Agenda item

Mr Shaffick Peerbux, Head of Community Safety, Community Protection and Ms Kathleen Dardry, Community Safety Practice Development Officer, were in attendance for this item.

1.            Mr Hill introduced the item and expressed his disappointment that, along with many other difficult decisions the Council had had to take to meet budgetary requirements, it had been found necessary to reduce the budget for Community Wardens. Mr Hill stressed that the proposed reshaping of the service was not a reflection on performance and highlighted the service would remain robust if the proposals were implemented. He said the proposed model was flexible to allow for additions in the future should resources become available.

2.            Mr Peerbux introduced the report and provided a summary of the work involved, in the pre-consultation period, in identifying the proposals to redesign the service.

3.            Mr Peerbux and Ms Holt-Castle responded to the following comments and questions from Members:

(a)  Members commented on the possibility of obtaining, and actively promoting for, other means of funding to continue the current service provision, for example through commercial sponsorship, developer contributions and parish councils. Ms Holt-Castle said alternative sources of funding had been, and would continue to be, considered and conversations had taken place with colleagues in Adult Social Care regarding health and care partnerships.  Ms Holt-Castle clarified that the proposed future model was scalable and would be able to absorb any future opportunities.  Ms Holt-Castle explained that Section 106 developer contributions were restricted to capital and equipment and could not be used for staffing costs, however Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding was more flexible.

(b)  Members expressed their concern for the long-term effects on communities as a result of the reduction in the service, for example in relation to health, increased anti-social behaviour and vulnerable residents.

(c)  Asked about the reduction in posts, Mr Peerbux said this amounted to approximately 32 posts and the streamlining of management. The redundancy costs were difficult to predict at this stage and unions had been consulted from the outset.

(d)  Regarding equality implications, a Member commented that the four groups impacted by the service reduction would also be affected by reductions in other services and asked whether the accumulative effects had been considered. Mr Peerbux said the Geographical Allocation Policy would involve work to ensure adverse effects were not multiplied on specific groups.

(e)  Members echoed the comments made by the Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services regarding the invaluable and important work carried out by Community Wardens.

(f)   Asked whether proactive engagement with parish councils would take place, Mr Peerbux said engagement with the Kent Association of Local Councils took place as part of the pre-consultation period and work would continue closely with them.

(g)  A Member referred to the reduction in funding for Police Community Support Officers in Kent Police and the further effects of this on communities.  Mr Hill said he was liaising with the Chief Constable and the Commissioner regarding the gap this would leave. 

(h)  Mr Peerbux clarified that the Positive Wellbeing pilot to address social isolation was being embedded and would be part of the community warden function moving forwards along with other KCC commissioned services.

(i)    Members discussed the need for local Community Wardens with knowledge of the local area and commented on the opportunity of shared and partnership working with district, borough, and parish councils.

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Committee considered and commented on the public consultation proposals alongside an updated geographical allocation policy, to help identify where wardens will be placed.