Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 17 October 2013.

The record of the meeting held on 17 October 2013 was agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct.  

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bright and Stamp. 

A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons.

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

Councillor Griffiths declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in agenda item 20(B) (Motion) because he was a Non-Executive Director of Medway Community Healthcare Community Interest Company which was a former provider of services associated with the subject of the motion. He left the meeting during discussion on this item.

Other Interests

Councillor Cooper declared an interest in agenda item 20(B) (Motion) because family members worked for Medway Maritime Hospital.

Councillor Filmer declared an interest in agenda item 8 (Leader’s Report) in relation to Cabinet 14 January 2014 (Review of Medway Norse, Joint Venture Company for Facilities Management) because he was a Director of Medway Norse.

Councillor Adrian Gulvin declared an interest in agenda item 12 (Youth Justice Plan) because his brother worked for the Youth Offending Team. He left the meeting during discussion on this item.

Councillor Adrian Gulvin declared an interest in agenda item 14 (Additions to the Capital Programme – section 4)) because his brother worked for the Youth Offending Team. He left the meeting during discussion on this item.

Councillor Pat Gulvin declared an interest in agenda item 12 (Youth Justice Plan) because her brother in law worked for the Youth Offending Team. She left the meeting during discussion on this item.

Councillor Pat Gulvin declared an interest in agenda item 14 (Additions to the Capital Programme – section 4)) because her brother in law worked for the Youth Offending Team. She left the meeting during discussion on this item.

Councillor Juby declared an interest in agenda items 20 (A) and (B) (Motions) because family members worked for the NHS.

Councillor Mackinlay declared an interest in agenda item 8 (Leader’s Report) in relation to Cabinet 14 January 2014 (Review of Medway Norse, Joint Venture Company for Facilities Management) because he was a Director of Medway Norse.

Councillor O’Brien declared an interest in agenda items 20 (A) and (B) (Motions) because family members worked in the NHS.

The Mayor announced that there were still tickets available for the following fund raising events in support of her chosen charities (Age UK, Caring Hands, Demelza and Help for Heroes): a Quiz Night on 28 February at Gun Wharf, a Flavours of Wine evening on 26 March and the Ball on 26 April both at the Corn Exchange in Rochester. Tickets were available from her office.

The Mayor asked Members to speak clearly into the microphones to ensure people in the public gallery could hear.

The Mayor reminded Members to ensure that written copies of any amendments were provided to the Head of Democratic Services and that copies were brought up to the top table first.

There were none.  

Councillor Adrian Gulvin submitted a petition containing 99 signatures regarding reckless driving in Yarrow Road, Chatham.

Councillor Hubbard submitted a petition which added 694 signatures to an existing petition already received regarding the Strood Community Hub.

Councillor Igwe submitted a petition which added 411 signatures to an existing petition already received regarding the Strood Community Hub.  

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

Councillor Murray, supported by Councillor Griffiths, proposed a motion under Council Rule 16.1 to suspend Council Rules to suspend the time limit of 30 minutes for agenda item 7 (Public Questions).

In accordance with rule 11.4 of the Council Rules at the request of six Members, a recorded vote on the motion was requested:

For – Councillors Bowler, Colman, Cooper, Craven, Gilry, Christine Godwin, Paul Godwin, Griffiths, Harriott, Hubbard, Igwe, Juby, Kearney, Maple, Murray, Osborne, Price, Shaw and Smith (19)

Against – Councillors Avey, Baker, Brake, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Chishti, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Etheridge, Filmer, Griffin, Adrian Gulvin, Pat Gulvin, Hewett, Hicks, The Worshipful The Mayor, Councillor Iles, Irvine, Jarrett, Kemp, Mackinlay, Mackness, Maisey, Mason, O’Brien, Purdy, Rodberg, Royle, Tolhurst, Turpin, Watson, Wicks and Wildey (34)

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

The Mayor confirmed that public questions would last for 30 minutes, as set out in the Council Rules.

A.     David Scott of Chatham asked (in absence) the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

I read in the Sunday Times some time ago that in January the Government issued to all Councils a paper advising on the reduction of road sign clutter. My question is what assessment has been made of the potential for reducing clutter in Medway, what measures are currently underway, and what net reduction can we expect to see by, say, the end of 2014?

