Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 4 February 2014.

The record of the meeting held on 4 February 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Avey, Juby and Wildey.

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

There were no urgent matters by reason of special circumstances. 

(A)              Disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests

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.

Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.

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.

(B)            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.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Murray declared an interest in agenda item 6 – Attendance of the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services and specifically in Medway Adult & Community Learning Services (MACLS). Councillor Murray noted the partnership working between MACLS and Mid Kent College. She stated she worked for Mid Kent College in Maidstone and that she had no involvement in the partnership working and therefore reserved her right to speak.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact will attend the meeting in order to be held to account for matters within the remit of this Committee. 

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress made within the Portfolio for Community Safety and Customer Contact falling within the remit of the Committee over the last year which included the following subjects:

·                      Community Contact

·                      ICT

·                      Legal

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact, Councillor Hicks, responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

·                    Customer Contact Team – The pressures on the Customer Contact Team were highlighted. The Better for Less (BfL) initiative had increased pressure by reducing the numbers of staff whilst customer numbers were increasing making Riverside One very busy. Portfolio Holder agreed that Riverside One was not able to provide services to the standard the Council aspired to and therefore a new location was being sought. He further advised that in the next year or so Chatham would have a proper customer contact centre. However, under BfL most complaints were received via telephone and the call centre received 50,000 calls a month. The public was also directed to the Community Hubs in Rochester and Gillingham. In response to questions about the number of contact centre staff, the 92% positive response rate and the breakdown of call monitoring data (i.e. how many calls were used to provide the data) and the Portfolio Holder agreed to provide the Committee with this information in the form of a report.

·                    ICT – The Council’s systems were not always considered adequate and the Portfolio Holder’s current view on IT accessibility for Council staff was requested. In addition, concern was expressed about the  “digital by default” requirement for the public to be online to be connected to Council services. The Committee was advised of the “agile working” initiative which would allow officers to record their work whilst out of the office, for example, social workers and planning officers. He also referred to “Thin Client” technology that was more efficient to run and used less power than a personal computer. The Portfolio Holder was a member of a cross party working group that was considering these matters and he undertook to provide the Committee with details. The Group had also recognised the hard work of the staff and the quantum and complexity of the work. However, concern was expressed that the staff were working incredibly hard and their goodwill and capacity was not limitless.

·                    Legal Strategic Advice – A concern was raised about potential liability to the Council if the Government ruled that the Council should not have decided to transfer a surplus on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to its general fund. In the past, legal challenges had caused the Council to become risk averse and it was asked where the Council stood in comparison to other local authorities. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council had gained detailed legal opinion and it was for the Portfolio Holder for Finance to respond to this question. The Council would always obtain robust legal advice whenever necessary before taking action such as this.

Decision:

The Committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 904.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services will attend the meeting in order to be held to account for matters within the remit of this Committee. 

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress made within the Portfolio for Housing and Community Services falling within the remit of the Committee over the last year which included the following subjects:

·        Adult learning

·        Bereavement and registration services

·        Disabled adaptations to housing

·        Homeless and housing options

·        Housing allocations for social housing

·        Housing strategy

·        Private sector housing

·        The development and management of the Council’s housing stock

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

• Ofsted – On receipt of a request for an update on the Council’s Ofsted report, the Portfolio Holder reported that the Council’s Ofsted report had improved from a four to a three which acknowledged progress made by the Council. However the new systems put in place to achieve this improvement still needed time to settle in and, when they had, full account would be taken of these in any future Ofsted inspection. The journey of improvement had brought new sources of income that were more sustainable and effective to the Council. The new funding was also playing a useful role in a number of areas such as troubled families. Some lessons were still to be learned but overall, progress was going well. He noted that the model Ofsted worked to was difficult to apply to learning not directed at training for employment and so it was intended to rebrand the diverse business into three distinct strands, with different criteria for each.  The Portfolio Holder undertook to circulate the Council’s Ofsted report to the Committee.
• Bereavement Services – The Committee noted the bereavement project to install mercury abatement equipment had been well handled and well managed and it was requested that the Committee’s appreciation be passed onto the team at Medway Crematorium. Concern was raised that the Council had been required to install mercury abatement equipment and there were only two companies in the UK that could undertake this work. One company had gone into liquidation in the middle of the installation which had made the project very difficult to handle. However despite this issue the project had been well managed and the Portfolio Holder had been very impressed with the Team. It was requested that the Committee’s concerns be forwarded to the national body involved with developing this initiative.
• Registration Services – On being questioned with regard to the promotion of equal marriages in Medway, the Portfolio Holder replied that anything that attracted income to the registration service was to be welcomed.
• Homeless applications – Concern was expressed regarding the increase in homeless applications and the fact that the Council’s only approach to this increase had been to adopt the Homelessness Prevention Strategy and was anything else currently being done. The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council’s Housing Solutions Team was working with homeless applicants and was doing everything possible to assist.
• Licensable Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) – It was noted that the number of licensable HMOs in Medway had remained static for sometime. However some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 905.

