Agenda item

1.    The Chairman introduced the item and invited Dr Sullivan and Ms Hawkins to provide an overview of the reasons for the call-in. 

2.    Dr Sullivan provided the reasons for the call-in of the decision which were set out in the paperwork accompanying the item on the Scrutiny Committee agenda.  This included the following:

a.    Dr Sullivan set out the cost of the consultation as £1.9million, this was clarified later in the meeting as £1.9million being the cost of the project to date.  The cost of the consultation was £40,000.  It was understood that the Government had directed the Council to close buildings in line with the Family Hubs Model and clarity on these points was sought. 

3.    Ms Hawkins quoted Statutory guidance from the Education Act 1996 which referred to the consultation of young people on existing provision.  She considered that the proposed savings through this decision had been overestimated. 

a.    The Chairman asked Mr Oakford, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services, to respond to the comments made by Dr Sullivan and Ms Hawkins.  He explained that the Kent Communities Programme project had begun before the Family Hub project.  The Council had been looking for a method of redefining and better utilising its buildings.  The financial challenges of KCC could not be ignored and the Communities Programme sought to rationalise the Council’s physical estate and proposed a greater mix of alternative methods of service across the county.  KCC had over 400 buildings with a maintenance budget permitting £6000 per building per year which was not feasible.  The project was slowed down to work alongside the Family Hub project, but it would have gone ahead without the Family Hub Project or the Youth Commissioning Decision.  In response to the cost of the project Mr Oakford did consider this good value for money, it was spending to create reoccurring savings over a longer period of time to ensure the Council was sustainable. 

4.     Mrs Chandler confirmed that the DfE did not ask the Council to close buildings.  The DfE commented on the proposals in the consultation paper in terms of the (in their view high) number of buildings that were identified to continue.  

5.    Committee Members made comments on the decision and asked a range of questions.  The key points raised and responded to by the Cabinet Member and officers present included the following:

a.    This was another difficult decision that the Council had no choice but to make given the financial situation, the Council was considering alternative options, i.e. could buildings be leased, rented, did they have to be sold.  

b.    A Member asked that KCC continue its effort to keep communicating with people currently using the buildings to support them where possible.  Local Members also had a role in talking to their community about any changes. 

c.     In relation to the earlier comment about the £1.9m cost – Mrs Spore confirmed that this was not the cost of the consultation, the consultation cost £40,000.  £1.9m was the total cost of the project to date. 

d.    A Member queried the level of detail contained within the report and the lack of any timescale within the paperwork. 

6.    The Chairman invited the Cabinet Member and guests to respond to the additional comments and questions raised by Mr Brady and Ms Hawkins, the responses were as follows:

a.    KCC listened to the consultation and made adjustments, the project was essential for the sustainability of KCC. 

b.    In relation to buildings on school grounds, the Council was looking at options which could include the school, the Council or a third-party utilising buildings and it could also include disposal of buildings.  The Council was keen to talk to local communities and schools where buildings were on school sites. 

c.     In relation to the cost of outreach the Council was very keen to codesign the outreach offer with partners to work together to shape the offer in a particular area.

7.    The Chairman invited Dr Sullivan and Ms Hawkins to make their closing comments following the Committee’s questions and debate. 

a.    This was a cost saving measure. 

b.    Dr Sullivan asked that a ‘tracker’ identifying savings was made available and used to monitor progress of this and other decisions. 

8.    Mr Booth proposed and Mr Webb seconded the following recommendation:

(b) express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision

9.    Members voted on the motion, the motion was carried by majority. 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision.

Dr Sullivan and Rich Lehmann asked that it be noted in the minutes that they voted against option (b). 

</TRAILER_SECTION>

<LAYOUT_SECTION>

1.FIELD_TITLE

(Item FIELD_AGENDA_NUMBER)

FIELD_SUMMARY

</LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

2.FIELD_TITLE

(Item FIELD_AGENDA_NUMBER)

</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_TITLE

</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_TITLE

FIELD_SUMMARY