Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 2 February 2012.

The record of the meeting held on 2 February 2012 was agreed and signed as correct by the Chairman. 

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Pat Gulvin.

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report.

There were none. 

(a)               Personal interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, may stay, speak, and vote on the matter.

(b)               Prejudicial interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal and prejudicial interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, must withdraw from the room and take no part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors who have declared a personal and prejudicial interest may make representations, answer questions and give evidence before leaving the room but only if members of the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose.

If an interest is not declared at the outset of the meeting, it should be disclosed as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

(c)               Whipping – the Council’s constitution also requires any Member of the Committee who is subject to a party whip (ie agreeing to vote in line with the majority view of a private party group meeting) to declare the existence of the whip and the nature of it before the item is discussed.

Councillor Adrian Gulvin declared a personal interest in any reference to the Youth Offending Team as his brother managed the team.

The Chairman of the Housing Improvement Board will attend the meeting and give a powerpoint presentation to the committee giving details of the work achieved during the past year. 

Discussion:

The Head of Housing Management introduced members of the Housing Improvement Board to the Committee, advising that the Board’s role was the scrutiny of the housing management service in Medway.

Two Board members, Mary Butcher and Jackie Edwards, gave a powerpoint presentation which included:

The panel was formed to:

• recommend ideas to improve services
• champion tenants and leaseholders, and to bring to the Council’s attention their ideas and points of view
• gather information from the other tenant and leaseholder forums
• ensure services gave best value to tenants and leaseholders.

The work of the panel included to:

• check, read and scrutinise policies and procedures; and make recommendations for improvements of service
• shape services and work with officers to prioritise services and recommend improvements to the service.
• monitor the services provided and makes sure policies and procedures were followed; and the work of contractors, for example, when reviewing voids procedures.

What had been achieved

• the Panel had been formed, with the help of an independent mentor;
• review of policies including: Pets, Succession, Crossover, Anti-social Behaviour, Horticultural, Voids and Resident Involvement Funding;
• consulted on the Tenant Incentive Scheme;
• attended a ‘Better for Less’ presentation at the council offices;
• undertaken TPAS training on scrutiny;
• carried out the first review on the Voids Standards.

Future work

• develop a programme of scrutiny work for 2012;
• undertake a training programme identified by need;
• carry out two or three reviews of areas of the Housing Service according to priority
• ensure requirements of the Localism Act is met by:

checking that Housing Services is held accountable to tenants and leaseholders

ensure that Tenant Associations and Focus Groups are adequately supported

• working with staff to create a Complaints Panel which will consist of Tenants, Leaseholders and Councillors.

The committee thanked the Housing Improvement Board for the presentation and the time and effort the members of the Board gave to achieve its success.

Members asked various questions, including:

• was there anything the council could do to make the Board’s work easier?

The Board Members advised that receiving more information would assist its work, as it was trying to give a good service.

• Had there been any recommendations form the Board that the Council had turned down?

Members were advised that one recommendation had been turned down by the Council with regard to the Pets Policy, as officers did not think the suggestion put forward was feasible.

• Had the Board talked to similar committees of other housing providers to share information?

Members of the Board had been to Kent and Sussex Residents Involvement Alliance (KASRIA) and mhs homes. They had also visited Brighton and Hove Council and were hoping to visit Dartford, Thanet and Luton as these were authorities with a similar size housing stock and issues.

• Did the Board have enough resources to do its job properly?

The committee was advised that the Board would like to have the finance available to reach tenants not wholly involved. It was suggested that by having a caravan to tour Medway promoting their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 908.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance will attend the meeting in order to be held to account for matters within the remit of this committee. 

Discussion:

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Councillor Jarrett, gave a presentation to the committee which included:

      Procurement

·        The Procurement Board had met 16 times during the past year and considered 118 contracts with a total of £230 million

·        Scrutiny of contracts was becoming increasing severe and testing to ensure value for money

·        The Council was moving towards a ‘Category Management’ form of procurement which, once set up, would deliver better contracts and service delivery.

