Agenda and minutes

(1)       Mr Andrew Bowles, Leader of Swale Borough Council gave a presentation highlighting the actions being taken to deliver Swale’s Regeneration Agenda.  During the course of this presentation, he highlighted the ambitions which Swale Borough Council has set itself in developing its sustainable community strategy covering the period 2009 to 2026 and said that within the strategic context, regeneration was seen by the Borough Council as a significant corporate priority.  This included developing and expanding areas of policy including economic development, learning and skills, housing, culture, transport and technology.  Mr Bowles said that for Swale, the learning and skills deficit was one of its biggest problems and the Borough Council was therefore doing all it could in terms of strategic policy to address this major issue which required an input of resources not only from the Borough Council but also the County Council.  Mr Bowles also spoke about the opportunities which the Thames Gateway has brought to Swale with partners building multi area agreements with the Borough Council of the three themes based on learning and skills, housing and transport.

(2)       Mr Bowles also spoke about the challenges which the Borough Council faced, particularly in terms of social and demographic issues.  Housing completions had already been on a downward trend during 2007/08 and this had continued.  He said the strength of the investment market underpinned regeneration projects so there was a need to retain a long term vision which above all would require patience.

(3)       Mr Bowles said significant investment was being undertaken in Sittingbourne Town Centre and this would create new jobs and homes and provide important and much needed transport links.  There was also significant investment taking place in the area of Queenborough and Rushenden and also at the Port of Sheerness.

(4)       Mr Bowles also spoke about the ambitions of the Borough Council for the future and highlighted the infrastructure investment needed to build for example new junctions on the M2 to unlock potential regeneration opportunities and the employment potential of the Kent Science Park.  He also spoke about the need to invest in long term skills and employment, the development of the Sittingbourne Learning Campus and initiatives being taken to invest for the long term in developing local communities.  He also spoke about the Localism Agenda and the fact Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council would be working together to pilot Local Engagement Forums to cover the Faversham, Sheppey and Sittingbourne areas.

(5)       In conclusion, Mr Bowles said that from KCC, Swale Borough Council was seeking to move forward with a shared agenda which would address the priorities and strategies he had highlighted in his presentation.  These included commitment to funding and delivering infrastructure , support for the Learning Campus as a long term catalyst for improving skills, the establishment of Gateways and support for Swale’s regeneration strategy.

(6)       Mr Carter said on behalf of KCC that he shored the Borough Council’s priorities and agenda for change.  He said the County Council in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2008 were agreed and signed as a true record.

(1)       Mr Brazier said that currently the revenue budget was showing an underspend of some £2.4m after management action and excluding Asylum costs.  Expenditure on the Capital Programme was continuing to move forward and overall given the circumstances, he felt the budget was in a satisfactory position.  With regard to Asylum, a letter had been received from the Home Office which confirmed that it would meet in full the shortfall of £2.1m for 2007/08 subject to a final audit.  This together with the £2.4m for 2006/07 confirmed by the Home Office in September this year meant that the County Council had agreement that the Home Office would fund the full £4.5m of its special circumstances bids leaving an anticipated £1.5m to come from the DCSF.  The Department still has to agree final client number so this issue remained outstanding but if the full £1,5m was secured (of the original claim for £2.6m) then the County Council would have reached the £6m, of the £10m originally claimed and this was as per the agreement reached with the LGA in the Summer.

(2)       Lynda McMullan said that in the forthcoming budget build there would be three key areas which the County Council would need to look at and those were transport demographics, the budget for Adult Kent Social Services and the budget relating to Child Social Services.  Two key budget risks remained, one of these which was Asylum but as detailed in the previous paragraph, the Government had promised the County Council would not be out of pocket for this year.  The other key budget risk related to the funds which the County Council had in Icelandic Banks.  As a result of these investments, the interest on these deposits would not be received as expected resulting in a potential loss on income.  This however, needed to be considered in the light of the whole Treasury Management Budget which was impacted by recent and predicted changes in the bank base rate.  The County Council was continuing to have ongoing discussions with both the CLG and the Icelandic Banks via the Creditors Group to ensure that the County Council secured the best outcome for the residents of Kent.  Until the situation became clearer, the impact of this and not so far been reflected in the forecast outturn position of this report, but the County Council remained confident that it would eventually have its investments back returned.