Councillor Filmer stated that last year a cross-party task group considered the issues of de-cluttering streets in Medway. This group considered current legislation, government policy and established best practice in relation to street clutter. It had also reviewed the current picture in Medway and held a De-Cluttering Stakeholder Event to understand the needs of local interested parties. The final report of the Task Group was presented to the Cabinet on 9 July 2013, where the decisions were agreed unanimously.

The agreed way forward focused on the development of a Streetscape Manual for Medway, with supporting policy documents, a quality assessment process and a pilot scheme in Strood High Street. The pilot scheme would last for 15 months so that accurate and meaningful data could be obtained. Before and after casualty and traffic data would be measured and a questionnaire would be put forward to local businesses and users of the High Street to determine the effectiveness and the impact of the pilot study. If the pilot was successful then the principles of de-cluttering would be rolled out across Medway on a case-by-case basis.

(There was no supplementary question).

B.    Chris Webb of Strood asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, the following question;

What proactive measures has the Council taken to assess and provide for the necessary additional local services & infrastructure to deal with the impact of an increase in Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants into Medway after 1 January 2014?

Councillor Rodney Chambers stated that it was difficult to know what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 741.

Prior to the consideration of agenda item 8 (Leader’s Report), the Worshipful The Mayor of Medway adjourned the meeting between 7.50pm – 8.05pm following disturbance in the public gallery, as provided for in Council Rule 11.2.3.

The Worshipful The Mayor of Medway also adjourned the meeting between 8.10pm – 8.25pm following further disturbance in the public gallery at the beginning of agenda item 8 (Leader’s Report). During this period, The Worshipful The Mayor of Medway ordered the clearance of the public gallery in accordance with Council Rule 11.2.4.

Discussion:

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

• Educational performance
• Business growth and enterprise
• Thames Estuary Airport
• Lower Thames Crossing
• Flood response
• World Heritage Site bid
• Medway Queen.
• University Technical College.

Discussion:

Members received and debated a report on overview and scrutiny activities, which included the following:

• Special Educational Needs Transport Budget
• Annual Public Health Report
• Capital and Revenue Budget 2013/2014
• Care Quality Commission Inspection Report on Medway Maritime Hospital Maternity Services
• Response from Secretary of State to the Report on Acute Mental Health Beds Redesign in Kent and Medway
• Review of Mental Health Services in Medway – In-Depth Task Group Report
• Housing Strategy Annual Review.

Since the Council has revealed to the public its intention to relocate Strood Library to Strood High Street under the guise of Community Hub Centre, several stakeholders (including charities, community groups and over two thousand individuals through letters and signed petitions) expressed displeasure against the Council’s incredibly unpopular intention.

In this regard, is the Council leadership going to listen to the displeased voices of Strood residents and stakeholders who elected them and stop taking any further action that will polarise rather than unite our peaceful community?

Since the Council has revealed to the public its intention to relocate Strood Library to Strood High Street under the guise of Community Hub Centre, several stakeholders (including charities, community groups and over two thousand individuals through letters and signed petitions) expressed displeasure against the Council’s incredibly unpopular intention.

In this regard, is the Council leadership going to listen to the displeased voices of Strood residents and stakeholders who elected them and stop taking any further action that will polarise rather than unite our peaceful community?

Councillor Chitty stated she would answer this question in two parts. She referred to the Cultural Strategy which had been put forward in 2009 and had been warmly welcomed. She also referred to the plans that were put forward in connection with the Tesco development. Tesco was not paying the full amount for any development in relation to the library as it was a Section 106 Agreement, therefore it was only part of what was available at the time.  She stated that people in Strood were absolutely delighted at the prospect of bringing the library into the High Street. They were very much for it and indeed the proposals for 133 High Street were very similar to the previous proposals. Under those circumstances people really wanted and were very much behind bringing Council services into the heart of the community. It was not just about library services, it was about other services where many people across Strood did not have easy access to Council offices. This would give access not only to elderly and vulnerable people but to the community at large and so therefore it was very warmly welcomed.

Councillor Chitty referred to the second part of the question and stated that this was enormously important because there had been a great deal of misunderstanding in relation to the issue of the Strood Community Project. She referred to Mr Robinson, Chief Executive of the Strood Community Project (SCP), and stated that any dealings that the SCP had in relation to 133 High Street were with the agents and the owners of that property and not Medway Council. She added that the Council had worked very closely with the Strood Community Project, in particular assisting them in terms of European funding.

