Agenda item

Mr Dance, Mrs Gamby, Ms Smith and Mr Tipping were present for this item. 

In relation to Round Three Children’s Centres, Mr Northey asked for information on the Canterbury Centre and the progress as he had not been consulted.  Ms Smith confirmed that a proposal regarding Littlebourne School would be coming forward which Mr Northey would be consulted on.  Mr Smyth asked for clarification on the percentage figures provided for the deprivation levels in each ward where a Children’s Centre was being considered.  Mrs Gamby confirmed that the figures were the level of deprivation in the super output areas in each ward.  The Chairman asked whether there was a general deprivation figure for each ward so that it was possible to compare the lowest deprived super output area with the ward in general which might be relatively affluent.  Mrs Gamby explained that those figures were available but the average deprivation for a ward could hide the pockets of deprivation within it.  Mrs Gamby confirmed that the closer the figure was to 100% the less deprived the area was. 

Mr Hart expressed his concern about the way the figures for deprivation levels were presented and he asked for information on the average level of deprivation for the whole ward, Mrs Gamby agreed to request that information and it would be supplied to Committee Members. 

The Chairman stated that he had received a letter explaining the reasons behind the delays to the Round Two Children’s Centres, he asked for further information on the concerns that Officers had had in relation to the framework consultants and the cost of moving from one framework consultant to another.  Mr Dance explained that regarding the original contractor, there was a series of warnings which were addressed, the contracted amount was not paid in full and this had generated a saving.  Mr Tipping explained that the original appointment was for the delivery of the complete programme, there were three different elements of work; refurbishment, new build and modular.  Regarding the new build and modular element, concerns were raised about the administration of the contract and the work being undertaken, the Council was becoming less confident that the agent was delivering value for money services, the Council and the agent eventually came to an agreement where the work ceased and the Council engaged with another employer’s agent in August 2008.  The new employer’s agent needed time to get up to speed with the programme which resulted in delays to the projects.

The Chairman asked Mr Tipping to confirm what the concerns were that KCC had with the agent.  Mr Tipping explained that the contract for the modular build should have been straight forward but the agent took an unusual route to take on the design element role from the contractor which caused confusion for the contractor and for the employer’s agent.  Mr Gough referred to the decision to re-tender the new build sites and he asked what level of savings the Council was expecting to achieve due to the change in market conditions?  Mr Tipping explained that all the sites had been re-tendered, Tranche A had come back within budget and the Council was expecting significant savings, Tranche B was out to tender and the Council was assuming that Tranche B would also come back within budget.  Mr Tipping confirmed that the Council was looking at savings of around £0.5million in excess of the savings made by changing the employer’s agent which was around £300k.  Mr Dance added that another consequence of the re-tendering was that more business went to Kent based companies. 

Mr Hart stated that his understanding was that deprived areas would be dealt with first but what happened in Kent was that some of the children’s centres in the most deprived areas were not completed.  Mrs Gamby explained that Round One had to cover the 20% most disadvantaged areas, which it did.  Round Two had to cover at least the 30% most disadvantaged areas when added to Round One, which it did.  There were two milestones of a Children’s Centre, the first was when it was designated (the building did not have to be operational; the services had to be in place).  The second milestone could be up to two years later where the building did have to be operational, there were designated centres and the services were being delivered into those areas.  In response to a question from Mr Dance, Mrs Gamby confirmed that the DCSF had frequently changed the ground rules on Children’s Centres and gave some examples of where this had been the case.  The Chairman queried whether the ground rules had been published, Ms Smith explained that government guidelines were produced and the interpretation of those guidelines shifted in line with national experience.  Mr Hart requested a list of dates on which the Children’s Centres were designated as opposed to the date of construction.