(3)       In concluding discussion, Mr Carter said that he was pleased to note the good progress which was being made in relation to both the revenue and capital budgets and welcomed the update on the position with the County Council’s investments in Icelandic Banks.  He expressed concern regarding Asylum and the number of referrals which appeared to be increasing and said that this was something which the County Council would need to monitor closely.

(4)       Cabinet then noted the latest monitoring position on the revenue and capital budgets and the additional revenue grant income as identified in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

(1)       In introducing the report of the Select Committee, Miss Carey said that Mr Ray Parker was unable to attend the meeting.  Miss Carey placed on record her thanks to her fellow Members of the Select Committee and the officers who had supported it during the course of its work.  Miss Carey said that the Select Committee had welcomed the investment which was proposed in respect of the Kent Rail Network.  It was essential that Kent had access to modern, fast and efficient services and that these needed to be coupled with improved connections to the rest of the country.  In its business model, South East Trains expect services to be full during peak periods, but have spaces available during the off peak and therefore this could present an opportunity to develop them for other uses to such as tourism.  Miss Carey said that the Select Committee also wanted a review produced of stations that would be served by the High Speed Rail Service and for this and, to identify and prioritise work needed to those stations and station access and for these to be in place in or soon after the December 2009 launch.  She said the Select Committee also wanted to see lobbying undertaken to secure the introduction of low fares to ensure the early success for High Speed Services.  In highlighting other recommendations which the Select Committee had set out in its report, Miss Carey also said that the bus and rail companies should be encouraged to introduce more promotional off-peak fares, joint passes, through tickets (such as the BusPlus pass) and Open Jaw Tickets.

(2)       Mr Daley placed on record his thanks to Miss Carey for her work as Chairman of the Select Committee and also to the officers who had supported it in its work.  He said the objective of the Select Committee had been to try and not only identify the benefits of the rail service within the county but also to highlight the dis- benefits.  He said that the Members of Cabinet had before them an executive summary of a report which was much more detailed and he commended those who had not already, to read the full report.  He said that the High Speed line would improve service for areas such as Folkestone, Dover and Canterbury but would have less of an impact for services to which served Thanet.  He also said that there needed to be significant investment undertaken on the Mid Kent line in order to improve services and to encourage growth.  He said it was also essential that the Thames Link services had a connection into Mid Kent and there was still a need to maintain what could be referred to as the “classic” lines.  Mr Daley said the County Council should press for a link to Ebbsfleet and Gatwick to be provided from the Medway Valley line  and also spoke about integrated transport patterns and the need to link those aspirations into the recommendations and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(1)       This report provided an update on developing the proposals for the Operation Stack Lorry Park and a brief situation report on current Stack activity.

(2)       A site between Junctions 10 and 11 of the M20 located between the Converter Station, the motorway and the railway embankment was being considered as the preferred site for a lorry park because of its location, natural screening and absence of formal land use designations.  Feasibility work was currently in hand to carry out a full range of engineering and environmental surveys so that the proposal could be progressed to the next stage and the environmental impact and mitigation can be assessed. Also Consultants will be commissioned to undertake an economic impact study.  Mr Carter said that the cost of providing a solution to Operation Stack was the responsibility of the Department of Transport and this was something which the County Council would be taking up with the Minister, Lord Adonis. He also that the County Council had taken fresh legal advice as to the legality of introducing a “Brit Disc” and counsels opinion was now more encouraging.

(3) Cabinet then noted the report

(1)       This report provided an overview of the revised Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plans for the Kent Downs and High Weald and sought approval for adoption by the County Council.  This was the first review of the AONB Management Plans which the Council had adopted in 2004 and it strongly reflected the original adopted plan.  Mr Austerberry said that the revised plan had been subject to a very careful and thorough process and had been subject to detailed consultation.

(2)       Cabinet agreed:-

(i)         that the first revision of the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan be adopted as detailed in the Cabinet report in fulfillment of the County Council’s statutory duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

(ii)        that the Kent County Council adopt the first revision of the High Weald AONB Management Plan as detailed in the Cabinet report in fulfillment of the its statutory duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; and

(iii)       that the appropriate officers in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holder be delegated authority to review and accept changes made by other local authorities during the adoption process leading to the formal date of adoption of both plans by the end of February 2009.

(1)       This report provided details of the proposed transfer of funding for all social services for people with learning disabilities currently living in NHS accommodation in Kent.