Councillor Chitty also stated that she had spent quite some time looking at those people that had signed the petition. They were from Nottingham, Hertfordshire, Charlton, Stepney, Bexleyheath, Swanley, Erith, Dartford, Gravesend, Maidstone, Shorne, High Halstow, Cobham, Burham, Westerham, Whistable, Harpenden, Larkfield, Chigwell, Spain and France. There also appeared to be a disproportionate number of signatures from people elsewhere across Medway. She stated that she would ask Councillor Doe to ensure there would be a good information campaign so people were properly and fully informed.

Councillor Igwe asked, that given Councillor Doe had stated that one of the reasons for relocating Strood Library was to revitalise the High Street, whether Councillor Chitty could name any empty shop in the High Street at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 745A)

I have noted that some Housing Associations are, on a yearly basis, increasing rents payable by tenants. For instance, Moat has increased their rent from £400 for a two bedroom flat in 2011 to about £500 in 2013.

Can the Council intervene to ensure that key workers who are serving Medway are not priced out of the housing market especially as there has not been salary increment increase for over 3 years running?

I have noted that some Housing Associations are, on a yearly basis, increasing rents payable by tenants. For instance, Moat has increased their rent from £400 for a two bedroom flat in 2011 to about £500 in 2013.

Can the Council intervene to ensure that key workers who are serving Medway are not priced out of the housing market especially as there has not been salary increment increase for over 3 years running?

Councillor Doe stated that the Council could not intervene in the setting of rents by Registered Social Landlords. The framework within which social housing rents were calculated was set by the Government and the regulatory authority for that was the Homes and Communities Agency which had been established in 2002, although the Government was currently proposing changes to this regime.

Currently social landlords could increase rent levels by RPI + 0.5% + up to £2 per week. The average social rent for a 2 bed roomed property per week in Medway in 2011/12 was £87.06 and that had risen 2013/14 to £94.29.

He stated that it had been suggested that the changes in rent levels that had been identified may have been due to the landlord changing the rent level regime for the particular property.

The Government did introduce a new rent regime in 2011, which allowed Registered Social Landlords to charge what was generally a higher rent on homes and that higher rent would be used to develop new homes as part of the National Affordable Homes Programme. He stated that the only time that the Council could intervene would be to complain to the Homes and Communities Agency that there had been a gross violation. Therefore, in practical terms the Council could not intervene.

He stated there had been no evidence of pricing out key workers in terms of a material block in supply of suitable properties. However, he would look into this if any such evidence were produced.

Councillor Igwe stated there was a Code of Social Responsibility to which all the key stakeholders in the housing market were assigned to in Medway and that he believed, that as a Council, there was the responsibility to make sure that that sector was well monitored especially when the key workers were renting those properties. They had to be reminded that there was a social responsibility to make sure that those residents were well taken care of.

Councillor Doe stated that he did not accept this because the regulating authority for housing associations was the Homes and Communities Agency. There had been no suggestion that their regulations had been violated. He reminded Councillor Igwe that the Council was working with housing associations to develop a variety of models for people below the market levels and one of those models which was particularly suitable was shared ownership. This could be accessed on a salary of £16,000 per year. Therefore, he did not believe key workers were being priced out. He stated that if there were any case  ...  view the full minutes text for item 745B)

Can the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services give me the latest update and timescale for the placement of double yellow lines on Settington Avenue and Street End Road, as residents have become exasperated by the perceived Council delay in what should be a basic project?

Can the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services give me the latest update and timescale for the placement of double yellow lines on Settington Avenue and Street End Road, as residents have become exasperated by the perceived Council delay in what should be a basic project?

Councillor Filmer stated that, as explained to the MP for the area, Tracey Crouch, who had been keeping a very keen eye on this for her residents, this scheme had been the subject of three consultations and a site meeting with residents and Councillors. Each consultation on average took 4-6 weeks without taking into consideration the drafting of the notices, proposed orders and the exchange of communications with various interested parties.

He stated that the good news was that the paperwork had been signed off and officers had been told to give it priority so although it was weather dependent, the scheme would be undertaken soon.

