Agenda item

This report sets out Members’ questions received for this meeting.

Question A – Councillor Campbell asked thePortfolio Holder for Children's Services, Councillor Price, the following:

 

“Given the overwhelming cross-party consensus at Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the Government should be doing more for upper tier authorities providing children’s social care, what is Medway Council doing to lobby Government for more resource?”

 

Councillor Price thanked Councillor Campbell for the question. He said that the Provisional Local Government Settlement published in December confirmed that the Council would receive some additional social care grant, as projected in the Council’s draft budget, and that local authorities could continue to levy a 2% Adult Social Care Precept on the Council Tax. The overall impact of the Settlement, however, was a reduction in the Council’s overall funding by £1.7million compared to the draft budget, worsening the Council’s financial position. Medway Continued to work lobby the government through all available avenues.

 

The Council was part of F20, a cross party group of councils, representing the twenty most poorly funded authorities in the country, who were lobbying the government to implement a fairer method of distribution of the national allocations of funding for local government.

 

Following a motion agreed by Full Council in October 2023, the Chief Executive wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him “to ensure that adequate funding is provided to local authorities as part of the Autumn Statement, in order to ensure that local authority budgets are future-proofed against the need to cut jobs and services in the short, medium and long term.” In January 2024 a robust response was submitted to the government’s consultation on the Provisional Settlement.

 

The Director of People held both the statutory Director of Children’s Services (DCS) role and the statutory Director of Adult Social Services (DASS) role and was therefore a member of the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS).

 

The ADCS was the national leadership Association in England for statutory directors of children's services and other children's services professionals in leadership roles. The ADCS had taken a robust and proactive role in lobbying government regarding the need for funding for Children's Services since its inception in 2007. This included a range of lobbying activity, including evidence-based research which exposed the true costs of Children's Services and highlighted the funding gaps created by current funding arrangements. 

 

The independent review into Children's Social Care had been commissioned by central government in 2020 and published its findings in 2022. The review set out the case for large scale increases in funding, which the ADCS had been a strong advocate in seeking to lobby the government to deliver on. Critical areas included sufficiency in children's social workers and placements for children, both of which were significant issues driving up local authority spend, but which required a national response. It was considered that the government's response to both of these issues in 2023, had been much less robust than the local government sector had lobbied extensively for. 

 

Question B – Councillor Gulvin asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“Over the last few years, the Transformation Board was responsible for the permanent removal of £12,000,000 of revenue costs, by means of digital innovation and business change.

 

Could the Leader of the Council explain what savings are expected from the replacement of the Transformation Board?”

 

Councillor Maple thanked Councillor Gulvin for the question. He said that the Transformation Board had originally been formed to support the 3-year Transformation Programme that ran from 2016 to 2019, which had a one-off capital budget of £6m and achieved revenue savings of £7m. These were recurring savings as they were removed from the Council’s base revenue budget.

 

After 2019, the Business Change team had transitioned to “business as usual” and continued to support the Council in achieving efficiencies, which were tracked and monitored by individual services and finance colleagues as part of the financial budget monitoring process. In 2023, the decision was made to disband the Transformation Board as it did not have any formal decision-making powers and there was no longer a defined Transformation Programme underway.

 

The administration had demonstrated ongoing commitment to transformation by renaming the “Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee”, which was now called “Business Support and Digital Overview and Scrutiny Committee”. This Committee would now provide oversight of a new Transformation Roadmap.

 

The scope, project plans, funding requirements, and savings expectations for this Transformation Roadmap were currently being developed to support the budget setting process for 2024/25 and beyond.

 

Once this roadmap had been developed, it would be presented to Cabinet and then the Business Support and Digital Overview and Scrutiny Committee, with regular progress updates given by the Chief Information Officer. The relevant Portfolio Holder would also attend the Business Support and Digital Overview and Scrutiny committee to be held to account as part of the committee process.

Question C – Councillor Mrs Turpin asked thePortfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards, the following:

 

“Rochester City Forum, like all others for the Medway Towns, is run by volunteers, and is one of the most active and successful in the towns, with a record of success in setting up displays of flowers in the High Street, an artisan market and keeping the Christmas lights going under threat of defunding. It was therefore with sadness that the recent grant distribution of £50,000 from a larger central government fund was not distributed evenly to all the town forums, but that Rochester was the only forum to miss out on the share of the funding, their share being redistributed to the other towns.

