Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 11 April 2013 and the record of the Joint Meeting of all Committees held on 15 May 2013.

The record of the meeting held on 11 April 2013 was agreed and signed as correct by the chairman. The record of the Joint Committee meeting on 15 may 2013 was agreed and signed as correct by the chairman. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Carr and Councillor Etheridge.

Apologies were also received from Dr Nathan Nathan of the Clinical Commissioning Group. 

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 none. 

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. 

Councillor Adrian Gulvin declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6, as his brother was the Youth Offending Team Manager was present to advise on the item relating to scrutiny of the community safety partnership.

A presentation will be given by the Vice-Chairman of the Community Safety Partnership updating the committee with details of the outcomes of last year’s priorities and issues for the forthcoming year.

Discussion:

The Vice Chairman of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Superintendant Chapman gave a presentation to the Committee on the work of the partnership (a copy of which has subsequently been published on the Council’s website along with the other papers for this meeting). The presentation highlighted the achievements of the CSP and the challenges faced under each of the five priorities in the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2013-2016 together with a look ahead to future planned activity:

• Priority 1 – Tackle drug and alcohol abuse
• Priority 2 – Tackle anti-social behaviour and enviro-crime
• Priority 3 – Reduce re-offending
• Priority 4 – Tackle domestic abuse
• Priority 5 – Reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions

The Committee then made comments, raised a number of questions and discussed a range of issues including:

Preventative work – several members commended the Partnership for the effectiveness of awareness raising programmes in schools. Particular reference was made to work being undertaken by Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue and the Youth Offending Team. One member praised a pilot involving placement of social work students in Pupil Referral Units in secondary schools.

Re-offending – members asked about the overall picture in relation to re-offending rates and asked for an explanation for the significant reduction in instances of re-offending. Superintendent Chapman explained that re-offending rates are reported by re-offending types and that there had been a 32% reduction in reoffending rates among the adult cohort under the integrated re-offender unit rather than across the board. The Police actively worked with other agencies such as the probation service, to seek to achieve early intervention, a targeted regime for prolific offenders and successful restorative practices. The Director of NK LDU Probation Services acknowledged it was difficult to explain the reduction in re-offending rates and highlighted the targeted intervention work being undertaken by the probation service with a focus on getting people through their court orders

Number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI)  – a request was made for these statistics to be presented separately so it was possible to differentiate between the number of road traffic collisions causing deaths and those causing serious injury. The Kent Fire and Rescue Service representative agreed to look into this although members were asked to note that the statistics were presented together as the difference between death or serious injury could be attributable to the degree of heroic medical intervention available at the roadside or on arrival of the patient at hospital.

‘Skunk’ shops – the Committee asked for assurances that the partnership was working on a multi-agency basis to discourage these shops, given the risk of harm they present to young people. CSP representatives acknowledged the difficulties caused by limited powers available to close down ‘skunk’ shops but assured the Committee action was being taken to try and disrupt usage within the existing legal framework

Use of illegal tobacco – with reference to the use of illegal tobacco members commented that performance on this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

This report summarised the performance of the Council’s Key Measures of Success for 2012/13 as set out in:

• The Council Plan 2012/13
• The Council’s annual report, Delivering fair and responsive services

It also summarises the feedback from service users.

Discussion:

The Performance and Intelligence manager for Regeneration, Community and Culture introduced the report to Members, which provided performance information against the Council’s relevant Key Measures of Success for the year 2012-13.

For the year 2012/13 28 out of 36 Regeneration, Community and Culture Council Plan Key measures of success were on target or exceeded their target. Overall 81% of customers were satisfied overall with the way Medway runs its services. The Performance and Intelligence manager outlined a number of successes under each priority. 

The Chair informed members that at the previous Business Support Overview and Scrutiny meeting it was recommended that, subject to agreement from this committee, Council be recommended to agree that housing be moved from the remit of this committee to the remit of the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Assistant Director, Frontline Services advised members to consider the strategic and cross cutting links between housing and other matters within the remit of this committee which would be lost if scrutiny of housing transferred back to the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Members agreed that there was cross party support for housing to be moved back to Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Members welcomed the report and raised a number of points and questions including:

·        Overall levels of customer satisfaction – a member requested a copy of the questions asked in the customer satisfaction survey. Officers were asked if an analysis was undertaken of the responses from those people who expressed dissatisfaction in surveys. It was confirmed that this was done via scrutiny of responses provided in free text in survey returns. A quarterly telephone tracker survey generates the information presented to members about satisfaction levels. Where satisfaction levels remain at an unacceptable level for two quarters a view is usually invited from the Citizens Panel and where the response remained inconclusive further recourse could be made to Focus Groups, the Equalities and Access Group and the Youth Parliament. 

With specific reference to member’s questions about Trading Standards and Environmental Health it was explained that the user sample in the tracker survey was insufficient and a direct service user survey may be better in future. Steps were being taken to seek agreement from users of these services to be approached in future surveys. It was also pointed out that 5-6000 contacts with Trading Surveys were via a national helpline which impacts on available survey sample numbers.