This report and accompanying guidance note (Appendix A), addresses the link between obesity and planning in Medway and specifically regarding hot food takeaways. The guidance proposes a restriction on the hours of operation of hot food takeaways within 400m of schools and other measures to control numbers and location. Following consultation, the intention is to implement a final guidance note that can form a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for hot food takeaways. 

Discussion:

The Committee received a report and accompanying guidance note which addressed the link between obesity and planning in Medway and specifically regarding hot food takeaways. The guidance proposed a restriction on the hours of operation of hot food takeaways with 400 metres of schools and other measures to control numbers and location. Following the consultation process agreed by Cabinet on 11 March 1014, the intention was to implement a guidance note that could form material consideration in the determination of planning applications for hot food takeaways. The consultation would run from 20 March 2014 to 2 May 2014.

The Chairman reminded Councillors that the Committee was being asked to comment on the consultation, which had been approved by Cabinet and had not been “called-in” and that any comments and views would be forwarded to Cabinet for consideration. He requested that the consultation response report be submitted to the Committee before being sent to Cabinet for decision.

Members made the following comments:

One Councillor expressed strong opposition to the planning guidance note mainly in terms of the proposals being an attack on jobs, an attack on businesses, an attack on the local economy and an attack on an individual’s freedom to choose. There was concern that there was public health officials and politicians out there who wish to restrict an individual’s ability to make clear, rational choices for themselves. It was of concern that the Council was saying ‘we do not trust you to make the right choice, so we are going to take that choice away’.

A Councillor, who was the governor at a number of schools, noted that the idea for this policy had come from the Health & Wellbeing Board and consultation on the proposal had been agreed by Cabinet. Obesity among adults and children was clearly an issue therefore the evidence would enable the Planning Committee to address the density of fast food outlets. A balanced mix of thriving community businesses was needed by Medway. It was felt that the consultation would allow the Council to make informed and appropriate decisions.

A Councillor who was a member of the Health Inequalities Task Group stated that the Council had a legal obligation under Section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to take appropriate steps to improve health in the area. Life expectancy in the Medway was below the national average and this gap must be addressed. This measure was not expected to have a huge impact in the short term but was part of a wider programme of measures and would raisie awareness of the healthy lifestyle message to residents.

It was noted that the Planning Committee was aware how difficult it was to refuse permission for applications involving hot food takeaways as there was no policy reason to refuse. This policy would allow the Committee more scope to refuse applications for new outlets. The 23 local authorities mentioned in the report would have all consulted and all similar policies had been agreed.

The Vice-Chairman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 906.

This report summarises the performance of the Council’s Key Measures of Success for October to December (Quarter 3) 2013/14 as set out in the Council Plan 2013-15. 

Discussion:

The Assistant Director Communications, Performance and Partnerships reported on performance against the Council’s Key Measures of Success for the third quarter of 2013/14 and drew attention to the areas within the remit of the Committee.

NI156 – Number of Households Living in Temporary Accommodation – It was questioned how the Council checked the quality of temporary stock where it was not the landlord. The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture advised that all Council funded housing should be of a Decent Home Standard and a Briefing Note had recently been circulated on this matter. This standard included temporary accommodation and Councillors were requested to report any concerns to officers. All properties used by the Council were inspected.

Project Recreate – It was considered that this was a real opportunity to engage with the existing creative environment.

Growing Places Fund – Concern was raised that there was no indication on how the Council would be paying back this money. It was considered that this concern was within the remit of the Committee through its finance responsibilities and a report was requested to be submitted to a future meeting and to include, more specifically, the Rochester and Chatham areas.

