Agenda item

Rebecca Spore (Director of Infrastructure) and Ben Sherreard (Programme Manager Kent Communities Programme) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Oakford (Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services) introduced the report setting out the Kent Communities Programme which sought to rationalise Kent County Council’s physical estate and proposed a greater mix of alternative methods of service delivery across the county, informed by a clear and data-driven understanding of service need. Mr Oakford informed members that delivery of this programme had become more important in the light of the increased financial pressures faced by the Council.

2.    Mr Sherreard outlined the rationale for the programme and presented the 5 options to Members (as detailed in the report), seeking agreement on the confirmed option.

3.    Mr Oakford responded to comments concerning the financial risks related to option 4 and confirmed that this would have a significant impact on the Council’s financial savings as the maintenance cost was over £1m. The table as set out in the report identified the savings across all proposed options with option 3 being the recommended choice. Option 3 took into consideration the feedback from the consultation on transport accessibility and ruled out the closure of two buildings, without substantial financial implications.

4.    Mr Love commented on the financial impact of the recommended option 3 in response to the Council’s revenue overspend of £36m and the recently issued S114 of Birmingham City Council as a result of the poor financial decisions made by local authority officials. It was not viable to continue to seek additional income from the Tax payer who in current times, faced financial pressures and difficulties of their own. Mr Love recognised the minor amendment that would need to be made within the Medium Term Financial Plan and the requirement to meet the savings elsewhere; however, he reiterated to Members that whilst option 3 was the most feasible option, activity in other areas of the Council would need to be deprioritised to ensure the Council could meet its savings.

5.    Mr Oakford moved and Mrs Chandler seconded that option 3 be progressed as the preferred model for implementation.

6.    RESOLVED to agree the recommendations as outlined in the report and progress with option 3.