·        Chatham Waterfront Bus station – whilst noting high levels of satisfaction concern members reported that people were complaining about conditions when it is windy and cold. Officers were asked to circulate the questions used in the survey undertaken in March

·        Affordable homes – officers were asked to advise on how Medway compares with other local authorities in relation to affordable homes.

Officers advised that the most recent affordable homes statistics were published by HCA earlier in the week. Medway is providing more affordable homes than the rest of Kent. To illustrate this members were advised 7 new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

This report advises the Committee of the petitions presented at Council meetings, received by the Council or sent via the e-petition facility, including a summary of officer’s response to the petitions. 

Discussion:

The Committee was advised that the report set out the petitions and e-petitions that had recently been received by the Council within the remit of this Committee. There had been no petition referrals from the lead petitioners following receipt of a response from the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture.

A Member asked if those petitions that had come to the committee previously could be added to this report rather than the work programme report, so that the committee to see what progress had been made.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and appropriate officer action as set out in paragraph 3 of the report.

This report sets out a response to concerns raised by Councillor Mackinlay, regarding traffic flow in Chatham.  

Discussion:

Councillor Mackinlay was invited to address the Committee as he had submitted the item for consideration. He voiced his concern that the traffic did not flow properly with two major ‘pinch points’, in particular The Brook where two lanes of traffic merged into one.

He suggested there were a number of cheap and easy fixes to the problem, including the introduction of puffin crossings, which would allow for traffic to flow better.

The Assistant Director, Frontline Services informed members that the major alterations to the road network in Chatham had been delivered to regenerate Chatham town centre. The key objective of the new traffic management arrangements was to remove a traffic barrier between the town centre and the River frontage. He informed members that the report outlined a number of measures that could be taken to help the traffic flow through Chatham and he would welcome a meeting with relevant councillors to review options that could be taken forward.

A member raised the issue that the traffic flow is unique to Medway as it is not a traditional city in terms of its layout due to the boundaries created by the river. However the creation of the bus station at the waterfront had taken away roads at a cost. The issue of traffic flow needed to be looked at in the wider context.

Another member commented that it was easier to drive from Rochester via Strood and the Medway Tunnel to Chatham than use the direct road into Chatham from Rochester.

Members questioned the use of £100,000 for puffin crossings without a deeper investigation, and the need to look indepth at issues before spending money. Members also agreed that the Council should engage with the bus company to inform their bus drivers to not block up road junctions, which impacts on the flow of traffic going in the opposite direction.

The Assistant Director, Frontline Services informed members that the lions share of the cost would go on changing the traffic lights to puffin crossings, and this is a scheme that will be rolled out across Medway and not just Chatham.

Decision:

The Committee agreed that:

1)     Members and officers will meet to discuss traffic flow;

2)  A report will come back to committee in six months time

This report asks Members to consider the final report of the de-cluttering streets in Medway in-depth review and agree the findings and recommendations of the Task Group for referral to the Cabinet on 9 July 2013. 

 Discussion:

The Chair introduced the report and the work carried out by the task group, including four meetings and a stakeholder event, held at St.George’s Centre. The Chair informed members that there were 12 recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report. The Chair invited the Assistant Director, Frontline Services to present the key findings from the task group. 

The Assistant Director, Frontline Services informed members that no one size fits all when it comes to de-cluttering streets. The recommendation is for Medway Council to systematically de-clutter its streets on a case by case basis and in association with future maintenance work and new capital schemes, and that a streetscape manual would guide this process.  The Task Group was recommending that a pilot scheme for de-cluttering should be carried out in Strood Town Centre.

Members welcomed the report and raised a number of points including:

·        The project in Strood High Street is welcomed, particularly as the barriers lining the edge of the pavements are dangerous with a number of gaps, which people use to cross the road.

·        Standardisation of materials used should be a key aim, as this will reduce procurement and ongoing maintenance costs.

·        With regard to bollards, there were concerns that removing some bollards would cause greater problems. For example on the roadside outside schools.

·        Request for assurances that Ward Councillors will be consulted before any decluttering work is carried out in their ward.

·        The importance of consulting shop owners when consideration is given to policy on tables and chairs in front of shops.

In response to the issues raised the Assistant Director, Frontline Services explained that each case would be looked at individually and would follow the policies in the Medway Streetscape Manual. With regards to advertising boards, tables and chairs outside shop fronts, representatives from the Guide Dogs Association had raised concerns and explained that blind and partially sighted people had to physically learn the route where in areas more tables, chairs and advertising boards were located on pavements.

In relation to the pilot scheme in Strood Town Centre, the committee was advised that the project design could be completed by the end of Autumn and by the end of the financial year the work in Strood Town Centre could be completed.

Decision:

The Committee agreed:

1)     To recommend that the De-cluttering Streets in Medway review document is referred to Cabinet for approval, including recommendations 1-12;

2)     To add an additional recommendation that all Ward Members are consulted before the removal of any street furniture in their wards as part of the de-cluttering programme;

3)     To bring a report back to this committee in 12 months time updating members on progress and the impact of the pilot scheme in Strood.