Decision:

a)         The Committee noted third quarter performance against the Key Measures of Success used to monitor progress against the Council Plan 2012/13;

b)         The Committee requested that the Assistant Director Communications, Performance and Partnerships submit a report to a future meeting of the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee on how the Council would be paying back the Growing Places Fund specifically in relation to the Chatham and Rochester areas.

This report presents the capital monitoring for the period to December 2013, with an outturn forecast for 2013/14. 

Discussion:

The Children and Adults Finance Manager introduced the report which set out capital budget monitoring for the period ending December 2013 with an outturn forecast for 2013/14. The Committee was advised there had been an increase in the capital programme since the previous quarter which had added £17 million. This included £10 million in the form of targeted basic need grant, allowing the Council to meet its requirement for additional school places in Medway, and a £5.5 million increase for the HRA house building programme had been funded from borrowing.  Both additions were to be rolled forward and spent in future years.

Decision:

a)         The Committee noted the spending forecasts summarised at Table 1 of the report; and

b)         The Committee noted the budget virements and additions to the capital programme as detailed in paragraphs 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 of the report.

This report details the revenue budget forecasts as at the end of Quarter 3 (April to December 2013). 

 Discussion:

Children and Adults Finance Manager introduced a report detailing the revenue budget forecasts as at the end of quarter 3 (April – December 2013).

Since the quarter 2 monitoring report the forecast overspend had been reduced by £1.1 million to £3.3 million.

Decision:

The Committee noted the forecast outturn position and proposed management action following the third round of quarterly revenue monitoring for 2013/14.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1 of the Council’s Risk Management Strategy, this report is to discuss the 6 monthly review of the Council’s Corporate Business Risk Register.

Discussion:

The Business Quality Assurance Manager reported on the 6 monthly review of the Council’s Corporate Risk Register and drew attention to a number of suggested amendments proposed by risk owners as set out at paragraph 3 of the report.

The Chairman, on behalf of the Committee, thanked the Business Quality Assurance Manager for all her hard work and long service to Medway Council and advised that she would be leaving at the end of the month.

The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the tabled information containing details of risk SR27 – Government changes to Local Authority’s Responsibilities for Schools which had been omitted from Appendix B of the report. Also risk SR9b Keeping Vulnerable Young People Safe and On Track and SR 17 Delivering Regeneration appeared twice.

SR19 Downturn in the Economy - Concern expressed with regard to the downgrading of this risk to the lowest point of E2 was too much as this would send out the wrong signals.  Medway’s unemployment numbers had increased in the last month even though the national average had reduced. TIGER funding had also been reduced and it was considered that a reduction of risk to a more middle position was appropriate. Councillors were advised that there were other factors that must also be taken into account including a possible conflict in Europe which might push up fuel prices, reduced economic growth of countries such as China etc. The Business Quality Assurance Manager explained that the downgrade was in line with the responsible officer’s recommendation as there were management strategies in place which would make the risk far less likely to be affected by external factors.

SR22 – Treasury Management – Some caution was expressed about downgrading this risk whilst the service was bought back in-house. It was considered that it should remain the same whilst the change was in progress. Some Members considered that the downgrading was appropriate given the reduced risk of a downturn in the economy and the protection given by strategies put in place by the Council and the trajectory of improvement in the local economy.

Decision:

a)         The Committee accepted the Management Team’s recommendations on amendments to the Council’s Risk Register as detailed in paragraph 3 of the report with the exception of SR19 – Downturn in the Economy which it was recommended should be downgraded to C2 and the risk rating be linked to SR17 – Delivering Regeneration;

b)         The Committee agreed that this recommendation be forwarded to Cabinet on 8 April 2014; and

c)         The Committee expressed its appreciation and wished the Business Quality Assurance Manager all the best for the future.

This report sets out the response to an issue raised by Councillor Osborne concerning the costs of the Mayoralty. 

Discussion:

The Committee considered a report that set out the response to an issue raised under the Medway Constitution Overview and Scrutiny Rules (chapter 4, part 5, paragraph 9.1) by Councillor Osborne concerning the costs of the Mayoralty.