 

Moreover, this was compounded by some unkind comments from a local councillor. Rather than praising the forum for raising thousands of pounds from local residents at short notice to save the Christmas Lights, the Chairperson of the Regeneration, Culture and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee instead mocked and embarrassed the forum on social media, over the loss of the grant funding for Rochester.

 

Will the Portfolio Holder ensure this unfortunate situation cannot reoccur when the third round of the UK shared prosperity funding arrives by instructing our town centre liaison officers to leave no stone unturned by assisting every forum fairly, to fill in the application forms in a timely manner?”

 

Councillor Edwards thanked Councillor Mrs Turpin for the question. She said that Medway Council distributed money from its Shared Prosperity Fund allocation between all the Town Centre Forums that had applied for UKSPF funding. Rochester Forum did not receive any funding because it had not applied. The Chairperson of the Regeneration, Culture and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee had simply pointed this out on social media.

 

The UKSPF Scheme had been heavily promoted through social media and the Council’s Website, with press releases distributed to networks through the communications team and a launch event held at Rochester’s Corn Exchange on 18 May 2023, which was attended by over 100 stakeholders, including some of those who sat on Rochester Forum steering group. The UKSPF communications response was followed up with all the town centre forums, who liaised with their respective town centre managers and a number of applications were raised by the town centre managers acting on behalf of the town centre forums. The communication effort was very successful given that 68 applications were received in total, from a wide range of community groups and businesses who put a lot of effort into their applications.

 

While it had not been possible to support every project that had been suggested, Councillor Edwards thanked all those who had applied and engaged with Council officers who had worked hard to distribute the funds. There had been some difficult decisions involved as there had been so many fantastic applications.

 

A third year of funding would be available in the current year and the Rochester Forum was encouraged to consider submitting an application and to work with the town centre management team to do so.

Question D – Councillor Perfect asked thePortfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards, the following:

 

“Having a thriving business community is important to ensure that all young people in Medway have access to good employment opportunities.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder please update the Council on actions she has taken since her appointment to maximise employment opportunities at Innovation Park Medway?”

 

Councillor Edwards thanked Councillor Perfect for the question. She said thatMedway Council remained wholly committed to supporting the growth of businesses in Medway and was proud of the fact that there were more than 14,000 businesses in Medway, who were the lifeblood of the local economy, which was now worth £5.9bn. It was hoped that this figure would grow in the future.

 

The commitment to Medway businesses had been reaffirmed in recent months by signing the Federation of Small Businesses Local Leadership Pledge, supporting the relaunch of the Kent and Medway Business Fund and the Partners for Growth Scheme, amongst other initiatives, and there would continue to be a prioritisation of securing high-value job growth. Councillor Edwards had recently discussed this matter with the Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce.

 

The North Kent Enterprise Zone had been designated by Government in Autumn 2015 and came into operation on 1 April 2017, with sites in Ebbsfleet Garden City, Maidstone and the Innovation Park Medway.

 

Since becoming a Cabinet Member, Councillor Edwards had had many discussions with businesses and local universities and colleges to ensure that Innovation Park Medway would realise its full potential in the future. A review was being undertaken of the most sustainable development options for the Medway Enterprise Zone sites going forward.

 

Question E – Councillor Tejan asked thePortfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke, the following:

“Can the Portfolio Holder please update on how the outcomes of the MedPay review are supporting the Council in its drive to reduce locum staff?”

Councillor Van Dyke thanked Councillor Tejan for the question. She said that the Medpay review alone would not change the locum position across Medway Council. Other factors such as market drivers would play a leading role in the availability of various professions, an example of which was the challenging national and local social work market.

Evidence from the MedPay Review pilot showed that turnover had greatly reduced in the first three service areas that were implemented on or before 1st July 2023, but it was too early to judge whether this would happen for all phase 1 pilot areas.

It was too soon to tell whether the review had made an overall positive effect on recruitment and retention for many of the phase 1 teams but there had already been some measurable impact noted by some teams. Legal Services, for example, which had undertaken a restructure simultaneously, reported a 17% reduction in locums, with an anticipated further 5%. This targeted approach was estimated to result in savings of £10,000 per week, equating to an estimated £140,000 per quarter.