Councillor Osborne stated that this had been a cross-party campaign including Tracey Crouch MP and others to get this delivered. It had taken 12 months to get something, which was basic, delivered to residents on one street. In that time the Council had delivered a £4.4m plan to deliver Rochester Airfield and yet for one road scheme it had taken this long. There was something wrong in the Council if it could not deliver road schemes for Members in a quick and timely manner and that Councillor Filmer needed to go back and say that to officers on Members' behalf.

Councillor Filmer stated that the problem lay with the consultation as there had been objections and the Council had to consider such objections. Therefore, the decision eventually ended up with the Director, in consultation with himself, to make because of the outcome of consultation. He stated that the Council had taken into consideration Councillor Osborne's and the MP’s support for this scheme in reaching a decision.

Can the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services provide a year-by-year breakdown of the total number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued outside school premises vis-a-vis total number of PCNs issued by the CCTV cars since their introduction?

Can the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services provide a year-by-year breakdown of the total number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued outside school premises vis-a-vis total number of PCNs issued by the CCTV cars since their introduction?

Councillor Filmer referred to the following information:

Councillor Osborne stated that these figures were stark and showed that the car had not been used in the majority of years outside schools in comparison to the total number of PCNs issued despite what the Council was telling the press. He asked whether Councillor Filmer could confirm that now that Eric Pickles had said that these cars should be scrapped and that the profit on these vehicles was falling from £633,000 in 2010 to £135,000 now, that he would be minded to scrap the vehicle in the next 12 months?

Councillor Filmer stated that when you took into consideration that the actual parking time in front of a school area was probably half an hour in the morning, half an hour in the afternoon and that for some years, the percentage of tickets issued outside school was nearly 10%, that this made the figures look sensible.

He stated that the restrictions put on CCTV cars over the last year or so had altered the way that the Council could use the cars. The Council was down to one car at the moment. Given the response the Council received from schools regarding the bad parking outside their schools, if the Labour Group or Councillor Osborne were quite happy for controls to be stopped outside the schools he could arrange for this. However, if it saved one child’s life outside of a school he stated that he personally thought that it was worthwhile.

Many Councils including Derby City, Weymouth & Portland Borough and East Sussex County Council have indicated their support for a proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act to the Secretary of State to:

a) give local authorities the power to introduce a local levy of up to 8.5% of the rate on large supermarkets or large retail outlets in their area with an annual rateable value not less than £500,000; and

b) requires that the revenue from this levy be retained by the local authority in order to improve local communities in their areas by promoting local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection.

Council officers have indicated this proposal could raise over £600,000 if implemented today in Medway. Would the Portfolio Holder agree to explore this proposal and bring back the appropriate report to Council?

Many Councils including Derby City, Weymouth & Portland Borough and East Sussex County Council have indicated their support for a proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act to the Secretary of State to:

a) give local authorities the power to introduce a local levy of up to 8.5% of the rate on large supermarkets or large retail outlets in their area with an annual rateable value not less than £500,000; and

b) requires that the revenue from this levy be retained by the local authority in order to improve local communities in their areas by promoting local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection.

Council officers have indicated this proposal could raise over £600,000 if implemented today in Medway. Would the Portfolio Holder agree to explore this proposal and bring back the appropriate report to Council?

Councillor Jarrett stated that whilst he would welcome any proposals to raise extra money, particularly now that Councillor Osborne had just advocated throwing away £160,000 without any idea of what it would do to the Council's revenue budget, there were inherent problems with this proposal.

The supermarket levy was the product of a campaign group called Local Works. They had been lobbying Councils to ask government to let them have the power under the Sustainable Communities Act to impose a new 8.5% tax on retail units whose annual rateable value was over £500,000. The proposal was based on legislation passed last year by the Northern Ireland Parliament to add a levy on large supermarkets of 8.5% based on their current rateable value. Last year the Scottish Parliament passed similar legislation for a levy of 9.3%. The Council had the power to submit such a proposal to central government, provided it had consulted and had due regard to specified matters set out in the Sustainable Communities Act, but it was Central Government's decision whether or not to implement the proposal and make the necessary legislation.

A number of Councils had considered the request and decided not to pursue it further including Dover, Leeds and Bristol.

