Minutes:
|
Kent County Council |
||||
|
Decision taken Cabinet 5 December 2011 |
|
|
|
DECISION NO. 11/01769 |
|
Unrestricted |
||||
|
Blue Badge Reform (Item 10 – Report by Mr G Gibbens, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health; and Mr A Ireland, Corporate Director, Families and Social Care)( Ms J Grant, Senior Policy Officer was present for this item) |
||||
|
(1) This report provided an update on the implementation of the revised Blue Badge Service and advised on the work currently in progress to identify efficiencies which may be achieved by improvements to the new service. The report set out the costs associated with the service and the potential financial impacts when the Department for Transport removes funding in 2013/14.
(2)The Blue Badge Scheme has been in place since the early 1970s and is based on the requirements of Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. A review in 2007 highlighted several areas where improvements needed to be made to the administration of the scheme, the eligibility criteria and to prevent abuse. After further consultation, the Government published a reform strategy in October 2008 that included a number of commitments to ensure that the Blue Badge Scheme remained relevant. (3) The county council has been in contact with a number of neighbouring authorities, all of whom are planning to increase the charge for Blue Badges to £10 although the implementation date varies between January and March 2012. Consultation methodology amongst neighbouring authorities also varied, some were consulting widely on the changes, some only with people who phone for renewal of Blue Badge and others are not consulting. (4) The current £2 charge is for the administration of the present Blue Badge service including production of the badge, this charge is levied for all applicants whether they are successful or not. An increase to a £10 fee could only be levied if the applicant was successful and £4.60 of this would then be paid to the contractor for the production of the badge. The remaining part of the fee would cover the assessment and administration costs and any shortfall for these services will fall onto Kent County Council. (5) The change in the legislation enables local authorities to raise the charge for Blue Badges from £2 to £10 from 1 January 2012. This increase in charge would come at the same time as the first phase of increases in charges to those disabled people who contribute to the cost of their non-residential care services. The Blue Badge service is not subject to means testing and it does not fall within the meaning of community care services. (6) Cabinet considered the 3 options set out in the report and agreed the Council should proceed on the basis of levying a charge of £10 from 1 January 2011. The £10 fee is for a badge that would be valid for a period of 3 years. (7) Resolved that (a) the changes to the Blue Badge service as described in the Cabinet report be noted (b) the charge for the provision of Blue Badge be increased from £2 to £10 with effect from 1 January 2012; and ( c) approval be given to the Communication Plan Any Interest Declared when the Decision was Taken: None
|
||||
|
Reason(s) for decision, including alternatives considered and any additional information
As set above and in the Cabinet report
Background Documents: none
|
||||
|
KENT COUNTY COUNCIL |
||||||
|
|
DECISION TAKEN BY Cabinet 5 December 2011
|
|
|
|
DECISION NO. 11/01684 |
|
|
This is an unrestricted Record of Decision of a matter which contained some information which was declared exempt under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972
|
|
The Procurement of Accommodation Services for Looked after Children and Care Leavers (Item 14 – Report by Mrs J Whittle, Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services; and Mr A Ireland, Corporate Director, Families and Social Care) |
|
(1) The majority of the 496 UASC Care leavers 18+ (total as at 7.10.11) are accommodated independently in the community. Accommodation is arranged by Housing Officers within KCC Services for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (SUASC), working with a number of Housing Providers approved following a tendering process in May 2006. In addition to achieving the required savings, a thorough review of the statement of requirements on service providers and terms & conditions of the housing contract was necessary and overdue. The objective of undertaking a competitive procurement process was to identify a small number of service providers who could deliver a high quality, efficient service at an agreed volume and within the agreed price limitations.
(2) The Accommodation Services to be commissioned through this procurement process are:
(a) The provision of units of accommodation in the required locations. (b) Transportation and Move-in Services for all service users accommodated. (c) Accommodation Maintenance Services (planned, emergency and reactive).
