Agenda and minutes

(1)       It is a statutory requirement to report the results of the Annual Performance Assessment (APA) to the first Cabinet Meeting following their publication at the end of November and also to share these with partners and make them available on the website.

(2)       Attached to the Cabinet report was the APA letter.  This letter demonstrated that Kent’s grades recognised continued high performance with scores of 3 out of 4 for current performance on “Children’s Services and Children’s Social Care” and a maximum 4 out of 4 for “Capacity to Improve”.  Overall the scores were the same as last year’s assessment with all five “Ever Child Matters” outcomes rated at “Good”.

(3)       A comparison with the results from the 126 authorities published so far placed Kent in the top quartile based on the overall score for ‘Children’s Services and Capacity for Improvement’ with only 11 scoring more highly than Kent.

(4)       The Cabinet noted that this year the APA acts as a “risk assessment” for the Joint Area Review (JAR) of Children’s Services which is to take place in tandem with the Corporate Assessment.

(5)               The Cabinet noted that two of the areas for development identified in the APA letter, namely teenage pregnancy and participation and attainment up to the age of 19, were being investigated in the Joint Assessment Review (JAR) alongside the core areas of safeguarding, looked after children, children and young people with learning difficulties and disabilities and service management and capacity to improve.  The Cabinet congratulated the Managing Director for Children, Families and Education and his staff on an excellent Annual Performance Assessment.

(6)       RESOLVED that:-

Cabinet note the 2006/2007 results of the Annual Performance Assessment of Children’s Services.

EXEMPT ITEMS
(Open Access to Minutes)

Cabinet resolved that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

            (In attendance for this item were Grahame Ward, Director of Resources, Children, Families and Education, Rebecca Spore, Head of PPP/PFI, Karl Limbert, Programme Manager: Building Schools For The Future & Academies, Jane Blenkinsop, PPP/PFI Project Finance Officer, Peter Mulholland, Group Leader, Property and Commercial, Legal and Democratic Services, Alan Day, Senior Policy Officer (Digital Curriculum), Children, Families and Education. Bob Griggs and Sayeeram Mothi, (KPMG), Jonathan Stewart (Gleed’s) representing Gleed’s input into design and financial management and Stephen Matthews, Nabarro Nathanson,)

Urgent Item of Business

            (1)       The Chairman sought and gained the approval of the Cabinet to deal with this matter under the urgency procedure outlined in Appendix 4 Part 8 of the Constitution.  He indicated that he had agreed this with the Chairman of the County Council and with the Leaders of the opposition groups.

(2)               He informed Cabinet that the final bids were received on 16 November from bidders following the close of a dialogue under the competitive dialogue process.  The evaluation of the two bids to be the private sector partner in the Local Education Partnership (LEP) had been an incredibly time consuming exercise, as it should be, in view of the scale of the eventual financial investment that will take place in one third of the County Council’s secondary estate. 

(3)               The intention was that work starts on site during the 2008 summer holidays and if this date is not met the County Council become liable for increased costs as the prices are only fixed for three months past the estimated financial close which is mid June 2008. 

(4)               The Chairman informed the Cabinet that the report makes clear the evaluation group only completed its work on Thursday 13 December 2007 and it was not until late on Friday 14 December that the report which was before the Cabinet had been cleared by the lawyers and finalised.

(5)               It was necessary to take this time to ensure that a robust evaluation was undertaken to challenge bid submissions and ensure due process was followed.  Both bidders had spent significant development budgets to reach this stage.  Kent County Council must ensure that there is no risk of legal challenge from bidders and to use this time whilst Kent County Council has maximum competitive tension to secure the best commercial position for the Council. 

(6)               In order to achieve the start on site the preferred bidder had to submit some of the necessary planning applications before Christmas 2007 if the County Council are to avoid any judicial risk which is a critical path item to achieve a financial close date in June 2008.  Any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.