Councillor Osborne introduced the report by stating that the purpose of the report was not to criticise any past or present Mayors or Deputy Mayors but to scrutinise the budget that supported the mayoralty. There had been an 18% reduction in funding from the Government in the last three years and there had been no corresponding reductions in the mayoralty budget although most other budgets had experienced reductions. He stated that the public were interested in the overspend on vehicles and staffing and referred to a couple of other authorities that shared mayoralty staff with other departments and some that had moved to leasing vehicles to save money. The Council needed to be responsible with public funds and that this information should be in the public domain. At mayoralty charity events, tickets were often sold at prices that were cheaper than if the event was not for charity and Councillors and their partners were therefore receiving discounts that should be open for scrutiny. Councillor Osborne also referred to the fact that some charity events had had to be cancelled due to lack of interest. Also the delineation of responsibility between the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor was of concern. The Deputy Mayor carried out 81 duties in a year that equated to two engagements a week and this demonstrated that the duties needed to be equalised or it should be considered whether the roles were needed. Table 3 in the report showed the food and drinks costs and this should be clear to the public. There had been reductions in frontline services, in schools budgets, in highways repairs and bus service costs were increasing. Councillor Osborne concluded that there should be scrutiny of mayoralty and leadership costs.

The Deputy Director of Customer Contact, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance responded by stating that this was a comprehensive report and he summarised the main sections. He welcomed the transparency the report brought and he stated that all budgets were monitored and managed closely. The department had delivered all the savings required and the report showed that there was a very lean mayoralty team. He concluded that there was a distinction between the roles of Executive Mayors and Ceremonial Mayors.

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

Council’s Budget Process – A question was raised about why Councillor Osborne had not raised these issues during the Council’s budget process. Councillor Osborne responded that he had requested a Member’s report and had wanted to see the report before making a judgement.

Shared Responsibility – Some Councillors considered that the duties of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor should be shared more equally. Reference was made to the former councils in Medway before 1998 which meant that Medway’s Mayor and Deputy Mayor had a greater geographical area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 911.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows the Committee 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 advising Members of the current work programme which allowed them to adjust it in light of latest priorities, issues and circumstances.

An agenda planning meeting had been held on 28 February 2014 and the following changes to the work programme had been agreed:

(a)               Update on the joint venture with NORSE – quarter 3 2013/14 be deferred to the meeting on the Committee to be held on 3 July 2014 and the Update on the joint venture with NORSE – end of year 2013/14 (also going to the July meeting of the Committee) to be merged into one report.

(b)               Update on discussions with the Gambling Commission to be submitted to the meeting to be held on 3 July 2014.

(c)               Access to and use of IT in Medway to be removed from the work programme and included in the scope of the Welfare Reform Task Group.

(d)               Participatory Budgeting – The Director of Recreation, Community and Culture and the Chief Finance Officer to meet to scope this subject and to report back to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Opposition Spokesmen for further discussion.

(e)               Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Development Programme to be submitted to the meeting to be held on 3 July 2014.

(f)                 Communications Shared Service to be submitted to the meeting to be held on 26 August 2014.

Welfare Reform Group - The Chairman stated that the Committee had been invited to set up the membership of the Welfare Reform Task Group and he advised that there would be no support members as the Task Groups required a commitment to complete the work in a satisfactory manner. Concern and disappointment were expressed about the lack of support members.

The Conservative nominations for the Welfare Reform Task Group were Councillors Pat Gulvin, Mackness and Royle.

The Committee’s spokesmen agreed to nominate outside the meeting through the usual channel.

Sale of Cheap Alcohol in Non-traditional Outlets - Councillor Murray requested a Member’s report to investigate the sale of cheap alcohol in non-traditional outlets for example Supadrug in Chatham’s Pentagon Centre. Maidstone Town Centre had a Supasavers store which sold wine at £3 per bottle and the town had experienced problems such as on-street drinking and littering from these sales. The Committee was advised that this subject was part of the remit of the Medway Alcohol Partnership Group who was looking at alcohol and its cumulative impact and the appropriate officers were also involved. Councillor Murray confirmed that she was happy to accept this offer but would like the report to be considered by the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Decision:

(a)               The Committee noted the items identified for inclusion in the work programme be noted;

(b)               The Committee agreed the changes to the work programme set out in paragraph 3.2.1;

(c)               The Committee agreed that the membership of the Welfare Reform Task Group would be appointed on a 3:1:1 basis with no support Members.

(d)               The Committee agreed that the Conservative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 912.