Agenda item

This report sets out activities and progress on work areas within the Portfolio of the Leader of the Council, which all fall within the remit of this Committee. This information is provided in relation to the Leader of the Council being held to account.

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress on the areas within the terms of

reference of this Committee covered by Councillor Alan Jarrett, Leader of the

Council, i.e.

·         Strategic leadership of the Council

·         Communications and marketing

·         Finance

Councillor Jarrett responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

·         Local Growth Fund (LGF) Bids – in response to a question about investment in Gillingham, the Leader remarked that the last round of bids for LGF funds had included a bid for Gillingham town centre, which had been unsuccessful. There had been significant investment in the western areas of Medway and the Council was looking at regeneration plans for Gillingham and Rainham. The Leader had asked officers to prepare a bid for improvements in Gillingham so that when underspends occurred in respect of the LGF the Council would be in a strong position to submit a successful bid. A Member asked that any bid should recognise that times had changed and the town should be seen as a district shopping centre with the potential for some existing retail space converted to housing. The Leader agreed with this point.

·         Rochester Riverside – a Member asked if the Leader acknowledged this development was not moving quickly enough to match the growth in population. The Leader stated that the agreement with the initial developer had been abandoned by the Council due to the developer changing its demands. The deal with the current developer was a much better one for the Council.  The Development Agreement had now been signed and subject to obtaining planning approvals, work was expected to start in October 2017. A new primary school was part of the plan and this would be a free school funded by the developer. In response to a question, the Leader stated he was concerned about the lack of a consistent approach due to the autonomous nature of many schools. 

·         Medway 1 launch – in response to a request for an update on the launch, the Leader commented it had successfully taken place in the City of London attracting over 80 investors. Feedback had been very positive and many of those who attended were seriously considering investing in Medway.

·         Paramount Park – a Member questioned whether the statements in the Leader’s report about this might be too optimistic and queried whether the development would actually go ahead. The Leader commented that he was not relying on Paramount Park but it would be a significant employment opportunity. He did not completely share concerns that it may not happen.

·         Housing company – in response to a question why the Council had not set up a housing company, the Leader advised that work on this was underway and undertook to provide more information on this to the Member.

·         Medway Commercial Group (MCG)/Medway Norse – in response to a call for MCG and other similar initiatives to be more accountable, the Leader stated that Medway Norse and MCG were held to account for service delivery and financial outcomes by the Cabinet. In response, a Member commented that holding these bodies to account needed a more systematic approach to that outlined. The Leader added that the structures of MCG were being streamlined.

·         Lower Thames Crossing – a Member asked if the Council would continue to lobby for the additional resources needed to address the impact of the new crossing on Medway’s roads. The Leader noted that the selected option made it easier to travel between Medway and Essex and enhanced the Council’s ability to attract inward investment. But this also created pressure on housing and drove up prices. It was important the surrounding highways infrastructure was able to cope.

·         Satisfaction with Council services – the Leader was asked what he would say to the 46% of people who had completed the Citizen’s Panel survey who did not think the Council provided value for money services. The Leader commented that it was difficult for the public to have a good understanding of what value for money looked like and therefore he was somewhat sceptical about the value of the question.

·         Consultation on Budget – a Member asked if the Leader was planning to consult the public on draft budget proposals as many other Councils did. The Leader commented this was a good point but he was not convinced the process added any real value, although it did raise awareness of the issues facing Councils. 

·         Communications – noting the positive news detailed in the report that had been communicated by the Council, a Member asked if the Council was as effective in communicating bad news. The Leader responded that what was meant by bad news was a matter of perspective.

·         The Local Government Challenge – in response to whether the Council had any plans to put forward a member of staff for this event, the Leader agreed that the Council had many excellent members of staff.

·         Social Media – noting the Council’s improved use of social media in recent years, a Member asked if the Leader was planning to communicate via Twitter. The Leader commented he was prepared to look at this.

·         Schools funding – noting that funding for schools was reducing, a Member asked if the Council was ready to enter into a dialogue with any schools unable to meet their statutory requirements. The Leader was clear that the Council would not act as a last resort for schools. He would though welcome a fair system of funding of schools from the Government.

·         Senior Managers’ Pay – the Leader’s views were sought on recent comments from the Taxpayers’ Alliance that senior managers’ pay in local government was too high.  The Leader considered that people should be paid what they were worth. The Council would be unable to compete with surrounding County Councils or London Boroughs if levels of pay were to be reduced.

·         Possible East Kent Councils merger – in response to a request for an update on this development, the Leader commented the proposals seem to have run into some difficulties. However, strong relationships existed between Medway and  North Kent Councils and strong cross-Council working had developed, which the Leader hoped would continue

Decision:

The Committee thanked the Leader of the Council for his attendance.