Asset and Property Management

·        In 2010/11 the Council sold 29 properties valuing £4.1 million
In 2011/12, 26 properties were sold valuing £2.6 million and a further four properties were due to be sold with a value of £700,000. This helped to fund capital priorities with a beneficial effect on the backlog of maintenance which had reduced from £34 million to the current £16 million

·        Work had commenced on Rochester Riverside

·        Terms were being agreed with Tesco for a new store in Strood which would enable a new library offer in Strood with a community hub

·        26 out of 27 council-owned business start-up units were currently let and the property team had been commissioned as property advisors by Kent Fire and Rescue Service

·        on-going energy savings work which included £2.7 million spent on mercury abatement work at Medway Crematorium, which would drive down utility costs.

Risk Register

·        Risk was now embedded across the organisation and in service delivery and contracts.

Communications

·        The Council had been awarded a 3* rating for its website which was well used, with 100,000 new visitors per month during the last quarter

·        Medway Matters magazine was produced six times a year which was a vital means of communicating with residents. It was greatly enhanced with the unified events guide which would now be included in every edition

·        Current campaigns included: Love Medway app and Stop the Estuary Airport.

Better for Less

·        Phase 1 was underway and would deliver budget savings and an enhanced service

·        The Council sought to minimise the number of staff leaving due to this project and to date there had been one compulsory redundancy. Affected staff had been moved to vacant posts which saved money on redundancy costs and minimised the disruption to employee’s lives.

Finance

·        The Council had set a balanced budget over the past few years and delivered on it, despite difficulties caused by the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, with greater challenges to face in the next few years

·        The whole Council worked hard to bring in a balanced budget, and in some cases, an underspend

·        budget assumptions were made on demographic growth which was a volatile measure but in spite of this, the assumptions made have been sound, as the budgets have been balanced at the end of the financial year

·        There was two years remaining of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) with further grant reductions and the consequences of the Council Tax freeze for 2012/2013

·        There was to be a government ‘Resource Distribution Review’ (which included the re-distribution of business rates) but this would not happen  ...  view the full minutes text for item 909.

This report advises Members of the level of required maintenance in respect of the Council’s operational property portfolio.

Discussion:

The Head of Asset and Property Services introduced the report which detailed the council’s significant portfolio of operational properties. He advised that the maintenance of these properties was important to ensure they remained fit for purpose to meet service needs. Members were also advised that there was an on-going property rationalisation programme, which resulted in reducing the repair liabilities for the council. A recent condition survey had been carried out and this informed the priority list for the repair programme, as set out in appendix 1. The current repair programme totalled just over £16 million.

The committee commented on the information provided within appendix 1 and made the following comments and requests to officers:

·        it was difficult to quantify the works required on each property, brief information should be included in future

·        what was the priority order of works within Priority 1?

·        properties due to be disposed of should be listed separately, so they did not affect the overall figure for this budget

·        it would be useful to include timescales for the rationalisation programme

·        a further column was requested detailing the properties that received a grant from other organisations, for example English Heritage

·        it appeared that maintenance works were considered on a project by project basis. The same type of maintenance work should be bundled together through the procurement process to ensure value for money

·        were the heritage assets within the council’s ownership getting a full financial return, for example Rochester Castle? Had a study been undertaken to demonstrate this?

·        in the future, could officers bring more information to the meeting for all properties with maintenance works over £100,000, in order to answer specific questions from Members

·        clarification as to whether the Balfour Centre was due for disposal, as it had previously been understood that it was the service provided at the centre that was to be disposed of, not the centre itself, as other services were still located there?

Officers advised that they were currently working on prioritising the order of works within Priority 1 and that additional information on the lists requested by Members would be provided in future reports. Members were assured that, where possible, maintenance works were bundled together through the procurement process to ensure value for money.

In response to various questions about the council’s heritage assets, officers advised that the purpose of the maintenance programme was to list the properties principally in the council’s ownership and the condition of those properties. The report did not include what the service challenges were for each property but the property team tasked the service with appropriate questions about this. There was a Local Management Agreement with English Heritage but this had limited funding and the scale of refurbishment for any heritage asset was enormous. For example, the council had previously investigated the cost of installing a roof on Rochester Castle to give it commercial viability, which was estimated to be £5 million, whereas English Heritage wanted to let the castle decline gracefully.

The Chief Executive advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 910.

This report is to discuss the six-monthly review of the Council’s Corporate Business Risk Register.  