Councillor Jarrett stated that officers had investigated the likely income from such a levy in the Medway area last year and he confirmed they had identified 13 properties that would produce a total of £642,000 in additional income. However, there were many other considerations, both for and against the proposal.

It was properties such as these that generated large amounts of business rates income for the Council already and provided valuable extra jobs in the area. If Medway was to be the only authority in Kent implementing such a levy, it was quite possible that supermarkets would choose to invest elsewhere or indeed supermarkets that were thinking of investing here would curtail that investment.

In addition there was also the argument if such a levy was imposed this would simply be passed on to customers. He stated that those arguments took primacy with him.

There was no current power in legislation allowing Councils to impose  ...  view the full minutes text for item 745E)

In view of the detrimental effect of the recent serious bad weather, what extra steps are being taken to ensure remedial works are put in place as soon as possible?

In view of the detrimental effect of the recent serious bad weather, what extra steps are being taken to ensure remedial works are put in place as soon as possible?

Councillor Filmer stated that prior to the bad weather, the Council had filled up a thousand sandbags in case they were needed. Additional works regarding trees had been undertaken and there was an ongoing programme through the tree management policy. He stated that he had spoken to the Highways Manager regarding doing more inspections to keep an eye on the roads. At this moment in time, the wet weather had not caused too much detrimental effect on the roads. He stated that he was concerned about frost as this could cause a problem. There were adequate supplies of salt if there was freezing weather.

Councillor Shaw asked, in view of the fact that many of the same potholes and other road services in Medway appeared to be being repaired on an annual basis, what steps would Councillor Filmer take to ensure a robust inspection regime was in place to check quality of workmanship and to ensure that taxpayers’ money was not being wasted because of shoddy workmanship which was either being ignored or missed?

Councillor Filmer stated that, as a priority, when the inspectors went out they carried the materials with them so that they could do a temporary repair so people did not receive damage to their cars. The damaged roads were put under a 7, 14 or 28-day notice, depending on how bad they were.  He added that, regarding the quality of the repairs that had been carried out, the Council had a regime whereby the tarmac was drilled to test its integrity, as well as other quality testing.

The Council has prepared and consulted on a draft Masterplan to guide development on land at and bordering Rochester Airport. This report sets out the comments received during the consultation, suggests responses to the issues raisedand seeks Full Council approval to adopt the Masterplan.

Discussion:

Under Council Rule 11.6.3, Councillor Maple, supported by Councillor Murray, proposed a motion to adjourn the debate on this item (to a Special Council meeting).

In accordance with rule 11.4 of the Council Rules at the request of six Members, a recorded vote on the motion was requested:

For – Councillors Bowler, Colman, Cooper, Craven, Gilry, Christine Godwin, Paul Godwin, Griffiths, Harriott, Hubbard, Igwe, Juby, Kearney, Maple, Murray, Osborne, Price, Shaw and Smith (19)

Against – Councillors Avey, Baker, Brake, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Chishti, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Etheridge, Filmer, Griffin, Adrian Gulvin, Pat Gulvin, Hewett, Hicks, The Worshipful The Mayor, Councillor Iles, Irvine, Jarrett, Kemp, Mackinlay, Mackness, Maisey, O’Brien, Purdy, Royle, Tolhurst, Turpin, Watson, Wicks and Wildey (32)

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

This report provided details of the outcome of consultation on a draft Masterplan to guide development on land at and bordering Rochester Airport. It was noted that details of the objectives and content of the draft Masterplan had been set out in previous reports between July-November 2013 including Cabinet on 9 July 2013 and 26 November 2013 and Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 14 August 2013 and 3 October 2013.

The Council received 908 responses to the consultation held from 22 July 2013 to 20 September 2013. The report provided details to the background of the consultation responses, the concerns raised and the Council’s response to those concerns including any proposed amendments to the Masterplan.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, proposed the following:

That Council approves the Rochester Airport Masterplan, as set out in Appendix G to the report subject to the reduction to the annual cap on aircraft movements from 40,000 to 38,000, and authorises the Director of Regeneration, Community & Culture, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Finance and Strategic Development & Economic Growth, to make any final minor amendments to the Masterplan, on the basis set out in paragraph 7.2 of the report.

