Agenda item

Officers responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following: -

(1)        Mr Collins referred to the allocation of funding for property developments within each of Kent’s districts and confirmed that the allocation would not be equal in every district, it would be dependent on the way in which it was developed. He referred to youth provision and the intention to develop an area-based solution which would allow flexibility across each of the 12 districts.

(2)        Mrs Chandler explained the rationale behind the proposal and stated that further work would be undertaken in relation to the additional money that had recently been agreed at full Council and the voluntary offer in terms of youth work.

(3)        Mr Dunkley referred to the restrictions that were in place in relation to how the section 106 developer funding could be spent and said that the proposals that were in place for the budget amendment money agreed at full Council would seek to release the pressure. He added that the proposals would include ‘not targeted and universal’ youth provision in rural areas and areas that had not had the same level of investment as deprived areas.

(4)        Mr Collins said that Kent’s Open Access service covered governance implications within the Adolescent Service.

(5)        Mr Collins emphasised the importance of the voice of the child and said that opportunities would arise for young people to start apprenticeships to support each of the Local Children's Partnership Groups (LCPG) and to ensure that children’s voices were heard.

(6)        Mr Collins referred to point 2.5 within the report and confirmed that whilst the projected income stream of £1.5m had not yet been received, capacity to have the spend repeated again in 2021 had been built with the hope that additional 106 monies would come in in the future.

(7)        Mr Dunkley referred to the cuts which had been made to universal youth provision and said that the reason the cuts were so severe in that area in almost every local authority in the country, was due to the fact that approximately 40% of funding had been taken out from 2010 and reallocated to non-statutory services.

(8)        The Chairman suggested that a discussion take place at the agenda setting meeting to add an item onto the Committee’s work programme in relation to youth service funding.

(9)        RESOLVED that the proposed decision to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services to:

                 i.        Agree the introduction of four dedicated area based detached youth work teams, using S106 funding to cover staffing and associated equipment costs, as set out in the report;

               ii.        Agree the allocation of £2k per district to each Local Children’s Partnership Group (LCPG), to be spent over two years, to ensure the inclusion of young people’s voice across the district (total cost of £24k). This spend is to be agreed by LCPG and overseen by the Area Partnership Managers;

              iii.        Acknowledge that whilst some of the S106 will be spent on youth capital costs, this will not be in replacement of Total Facilities Management/Property and Infrastructure budget and responsibilities; and

              iv.        Agree the remainder of the S106 funding to be considered to provide additional capacity in youth teams and any local district projects. This may also include costs associated with a Fleet Review,

be endorsed.