Agenda item

(1)       The Committee received a report on Vision for Kent which was Kent Forum’s strategy, developed in partnership between the public, private and voluntary sectors in Kent. A refreshed version of the strategy, Vision for Kent 2011-2021, was currently out for consultation.   The Vision for Kent would be submitted to County Council in October 2011 for approval. 

(2)       Mr King, Mr Brown and Ms Dixon answered questions from Members and noted comments which included the following:-

• Reference was made to the challenge to get partnership working (page 7) there was a need to change the “us and them” mindset”.
• Although the document highlighted the major role of the Kent Forum there was only a brief mention in the glossary of what the Kent Forum was, it was suggested that this should be expanded.
• It was important to create in Kent the “willing workforce”, which would be an adaptable workforce, to help create wealth and encourage businesses to come to Kent.   Mr King acknowledged that having the right workforce available in Kent was crucial for building the economy.
• The Regeneration and Economic Development Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee (POSC) had expressed concern about the role of Ambition Board compared to Locality Boards, especially as partners in business were not represented on Ambition Boards.    It was explained that Locality Boards were key to delivering the 3 ambitions from Bold Steps for Kent.  The role of Ambition Boards was to act as change agents and to disseminate best practise to assist Locality Boards. It was intended that Ambition Boards should have space to think creatively and to challenge.
• It was confirmed that two of the Ambition Boards (Tackling Disadvantage and Citizen in Control) had met, each had a core Membership of 2 County Council Cabinet Members, 4 District Council Leaders.  The minutes for the Ambition Boards were on the Kent Forum Website.
• A Member expressed concern that the current number of responses to the consultation was low in proportion to the population of Kent. It was pointed out that the consultation had only started three weeks ago.  It was suggested that the opportunity be taken at the County Show to publicise the consultation and to get feedback.
• The importance of Kent making the most of its natural resources and its listed buildings to encourage tourism was emphasised. 
• As Dover was the one of the largest ports, it should be a nucleus for related industries such as ship building.
• The duplication of bullet points 3 and 5 on page 25 was noted.
• A Member mentioned the work being done with local academies and schools etc to prove the skills needed for new technology like construction of wind farms.
• A request was made for Members to receive the unedited feedback from the consultation so that they were able to gauge the concerns of the public. 
• A Member questioned the feasibility of the laudable aim of increasing the publics’ involvement in voluntary work within such a short timescale.
• It was mentioned that some Parish Councils wished to take on more responsibility and were prepared to do so whereas others may not want to or may need some initial support to take on an increased role.
• A Member mentioned the success of the Neighbourhood Forum in his area in gaining the views of local people. Although another Member made the point that Neighbourhood Forums success was not universal across Kent.  It was confirmed that Neighbourhood Forums and Local Boards were being used as part of the consultation on Vision for Kent.
• It was suggested that there should be an additional bullet point within growing the economy on Highway and Road infrastructure improvement.

(3)       It was requested that the annual monitoring of Vision for Kent should be carried out by the Scrutiny Board or POSCs.

(4)       RESOLVED that comment on the draft Vision for Kent 2011-2021, the consultation process and next steps noted.