In accordance with rule 11.4 of the Council Rules at the request of six Members, a recorded vote on the proposal was requested:

For – Councillors Avey, Baker, Brake, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Chishti, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Etheridge, Filmer, Griffin, Adrian Gulvin, Pat Gulvin, Hewett, Hicks, The Worshipful The Mayor, Councillor Iles, Irvine, Jarrett, Kemp, Mackinlay, Mackness, Maisey, O’Brien, Purdy, Rodberg, Royle, Tolhurst, Watson, Wicks and Wildey (32)

Against – Councillors Bowler, Cooper, Craven, Gilry, Christine Godwin, Paul Godwin, Griffiths, Harriott, Hubbard, Igwe, Juby, Kearney, Maple, Murray, Osborne, Price, Shaw and Smith (18)

Abstain – Councillor Turpin (1)

Decision:

The Council approved the Rochester Airport Masterplan, as set out in Appendix G to the report subject to the reduction to the annual cap on aircraft movements from 40,000 to 38,000, and authorised the Director of Regeneration, Community & Culture, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 746.

This report outlines the Medway Strategic Youth Justice Plan Refresh 2012-2014, which has been developed following discussions and consultations with partner agencies, it also reflects the requirements of the Youth Offending Team (YOT) and the new requirements by the Youth Justice Board to submit a costed plan in respect of their grant to the Youth Offending Team.

Discussion:

This report provided details of the Medway Youth Justice Plan 2012-2014. The Youth Justice Plan formed part of the Council’s policy framework and had been developed following discussions with partner agencies. It set out the aims and objectives for 2012/2014 in relation to working with young people who offend or who were at risk of offending.

The plan, which was updated annually, reflected the requirements of the Youth Offending Team (YOT) Improvement Plan and the new requirements by the Youth Justice Board to submit a costed plan in respect of their grant to the Youth Offending Team.

The report had been considered by the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 10 December 2013 and Cabinet on 17 December 2013 with their respective comments set out in the report.

A Diversity Impact Assessment screening form had been undertaken on the draft plan and was attached at Appendix D to the report. This indicated that a full impact assessment was not necessary.

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (Lead Member), Councillor O’Brien, informed Members that targets NI19 (Re-offending) and NI43 (Custodial Convictions), which had been published as “Red – target missed” had now both been met (page 141 of the Agenda refers).

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (Lead Member), Councillor O’Brien, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact, Councillor Hicks, proposed the recommendation as set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council approved the Medway Youth Justice Plan, as set out in Appendix A to the report.

This report seeks Council approval of a revised council tax support scheme, following consideration by Cabinet on 17 December 2013.

Discussion:

This report provided details of a revised Council Tax Support Scheme, following approval of the original scheme in January 2013.   The scheme consisted of two parts, one that made provision for non-pensioners and was at Members’ discretion and one that made provision for pensioners that was made on a national basis and in line with previous awards of council tax benefit. It was noted that those in receipt of a war widow or war disablement pension would enjoy the same protection as pensioners.

When the Council first introduced the scheme in January 2013, a Diversity Impact Assessment had been undertaken on the proposals. This assessment had identified a number of potential adverse impacts together with some mitigating factors being incorporated into the scheme. Given that the proposed revisions to the CTRS will not result in a change to the impact on individuals, it is not proposed to carry out a further assessment, although officers will continue to monitor the impact of the scheme on individuals.

The Cabinet considered the report on 17 December 2013 and its comments were set out in the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council approved the amended Council Tax Reduction Scheme as set out in Appendix C to the report.

This report provides details of two schemes, approval of which is required to be added to the Council’s Capital Programme

Discussion:

This report provided details of two schemes to be added to the Council’s Capital Programme, in relation to the Integrated Care System and the development of the Strood Youth Centre Training Room, following initial consideration by Cabinet.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

a)     The Council approved the addition to the Capital Programme of a £59,085 revenue contribution to capital, funded from a New Burdens Grant, to fund pressures against the Integrated Care System project.

b)     The Council approved the addition to the Capital Programme of up to £50,000 for the development of the Strood Youth Centre Training Room.

This report recommends changes to the configuration and designation of polling districts and polling places in the light of issues arising since the elections for the Police and crime Commissioner in November 2012 and provides an update on the allocation of polling stations by the Returning Officer.