This report sets out changes for handling complaints relating to council landlord services, introduced by the Localism Act 2011.

From April 2013 the Housing Ombudsman will investigate complaints, rather than the Local Government Ombudsman, once they have exhausted the Council's internal complaints process. In addition the Act requires complaints to pass through a 'democratic filter' 

Discussion:

The Head of Housing Management introduced the report, which sets out a new role for Councillors. A tenant who has exhausted the Council’s internal complaints procedure can ask a ‘designated person’ to refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsmen. All Councillors are ‘designated persons’ under the Localism Act 2011.

The recommended option proposed a ‘designated person panel’ and would comprise Members selected cross party, a tenant representative and an independent person.

The Committee asked how the new system would work if option 2 were to be adopted. Officers advised that once a complaint about housing landlord services has been through stages 1 and 2 of the Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure the Localism Act stipulates that complaints may only then be referred to the housing ombudsman if a “designated person” agrees to make the referral, refuses to review the complaint or the complainant may refer the complaint directly eight weeks after the internal complaints process has been exhausted. The definition of a  “designated person” is an MP, a member of Medway Council or a Designated Tenant Panel. The Committee was advised that there were limited circumstances under the Act where the housing ombudsman would accept referrals directly from complainants; where eight weeks has elapsed from the day on which stage 2 of the complaints procedure has been exhausted or where a designated person has refused to make a referral or has agreed to a direct approach to the Ombudsman.

The Committee was advised that whilst complainants will be notified they are able to approach any of the “designated persons” it was being recommended that in addition they be offered the alternative of discussing their complaint and the option of referral to the Ombudsman with a Panel of Members who will be supported (in an advisory capacity) by an Independent Person and a tenant representative.

The Committee discussed whether the establishment of a Designated Person Panel as recommended in paragraph 3.3 of the report (option 2) would add an additional and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the complaints procedures. Reference was made to the small number of housing landlord complaints typically reaching stage 2 of the complaints procedure, the work that will continue at ward level by Councillors to resolve complaints and the possible difficulty in convening a meeting of the Designated Person Panel before the expiry of eight weeks.

The view was expressed there may be some merit in offering the option of a Designated Person Panel particularly for complainants who feel their ward member has been unable to resolve their concerns.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to recommend the Cabinet to adopt option 2 set out in paragraph 3.3 of the report. It was recommended that the Designated Person Panel should comprise 5 Councillors (3 Conservative members, 1 Labour member and 1 Liberal Democrat member nominated by Group Whips); that the advisory independent person should be from Gravesham Council (or another neighbouring Council) on the basis of a reciprocal arrangement with Medway and the advisory tenant representative should be nominated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

This report provides an update on the HRA Business Plan, following the introduction of HRA Self Financing and revisions to the Housing Asset Management Strategy.

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan is a strategic update of the 2005-35 HRA Business Plan. 

The Asset Management Strategy provides up to date information on the nature and condition of the council’s housing stock and HRA Assets and targets and options for these in the future.

Discussion:

The Head of Housing Management introduced the report to Members and explained that the Interim Housing Revenue Accounts (HRA) Business Plan was approved in April 2011, giving up to date information on the nature an condition of the housing stock, recent management performance and targets for improving the service in the future.

The HRA Plan illustrates a sustainable budget over the next 30 years and allows for further improvement to housing stock and potential new stock by using the ‘headroom’ created by self-financing.

The Committee discussed the potential to build up significant financial Headroom created by self-financing over the period of the Plan and questioned the absence of a clear strategy for use of this resource in the report. Concern was expressed about accumulating balances at a time of unmet housing need. Officers advised that the alignment of the HRA Business Plan and Asset Management Plan would be followed by a further report providing an options appraisal and possible projects for utilisation of this headroom. The Committee asked for this further report by the end of the calendar year.

A Member asked if the Governments right to buy scheme would affect the return on investment and how long it would be before the property would re-enter the housing market. In response the Head of Housing Management informed Members that the legislation makes clear that the Council can’t sell properties eligible for sale under the RTB until a tenant has held an appropriate tenancy for a minimum of five years. This will enable the Council to get the capital back.

Decision:

The Committee agree to recommend that Cabinet adopt the attached HRA Business Planned and that a further report providing an options appraisal and possible projects for utilisation of the Headroom created by self-financing should be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet by the end of the calendar year.

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. 

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report and highlighted to the committee the additions to the Cabinet Forward Plan, as set out at paragraph 4 of the report.

Decision:

The Committee agreed:

1)     the committee’s work programme as attached at Appendix A;

2)     that further reports be added to the work programme updating members on progress and the impact of the pilot scheme in Strood, an update on the meeting between officers and councillors on the traffic flow in Chatham, and a report on issues with the bus station at Chatham Waterfront.

3)     that a report on the use of the accumulating ‘headroom’ fund will be added to the work programme for Business Support subject to that being agreed by Full Council on the 25th July. 

4)     that a report on the Rochester Airport Masterplan comes to committee following public consultation.