Agenda item

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

(A)              Keith Clear of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact, Councillor O’Brien, the following question:

 

Owing to the high level of anti-social behaviour regarding drugs, alcohol and foul and abusive behaviour, can the Portfolio Holder tell me whether the Council will extend the Chatham Alcohol Control Zone to include Luton Road, Chatham?

 

Councillor O’Brien thanked Mr Clear for his question. He responded that section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 enabled local authorities to introduce Designated Public Place Orders, also known as alcohol control zones, in their area to assist in tackling alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour. The Council was not at this time proposing to extend the Chatham Alcohol Control Zone to include Luton Road as there was not currently sufficient evidence to support that extension.  However, this was kept constantly under review.  When considering whether to introduce alcohol control zones it was essential to work with all relevant agencies to ensure that if it was introduced it would be monitored and enforced by the police.  It would also be based on an assessment of the available evidence.  Kent Police reported that there had been no increase in anti social behaviour related incidents in the immediate area with a definite reduction in anti social behaviour related calls to the Luton Road area evidenced by daily reports and a reduction of reported incidents in locality compared to the previous year.

 

He stated that it was important that residents were encouraged to report all instances of anti social behaviour because if they did not there was no evidence on which to base decisions about where resources should be deployed.  He stated that on several occasions residents had asked him to follow up issues but when he had investigated them he had discovered that they had not been reported to the Police.  He urged all residents to use the new 101-telephone number to report anti social behaviour and non-emergency crime.  He continued to work very closely with the All Saints Residents Association and also the Community Mothers in Luton and Wayfield.  He also stated that Ward Members had not expressed any request to him to investigate any excessive anti social behaviour in the questioner’s area.  He stated that by working together to address these issues it could be ensured that Luton was the nice area that he remembered when he was born and grew up there.

 

Mr Clear asked a supplementary question as to how the decent residents of Luton Road could be treated with the same respect and attention that residents, in say, Hempstead or Wigmore might be treated.

 

In response, Councillor O’Brien stated that as far as this Authority was concerned, every resident in Medway was treated with the same respect regardless of where they live.  He reiterated that it was absolutely essential that local residents reported these incidents – and that he did come down to Luton regularly and speak with local residents.  He urged local residents to use the 101 number to report these incidents when and if they occur.

 

(B)             Anne Wade MBE, Chairman of the Frindsbury and Wainscott Community Association, asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

In the light of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which places emphasis on economic growth as being the most important consideration of any planning decision, what assurances can the Council give that Open Space and the Countryside will be given as of equal importance? The record to date has not been reassuring – especially in our most recent experience of Manor Farm Pit.

 

Councillor Chitty thanked Mrs Wade for her question and she hoped she could provide some reassurance to her.

 

Councillor Chitty stressed that the National Planning Policy Framework was not yet in place.  The Government issued a draft last year but a final version was not expected until the spring.

 

In the meantime the Council, at this meeting, was being asked to approve submission of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy for independent examination. This contained strong policies to protect the countryside and designated open spaces. The Government had stressed the importance of having such up to date plans and so it would provide the basis of future local planning decisions whatever the final National Planning Policy Framework might be.

 

She stated that she was aware that the Frindsbury and Wainscott Community Association Association strongly disagreed with a decision to allow the partial infilling of the Manor Farm Pit. However there were still some safeguards in place and that the decision was subject to a legal agreement being completed tying the infilling to the restoration of the Grade I listed barn. This agreement had not yet been completed.  There were also a considerable number of planning conditions relating to the permission attached, which have to be complied with. 

 

(C)       Mrs Cooper, on behalf of Mike Hewson-Jones of Rochester, asked the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake, the following question:

 

Mr Hewson-Jones’s wife who attends the Balfour Centre is transported there in one of the specially adapted buses for this purpose. The proposals to close the Balfour centre would imperil this valuable service and force Mr Hewson-Jones’s wife and others to try to use public transport to access other services.

 

Does the Portfolio Holder know what percentage of Arriva buses in use around Medway are adapted for disabled people with a designated space for wheelchairs?

 

Councillor Brake thanked Mrs Cooper for presenting the question on behalf of Mr Hewson-Jones.  In relation to the first point regarding transport arrangements, if, following consultation, a decision was taken to close the Balfour Centre, then adult social care staff would meet with service users and carers to plan suitable arrangements to meet people’s social care needs and they would be happy to discuss any transport needs as part of that, acknowledging people’s mobility allowance or motability arrangements accordingly.  