Discussion:

This report set out a number of proposed changes to the configuration and designation of polling districts and polling places in the light of issues arising since the elections for the Police and Crime Commissioner in November 2012 and provided details of the allocation of polling stations by the Returning Officer.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, referred Members to an error in Appendix 2 to the report on page 205. The polling station for GRC1 should have read The Calloway Room, Millennium Centre, Gatekeepers' Chase.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decisions:

a)     The Council approved the scheme of Polling Districts and Polling Places as set out in Appendix 1, including designating each Polling District as the Polling Place in respect of Parliamentary elections and to designate the Parliamentary Polling Districts and Polling Places as the Polling Districts and Polling Places for Local Government elections.

b)     The Council agreed the proposal of the Returning Officer to determine the arrangements for the location of the Polling Station for Polling District RSR4 on the basis set out in paragraphs 3.9-3.11 of the report.

c)      The Council authorised the Chief Executive to designate an adjoining Polling District as the Polling Place where no suitable polling station is available within the original Polling Place.

d)     The Council noted the designation of polling stations recommended by the Returning Officer as set out in Appendix 2 to the report, noting that the polling station for GRC1 should read The Calloway Room, Millennium Centre, Gatekeepers' Chase.

This report details contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of the current Contract Procedure Rules 1.8.2, Exemptions to Contract Procedure Rules, to deal with the letting of contracts in exceptional circumstances where it is considered to be in the best interests of the Council to do so, provided that the exemption does not breach any EU or UK Directive, Statute or Regulation. 

Discussion:

This report provided details of contracts awarded since January 2013 in accordance with the provisions of the current Contract Procedure Rules 1.8.2, Exemptions to Contract Procedure Rules, to deal with the letting of contracts in exceptional circumstances where it was considered to be in the best interests of the Council to do so, provided that the exemption did not breach any EU or UK Directive, Statute or Regulation.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council noted the contents of the report.

On 21 February 2013, Full Council approved the 2013/14 Treasury Management Strategy.  As part of that strategy and in line with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy’s (CIPFA) code of Practice for Treasury Management, there should be a review of that strategy at least half yearly.  This report is the mid year review of the Treasury Management Strategy 2013/14

Discussion:

This report provided details of the mid year review of the Treasury Management Strategy 2013/2014. This included the management of the local authority’s investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions, the effective control of the risks associated with those activities and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks.

This report had been considered by the Audit Committee on 26 November 2013 and Cabinet on 17 December 2013.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council noted the report.

This report asks the Council to consider a provisional programme of meetings for the 2014/2015 municipal year for recommendation to the Council’s annual meeting.

Discussion:

This report provided details of a provisional programme of meetings for the 2014/2015 municipal year, as set out in appendix A to the report, for recommendation to the Council’s annual meeting.

Councillor Kemp, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, proposed the recommendation in the report.

Decision:

The Council agreed a programme of Council and Committee meetings for 2014/2015 as set out in Appendix A to the report for recommendation to the annual meeting of the Council on 14 May 2014.

This report seeks approval to update Committee memberships regarding Healthwatch Medway. 

Discussion:

This report provided details regarding nominations from Healthwatch Medway to the Council’s Committees.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake, proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council agreed the Healthwatch Medway nominations to the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Health and Wellbeing Board, as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report.

This Council is extremely concerned at the decision made by NHS Commissioners, and the Kent and Medway NHS Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT) to move acute mental health inpatient beds out of Medway; leaving the South East’s largest conurbation, outside of London, without this vital service.

This Council echoes the disappointment of the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the Secretary of State for Health did not exercise his powers to order a full review into the service reconfiguration.

This Council calls on the NHS commissioners and the provider, to reverse this ill-considered decision as soon as possible so that the people of Medway and surrounding areas regain this important local service.

The Council asks that the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Health, the NHS Commissioners and KMPT to convey the Council’s position.

This Council is extremely concerned at the decision made by NHS Commissioners, and the Kent and Medway NHS Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT) to move acute mental health inpatient beds out of Medway; leaving the South East’s largest conurbation, outside of London, without this vital service.

This Council echoes the disappointment of the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the Secretary of State for Health did not exercise his powers to order a full review into the service reconfiguration.

This Council calls on the NHS Commissioners and the provider, to reverse this ill-considered decision as soon as possible so that the people of Medway and surrounding areas regain this important local service.

The Council asks that the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Health, the NHS Commissioners and KMPT to convey the Council’s position.

