Agenda item

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Business Management which fall within the remit of this Committee.

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress made on the areas within the scope of the Portfolio Holder for Business Management which fell within the remit of this Committee as set out below:

·         White Road and Hook Meadow Community Centres

A Member referred to plans to re-develop the White Road and Hook Meadow Community Centre sites and requested information as to the outcome of the consultation events and sought an assurance that the process of developing the sites and providing replacement facilities would be open and transparent.

In response, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that at this stage consultation events had only been held with users of the facilities and stakeholders. Once proposals were further advanced, further consultation would take place and the developments would be subject to the planning application process. Initial consultations with users of the facilities and stakeholders were favourable as the proposed replacement facilities would be an improvement on those currently available. The next stage involved a feasibility study and identifying possible funding sources for the project.

The Portfolio Holder gave an assurance that the process would be open and transparent as it was essential to have the community on board with the proposals.

·         Community Centres – cost savings

A Member requested clarification as to the statement in paragraph 2.3 of the report which referred to potential cost savings at Community Centres.

The Portfolio Holder outlined examples of minor changes to services that had produced cost savings.

·         Community Wardens

A Member expressed appreciation for the challenging work undertaken by the Community Wardens but outlined concerns that in recent months Community Wardens had been requested to assist with tipper truck duties to clear flytipping.

The Portfolio Holder thanked the Member for the praise for the Community Wardens and he advised that an individual had now been employed to drive the tipper vehicle and therefore the Wardens had been able to return to their normal duties. He further advised that the Wardens were constantly investigating innovative ways of improving their service were currently pursuing the use of Facebook as a means of keeping in touch with residents and elected Members.

A Member requested an update on the proposed Volunteer Community Warden pilot project. He sought an assurance that if implemented, such scheme would complement the existing Community Warden Service and not be seen as a replacement service. He suggested that this be conveyed to existing staff so that they were not worried about potential loss of jobs.

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the possibility of introducing a Volunteer Community Warden Scheme was still under investigation but could not progress until funding could be secured for training and provision of equipment. He reassured the Committee that if this scheme was introduced, it would work alongside and provide support to the existing Community Warden Service but it was not intended that it would replace the service. He confirmed that no jobs would be at risk from the introduction of the Volunteer Warden Service.

A Member referred to litter picks staged in various Wards across Medway and the support provided by the Community Wardens. She commented that a number of individuals had said that they were keen to take part in the litter picks but could only do so if they were held at the weekend.

The Portfolio Holder thanked Members for getting involved with and initiating litter picks and noted the suggestion that occasional weekend events could encourage increased participation by residents. 

·         Bereavement and Registration Services

A Member drew attention to a correction to the name of the cremator manufacturer in that it should read ‘Facultatieve Technologies Ltd’.

In addition, he sought information upon whether the Council was legally compliant relating to mercury levels and whether the crematorium project would be delivered within budget.

The Portfolio Holder thanked the Member for correcting the name of the company and confirmed that this company was used by the majority of crematoria across the country.

He advised that the Council was legally compliant, although the Council was not currently able to benefit under the Government’s Mercury payback scheme with the existing equipment.

In response to whether the project would be delivered within budget, the Portfolio Holder advised that the project was on target to be delivered within the budget referred to in recent reports.

·         Emergency Planning

A Member asked whether there would be further emergency planning exercises in April 2017.

The Portfolio Holder advised that emergency planning exercises were always welcomed and he encouraged Councillors to attend and view these events. He confirmed that officers had plans for similar exercises to those run in 2016, but confirmed that each time a different scenario was the subject of the exercise.

He also referred to the regular testing of equipment and emergency planning systems on the Peninsula.

Decision:

The Committee thanked Councillor Turpin for attending the meeting and answering questions and noted the correction to the name of the company named in paragraph 5.3 of the report.