Discussion:

The Quality Assurance and Client Manager introduced the report advising that this was the six month review of the council’s Corporate Business Risk Register, with three recommendations on amendments to the register.

Members discussed the proposed risk rating reduction for SR27 (Government changes to Local Authority’s responsibility for schools) and SR30 (Delivering Better for Less transformation), together with the deletion of SR29 (transition to a new provider for mental health social care services), as this was completed on 1 February 2012.

With regard to risk SR27, Members discussed the possibility of the creation of academies for primary schools and the Chairman of the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee also clarified that schools deemed to be ‘coasting’ because they had received two “satisfactory” or less OfSTED inspections were at risk of being compulsorily converted to academies. The committee raised concern at this and how it might affect this risk rating in the future.

Members also commented:

·        that there was no specific reference within SR28 (Changes to the Health System) to the Medway Maritime hospital consultation and potential merger with another hospital

·        SR02 (Business continuity and emergency planning) contained no reference to the pending Olympic Games and its potential impact on infrastructure links. Members requested a detailed breakdown of the risks identified due to the Olympic Games, as part of the Kent resilience approach

·        there was also no reference within the register to the future changes in housing benefit, Council Tax and universal credit. Members acknowledged that the timescale for implementation kept slipping but it was worthy of having its own submission on the Corporate Business Risk Register.

Officers responded that the register contains information of the council’s risks and not those of its partners, which was why there was no information on the hospital consultation process.

With reference to business continuity, the committee would be sent information on the risks identified for the forthcoming games and all Members of the council would also receive information on the torch relay through Medway prior to the start of the Olympic Games.

Officers also advised that the changes to the benefit system should be categorised in SR03b (Finances – longer term) and would be added as part of the sub-text to this risk.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)         note the Management Team’s recommendations on amendments to the Council’s Risk register;

(b)         request a Briefing Note on the risks associated in and around Medway before and during the Olympic Games.

This report presents the Council performance for the third quarter of 2011-2012. In particular, it includes performance against indicators and actions agreed in the Council Plan.

Discussion:

The Assistant Director, Communications, Performance and Partnerships introduced the report that included performance highlights and an update on the six Cabinet priority areas for quarter three (October to December 2011).

The committee commented on the performance information within the report, including:

·        a request to remove all acronyms within the notes section of the appendix

·        it was difficult to achieve the target for ‘Looked After Children participation in reviews’ if the child was reluctant to take part, particularly teenagers attending health assessments (page 69 of the agenda)

·        as part of increasing public awareness and satisfaction of the work of the council’s Community Officers (page 79 of the agenda), ward councillors could help this by organising more community events held with these officers

·        Love Medway app – the limited number of phones that could use this app

·        disappointment that a Christmas market would not be held in 2012, after high visitor numbers for 2011

·        concern for the final quarter of 2011/2012 as performance for NI 132 and NI 133 (pages 56 and 57 of the agenda) was erratic

·        NI 146 – Adults with learning disabilities in employment (page 57 pf the agenda), Members requested further information on the new ‘Jobs First’ programme

·        disappointment at the recent news that the SOS bus may potentially no longer serve in Medway and Members’ hope that the council could rectify this to allow the service to continue its work in the area

·        Congratulations to officers for the positive results in ‘We will promote Medway as a destination for culture, heritage, sport and tourism’.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)   note the outcomes achieved against priorities;

(b)   request that all acronyms are removed and the full words given in the information provided in the table;

(c)   refer NI 133 (timeliness of services commencing post-assessment) to the next available Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as agreed by its Chairman.

This report details the revenue budget forecast at the end of quarter three (October to December 2011). 

Discussion:

The Finance Manager introduced the report advising that at the end of quarter two the council had forecast a potential overspend of £5.1 million. Budget managers had worked hard to reduce this to a forecast breakeven position by the end of quarter three of 2011/2012. This improvement had arisen from management action, less demand than forecast and an increase in receipts (income to the council). Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the report set out the details within each directorate.

The committee was concerned at the erratic nature of the monitoring reports with a forecast overspend of £5 million last quarter and a breakeven forecast in the following quarter and asked if this involved changes to frontline services. Members referred to the £500,000 reduction in Early Years expenditure and the reduction in requirement on concessionary fares resulting in £522,000 savings and asked whether the original forecast in demand for these services had been inaccurate or artificially inflated?