Councillor Murray, supported by Councillor Osborne, proposed the following amendment:

Add the following text (underlined) to current paragraph 3:

This Council calls on the NHS Commissioners and the provider, to reverse this ill-considered decision as soon as possible and to recognise that the pressure to retain acute beds in Medway reflects the fact that community mental health services are not yet sufficiently effective in preventing crisis for patients and consequently admissions to the acute service are higher than they should be. So that the people of Medway and surrounding areas regain this important local service, and in order to reduce the need for acute admissions and give patients the care they need, the Commissioners are asked to fund the setting up of a recovery house in Medway so that residents benefit from the excellent standards that they and KMPT claim to support.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

Under Council Rule 11.4.2, the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Brake, with the consent of the Council and the seconder of the substantive motion, agreed to add the following to the substantive motion:

This Council echoes the disappointment of the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the Secretary of State for Health did not exercise his powers to order a full review into the service reconfiguration and invites him to visit Medway.

On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was agreed.

Decision:

This Council is extremely concerned at the decision made by NHS Commissioners, and the Kent and Medway NHS Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT) to move acute mental health inpatient beds out of Medway; leaving the South East’s largest conurbation, outside of London, without this vital service.

This Council echoes the disappointment of the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the Secretary of State for Health did not exercise his powers to order a full review into the service reconfiguration and invites him to visit Medway.

This Council calls on the NHS Commissioners and the provider, to reverse this ill-considered decision as soon as possible so that the people of Medway and surrounding areas regain this important  ...  view the full minutes text for item 755A)

Medway Council notes the following:

This winter, Medway Maritime Hospital’s A&E Department has broken the government target of admission within 4 hours for 12 out of the last 18 weeks with the worst breach of some 16% of patients not seen within 4 hours.

A&E pressures led to a £2m overspend in the Department last year.

That the NHS Direct service based in Chatham was privatised and staff relocated out of the area as part of the NHS 111 service

That the Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt MP sanctioned the closure of the A Block despite cross-party opposition.

That there are 140 fewer nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff since 2010.

That the number of cancelled operations is up from 210 in 2009/10 to 318 in 2012/13.

MRSA rates per 100,000 bed days are up from 0.7 in 2009/10 to 2.7 in 2011/12.

Medway Council believes the following:

That the top-down re-organisation of the NHS has been woefully mismanaged and has led to significant pressure placed on staff at hospitals.

Cuts to adult social care and the re-classification of those aided by Medway Council in need has led to individuals with significant problems having to attend A&E as emergency admissions.

The closure of NHS Direct and the privatisation to NHS111 has been an unmitigated disaster that has led to increased attendance to A&E.

That the Coalition Government is rushing through Clause 118 on the Care Bill to force closures of NHS services without appropriate consultation of local residents.

That closure of services under Clause 118 without consulting the local community would be an affront to local democracy 

Medway Council resolves to write to Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt to oppose Clause 118.

Medway Council notes the following:

This winter, Medway Maritime Hospital’s A&E Department has broken the government target of admission within 4 hours for 12 out of the last 18 weeks with the worst breach of some 16% of patients not seen within 4 hours.

A&E pressures led to a £2m overspend in the Department last year.

That the NHS Direct service based in Chatham was privatised and staff relocated out of the area as part of the NHS 111 service

That the Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt MP sanctioned the closure of the A Block despite cross-party opposition.

That there are 140 fewer nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff since 2010.

That the number of cancelled operations is up from 210 in 2009/10 to 318 in 2012/13.

MRSA rates per 100,000 bed days are up from 0.7 in 2009/10 to 2.7 in 2011/12.

Medway Council believes the following:

That the top-down re-organisation of the NHS has been woefully mismanaged and has led to significant pressure placed on staff at hospitals.

Cuts to adult social care and the re-classification of those aided by Medway Council in need has led to individuals with significant problems having to attend A&E as emergency admissions.

The closure of NHS Direct and the privatisation to NHS111 has been an unmitigated disaster that has led to increased attendance to A&E.

That the Coalition Government is rushing through Clause 118 on the Care Bill to force closures of NHS services without appropriate consultation of local residents.

That closure of services under Clause 118 without consulting the local community would be an affront to local democracy 

Medway Council resolves to write to Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt to oppose Clause 118.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.