Agenda and minutes

(1)       It was noted that there would be a report to the next meeting of the Board on the revised Forward Plan including a draft template.

(2)       RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2010 are correctly recorded and that they be signed as a correct record, subject to it being clarified in minute no 3(1) that Mr Christie and Mr Lees were non voting invitees.

(1)       The Board received a report which set out its terms of reference and requested Members to decide how they wished to deal with the following issues which had been referred to them from the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee on 9 April 2010.

a) Investigation of possible efficiencies from Unitary authorities

(2)       The Chairman referred to the way in which Districts were working together.   He informed the Board that Maidstone Borough Council had an Informal Members Group considering different models of working for local authorities.  He offered to circulate the report being received by this Group to Members of the Board. It would then be for Members to decide if they wanted to take this matter forward.

b) Major Road Repair Blitz

(3)       There was general agreement that this matter fell within the remit of the Highways, Environment and Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee and should be referred to that Committee.

c)  Safeguarding children in Kent

(4)       As this matter fell within the remit of the Vulnerable Children and Partnerships Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee it was agreed that it should be referred to that Committee.

d)  Local Member Information

(5)       It was agreed that this would be considered later in the meeting as part of the discussion on sharing of good practise.

RESOLVED that:-

            (a)       subject to authorisation from Maidstone Borough Council,  their update report on “Two Tier Pathfinders and New Unitary Authorities” be circulated to Members of the Board.

(b)       the Environment Highways and Waste Policy Overview Committee review the Weather Damaged Repairs to Roads in Kent contract and the work to date after the £1m has been spent.

(c)        the Children Families and Education Children & Partnerships Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive a report addressing how and whom should have the responsibility for elected Members as “Corporate Parents” supporting the needs of Looked after Children.

Mr P Carter, Leader of Kent County Council, will attend the meeting between 10.15am and 10.30am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

(1)       This item had been put forward by Mrs Dean who clarified that she was interested in the paper not just the process around it.

(2)       Mr Carter explained that the Director of Law and Governance had confirmed that it was acceptable for KCC’s logo to be used on a document produced by the Leader of the County Council.   The document had been well received at its launch by all three parties.  He stated that further work needed to be done on how to have more localised control over welfare expenditure in Kent.  If there was a re-design of the regional landscape after the general election, consideration could be given to what would be a reasonable size for regional government.  Total Place was one of the important documents for focusing on a local area, where we could save and deliver massive and substantial amounts of savings in expenditure. 

(3)       Mr Carter stated that an area where Members could get involved was making suggestions of where devolution could work better i.e. by spending less money and supporting citizens more effectively.  In relation to Total Place he referred to access and assessment of need especially for the welfare budget relating to young people and benefits.  If local government were allocated a share of the £10,000 - £12,000 per young person it would be possible to create sensible employment opportunities.  This would be articulated in a paper that was currently being produced.  The key issue was making better use of less resource by using it more effectively especially in the areas of economic development, housing and transport.  Total Place was not just about buildings it was also about expenditure, it required a coalition of the willing and strong leadership at all levels. 

(4)       In response a question on how much involvement District Councils had in the development of this document, Mr Carter explained that the District Councils had seen the document as had authorities in the South East, and had the opportunity to comment and shape it.  The document had been shaped to shed a positive light on the local government family and to make the two tier structure work.  He also referred to work on the new Kent Commitment.

(5)       Regarding local authorities and the provision of healthcare, Mr Carter stated that it would be a massive operation to reconfigure services differently.  The key concept was could we do it differently with less resources.  Local government democracy had more input than they had in the past, local government had a proven track record of the way that they were run and had earned greater autonomy.

(6)       Mr Carter informed the Board that Mr Bowles was leading a group of District Councillors who were looking to define how a control shift could work if empowered by the removal of regional authorities.  He acknowledged that there would need to be revised governance arrangements to achieve this.

(7)       In response to the issue of the public being aware of which tier of local government  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Ms Barbara Cooper, Director Economic Development, Mr Nigel Smith, Head of Development Investment (KCC) and Mr Brian Morgan, Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy (Maidstone Borough Council) will be attending for this item.

(1)        Mr Smith introduced the report and explained that the provision of adequate infrastructure and facilities alongside housing growth was essential if we are to achieve aspirations in respect of sustainable communities and ultimately places where people want to live. It was the Government’s expectation that developers would make an appropriate contribution to the required infrastructure to deliver this objective and, therefore, make proposals acceptable in planning terms. The report outlined the County Council’s approach, particularly with regard to, the process for agreeing Section 106 agreements, monitoring performance, dealing with recession and the way forward.

