Minutes:
(1) The Leader updated the County Council on events since the previous meeting.
(2) Mr Carter referred to the announcement in the Autumn Statement that the government would commit £17m of capital funding for flood defences around Tonbridge and Yalding. He stated that he had always made it absolutely clear that Kent County Council would underwrite the match funding from government, and had been consistent in expressing the expectation that this would include support through parish councils, borough councils, European funding and local enterprise partnerships (LEPs). A Flood Funding Forum had been established to work with partners at parish and borough level, and with the business communities to help fund the £17m.
(3) Mr Carter confirmed that there had also been plans for a LEP Round 2 Growth Fund bid for an additional £2.4m to help support the flood defence funding shortfall. In addition the Environment Agency was pursuing the next European funding round to see whether it was possible to attract, with partners in Europe, a substantial sum of money for these flood defences.
(4) Mr Carter expressed disappointment that, in the Autumn Statement, the government had postponed the LEP Round 2 Growth Fund. A significant amount of work had been carried out by business colleagues, officers and district and borough colleagues to produce a package of schemes for the LEP Growth Fund Round 2. He had written to Greg Clark MP expressing disappointment about this delay. He referred to the £15bn capital that had been passported to the Highways Agency to build tunnels under Stonehenge. He expressed the view that this funding could have been used to empower localism through local government and significant business partners.
(5) Mr Carter referred to the good progress being made in delivering “Facing the Challenge” and in producing the medium term financial plan which set out creative and innovative ways of making £12m of saving without impeding delivery or cutting any front line service. The medium term financial plan would be shared through the cabinet committees in January 2015.
(6) Mr Carter referred to the identification of £400-500k to retain around 70 community wardens. He also mentioned the work of Newton Europe on their risk and reward contract on re-engineering adult social services and on their work to deliver greater efficiencies in children’s and preventative children’s services’.
(7) Mr Carter stated that he had met with potential providers of back office functions. In the New Year there would important decisions to be taken on commissioning these services. He referred to the valuable work being undertaken by the Commissioning Advisory Board to ensure that the very best providers either in-house or external were commissioned.
(8) Mr Latchford, the Leader of the Opposition, expressed disappointment at Thanet District and Kent County Council’s decisions regarding Manston Airport and the impact on job opportunities in Kent.
(9) Mr Latchford congratulated the Cabinet Member for Community Services on his decision regarding community wardens following the public consultation and referred to the motion for time limited debate later in the meeting.
(10) Regarding the Commissioning Strategy, Mr Latchford expressed his appreciation for the opportunity for his group to be party to the document. Although his group had very strong reservations about this strategy, they recognised the importance of ensuring that all outsourcing had the appropriate safeguards. He congratulated Mr Hotson, as Chairman of the Commissioning Advisory Board, on the work to progress this complex issue.
(11) Mr Latchford referred to the £17m from the government for flood defences which required match funding and the assurance given by the Leader. He mentioned the £600m the UK spent on overseas aid for flood defences.
(12) Mr Latchford expressed disappointment about the announcement relating to the LEP, a lot of hard work had gone into an excellent round 2 bid and he hoped that this work would not be wasted.
(13) Mr Cowan, Leader of the Labour Group, referred to the £17m match funding required for flood defence works in Tonbridge and Yalding. He questioned whether, as the County Council was planning increase its Council tax by 1.99% in 2015-16, it could legally ask parish councils in the area for additional Council Tax funding.
(14) In relation to funding referred to on the South East LEP website, Mr Carter addressed the Council on a point of explanation. He stated that this was round 1 funding. There had been an expectation that there would be an invitation to submit bids for round 2 which would have delivered another £55m into Kent.
(15) Mr Cowan expressed disappointment that the proposed dualling of the A2 from Lydden to Whitfield in Dover would not be going forward. He asked the Leader to inform the Council of the process by which the Kent priorities for LEP bids were established including the level of consultation with local members, district councils and MPs. He suggested that there should be a more open process for determining the allocation of local funds from regional growth fund money.
(16) Mr Cowan referred to the decision regarding the community wardens following the six-week consultation and thanked Mr Hill. He compared this to the consultation on the commissioning of the Youth Service and the response concerns raised about switching off street lights at night.
(17) Mrs Dean, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, welcomed the reversal on community wardens and reminded Members that just over a year ago the community warden service had been reconfigured and now covered a larger geographical area. She referred to the possible use of other “uniform” services, such as country park wardens, police community support officers and parking enforcement officers from the borough councils to see if by working together, they could enhance the community warden service.
(18) Mrs Dean referred to the Commissioning Advisory Board and stated that, although Members had been given a great deal of information, they did not have any control over or detail of the process. Decisions would be made on the Kent Library Trust after Christmas and she set out the level of detail that she hoped would be considered at the next meeting of the Advisory Board.
(19) Regarding the LEP regional growth fund she asked Mr Carter when he had heard about the withdrawal of round 2 funding. She also referred to the possible need to increase the robustness of the governance and decision making process of the South East LEP and the possibility that with some of the larger projects local authorities may be required to fund them up front and to be reimbursed by government on a quarterly or half-yearly basis.
(20) Mrs Dean referred to the issue of flooding and stated that neither Maidstone nor Tunbridge & Malling Borough Councils had been asked at the time of Mr Carter’s statement about contributing to a precept.
(21) Mr Whybrow, Leader of the Independents Group, stated that he was delighted to see community wardens get a reprieve and expressed concern about how the savings for this would be found.
(22) Mr Whybrow referred to the Outcomes Framework and the budget situation and stated that he would like to see some of the Office for Budget Responsibility statements and the LGA’s “graph of doom” featuring in the County Council’s information to the public.
(23) Mr Whybrow queried why the County Council had to match fund £17m for flood defences when there was clear evidence that £34m was needed in total.
(24) Regarding the Transformation Programme, Mr Whybrow expressed unease about KCC’s increasing involvement in the corporate world. He stated that his concerns had been heightened by events over the past week as well as by a draft external auditor’s report. He questioned whether the County Council had the necessary corporate skills or expertise.
(25) In replying to the other group leaders’ responses, Mr Carter stated that on the funding for flood amelioration, prior to the events last Christmas the Yalding scheme was low on the priority order and the chances of funding were minimal. He explained that only a very small number of schemes achieved 100% funding. He had worked very closely with Sir John Stanley to make sure that the Yalding scheme was placed higher on the list and in order to do so had to commit to finding 50% match funding. He reiterated that he had consistently stated that contributions would be needed towards the £17m match funding. He pointed out that other areas of the county would also like flood defence funding so it was unfair to expect all Kent Council Tax payers to match fund the Yalding works.
(26) Regarding the delay in the round 2 LEP funding and the comments made on the governance arrangements. Mr Carter stated that, despite the lack of clarity at national level on the governance process for LEPs, he had been as open as possible. Mr Carter stated that he considered KCC and the administration to be exceedingly open. In relation to the Commissioning Advisory Board although procurement had to be a long protracted process, the aim was to be as open and transparent and share what was sensible and intelligent at the appropriate times with Members in order to make well informed decisions.