(2)       Mr Gibbens said that the purpose of the report was to advise Cabinet on some of the detailed work which had been undertaken since the report to Cabinet at its meeting in March 2008.  This report was not seeking at this time confirmation that the transfer should go ahead as there was still a considerable amount of work to be done to resolve some outstanding issues.  The report detailed the risks attached to the project, both with continuing and ceasing with the current arrangements.  The report outlined the mitigation processes which were in place and showed that the risks of ceasing with the current arrangements were greater than those for continuing.  The report did however ask for Cabinet’s agreement for some specific tasks and work streams to continue so that work to sustain momentum in improving service quality could continue.

(3)       The report also asked for the County Council to accept and manage a capital grant of £6m, on behalf of the PCT’s, subject to certain assurances from the Department of Health.  Without this agreement, Mr Gibbens said there was a very real risk that some or not all of this capital grant would have to be returned to Government which would be to the detriment of the programme and leave both the County Council and the PCT’s without the resources to improve the quality of the stock.  The report also proposed that the Government should commission actuarial research to look at the long term demographics and cost of support for all people with learning difficulties (not jut those transferring from the NHS).  Mr Gibbens concluded by saying that with the support of the PCT’s he commended the recommendations set out in the report for adoption by Cabinet.  He also placed on record his thanks to the Chief Executives of the two NHS Trusts in Kent  for their co-operation and engagement in this work which he said was an excellent example of the good partnership work which existed between KCC and the PCT’s.

(4)       Mr Leidecker said that this report built on the earlier ambitious programme which the County Council agreed in 2002 to work in collaboration with the PCT’s and to more closely integrate health and social care provision through the pooling of budgets.  The Government’s intention was to transfer the funds for supporting people with learning disabilities from the Health Service to local Government, confirmed earlier developments whereby local Government had taken the lead commissioning responsibility for learning difficulties.  These earlier developments meant that KCC had in fact been managing integrated teams, for learning disability services since 2004.  Miss Highwood referred to paragraph 9 of the report which commented in detail on the risks and mitigation that such a major policy change would bring.  She said that it was acknowledged the financial risks were large, both immediately and after  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(1)       This report outlined a proposal for Kent’s Corporate Parenting framework as means for ensuring that Kent is effective in the delivery of services that lead to better outcomes for children and young people in and leaving care.

(2)       Cabinet:-

(i)         noted the revised Terms of Reference for the Looked After Children Strategy as detailed in Appendix 3 of the Cabinet report;

(ii)        noted the revised Terms of Reference for the Children’s Champion Board as detailed in Appendix 4 of the Cabinet report;

(iii)       agreed that Kent’s Corporate Parenting Group/Forum be represented by the Children’s Champion Board and a sub-structure of the Kent Children’s Trust as detailed in Section 3 of the Cabinet report; and

(iv)       agreed the proposed framework and implementation plan for the Kent Children in Care Council as detailed in Section 4 of the Cabinet report.

(1)       Cabinet noted this report and agreed the actions recommended by the Cabinet Portfolio Holders.

EXEMPT ITEMS

Cabinet resolved that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

12.       Connexions:  Commissioning the Services from April 2010

(Item 12 – Report by Mr M Dance, Cabinet Member for Operations, Resources and Skills, CFE and Mr L Ridings, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Educational Standards, CFE )

(This is an unrestricted minute of a report which was exempt under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

(1)       This report provided the context for the decisions that the County Council needed to take regarding the commissioning of the Connexions Service for Kent from April 2010.

(2)       From April 2008, responsibility for the Connexions Service transferred from the Government Office for the South East to the County Council and a contract for two years with a new specification was awarded to the existing provider, Connexions Partnership Kent and Medway.  This ensured that the risk of service disruption was mitigated against during the transition process.  However, the County Council was advised that a full European tendering process would have to be undertaken in respect of the Connexions Services from April 2010.

(3)       Having considered options for the future delivery of the service, the report recommended that the commissioning of the Connexions Service as a whole should be undertaken by way of a European Tender Process on the basis that this would provide a single coherent service, bring about ease of managing and monitoring a single contract and allow the integration of services to remain.  On this basis, this was the recommended preferred option.

(4)  Mr Carter said that  members should be involved in the selection of a preferred partner

And that prior to the commencement of the tendering process he wanted a further briefing brought put before Cabinet members.

(4)       Cabinet agreed that the commissioning of the Connexions Service should be undertaken as a whole via a European Tender process and noted  that this matter would be the subject of a further report to Cabinet regarding the approval of a recommended supplier.