Agenda and minutes

(1)   Regarding paragraph 52 of the minutes, the Council had approached the Government to request that they be able to work together on a review of Local Government finance.  There had been no response to this request to date but the Council would continue to follow the request up. 

(2)   Ms McMullan explained to the Committee that she would be taking on the role for the South East lead for Finance, which would involve being a representative for the South East Strategic Authorities.  A key aim was to share ideas from other authorities and to identify areas where bureaucracy could be reduced. 

RESOLVED: that subject to the amendment of “Mr Dean” on page one for “Mrs Dean” the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2010 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman. 

(1)   Mr Burr explained that the gulley emptying schedules would be issued to Members in the next few weeks. 

(2)   Regarding Kent Design Guide, a report was being submitted to the Environment, Highways and Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee concerning the ways in which Kent Highways Services and the Kent Design Initiative were working with development partners to test the robustness of Interim Guidance Note 3.  The report also indicated that further public consultation would be undertaken as residential parking policies were developed at district level. 

(3)   Members had invited Mr R Gough and Ms T Oliver to answer any questions Members might have on the Kent Digital Service follow up item.  A report had been circulated to Members answering questions raised at the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 April.  Members confirmed that they were satisfied with the reasons behind using TUPE and that their questions on this issue had been answered. 

(4)   Mrs Oliver confirmed that now the new team had been established, she had transferred the Digital Kent team to the Communications and Media team, reporting to Ms Jane Clarke to be part of the overall communications agenda.  Mr Gough explained that it was intended that a cross party group be set up which would be reported through the Corporate Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  The Chairman thanked Mr Gough for his introduction and explained that a report on how the Scrutiny Committees could work with the media was recently discussed by the Scrutiny Board and this work could all tie in together. 

(5)   Mr Manning asked for clarification on the schedule of work, which elements had gone out live and which were for broadcasting at a later date.  Mrs Oliver referred to page 4 of the supplementary report on Kent Digital Service and explained that 87 films had been made and were live on the system since April.  The ‘acquired by Kent County Council’ (KCC) videos had been commissioned by KCC departments but not produced by the Digital Kent team, the ‘acquired other’ had been made independently of KCC but the content was relevant to the KCC website, this was not at cost to the Council. 

(6)   The Chairman reminded Members that a further presentation on the Future of Older Persons’ Provision had been offered to Members and was being held on 26 July at 3.30pm. 

RESOLVED: that Members note the follow up items report and the response to previous recommendations. 

(1)   Mr Manning referred to paragraph 3 (5) and explained that he had asked how the Council could ‘realistically’ budget for the future, the answer he received had satisfied him. 

(2)   Mr Christie referred to paragraph 3 (6), the LSC transfer was ‘a unique situation for Kent learners’.  It was understood that a pilot was being run in Kent, however Officers would report back to confirm why this was particularly unique for Kent.  Mr Christie also asked about the previous follow up item requested by Mr Horne on the level of funding package which the Government was offering to Kent County Council in relation to the transfer of the Learning and Skills Council Service.  This information would be clarified and reported back to Members. 

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 12 July 2010. 

The Chairman and Spokespeople have agreed to call-in the relevant part of this report, which deals with the Integrated Transport Schemes. 

Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste, Mr John Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services and Mr David Hall, Head of Transport & Development have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.15am and 10.45am to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mr John Simmonds, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ms Lynda McMullan, Director of Finance have also been invited to attend the meeting in relation to this item.

Mr N Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste, Mr J Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services, Mr D Hall, Head of Transport and Development and Mr R Hallett, Directorate Finance Manager – Environment, Highways and Waste were present for this item. 

(1)      The Chairman confirmed that the only item which was being called-in from the Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring Exception Report was that of the Integrated Transport Schemes. 

(2)      Mr Chard confirmed that the figures in the report were correct, he referred to table 5 in the Monitoring Exception Report that set out the in year capital grant reductions for Kent of £4.105million to the existing Integrated Transport block.  That decision was signed off by the Leader on 18 June and officers had worked up proposals to meet the £4.105million reduction.  Those schemes which were underway went forward, those which had severe safety implications, those with significant external funding and those which had a significant impact on congestion were also prioritised.  The detail which went out to Members on 28 June was the same information that was contained within the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee agenda papers. 

(3)      Mr Chittenden had given the Chairman prior notice that he wished to ask questions on this item and he asked Mr Chard how the proposals were worked up and how the criteria was applied.  Mr Hall explained that the £4.1million in year reduction had not been anticipated.  Given the short timescale to introduce the reductions, Officers devised a pragmatic way of assessing schemes to be retained based on the impact on road safety, schemes that contributed to the reduction of congestion, gave best value for money, provided significant match funding and those schemes that were underway.  The Council would continue to use SPS in future.  The vast majority of schemes fell reasonably neatly into the criteria, and the proposals were felt to be balanced and pragmatic. 

(4)      Mr Scholes explained that at a recent meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board, Members did not agree with the prioritisations.  Members had put forward suggestions which were broadly financially balanced and was the list in Appendix one of the agenda papers the final decision or were officers still reflecting on the discussions had at the Joint Transportation Boards? In response to a question from Mr Scholes, Mr Chard confirmed that he was aware of the situation in Tunbridge Wells, however the scheme had a major impact on congestion and therefore it was necessary on this occassion to over-rule the Joint Transportation Board (JTB).