Data on turnover and recruitment campaigns and the impact on locum reduction was intended to be gathered at six monthly and yearly intervals from the introduction of the new career progression frameworks and would be presented to the Employment Matters Committee. However, it could not be assumed that the Medpay review was the only process required to reduce locum reliance.

Question F – Councillor Wildey asked theDeputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, the following:

 

“The current CEO of the Integrated Care Board (ICB) took up the post in January 2022, transitioning the organisation from the CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) to the ICB.”

 

Would the Portfolio Holder please set out her opinion as to which of the achievements of the ICB that benefit Medway residents rate as outstanding?

 

Councillor Murray thanked Councillor Wildey for the question. She said that

the question did not make clear whether it was referring to services commissioned by the ICB or the performance of the Board itself and the answer would therefore cover both aspects.

 

The ICB and the ICP had just completed their first year of operation and were still developing. The Council, working with health partners had agreed a framework of health outcomes. While all elements were still developing, Councillor Murray considered that there had been very good progress on the Integrated Care Strategy and GP access, with the latter having been discussed at the previous week’s meeting of the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee. This had included detailed reporting and strong personal contributions from clinical colleagues, which illustrated the huge and continuing challenges faced in primary care. There was more to do and with increasing patient demand, it was regrettable that Government funding restraints were forcing the ICB to make 30% cuts across its services.

 

In terms of quality assurance, the ICB and ICP would be overseen by the Care Quality Commission. Pilot assessments were taking place in two areas and these would then be rolled out across the country.

 

Councillor Murray said she was concentrating on ensuring that there was positive engagement at Board and partnership level, using extensive data and research provided by Public Health experts to evidence demand and areas of health improvement needed for Medway.

 

Question G – Councillor Filmer submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement, Councillor Osborne:

 

“At the last Council meeting, this Council approved the Medway-wide Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). On the 10 December Councillor Osborne tweeted ‘We are already issuing S.59s and seizing vehicles.’

 

Can the Portfolio Holder advise the Council how many vehicles have been confiscated and Section 59 notices issued since the PSPO was approved by this Council?”

 

As Councillor Filmer was not present, the Mayor announced that he would receive a written response to his question, in accordance with Council rule 9.1.

 

Question H – Councillor Etheridge asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

 

“In 2019 the HIF bid successfully won £170 million funding for infrastructure on the Peninsula. As part of this the previously separate unspent funding of £ 9.279M Local Growth Fund (LGF) funding would be returned to the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) for reallocation, as the improvements to the A289 Four Elms to Medway Tunnel which included three roundabouts, the Four Elms, The Sans Pareil and Anthony’s Way, would now be carried out using the HIF funding.

 

When news broke in May 2023 that the government was now withdrawing all HIF funding with immediate effect, this has now left those long-longed improvements in limbo. The Maritime Academy, whose planning permission was predicated on these improvements, has made the situation even more necessary.

 

When did the Portfolio Holder seek the reimbursement of the return of the LGF funding, explaining the outcome of that request?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Curry, Councillor Murray thanked Councillor Etheridge for the question. She said that the A289 Four Elms Roundabout to Medway Tunnel project had received an allocation of £11.1million Local Growth Fund via SELEP in 2015. The original A289 LGF business case funding package had included £7million of S106 developer funding in relation to the proposed Lodge Hill development. The developer had withdrawn the application, as approval had been called in by the Secretary of State. In 2018, SELEP had approved an initial £3.5m allocation for a revised scope smaller scale business case for the project. Alongside this, the Medway City Estate Connectivity Improvement Measures LGF project delivered a new free flow slip at the Anthony’s Way roundabout.

 

In February 2020, the SELEP Board required unspent LGF funding to be returned for reallocation to other projects. It was not possible to seek reimbursement as funding had been reallocated across the SELEP. Loss of the HIF funding in July 2023 meant that SELEP rated the A289 project high risk of not delivering the outputs and considered clawback of the £1.8m LGF. At the January 2024 SELEP Accountability Board, it was agreed that Medway Council had provided compelling justification to retain the £1.8m LGF spent.

 

The Council was actively exploring alternative funding sources and had had positive discussions with central Government and other funding bodies. S106 receipts for permitted development amounting to circa £3m had already been secured and identified as appropriate for supporting the improvements to Four Elms. Future development and S106 funding opportunities would be reinforced via further iterations of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

 

Question I – Councillor Kemp asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:

“Assuming that the proposed Red Route for Rainham High Street is implemented, will he give details of the actual costs of implementing the scheme?”