(3) In line with Spending the Council’s Money, a fair and transparent non EU competitive procurement process was carried out. Organisations were invited to tender under two categories, block contract or a multiple supplier framework agreement. Following a detailed analysis of the tenders the exempt part of this report proposed a list of 5 companies who with the exception of one were already providing accommodation services for Looked after Children and Care Leavers.
(4) Cabinet Resolved
(a) to approve block contracts and inclusion on the provision Framework to following organisations
(i) Ready Homes - Block contract and Framework (ii) Social and Community Care – Block Contract and Framework (iii) Accommodation Plus – Framework (iv) H Ibrahim – Framework (v) West Kent YMCA
(b) subject to him being satisfied as to the detailed terms and conditions, the Corporate Director for Families and Social Care, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services be delegated authority to enter into on behalf of the County Council all necessary contracts in order to deliver these services.
|
|
Any Interest Declared when the Decision was Taken
None |
|
Reason(s) for decision, including alternatives considered and any additional information
The reasons for this decision are set out above and also in the Cabinet Report.
Background Documents: None |
|
KENT COUNTY COUNCIL |
|
|
DECISION TAKEN BY Cabinet 5 December 2011
|
DECISION NO. 10/01481 |
|
This is an unrestricted Record of Decision of a matter which contained some information which was declared exempt under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 |
|
|
The Duke of York’s Royal Military School (Item 15 – Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member for Education, Learning & Skills ; Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member for Business Strategy, Performance & Health Reform; Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning & Skills; and Mr D Cockburn, Corporate Director of Business, Strategy & Support) (Mrs R Spore the Director of Property and Infrastructure was present for this item) (1) The Duke of York’s Royal Military School, Dover, transferred to Academy status on 1st September 2010. Before this it was an independent school which was run and funded by the MOD. The sponsor of the Academy is the Secretary of State for Defence. The School is co-educational and the sponsor’s overall vision is for a high quality, exclusively full-boarding Academy which will have military ethos, character and traditions and would be primarily focussed on providing continuity of education for the children of those serving in the Armed Forces. KCC is not a sponsor of the Academy and does not place students at the school, so KCC is only acting as a procuring agent for Partnerships for Schools (PfS).
(2) The BSF and Academies team, with Gleeds as technical advisors and Cube as Architects, have been working with the Academy to develop initial options for redeveloping the site. Initial options have been costed to demonstrate which would be affordable, and new build rate used to cost the options is based on a rate advised by the DFE. The rate for refurbishment is based on the conditions survey. It is unlikely that this rate would will be able to achieve the same standard as was achieved under the Building Schools for the Future programme.
(3) The first stage of the procurement is to invite all of the 11 panel members of the PfS Contractors Framework (Southern Region) to take part in the local competition by submission of a response to the PITT. This is then evaluated and 2 panel members are shortlisted from this response to proceed to the next stage. The 2 panel members will then have 8 weeks to engage in 6 – 8 design workshops with the Academy to develop a scheme for their bid submission. These bids will be evaluated by the KCC BSF and Academies team, with our technical advisors and the Academy, to shortlist the bidder that will become the Selected Panel Member. There will be an opportunity for a Member to be involved in the evaluation process should they choose to do so.
(4) There could be some risks to the County Council acting in the role of procurement agent but these will be mitigated against by entering into a and indemnity with the MOD. (5) Cabinet Resolved; (a) to authorise the submission of the Feasibility study for The Duke of York’s Royal Military School to PfS and DFE. (b) authorise the commencement of the procurement from the PfS Contractors Framework to select a Contractor to deliver the Academy works and then to progress through the next stage of the process to develop detailed designs, progress the planning application and finalise contracts, and
(c) to note that the BSF, PFI and Academies Board will be updated on progress and final approval to enter into contracts will be sought from Cabinet.
|
|
|
Any Interest Declared when the Decision was Taken
None |
|
|
Reason(s) for decision, including alternatives considered and any additional information
The reasons for this decision are set out above and also in the Cabinet Report.
Background Documents:
None |
|