Interview with Leader of the Council, Councillor Chris Garland.

The Chairman highlighted to the Committee a letter that had been received from Dr J M Speight with regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) consultation.  He requested that the Leader respond to this in his presentation, and that officers be invited to the next Committee meeting to respond to Dr Speight’s concerns, particularly with regard to the timescales for consultation.  Dr Speight requested that the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy be invited to that meeting, and also stated that he was disappointed with the lack of response to his e-mail by the Committee.  The Chairman reassured Dr Speight that the Committee was taking the issue seriously.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Chris Garland, stated that he understood Dr Speight’s concerns with regard to his consultation response not being fully included in the SCS consultation.  However, Dr Speight’s report had included some good ideas, particularly regarding public engagement, which were being considered by officers and the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) Board.  The SCS was an evolving document and these ideas could be worked into future versions.  Councillor Garland maintained that the SCS consultation had been both rigorous and robust.

Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership (MKIP)

Councillor Garland considered MKIP to be one of the key drivers to deliver substantial savings in light of economic pressures, reduced income from services such as planning, and the likelihood of a reduced Revenue Support Grant.  MKIP was also valuable in terms of shared skills and knowledge.  It was national Conservative policy to pursue shared services.  Proposals this year included a shared Human Resources (HR) function, and the Head of HR was already assisting Swale Borough Council with this.  It was likely that the arrangement would include a designated HR Officer for each Council, with one main strategic unit for all four councils.  This would deliver £300,000 revenue savings per year for the Council, though this would not happen in 2009-10.  Shared services in Legal were also being pursued, though it was essential that this did not result in a loss of sovereignty for the Council.  A shared Revenues and Benefits service was being investigated which would deliver savings of £1.3 million.  MKIP had long term aspirations to combine back-office functions into one building for all four councils, and possibly to then offer those services to other local authorities.

Councillor Garland emphasised that there were no current plans to pursue unitary status through MKIP.

With regard to shared services, a Councillor stated that while the Scrutiny partnership with Tunbridge Wells Borough Council worked well in some ways, there was concern over the reduction in support for Scrutiny.  The Leader stated that it was not the place of the Executive to get involved in the management of Scrutiny, however he noted that the Scrutiny Section was placed under pressure last year due to a higher than average number of call-ins.  The Chairman informed the Committee that the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee was carrying out a review of the Overview and Scrutiny Function this year and scrutiny support would be considered as part of this.

Local Strategic Partnership (LSP)

The LSP had operated through workshops rather than formal meetings last year.  The Leader had been criticised for the lack of public meetings and formal minutes, however he considered the resulting SCS to be justification of this approach.  This approach had also led to greater involvement from businesses and the LSP was becoming more robust.  Officers had been instructed to invite the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and the Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce (KICC) to join the LSP Board; if they were interested, this would go through the due process to be ratified, including a public meeting.

The LSP had been awarded £294,000 to take forward individual projects, and actions within the SCS had been developed with partners to ensure buy-in, both of which were positive steps for the future working of the LSP.

In response to a question, the Leader stated that attendance was still an issue but it was improving, though there was concern that some meetings were still “top heavy” with Council officers.  The FSB, KICC and the Primary Care Trust were regular attendees, as were local churches.

A Member raised concern that the LSP sub-groups, including the Health Action Team and the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership, did not report to Members or publish minutes, indicating a lack of transparency.  The Chairman agreed that greater transparency was needed.

Kent County Council (KCC)

Councillor Garland stated that relations with KCC had improved.  KCC had assisted the Council on the Kent International Gateway (KIG) planning application in terms of both money and support; this would continue for the KIG hearing in the autumn, and KCC’s support would give weight to the Council’s argument.

KCC was interested in the High Street Regeneration project and had provided officer support for the design and implementation of this.  The Leader and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration would continue to lobby for financial assistance.

There had recently been rumours that KCC intended to make a bid for unitary status, however Councillor Garland had spoken with the Leader and the Deputy Leader of KCC who had confirmed that the rumours were false.  It was emphasised that such rumours should not be able to affect the good relationship between the County Council and District Councils.

A Councillor requested that the Leader lobby KCC for financial assistance for parish councils responding to the KIG inquiry, which had significant cost implications.  Councillor Garland stated that parishes would receive officer assistance from both the Council and KCC.  He also suggested that parishes should lobby Central Government as there was political pressure for KIG to move forward so it was important for the parishes to get into the Whitehall system.

Maidstone Housing Trust (MHT)

[Councillor Mrs Gibson declared a prejudicial interest due to her position as MHT Board Member and left the room for the duration of the section]

Councillor Garland and the Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Fran Wilson, were involved in re-negotiating MHT’s governance arrangements.  MHT was the Council’s preferred provider of affordable housing and the Council had 75% nomination rights to MHT properties.  MHT wanted to change its name to “Golding”, pay board members and remove the Council’s “golden share” arrangements.  The Council had agreed to these in principle subject to several key points, and negotiations were going well.  MHT would remain the Council’s preferred provider but the Council would use other Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) as well according to their track record, ability to deliver and bearing in mind best value.  The Council was looking at working in partnership with an RSL consortium and developers to deliver more affordable housing.

In response to a question regarding the potential loss of the Council’s ‘golden share’ of MHT shares, Councillor Garland explained that MHT wished to expand beyond Maidstone which was why it wanted to change its name and governance arrangements.  If it expanded beyond the Borough, it was not appropriate for the Council to continue to have constitutional involvement with it, though it would continue to work with it as with any other RSL.

A Councillor stated that it was important to keep Members updated on the negotiations with MHT as this was a very important matter.  The Leader agreed.

Sustainable Communities Act (SCA)

The Council had agreed a motion put forward by Councillor Batt at its meeting on 22 April 2009 to develop robust proposals to make use of the provisions within the SCA.  Resource pressures would prevent the Council from meeting the 31 July 2009 deadline, however it was believed that there would be a further deadline in October 2009 which would hopefully be met.  Most parishes were very keen on the provisions within the SCA.  A citizen’s panel would need to be developed to consult on proposals; it had been suggested that the LSP be used for this, but it was considered that this would be too narrow a forum.  The Director of Prosperity and Regeneration was leading on this for the Council.

Other

In response to a question, the Leader stated that if Committees wished to interview Cabinet Members more frequently, they were welcome to request this.

With regard to regional issues, it was confirmed that the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) no longer existed.  The Council was working reasonably well with the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA); SEEDA had supported KIG but following lobbying had agreed to speak with the Leader and other Council representatives to hear the Council’s case against it.  SEEDA was generally supportive of the Council and its actions.  Councillor Garland stated that it was difficult to ascertain the value of SEEDA to the Council beyond relationships, though these were clearly important, as SEEDA was not able to provide any funding to the Council’s regeneration and development projects.  A Councillor suggested making a public appeal to SEEDA for financial assistance with regeneration projects, and the Leader stated that while forcing a clear response in this way could have benefits, this approach would not be helpful at the present time. 

Resolved:  That

a)  Dr J M Speight, the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy and the Community Planning Co-ordinator be invited to the July meeting of the Committee to discuss the Sustainable Community Strategy consultation; and

b)  The Leader’s plans and priorities for 2009-10 be noted.