Agenda and minutes

In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee recommendations on Kent Highways Services and the process for Local Member input, Mr Sass reported that discussions had been held between the Cabinet Member, the Head of Democratic Services and Local Leadership and the Overview and Scrutiny Manager and these would continue until the matters were resolved. 

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting on 21 October 2009 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman asked that the Executive Director of Environment, Highways and Waste be invited to attend the next agenda planning meeting of the Chairman and Vice chairmen to discuss to outstanding requests of the Committee in relation to gully schedules. 

A memo from the Chief Executive was circulated in response to the Committee’s letter of 23 October regarding a request sent by letter to Mr Carter that the Personnel Committee review the Officer Code of Conduct.  The Committee agreed that the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen would consider any further action at their next agenda setting meeting in the New Year. 

The Chairman also explained to the Committee that she and the Vice-Chairmen were following up an issue relating to the contract between KCC and Terry Farrell and a copy of the contract had been requested.

RESOLVED:  That the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee notes the follow up items report.

The Chairman explained that one of the roles of the Budget IMG was to look at Section 106 agreements that were failing to achieve what they set out to achieve.  Mr Manning stated that he was hoping to meet with the Director of Economic Development and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Development to determine how the original contribution level of £5.2million had been arrived at for the Aylesham development.  The Budget IMG had requested that the Scrutiny Board be asked to review the protocols on effective two tier working between the County and Districts on this issue and the formula used to determine contributions requested regarding future developments. 

RESOLVED:  That the Cabinet Scrutiny approve the notes of the Budget IMG on 27 November and ask the Scrutiny Board to review the protocols, in relation to future developments, between the County and Districts, the formula used to determine contributions requested from developers and the process for member review in the event that agreed contributions could not be met.

Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services & Performance Management, Mr K Harlock, Commercial Services Director and Mr T Molloy, Programme Manager, Office Transformation and Mr R Palmer, Senior Personnel Officer will attend the meeting between 10.30am and 11.00am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mr Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management, Mr Kevin Harlock, Commercial Services Director, Mr Tom Molloy, Programme Manager, Office Transformation, Mr Robert Palmer, Senior Personnel Officer were present for this item.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management explained that the proposals did not affect the reception at Sessions House, the figures on the number of visitors to KCC receptions showed that the majority were visitors to Sessions House reception.  In the current financial climate the Council needed to change how business was undertaken, there would be more focus on electronic methods and the need for reception facilities had to be reviewed.   The Cabinet Member confirmed that 6 employees were affected by the proposal, which equated to 4.8 full time equivalent members of staff.  The proposals were to reduce this to 2 full time equivalent members of staff and officers would ensure that where possible staff affected would be redeployed elsewhere. 

In response to a question from the Chairman as to why the Chief Executive was not present to answer for a Chief Officer group decision, Mr Harlock explained that Commercial Services managed the reception facilities. 

Mr Manning, one of the Joint Vice Chairmen of the Committee, stated that it was essential that the Council gave the right impression, the visitors needed to be dealt with efficiently, Members asked for confirmation of how the proposals would work in practice.  Mr Gough explained that the overwhelming bulk of visitors were to Sessions House reception, there were very few visitors to Cantium House reception and the bulk of visitors to Invicta House were KCC staff.  It was the intention that members of the public would be met by the staff they were visiting. 

The Chairman asked whether figures were available for the numbers of members of the public who visited the Maidstone Gateway?

In response to a concern from Members about the fire evacuation procedure Mr Harlock explained that reception staff were responsible for overseeing the safe evacuation of public and staff from the reception areas, there would be no change to the fire alarm procedures and fire wardens and management would continue to ensure a quick evacuation in the instance of a fire alarm. 

Mr Christie stated that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee were representing the public and the image of the Council, he had concerns that costs which would be saved by reducing the receptionist staff would be borne by other members of staff collecting their visitors.  Mr Harlock explained that in time the functions and duties of the reception staff would change, for example tenders were now being received electronically.  Other Members raised concerns that additional burdens would be placed on secretarial staff who would have to continually meet visitors to each Council building. 

In response to a question Mr Harlock explained that the proposal relied on the communication of officers, who would be responsible for ensuring a smooth arrival of visitors, touch screens were currently not part of the proposals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste; Mr Mike Austerberry, Executive Director, Environment, Highways and Waste Directorate and Mr Bob White, Transport and Development Business Manager, will attend the meeting between 11.00am – 11.45am to answer Members questions’.

Mr N Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste, Mr M Austerberry, Executive Director for Environment, Highways and Waste,  Mrs B Cooper, Director of Economic Development, Mr B White, Transport and Development Business Manager, Mr T Hillier, Hillreed Homes and Mr A Tull, CDP Architects were present for this item. 

The Chairman explained that this call in was as a result of her being approached as Chairman of the Committee and that it was a decision made by two Cabinet Members in May 2009.  The meeting was not to discuss the decision in terms of guidance, but to consider whether the consultation process in this instance was satisfactory.

Mr White explained the consultation process; a 6 week consultation was undertaken using the Kent Design Initiative’s select list of 87 consultees.  Questionnaires were circulated to all consultees in respect of the three guidance notes, 9 responses were received to two documents and 8 responses to one (the parking document).  Various issues were raised but no specific objections to the documents.    The Chairman queried the 87 consultees set out in appendix 4 of the agenda papers, since Borough Councils accounted for a large number of these consultees eg. six of the consultees were officers of Maidstone Borough Council so it was perhaps unfair to class these as separate consultees, as they were all the same organisation. 

In response to a question from Mr Christie, Mr White explained that Hillreed Homes were on the consultees list and he was satisfied that the letter was sent to Hillreed Homes. 

Mr Tony Hilllier explained that he first became aware of the new standards in August 2009, he had no recollection of the consultation.  The standards had a major impact on housing development, provision, standards and design.  A group of key Kent developers and architect organisations met, none of whom had any recollection of the consultation document.  The group approached Kent County Council’s Cabinet with five concerns:

1. significant design implications;
2. confusion as to appropriate levels of parking;
3. standards would result in increased land take for parking;
4. increased development cost;
5. negative impact on housing delivery across Kent. 

Mr Hiller then approached the Chairman of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee to try to resolve the group’s concerns.  In the view of key developers across Kent there had been no consultation or awareness of the Kent Design Guidance document.  Of the 9 responses there were no specific replies from developers, architects or practitioners; in addition Kent Developers Group was not consulted.  The report document stated that the consultation responses ‘largely lent support’ to the guidance whereas in fact in Mr Hillier’s view none of the responses were supportive, they raised questions and suggested further discussion.  In relation to the 17 housebuilders on the consultee list; Mr Hillier had contacted 13 within the last 5 days, 11 had no recollection of the consultation document, 1 did recall but made no response and 1 was unsure.  Mr Hillier stated that there had not been a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

This item was withdrawn at the request of the Chairman and Vice Chairmen.  The Chairman reported that this had been raised as a result of press coverage, following a meeting between the Chairman, Vice Chairmen and the Managing Director of Children, Families and Education it had been agreed that this would be considered by the relevant POSC early in the New Year.  The Chairman would continue enquiries with the Vice Chairman and return the issue to a future Cabinet Scrutiny Committee agenda if appropriate.