 

He stated that Arriva had confirmed that out of its 106 buses, 98 were of low-floor design and were therefore accessible to wheelchairs where the kerb is built up to allow the bus to dock and these all had a dedicated wheelchair space. Currently 62 were DDA (Disability Discrimination Act 1995) compliant and fitted with ramps. The statutory deadline for ensuring its fleet is fully DDA compliant was January 2017 and Arriva had confirmed that they should beat this deadline comfortably.

 

(D)       Mrs Cooper, on behalf of Shirley Hewson-Jones of Rochester, asked the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake, the following question:

 

Why does the consultation document about the proposals to close the Balfour Centre ask service users to prioritise which parts of the service they receive there, when all services are of equal importance to us?

 

Councillor Brake thanked Mrs Cooper for presenting the question on behalf of Mrs Hewson-Jones. He stated that the questionnaire did not actually ask the individual to prioritise. The questionnaire asked people to tick as many boxes as they would like in terms of what was important to them as individuals.  Some recipients had ticked all the boxes and this was just as valid as ticking some of the boxes.

 

He stated that because the Council was keen to understand what other elements of service and support were really important to the people who use the service, a space had been provided on the form for people to make individual comments.

 

He stated that the information would be shared with Cabinet, as decision-maker, prior to a decision being made. If Cabinet decided to decommission the day centre, officers would also use this information to inform the way forward in re-providing for existing service users, in addition to personal meetings.

 

(E)            Robert Heathfield of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

                 

During my own enquiries, I have been told:

 

a)                 by Arriva that they have scrapped their ‘Happy Max’ fare deal for financial reasons arising from a loss of Medway Council subsidies, but;

b)                 by Medway Council that no subsidies have been cut.

 

Nonetheless, whichever is true, I as a bus user am experiencing a reduced service. Can the Portfolio Holder confirm which of these statements is correct, and provide explanatory detail for confused bus users?

 

Councillor Filmer thanked Mr Heathfield for his question. He stated that it was worth pointing out that in Medway something like 95% of the local bus network was operated commercially without any direct financial support from Medway Council and that the Council had no control over the service levels or fares set, that being a commercial decision for, in this case, Arriva.

 

He stated that The 'Happy Max' was a commercial ticket initiative and it had been Arriva's own business decision to withdraw this, having no bearing on any decisions or policies made by Medway Council. He stated it appeared that Arriva did not believe that it was commercially beneficial for them to continue to offer this special fare.

 

Mr Heathfield asked a supplementary question in that if that was the case how much of the Council’s money went to Arriva and what did this money provide to Arriva?

 

            Councillor Filmer responded by stating that Medway Council spent about £2m a year on subsidising different routes.  There were numerous routes that the Council subsidised and that the Council worked very closely with the bus companies. He stated that the Council had not cut any of the subsidies to the bus companies so if Mr Heathfield was experiencing any difficulties with certain bus routes he would certainly look into any problems Mr Heathfield may be having.

 

(F)              Maureen Ruparel of Gillingham asked the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake, the following question:

 

I understand that staff who are TUPEd over to a private company have job protection for a limited time, but experience has shown that in many cases there is a ‘reorganisation’ of staff after this time and some staff either lose their jobs, or have to accept new contracts at a lower pay scale.

 

What guarantee can the Portfolio Holder give that after privatisation the level of staffing at Nelson Court will stay the same as it is now? 

 

Councillor Brake thanked Mrs Ruparel for her question.  He confirmed that staff would be TUPEd over if, following consultation, this proposal went ahead and that the staff did have those protections in place.  All companies, private or public, constantly reviewed their organisations making changes as appropriate.  If, following the consultation, Nelson Court was outsourced, then the Council would ensure that all the positive qualities continued to be available through a clearly defined specification and robust monitoring of quality.  In addition, Medway Council funded and arranged training for social care staff for the whole sector via the Medway College of Social Care. This was one of the ways that the Council influenced and directly supported good practice in all care homes in Medway.

 

Mrs Ruparel asked a supplementary question as to whether the Portfolio Holder prepared to guarantee that if the results of consultation showed that residents and their families at Nelson Court did not want it privatised that the Council would pursue every means to reduce costs whilst keeping it in Council care and consult with staff and service users on this issue?

 

Councillor Brake thanked Mrs Ruparel for her supplementary question.  As the Council was still at the stage of consultation he could not comment as to what the outcome was going to be.  He stated that whilst some people may have considered this to be an answer that they did not want to hear, given the consultation period, he was unable to provide any other answer at this stage.

