. This proposal is in addition to pension reductions caused by being indexed against the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) instead of the Retail Prices Index (RPI) and is in advance of expected benefit reform recommendations from the Hutton Review.

That Council agrees:

An increase in member contributions as proposed will lead to mass opt outs from the LGPS and that would be undesirable and damaging. The views expressed by the Local Government Association (LGA) in its letter to the Chancellor dated 16 February 2011 on this subject are also the views of this Council.

That Council resolves:

Council will write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Local Government within the next month stating this Council’s support for the LGA letter referred to above and calling for government to rethink its proposed increases to LGPS member contributions. Council will work with Trade Unions to ensure employees are made aware of the proposals for the LGPS and encouraging them to support the Council’s representations to defend their pension scheme.

That Council notes:

The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is a sustainable, good quality pension scheme that benefits from being funded and locally managed. It is valuable to employers and employees alike. Successive governments have failed to recognise the distinctiveness of the LGPS in setting policy, most notably in the proposal announced by the Chancellor in the last Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) to impose an extra 3.2% contribution tax on scheme members, increasing scheme average member contributions from 6.6% to 9.8%. This tax does not benefit the scheme or scheme members or employers. This proposal is in addition to pension reductions caused by being indexed against the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) instead of the Retail Prices Index (RPI) and is in advance of expected benefit reform recommendations from the Hutton Review.

That Council agrees:

An increase in member contributions as proposed will lead to mass opt outs from the LGPS and that would be undesirable and damaging. The views expressed by the Local Government Association (LGA) in its letter to the Chancellor dated 16 February 2011 on this subject are also the views of this Council.

That Council resolves:

Council will write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Local Government within the next month stating this Council’s support for the LGA letter referred to above and calling for government to rethink its proposed increases to LGPS member contributions. Council will work with Trade Unions to ensure employees are made aware of the proposals for the LGPS and encouraging them to support the Council’s representations to defend their pension scheme.

Councillor Reckless, supported by Councillor O’Brien, proposed an amendment that the motion be replaced with:

“That Council notes:

The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is a sustainable, good quality pension scheme that benefits from being funded and locally managed.  The interim report by ex-Labour Cabinet Minister, Lord Hutton, led the Chancellor in the last Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) to propose an extra 3.2% contribution tax on scheme members, increasing scheme average member contributions f5rom 6.6% to 9.8%.  This should help ensure the LGPS’ long-term sustainability when combined with the move from final salary to career average pensions, which will protect lower paid staff relative to higher earners.

That Council resolves:

Council will write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Local Government in support of the proposed changes to the LGPS in light of the need to restore the public finances to a sustainable position”.

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

On being put to the vote the substantive motion was carried and agreed.

Decision:

(a)       This Council noted that:

The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is a sustainable, good quality pension scheme that benefits from being funded and locally managed.  The interim report by ex-Labour Cabinet Minister, Lord Hutton, led the Chancellor in the last Comprehensive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 977(A)