Agenda and minutes

East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee
Wednesday, 19th May, 2010 10.00 am

Venue: The Guildhall, Westgate, Canterbury

Contact: Committee Administrator  (01227) 862 006 or e mail  lynda.mcdaid@canterbury.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

34.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

TO RECEIVE apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies received from Councillors Carter (Kent), Watkins (Dover), Wise (Dover) and Law (Canterbury).

 

35.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

TO RECEIVE declaration of interests

Minutes:

No declarations of interests were received.

 

36.

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

The Chairman to report any notifications received prior to this meeting regarding the attendance of substitutes for the named Members of this Committee.

Minutes:

Councillor Rosemary Doyle substituted for Councillor Law (Canterbury) and Councillor Ian Ward substituted for Councillor Watkins (Dover).

 

37.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 56 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2010 were agreed as a correct record.

 

38.

APPOINTMENT OF HOST AUTHORITY, DELEGATION OF POWERS FOR THE PROPOSED THANET, DOVER AND CANTERBURY SHARED SERVICES AND LOCATION OF STAFF pdf icon PDF 115 KB

TO CONSIDER a report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Canterbury)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The committee was informed that following acceptance by three of the five participant authorities of the strategic business case for a range of shared services earlier in the year, a Director of Shared Services had now been appointed.  Delegated powers needed to be agreed by the committee for the new post to undertake her duties. These delegated powers would also be exercisable should Kent County Council and Shepway District Council delegate functions to the Committee in future.  Attention was drawn to analysis, as set out in schedule 1, of which authority should act as host.  It identified Thanet District Council as the preferred employer for the new Director.  Canterbury was identified as the most suitable location for the shared services management team.  He noted that it was not for the Joint Arrangements Committee to appoint the host but it did have authority to delegate powers to the Director.  He recommended two minor amendments to the report:

 

(i)                 That recommendation 1 be amended to Director of Shared Services and her staff.

 

(ii)               That within the scheme of delegation set out in Schedule 2 that “The Parties” means any two or more of Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Kent County Council, the District Council of Shepway and Thanet District Council. 

 

RESOLVED –

 

1.      That Thanet District Council as the host employer of the Director of Shared Services and her staff be approved.

 

2.      That the Director of Shared Services when employed by Thanet District Council be delegated the powers of the Committee as set out in schedule 2 attached to this report.

 

3.      That the Director of Shared Services and associated staff be located at Canterbury City Council offices.

 

4.      That the definition of “the parties” be amended to include Kent County Council.

 

A copy of the scheme of delegation as amended is appended to the minutes.

 

39.

REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE EAST KENT (JOINT ARRANGEMENTS) COMMITTEE AND THE EAST KENT (JOINT SCRUTINY) COMMITTEE pdf icon PDF 299 KB

TO CONSIDER a report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Canterbury)

Minutes:

The Committee was informed that a review of the arrangements had been undertaken by Mr Doug Bradbury, SOLACE consultant and former Chief Executive of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, who was well versed in constitutional matters.  The review had concluded that the current arrangements were robust.  A number of recommendations had been made in the report to further enhance the arrangements and these were included in the report for consideration by the committee.  Particular attention was drawn to the difficulties inherent in EKJAC’s decision-making processes, which had contributed to the delay of projects.  These had been taken on board in preparing the methodology for the strategic business case earlier in the year.

 

Attention was drawn to a number of the more detailed recommendations as follows:

 

(i)                 administration and chairmanship – it was recommended that Canterbury retained the ‘administering authority’ arrangements for a further year, making a total of 3 years, whilst the chairmanship rotated.  A further review would take place in a year’s time;

 

(ii)               that the chairman of both EKJAC and EKJSC be given a second or casting vote unless his or her council was not participating in the shared service concerned;

 

(iii)             agreement to a fund to meet the costs of researching and creating shared services projects; and

 

(iv)              creation of an SLA for the functions of the administrative host.