(5)      Mr Christie asked whether the JTBs were offered the opportunity to comment on the proposals put forward.  Was it correct that 45% of the IT scheme budget was in question?  Did the Cabinet Member and Officers look at the possibility of using the Member’s funds to fund some of the priority schemes that were previously agreed?  

(6)      In response to another point Mr Chard confirmed that a list showing the schemes that were to be funded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste and Mr John Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.45am and 11.15am to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mr N Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste and Mr J Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services were present for this item. 

(1)    Mr Chard explained that the Council had received funding of £2.4million from Central Government, £2.5million from Kent County Council corporately, and £1.5million from Kent Highway Services (KHS); a total additional money of £6.44million.  The find and fix initiative would reach every residential road in the county.

(2)    In response to a question from the Chairman about the £1.5million that KHS had been able to utilise through efficiencies, Mr Burr explained that this had become available through a procurement exercise, cheaper market rates had resulted in a £1.5million surplus which could be put into the find and fix initiative. 

(3)    Mr Horne queried the road repair backlog figure of £430million, it was important that the Council did not see an increase in the backlog figure from year to year, what standard was the Council looking for?  Mr Burr explained that the backlog figure was arrived at through a complicated process of asset management; this figure would raise the standard of all the highways.  The find and fix initiative was already undertaking 6 times more repairs on each road than would have been tackled under previous KCC policies, and substantial sums were planned for surface dressing on rural roads to prevent a repeat of the problems this winter.  Kent was not unique; other counties had similar, if not larger, problems with road repairs.  Mr Burr added that to ensure that the backlog figure did not increase there was a need to approach problems in a different way.

(4)     Mr Manning asked whether Parish and Town Councils were being informed before the find and fix teams arrived.  Mr Manning also asked for clarification on the actual costs of the administration of the contract with the KHS alliance, this was currently estimated at around £320k (5% of the contract value).  In relation to the backlog, was it possible to see how the figure of £430million was broken down?   Mr Burr confirmed that the programme for the Parish and Town Councils was available on the website and was updated regularly.  The actual costs of the management and supervision of the contract were currently 6% but the Council was recovering the costs of the original setup and was confident that the end figure would be 5%, more detail could be provided if required.  Members were invited to see the asset management system which arrived at the backlog figure.  In response to Mr Manning’s point about utility inspections, Mr Burr explained that the Council was currently undertaking 10% more inspections to determine the cost and quality of inspections, if it became possible to prove that the roads were getting worse because of utility repairs it might be possible to recover the costs from the utility companies. 

(5)    In response to a question from Mrs Rook about the Council’s plans in case of another bad winter in 2010/11, Mr Burr explained that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Mr Mike Hill, Cabinet Member for Communities, Mr Clive Bainbridge, Director of Community Safety & Regulatory Services and Mr Stuart Beaumont, Head of Service, Community Safety will attend the meeting at 11.15am to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mr M Hill, Cabinet Member for Communities and Mr S Beaumont, Head of Service, Community Safety were present for this item.

(1)    The Chairman explained that this item had originally been called in because of concerns that the Community Warden scheme needed to be extended into new areas.  Following discussion with officers it was apparent that the scheme was being looked at and the Chairman and Spokespeople felt that it was important that Members had an input into the process.

(2)    Mr Hill explained that the Community Wardens scheme was set up originally to fill in a gap in the policing of Kent in partnership with the police.  The Police Service then introduced neighbourhood policing and community support officers, and the community wardens had successfully integrated into their own role as wardens, the full spectrum of services to the public was filled.  It became necessary for the Council to look again at the issue of deployment of wardens, which do not currently cover the whole of the County, and there was a need to widen the role of wardens to cover the appropriate areas of the County (due to safety issues).  Every area of the County would now be covered to some extent.  There would be no change in terms of Member consultation, no redeployment would take place without consulting local Members.  In response to a question from the Chairman about how the consultation would be carried out Mr Beaumont explained that District and County Councillors would be consulted during the review process.  The existing eligibility criteria would still be used to deploy the wardens, but at all stages during the review, deployment and requests for expansion of deployment Members would be consulted. 

(3)    Mr Christie explained that there were significant urban areas currently not served by a warden, would consultation be carried out with those areas where a warden would not be deployed as well as those where one would?  On the point of deployment of wardens into urban areas Mr Hill explained that it was not a case of urban and rural areas, the Council would take advice from the police on whether it was appropriate and safe to place a warden in a particular area.  Mr Beaumont explained that in the Ashford area a pilot was underway to determine how the Council gathered information to allow the best deployment of wardens.  The coverage was currently 400,000, less than a third of the rate payers of Kent.  It was hoped that it would be possible in future to offer a warden service to over a million people in Kent.

(4)    Mr Chittenden expressed his view that the urban areas were undersupplied, the majority of wardens were located in the rural areas, was this an appropriate time to be making cuts to the budget when the service was expanding.  Mr Beaumont clarified that wardens were deployed to urban areas and this would continue, the deployment of wardens had to be matched with the skills and competencies that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.