Interview with Leader of the Council, Councillor Garland

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and details of his decision made on the 26 October 2012 which was that ‘the remaining proposals for the use of the net revenue under spend be referred to the Corporate Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee for consideration’ and recommendation back to the Leader.

He expressed his wish to engage further with the scrutiny process by referring more decisions of a strategic nature to the Committees.

The Committee felt it was important to give each of the twenty-two proposals its consideration with the officers present offering supporting background information for the outline proposals.  It was explained that each proposal was aligned to one of the Council’s priorities; Growing Economy, Decent Place to Live and Corporate and Customer Excellence.  It was decided that the proposals should be considered by priority area starting with Growing Economy first.  It was found that there was an obvious relationship between some of the proposals put forward with relating outcomes, such as the employment of a project manager for the second phase of the high street and the promotion of business opportunities/inward investment. Where appropriate the connection was made by officers to aid the Committee’s understanding.

The Head of Finance and Customer Services contextualised the revenue underspend, explaining that it was the result of one off savings that had occurred earlier than expected, citing the Revenues and Benefits Partnership and staff vacancies that had been held earlier than needed, as examples of this.

The Committee raised concerns about the sustainability of projects and the impact that could be made with a single year’s investment.  The Chief Executive, Alison Broom, helped allay the concerns raised by explaining that there were no fixed timescales for the investments as they were outline proposals. The suggested sums could be invested over a 3 year period, for example.  With regards to sustainability, a point that was raised by Members many times throughout the discussion, the Chief Executive said that in the current financial climate this was not something that could be guaranteed but it was better to have a pragmatic approach, taking a leadership role which would encourage others to invest.  The relevance of this approach was supported by the proposed funding for supporting the Don’t Abuse the Booze alcohol misuse funding of £90k, that already been secured.

The following specific points were made by the Committee in relation to two of the funding suggestions put forward:

• Item 14 – The Committee felt that the outcome relating to funding for the fuel poverty project should be extended to all residents in the borough and associated income generation possibilities be investigated.  A further outcome for this proposal was a Literacy Project. The Committee considered this to be the responsibility of Kent County Council and requested that this be investigated; and

• Item 19 – Should additional funding be secured for the Troubled Families Programme, that an additional Family Intervention Project officer be appointed, in addition to the three posts discussed, as the Committee felt that family breakdown had a direct impact on homelessness and making an impact in this area would reduce costs to the Council and improve the performance of the Housing team.

All the proposals (Appendix A) put forward were agreed by the Committee with the exception of proposal 11 which was taken to the vote and determined by a majority vote of 5 to 3 with one abstention and proposals 4 and 5 which the Committee agreed should be put on hold pending a current Cabinet decision.

The Committee noted that the proposals put forward amounted to £815k.  Members asked the Leader of the Council whether he would be open to further suggestions for the use of the revenue under spend.  Councillor Garland informed the Committee that Councillors had already approached him and he was open to further proposals but stipulated that proposals had to adhere to the Council’s priorities and would be subject to evaluation against them.  The Leader also informed the Committee that proposals had to be revenue neutral.

Members discussed suggestions put forward for the future of the Town Hall and issues surrounding this but felt that it was premature to consider these in light of the Regeneration and Economic Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Visitor Information Centre review and its pending outcome.

It was resolved that:

a)  The report be noted;

b)  All proposals, with the exception of 4 and 5 be recommended to the Leader of the Council for funding from the revenue underspend 2011/12; and

c)   The Committee would like the following points noted:

  i.  Item 14 – The Committee felt that the outcome relating to funding for the fuel poverty project should be extended to all residents in the borough and associated income generation possibilities be investigated.  A further outcome for this proposal was a Literacy Project. The Committee considered this to be the responsibility of Kent County Council and requested that this be investigated; and

  ii.  Item 19 – Should additional funding be secured for the Troubled Families Programme, that an additional Family Intervention Project officer be appointed, in addition to the three posts discussed, as the Committee felt that family breakdown had a direct impact on homelessness and making an impact in this area would reduce costs to the council and improve the performance of the Housing team.