 

He also said the following matters should be kept under review:

 

(v)                relationship between EKJSC and individual scrutiny committees, which may be the subject of a future protocol;

 

(vi)              the need for specialist officer advice to support the work of the Joint Scrutiny Committee; and

 

(vii)            funding the work of officers supporting the Joint Arrangements Committee.

 

RECOMMEND -

That the following recommendations be made to each council –

 

  1. That the East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee operating arrangements be amended as follows:

 

(a)               Paragraph 11.1 – In the table delete “and Host Authority”.

 

(b)               Paragraph 12.1 – To add “in the event of an equality of votes the Chairman may have a second or casting vote unless his council is not participating in the shared service concerned”.

 

Paragraph 12.2 – To add “Any such recommendation shall be considered by each of the parties and a response made to it within three months of the date such recommendation is made”.

 

(c)               Paragraph 14.1 – To delete “the Parties will appoint a Host Authority which is for the time being the Authority shown as the Chairman and Host Authority in the table at clause 11.1” and substitute “which until May 2012 shall be Canterbury City Council and thereafter such Administering Authority as EKJAC may from time to time appoint”.

 

Paragraph 14.4 – Delete “will be paid for by the host authority” and substitute “will be paid for by the parties in equal shares”.

 

(d)               To add the following paragraphs and re-number the succeeding paragraphs:

 

“Paragraph 15. – Finance

 

Paragraph 15.1 – “To agree that the councils allocate sums from time to time to funds for meeting the costs of researching and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

40.

ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS TO BE DEALT WITH IN PUBLIC

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That, under Section 100(A) 4 of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item on the grounds that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act or the Freedom of Information Act or both.

 

41.

EAST KENT JOINT WASTE PROJECT

TO CONSIDER a report of the Director of Environmental Services (Thanet) on behalf of East Kent Waste Management Group

Minutes:

The report was introduced by Roger Walton, Head of Property, Leisure and Waste Management (Dover).  The Committee was informed that the report before them built on the previous agreement made in November 2009 to adopt the Notional Optimum Model (NOM) for waste disposal and collection.  In the interim period, a competitive dialogue procurement process had been continuing on the joint tender between Shepway, Dover and Kent to allow prospective tenders the opportunity to inform the client authorities on the most effective waste collection methodology.  This had led to a recommendation that an Alternative NOM be adopted, which included separate weekly collection of food and separate containerised collection of dry recyclables.  He said the new model allowed those who presently charge for green waste on a subscription basis to continue to do so.

 

The impact of the changes to the cost model were described.  It was explained that the savings accrued by Kent County Council from disposal would be retained by them and used, in part, to provide enabling payments to the districts to support them with the waste collection service.  He explained that there were two components to the payment to districts; one part offset the loss of recycling income presently enjoyed by districts and a second compensatory payment was included to ensure that overall the new collection service would, based on estimated costs, be cost neutral to the districts whilst delivering improved recycling rates. 

 

He said for various procurement reasons it had not been possible to prepare a single contract for East Kent at this stage but the opportunity to do so in 2020 had been retained.  The possibility of co-located depots had been rejected by prospective tenderers, due to the lack of cost benefit.  It was explained that the business case had moved away from a desegregation of shared benefits so that the disposal authority now retained the income from recyclate disposal, which carried the risk of fluctuation according to market conditions.  This had led to a proposal from the County council that the enabling payments to districts should be capped at the rates set out in section 2.7 of the report.  Anticipated gross disposal savings arising from the alternate NOM were estimated to be £2.96 million and the adjusted total net savings, taking into account all enabling payments and containerisation costs were estimated to be £1.008 million.

 

The funding arrangement for the sharing of consultancy costs for technical and legal advice was explained.  The timetable set out in Appendix 3 of the report for the Shepway, Dover, Kent element of the contract was amended to reflect the most recent advice.  The award of contract would take place in September 2010 and contract commencement was expected in November 2010.

 

A Member asked if all of the recommendations needed to be referred to the constituent authorities Executive/Cabinet.  In response the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Canterbury) explained that recommendations one to five were for EKJAC to determine and that recommendations six and seven  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.