Officers responded that by quarter three, the outturn could be predicted with greater certainty, whereas in quarter two the degree of uncertainty, particularly in areas such as social care where activity could be volatile, resulted in far more cautious and prudent forecasting. The £500,000 reduction in the Early Years forecasts included a £280,000 reduction in relation to nursery provision for three year olds, where the take up of funded places had been lower than anticipated.  In addition to this, Children's Centre forecasts reduced by £186,000 during quarter 3.  With regard to concessionary fares, it was prudent of the council to provide for a greater uptake in the scheme. The savings figure was only 10% of the total budget and this could either be a continuing trend or it could be a variation which happened year on year. Any unspent monies for the scheme, which was met from baseline funding, would be returned to reserves.

The committee also asked for further information on the reported underspend in Greenspaces and Country Parks of £163,000, principally due to staff vacancies. The Chief Executive advised that all approvals for recruiting to frontline posts were reported through the Cabinet and that there was a presumption, due to the spending moratorium, that other staff vacancies were not filled. Members requested that all vacant posts were reported to them through the appropriate committee, including how many posts and for how long had those posts been vacant, how many vacancies had not been allowed to go through the process of being reported to Cabinet and had any vacant posts been deleted?

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)   note the forecast outturn position for 2011-2012 and underlying management action;

(b)   request further information via a Briefing Note on the £500,000 underspend within the Early Years service;

(c)   request further information via a Briefing Note on the £522,000 underspend in concessionary fares;

(d)   request a report to the appropriate committee on unfilled vacant posts within the council, including the underspend of £163,000 in Greenspaces and Country Parks.

This report details the capital budget forecast at the end of quarter three (October to December 2011). 

Discussion:

The Finance Manager introduced the report advising that the current capital programme for 2011/2012 was £154.5 million. He highlighted Table 1 of the report, which detailed that the council was forecast to spend £81million during 2011/2012 and £72 million would be rolled forward to future years. He also advised that the Portfolio Holder for Finance had delayed some programmes where the budget had not been committed, so that the council did not have to exercise £3.5 million of borrowing approvals.

Members requested a Briefing Note regarding the current situation on the Stoke Crossing scheme and the £1.2 million budget variance.

Members raised concern at capital monies spent on schools, which then converted to become an academy, as this money could have been spent on a school the authority retained responsibility for. Officers advised that it was the council’s responsibility to provide enough school places for children in Medway and if they were needed in an area served by an academy, the academies had certain devolved capital funding to provide them. The maintenance costs would then be passed directly to the academy.

Members also asked if the Local Authority would be liable if an academy overspent its budget? Officers responded that programmes were managed by transferring the risk to the contractor of the project but where a project was managed directly by the Local Education Authority, the risk would sit with the council. Officers were aware of schools that were currently considering converting to academy status, except those that may be compulsorily converted due to lack of improvement in performance, and would consider this as part of the overall capital budget spend.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)   note the additions and amendments to the programme outlined in the report and the spending and funding forecasts summarised in Tables 1 and 3;

(b)   request a Briefing Note on the current situation with regard to the Stoke Crossing and the £1.2 million budget variance.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows them to adjust it in the light of latest priorities, issues and circumstances.  It gives Members the opportunity to shape and direct the Committee’s activities over the year. 

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report highlighting that the responsibility for housing services would transfer to the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee from 1 April 2012 and that the Fair Access to Credit Task Group had met and was progressing its review with a series of meetings arranged for March and April 2012.

The Chairman of the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee updated Members with an additional item that had been reported to the committee on 21 March 2012. This considered the proposed closure of Preston Skreens and a review of overnight short break provision for children with severe and complex disabilities, currently provided by the health service. The committee was anxious about these proposals and considered this to be a substantial variation to current provision.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

(a)   note the work undertaken by all overview and scrutiny committees (set out in appendices 2 and 3 of the report);

(b)   note the transfer of housing services to the remit of the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee from 1 April 2012;

(c)   note the transfer of the remaining housing reports (set out in paragraph 6.4 of the report) to the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s work programme;

(d)   note the commencement of the Fair Access to Credit Task group.