(2)       Mr Morgan, Assistant Director of Development and Community Services at Maidstone Borough Council, referred to the planning tests for Section 106 agreements as set out in the report.  He explained that prior to the recession when negotiating on major developments, the Borough Council would seek 106 contributions if appropriate, for highways, education, libraries, social services, affordable housing, open spaces, primary care facilities, community facilities and community safety.  This list was not exhaustive and would vary depending on the development.  Due to the length of this list the Council had been forced to prioritise how contributions were being used even prior to recession.  Since the recession the position had changed.  In 2008-09, 411 houses had been built in Maidstone and up until 3^rd quarter of the last financial year 400 houses had been built but the majority of these were affordable housing under existing planning permissions.

(3)       Mr Morgan stated that in order to stimulate the provision of market housing there was a need to re-negotiate existing section 106 agreements and to take a different approach with new agreements. Authorities were going to have to go back and review priorities and accept that every item on the list was not deliverable.

(4)       Mr Morgan explained that the Section 106 system was undergoing change.  The Community Infrastructure Levy was coming forward, although this had not yet been finalised.  He believed that where we may get to is in effect to have a tariff for the provision of general infrastructure but there would also still be the need for Section 106 agreements to deliver on site provision, for example affordable housing and any specific issues relating to highway improvements in the site. The key issue was how to pitch the tariff without stifling the provision of homes. He mentioned that the Borough Council were developing their core strategy and when looking at the level of infrastructure necessary for the 11080 homes which they needed to provide by 2026 the cost of this would run into hundreds of millions of pounds.  Under the Social Housing Relief which came into force on 6 April 2010 it appeared that affordable housing was exempt from Section 106 agreements, which for Maidstone Borough would remove 40% of housing from the need to make contributions.  Clarification on this was being sought from the Government Office for the South East.  Also in the planning period up to 2026 Maidstone Borough Council had to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

(1)       Ms McMullan introduced the report and invited Members comments on the way in which the Overview and Scrutiny Committee contributed to the budget process in 2009/10 and any suggestions for how this could be improved for 2010/11.

(2)       The following views were put forward:-

• It was important for as many Members as possible to be involved in making a contribution to the development of the budget.
• Having just one meeting to consider the Medium Term Plan in detail, and to set priorities using a formula, seemed like a rushed process and it would have been helpful to have been involved earlier.
• It was suggested that the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees should start their consideration of the budget in May or June. 
• The need to provide training for Overview and Scrutiny Members so that they could effectively carry out this role was emphasised.
• A member expressed the view that the Council should be policy led rather than budget led.  Ms McMullan confirmed that this was the case.
• The importance of Cabinet Members and Deputy Cabinet Members setting out their priorities for Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees, so that they can assist them in their work, was highlighted.
• It was essential that Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee were able to spend enough time, either in their meetings or though an Informal Members Group, to give constructive consideration to the medium term plan and the budget.

(3)       Mr Simmonds referred Members to the quarterly monitoring reports that all Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees received which contained a lot of helpful information.  He stated that there was nothing to stop Members at any time putting forward suggestions and ideas and he was happy to attend any of the Policy Overview Committees to provide a budget update.

(4)       RESOLVED that:-

            (a)       a half day training session(s) on Overview and Scrutiny and the Budget process be arranged for all Overview and Scrutiny Members, based on the session run by Mr Wood after the 2009 elections.  (It was suggested that this be held on the afternoon of a Scrutiny Board meeting to ensure that all Overview and Scrutiny Chairman were able to attend)

            (b)       at the June/July meetings of POSC’s, as part of the financial monitoring report, all POSC’s be asked to formulate their arrangements for contributing to the development of the budget so that they are able to have an input at an earlier stage than previous years.

(1)       The Chairman read a letter from Mr Lake, the Chairman of the Adult Social Services Policy Overview Committee, strongly putting forward the view that the Select Committee on Dementia should come under the remit of his Committee, and not have a joint remit with the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

(2)       Mr Horne, the Chairman of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, stated that his Committee were considering a number of associated issues. 

(3)       RESOLVED that Adult Social Services Policy Overview Committee be the parent Committee for the topic review on Dementia, with the opportunity for the Membership to include Members from both ASS POSC and HOSC, and that this review be started in the Autumn of 2010 and report to County Council in April 2011

(1)       In relation to Member Information Mr King informed the Board that he had tasked two officers with identifying the blockages and putting forward proposals on how they could be overcome.  He would report the outcome of this to Members.  He confirmed that there would be a focus group of Members to assist with the development of Kent Digital Services. 

(2)       A Member raised the issue of how Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees could play a role in scrutinising officer re-structuring.   It was suggested that as these should be identified in the Forward Plan of Key Decisions it would be for Member to put them on the agenda for their Committee.  

(3)       Mr Wickenden stated that this item would be a standing item on the agenda for this Board to give Members the opportunity to share good practise.  He referred to Mr Yardley, Clerk to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, who was spending time in Kent Councils and he hoped that this would be the start of a two way exchange for Officers and Members.

(4)       RESOLVED that there be a report to the next meeting of the Committee on how and when it was proposed to progress the on Member information.