 

Responding on behalf of Councillor Curry, Councillor Osborne thanked Councillor Kemp for the question. He said that there were several implementation costs associated with the introduction of Red Routes. This included the design, undertaking engagement and consultation, associated advertisement costs, a statutory consultation, CCTV infrastructure, carriageway changes and new signage.

 

Whilst finance information was not available to the level requested, total implementation cost was approximately £805,000 across all the proposed Red Route sites. This included the purchasing of ANPR Cameras, designs, stakeholder engagement, numerous consultations and statutory traffic management orders, data collection and monitoring of traffic, pedestrian and air quality, infrastructure improvements of signage and markings, and engagement and communications of the implementation of the enforcement programme.

 

Question J – Councillor Anang asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement, Councillor Osborne, the following:

 

“Could the Portfolio Holder announce when traffic executing an illegal right turn from the A2 into Orchard Street in Rainham is going to be monitored and offenders prosecuted?”

 

Councillor Osborne thanked Councillor Anang for the question. He said that use of technology to ensure safer and moving streets was a commitment of the Council’s administration. He confirmed that ANPR cameras had been installed at the A2/Orchard Street junction to capture vehicles ignoring the right turn ban and tests were being carried out tests to ensure the cameras linked up with the back-office software. Once testing was complete a ‘go live’ date would be identified for camera enforcement, which was likely to be in February 2024. There was a communications plan around this, which included letters to residents and business, social media activity and website activities and updates.

 

This enforcement was part of our Safer, Healthier Streets programme, and better enforcement of these contraventions would make the roads safer and less congested and help to meet the Council’s wider transport objectives. ANPR cameras would be installed to catch vehicles not complying with traffic signs and road markings so that the driver could be issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Before issuing a PCN, footage would be reviewed by trained staff. There would be a warning period while drivers became familiar with the enforcement changes. This was an approach that Council teams were regularly trained upon and one that had been undertaken for a number of years.

 

Road users breaking the rules within the first 6 months of a camera location ‘going live’ would receive a warning letter for their first contravention, and a PCN for any repeat offences. All income generated by moving traffic fines would be used for highway repairs, public transport infrastructure and environmental projects.

 

The Medway Highways report published two years previously had highlighted a massive deficit in relation to roads infrastructure, caused by a pothole crisis over the last 14 years and a lack of investment in roads. Residents demanded that roads be looked after and cared for. It was therefore hoped that increased revenues from inappropriate parking would be able to fund improved infrastructure across Medway. The police would continue to enforce moving traffic restrictions, including at locations where there was a camera and Medway Council would work closely with other enforcement agencies.

 

Note: The Mayor stated that since the time allocation for Member questions had been exhausted, written responses would be provided to questions 10K to 10AB.

 

Question K – Councillor Barrett submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Property, Councillor Khan:

 

“Could the Portfolio Holder Please update on engagement that she has had with Registered Providers (RPs) since her appointment in May 2023?”

 

Question L – Councillor Brake submitted the following to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray:

 

“What engagement has the Portfolio Holder had in relation to the Rainham Healthy Living Centre and the Rainham Primary Care Network (PCN)?”

Question M – Councillor Clarke submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards:

 

“The Portfolio Holder recently posted on Twitter that she had been looking at Business Improvement Districts around the country.

 

Please can she update the Council on her plans, taking into account what she learnt following these visits?”

 

Question N – Councillor Doe submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder please update on action in relation to the Gillingham High Street Task Force set up by the administration?”

 

Question O – Councillor Gilbourne submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Property, Councillor Khan:

 

“The former Wigmore Coach Park is still occupied by the Traveller Group some 8 weeks after they were supposed to leave the site. Councillor Osborne, who took the decision to site the travellers at the Wigmore Coach park without consultation with local Ward Councillors or residents, promised that the travellers would leave the site by 18 October 2023. Councillor Osborne has failed to keep local Ward Members informed as to the progress in recovering the site and has allowed more travellers to use the site.

 

Residents are rightly concerned that this matter is going to drag on for months more. Would the Portfolio Holder promise to expedite regaining possession of the site, apologising to residents for the previous broken promise?”