Mr Dance stated that in relation to Round Two, KCC had had to contribute £7million to add to the scheme, this was not funded by the Government.  The Council had to roll out 102 Children’s Centres, considerably more than budgeted for and there would be problems, including planning difficulties.  Mr Truelove stated that the delay to the programme was extremely regrettable and that the delays were caused by the decision to engage the employer’s agent, Mr Truelove also asked Mr Dance what lessons had been learnt.  Mr Dance explained that Corporate Property undertook the build of these projects, the relationship between the two teams had improved tremendously and Mr Dance could not see this problem occurring again in the future.  Mr Truelove asked again what the problems were with the build contractor; Mr Tipping explained that the problems with the contractor were around the ability to deliver the programme within the timeline stipulated. 

Mrs Dean agreed that the goalposts had changed on a number of occasions, the £7million which had been put into the scheme was money well spent but it also reflected the fact that Kent was light on provision for under 5 year olds.  Mrs Dean expressed concern that local Members were not being consulted and this needed to be tightened up.  There was a growing mismatch between areas of deprivation and the Children’s Centres, Mrs Dean asked whether there was any movement on the ability to ensure that the centres catered for the children they were intended for there was a failure in prescribing the process.  Mrs Gamby responded by stating that for 3 and 4 year olds there was more than enough provision in the county, there were gaps for children under 3 years old.  Round One and Two provided a broader range of services than Round Three which provided a lighter touch provision in the form of signposting and information.  Outreach work was also key to contact the out of reach groups to draw families in; it was not possible to require childcare providers to reserve places. 

In response to a question from Mr Chell about the changes in the rules by DCSF, Mrs Gamby explained that the Local Authority had a duty to ensure a sustainable childcare market, irrespective of Children’s Centres the Council had to ensure that over time there was enough provision for children up to 14 years to ensure that parents were able to work or study and that the lack of childcare wouldn’t prevent that.  Round One required new childcare irrespective of whether there was a need for it, Round Two: new childcare was only required where an assessment of the existing childcare in the area showed that there was a need.  Ms Smith agreed to provide Mr Chell with the information he requested regarding Greenfield School. 

Mr Smyth explained that he would expect the goalposts to change, Round One Centres were located in the most deprived areas, so it would be logical that the specification would be tighter and that the goalposts would change as the process progressed.  Mr Smyth asked how much time had been lost due to the problems with the contract and the change of the employer’s agent as well as whether the contract difficulties were on those centres which were in the most deprived areas.  Mr Tipping had referred earlier to using multiple contractors and Mr Smyth asked whether this caused problems in supervising the contractors.   Mr Tipping explained that the original contract would have run until September 2008.  There was no common theme in relation to where the problem centres were located; the problems were with the whole programme.  Multiple sites could be difficult to manage but three consultants had been engaged for the Round Three centres instead of one for Rounds One and Two.

The Chairman explained that he was aware of the situation because he was written to as a local Member, he enquired whether other Members were informed and what constituted a ‘local Member’, how many centres in Round Two were delayed and should the whole Council not have been informed about the problems to the contract as this would have a knock on effect to other contracts.  Mrs Gamby explained that the letter was sent to local members for the wards falling within the reach areas of the Children’s Centres affected.   The Chairman asked again why the information was not sent to all Members of the Council, it was agreed that the Members Information Bulletin could be used for future relevant information. 

Resolved that:

1. The Committee thanked Mr Dance, Mrs Gamby, Ms Smith and Mr Tipping for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions;
2. The Committee noted the explanation of the delays to the Round 2 Children’s Centres and understood the reasons behind the termination of the contracts;
3. The Committee requested that local Members were kept better informed of developments with the Children’s Centres and details regarding the progress or delays to developing Children’s Centres should be included in the Members’ Information Bulletin;
4. The Committee requested that a copy of the original and the revised contract for the Round 2 Children’s Centres be made available to Members;
5. Members requested figures on the average deprivation for each ward to be served by a Children’s Centre;
6. Members requested the dates on which the Children’s Centres were designated as opposed to the date of construction.