Agenda item

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

Discussion:

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

reference of this Committee covered by Councillor Turpin, Portfolio Holder for Business Management as set out below:

·    Community Officers

·    Emergency Planning

·    Registration

·    Bereavement.

Councillor Turpin responded to Members’ questions as follows:

·         Issue of Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) – A Member referred to the issue of Community Protection Warnings and in particular the intention to specifically target the subject of refuse being placed out early in Hartington Street, Chatham and Gardiner Street, Gillingham. He sought an assurance that the scheme whereby CPWs were issued would be implemented proportionately and fairly.

In response, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that the two roads named within the report were not the only roads in Medway where this issue was a problem. He explained the process of CPWs and reassured the Committee that the initial stage involved a warning letter, which in most cases resolved the problem. However, if the problem persisted a fine would be implemented. He advised that this scheme was not intended to affect those individuals who put their refuse out the evening before the collection day but those who missed the collection and left their refuse on the street until the next weekly collection. To leave refuse on the street could subsequently result in litter if the refuse bags became split or torn.

·         Visitor Parking Permits – Whilst recognising that Visitor Parking Permits did not fall within Councillor Turpin’s Portfolio, a Member asked whether the Portfolio Holder had a role in overseeing the impact on local residents following the recent change to Visitor Parking Permits.

In response, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that he had previously worked with the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services on parking issues but that he was not overseeing this particular issue.

·         The Mayfair Project – A Member referred to the Mayfair Project completed in August 2017 and commended the Community Warden for the work she had undertaken within the community on this project. She added that the Mayfair Project had been funded by Ward Improvement Funds, in addition to funding from the Street Cops Trust.

·         Dog Chipping – A Member commended the Community Wardens on the work undertaken on microchipping dogs.

·         Emergency Planning – A Member sought information as to action being undertaken to reduce the level of homelessness and begging in Chatham High Street.

In response, the Portfolio Holder advised that homelessness was not within his Portfolio. However, he advised that this was a complex issue and involved a multi-agency approach including Housing, Police, PCSOs and the Community Wardens. Members of the public were being encouraged to channel financial assistance to agencies and charities helping homeless individuals rather than provide money to individuals on the street.

·         Community Wardens Facebook Page – A Member sought further information as to the teething problems experienced with the launch of the Community Wardens Facebook page.

The Portfolio Holder advised that there had been an initial issue with posting before and after photographs as part of the Facebook pages. However, once the Facebook pages were up and running, this would be very useful in individual Wards.

Whilst discussing the Facebook initiative, it was suggested that consideration also be given to other social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat and the Portfolio Holder commented that many of the social media platforms had links to each other so this was an area that could be investigated.

·         Bereavement Services – A Member referred to the requirement to appoint another contractor to undertake works to the cremators at Medway Crematorium and requested that the Portfolio Holder provide information as to the total cost to the Council arising from this contract process.

In response, the Portfolio Holder provided a reassurance that the company undertaking works at Medway Crematorium was the same company that was involved in 2017. He confirmed that there were now two brand new cremators at the Crematorium and this would soon be increased to three. The finances for this project were the same as that reported in 2017 and the contract remained within budget.

·         Community Wardens – A Member praised the Community Wardens for the work that they undertake and sought information as to the number of Community Wardens employed by the Council.

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that there had been no reduction in the number of Community Wardens and therefore the budget remained the same as last year. He agreed to advise the Member direct of the number of Community Wardens employed by the Council.

·         Cost recovery for returning stray dogs – A Member asked for further information on the new system that would be introduced to recover payments when returning stray dogs to their owners.

The Portfolio Holder advised that currently when stray dogs are returned to their owners they are sent an invoice and such income helped to offset the cost of running the service. However, from April, the stray dog would not be released until payment had been received. He confirmed that there were allowances for those individuals in receipt of Benefits. 

Decision:

The Committee:

a)            thanked the Portfolio Holder for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions.

b)            noted that the Portfolio Holder agreed to provide the following information to the individual Members concerned:

·         The number of Community Wardens employed by the Council

·         The updated costs associated with the Medway Crematorium contract.

c)            noted that the Portfolio Holder will be investigating alternative web notification platforms for use by the Community Wardens.