 

Question P – Councillor Hackwell submitted the following to theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple:

 

“As the Leader often tries to remind anybody that will listen to his rhetoric that the Council is broke, even though this is causing some reputational damage to the Council, when in fact the reality of the situation is the Council was in a worse position financially against the budget, at the same point last year, and the Council has considerably more reserves than it did in 2018.

 

In the draft Budget for 2024/25, the Leader has said that there will be some tough decisions to be made, why then has the Leader allocated £10,000,000 for Medway Council Staff pay rises, this equates to roughly on average an increase of £5,000 per person a year, or around £100 a week each.

 

Can the Leader explain to this chamber and to the hard-working tax payers of Medway, how he finds it acceptable that such an enormous pay rise is given to Medway Council staff, which has to be paid for by the hard-working tax payers of Medway when they themselves could be struggling to pay the bills?”

Question Q – Councillor Hyne submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Property, Councillor Khan:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder please advise of any costs so far incurred due to the Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) situation at Gun Wharf?”

 

Question R – Councillor Joy submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards:

 

“Please can you explain why you instructed the Town Centre Manager to send an email to Rainham Town Centre Partnership (RTCP) members with regards to red routes in Rainham on 8 November, requesting a response by 9 November but did not include all members of the RTCP.”

 

Question S – Councillor Lammas submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder please update on the pass rate for the most recent Medway Test?”

 

Question T – Councillor Lawrence submitted the following to theDeputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray:

 

“The Kent and Medway Integrated Care Strategy finally reached Cabinet on 19 December. The Portfolio Holder was effusive in her praise for the strategy. A strategy, 18 months in the gestation is one thing but delivering on the cerebral and unambitious targets is another. An example of the lack of ambition is in Shared Outcome 3:-

 

‘By 2028 the rate of emergency admissions for those who are frail will have reduced by at least 1.5% to the rate it was in 2018.’

 

Would the Portfolio Holder agree with me that this strategy needs more ambition, more work to make it fit for purpose and clearer lines of accountability?”

 

Question U – Councillor Spring submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment, Councillor Edwards:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder please update us on the current occupancy rate of Rainham Shopping Centre?”

 

Question V – Councillor Williams submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement, Councillor Osborne:

 

“When will the people of Medway see the proposed Community Wardens?”

 

Question W – Councillor Fearn submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Property, Councillor Khan:

 

“What engagement has the Portfolio Holder had with her counterparts at Newham to discuss Anchorage House, given that the Labour Mayor of Newham decided to press ahead with this plan without consulting Medway Council?”

 

Question X – Councillor Cook submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement, Councillor Osborne:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder update Council on the progress of the Medway-wide Public Space Protection Order agreed at our last meeting.

 

I know this will be of particular concern to my constituents in Wayfield and Weedswood who have experienced significant anti-social behaviour with vehicles in Barnfield?”

Question Y – Councillor Pearce submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“Deangate Ridge continues to suffer from unauthorised access and use by quad-bikes and dirt-bikes.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder and Council officers work with Ward Members to strengthen the security of the site and its boundaries to ensure local residents can enjoy Deangate Ridge safely and no damage is caused?”

 

Question Z – Councillor Sands submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Children's Services, Councillor Price:

 

“Hoo Village Hall has a new committee in place and is keen, with the support of Ward Councillors, for the Medway Council provided youth club and service to utilise this community facility. 

 

Will the Portfolio Holder and officers from the Youth Service meet with the Committee and Ward Councillors to discuss this and the enhancement of this vital service for our local youth?”

 

Question AA – Councillor Spalding submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry:

 

“While dealing with the refuse collection fiasco, which was before it snowed and certain others even thought about the subject, I raised the issue of gritting roads during cold weather. I am grateful the salt bins, where available, were filled up.

 

However, save for Allhallows, the other villages and hamlets in my ward, Grain, St Mary Hoo, Upper Stoke, Middle Stoke and Lower Stoke do not have a single salt bin between them. This Labour administration promised fairness and inclusivity.

 

What is the Portfolio Holder going to do to ensure all of my ward and indeed all the rural areas are treated fairly when it comes to provision of salt bins and road gritting?”

 

Question AB – Councillor Mandaracas submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Children's Services, Councillor Price:

 

“People who are care leavers can face additional challenges in their lives.

 

What work is Medway Council undertaking to ensure Care Leavers are treated as having a protected characteristic, giving vulnerable young adults the best start in the next stage of their lives?”