 

(G)             Keith Clear of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact, Councillor O’Brien, the following question:

 

Owing to the high level of anti-social behaviour regarding drugs, alcohol and foul and abusive behaviour, can the Portfolio Holder tell me whether the Council will install CCTV opposite the tattoo parlour, Luton Road, Chatham. This would then make it easier for the police to take action against the offenders of anti-social behaviour and those that drive past causing damage to parked vehicles.

 

            Councillor O’Brien thanked Mr Clear for his question.  The Council did have a CCTV Camera on Luton Road, but it was not in a position to give full coverage to the entire road. The Council had the ability to place temporary CCTV cameras in areas where there was evidence of high levels of antisocial behaviour or where the police had asked for CCTV assistance. There was, of course, a significant and unbudgeted cost in deploying these cameras. 

 

            He referred back to Mr Clear’s previous question and his answer by stating that the Council could only act on information it received.  The actual documented anti social behaviour calls in Luton Road from December 2010 to November 2011 were 22 in the whole year.  It was only reported cases that the Council could deal with.  He stated that Mr Clear had asked about being treated with respect in the last question.  Therefore, he asked Mr Clear and every other single resident in the Medway towns that if there was perceived to be a problem, he was quite willing to arrange a meeting with Council officers and with the Neighbourhood team in the Police in the near future for Mr Clear to be able to discuss the matter more fully.

 

Mr Clear stated that he would like to take up the offer of meeting with Councillor O’Brien and his colleagues in the Police because he would like to contest the fact that there had not been a significant number of incidents in the Luton Road area.  Mr Clear stated he knew, from the local neighbourhood meetings, that there had been a lot of incidents reported to the Police.  Mr Clear asked, by way of supplementary question, whether Councillor O’Brien would go back and confirm with the Police that there were 22 calls last year, as he had made 40 himself.

 

Councillor O’Brien responded by stating that Mr Clear would hopefully have an incident report number for each one of those calls, which would have been given to him, and that this could be discussed when they would meet.

 

(H)             Anne Wade MBE, Chairman of the Frindsbury and Wainscott Community Association, asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

In view of the large unacceptable number of houses allocated to the Medway Towns, what assurances can the Council give that the infrastructure to support that growth is actually going to be provided – particularly the Medway Maritime Hospital, with no room for expansion on the site?

 

Councillor Chitty thanked Mrs Wade for her question. She stated that she understood Mrs Wade’s concerns but that she would also be very aware that the housing figure requirement was established by a previous government in its policy relating to density.  She stated that with regard to the major sites that an integral part of any planning procedure were transport issues.  She stated that this was a matter for the Local Development Framework and the final numbers would be established through the forthcoming independent examination of the Core Strategy.

 

In preparing the LDF (Local Development Framework) Core Strategy the Council had liaised closely with all major service providers and a comprehensive Infrastructure Delivery Schedule had been included in the Core Strategy.

 

She also stated that both herself and Councillor Filmer, if there is a large development taking place, had quite considerable discussions because they were very concerned about transport and that they were fully aware that when a particular application came in that one of the most fundamentally important elements of it were the transport issues. These were very often part of what was currently the Section 106 agreement.

 

Councillor Chitty referred to Medway Maritime Hospital by stating that the Council’s consultations had included the Foundation Trust responsible for Medway Maritime Hospital and the Trust had informed the Council that they could meet future needs through reinvestment on the current site. She stated that although the site was not of a generous size, significant new capacity had been added over the last few years and this should continue through the phased redevelopment of the older parts of the site.  The Council would continue to liaise closely with the health bodies and providers to ensure that Medway Maritime Hospital continued to meet local needs and that services that did not have to be on the site were to be provided elsewhere.

 

Mrs Wade stated that she still believed that in spite of assurances being given, and she thought that most people did not believe that if Medway growth was not restrained that infrastructure will not keep up with it. 

 

Councillor Chitty responded by stating that she understood the concerns that were being voiced and this was not specific to Medway.  Transport issues were being discussed as on of the major issues across the country.  She believed that where Medway Maritime was concerned, the Council was in a position where to monitor and have discussions and liaise with the Trust. She stated that one of the most helpful things was if users were having difficulty then they could get in touch with the Council and the Council would be happy to monitor those issues. She also stated that she would be happy to discuss with Mrs Wade any issue she wanted to be addressed.