Contact your Parish Council
PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Stockell (Chairman), Butler, Mrs Hinder, Marshall, Moriarty, Parr, Paterson, Robertson and Williams.
APOLOGIES: None.
114. Web-Casting
Resolved: That all items on the agenda be web-cast.
115. Notification of Substitute Members
There were no substitute Members.
116. Notification of Visiting Members
It was noted that Councillor Wilson was a visiting Member in attendance to speak on Agenda Item 12, “Leader of the Council – Update on Progress Made during the Municipal Year”.
117. Disclosures by Members and Officers
There were no disclosures.
118. Exempt Items
Resolved: That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.
119. Minutes
In response to a question, the Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer confirmed that the Committee’s response to the Communities and Local Government (CLG) consultation, “Local Petitions and Calls for Action”, had been agreed by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services as the Council’s official response and this would be submitted to CLG at the end of the call-in period.
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2008 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
120. Amendment to the Order of Business
The Chairman informed the Committee that, due to a family emergency, the Chief Finance Officer would not be attending the meeting and Agenda Item 9, “Efficiency Savings”, would therefore be deferred to the next meeting. The Committee agreed to take Agenda Item 12, “Leader of the Council – Update on Progress Made during the Municipal Year”, before Agenda Item 10, “Call-In Procedure”.
Resolved: That
a) Agenda Item 9, “Efficiency Savings”, be deferred to the April meeting of the Committee; and
b) Agenda Item 12, “Leader of the Council – Update on Progress Made during the Municipal Year”, be taken before Agenda Item 10, “Call-In Procedure”.
121. New Offices Update
The Chairman welcomed Trevor Gasson, Deputy Chief Executive, and Andrew Wade, Project Manager for the office move, to the meeting.
Mr Gasson informed Members that the new offices were in two parts: a new build on King Street and four floors in Maidstone House. There would be a walkway between the two buildings. The new build on King Street would include the new Gateway and a meeting suite on the top two floors, with retail on the ground floor and two floors below in the Chequers Centre. It was hoped that this would include Debenhams, which would add to Maidstone’s retail offer.
The Gateway was jointly funded by Kent County Council (KCC) and Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) and would include representatives of both Councils and other public and voluntary sector organisations. Public sector partners would be charged a commercial rate per desk per day. Voluntary sector partners, such as Age Concern, Citizen’s Advice Bureau and MVB would only need to pay for requirements such as post and phone usage, rather than renting space. The Gateway would include formal and informal desks, private rooms and free internet access for the public. The health and safety of Council staff was paramount and a secure area for staff was accessible from each private interview room and the formal desk area. The Gateway would be the largest in Kent and the only one that also served as a district council reception. For this reason, the outside of the Gateway would be MBC-branded. The planning reception would be in the Gateway and would have easy access to planning files.
There would be a meeting suite above the Gateway comprising three meeting rooms and a staff rest area. An outdoor terrace for staff would be accessible from this floor. The two main meeting rooms could be joined together to create a conference room with capacity for approximately 40 people.
Level 5 in Maidstone House would include the Members’ Suite with four Group rooms and a Leader’s Room, which would have meeting facilities. Overview and Scrutiny and Democratic Services were situated next to the Members’ Suite, and those teams most likely to need to go to the Gateway to speak to members of the public, including Licensing and Parking Services, would also be located on this floor.
The three additional floors in Maidstone House were open plan with desks around the edge of each floor. All officers, including directors and the Chief Executive, would be in the open plan areas. Each floor had a number of quiet areas, training rooms, tea preparation areas and a breakout area. Staff had been involved in the selection of furniture and carpets. A dedicated archive storage area would be provided for those documents legally required to be held in hard copy. This was in addition to personal and departmental storage space. Planning would have additional storage space.
Mr Gasson highlighted that the new offices would have the highest standards of sustainability with regard to lighting and water systems, and the offices featured a green roof and a biomass boiler. The Council had received a £132,000 grant from the Department for Trade and Industry for the biomass boiler, which had reduced the repayment period for this from 15 years down to 8. A Councillor asked whether the boiler and the fuel were being sourced from the same supplier. Mr Wade stated that this information could be provided to the Committee following the meeting.
The office move required a cultural as well as a physical change. The new offices had desk space for 80% of employees, which was based on a calculated assessment of how many officers would be in the offices at any one time. An increase in home working and hot-desking would require a clear-desk policy to be implemented. A Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system would be used in the building, which would ensure officers could receive telephone calls at whichever desk they used. Officers working from home would be contactable unless they were working unconventional hours. This would need to be agreed with managers and would only be agreed if the section remained appropriately staffed during normal office hours. A flexible ways of working toolkit had been developed to assist with this. Additional benefits for home-workers had also been identified, for example funding furniture. More than 80% of staff could be accommodated within the new offices if necessary. It was noted that hot-desking and home-working was more feasible in larger teams. Staff had been fully involved in the planning for the move.
A number of problems had been experienced with the King Street new build and these had delayed the move. A decision had been taken to move staff to Maidstone House in June 2008, despite the delays at King Street, as staff were already preparing for this and the disposal of the Tonbridge Road and London House sites was planned for this time. A temporary reception would need to be provided and space for this had been found in the Chequers Centre beneath Maidstone House. One of the clauses in the agreement with the Mall Corporation related specifically to temporary accommodation, therefore the temporary reception would be fully funded by the Mall Corporation.
In response to a question, Mr Gasson stated that there would be no smoking policy in and around the offices. This had the support of the union.
With regard to employee parking, Mr Gasson stated that 150 spaces were available in the Chequers centre, compared to 230 at the current offices. All staff currently holding a parking permit would receive a new one allowing them to park in the Chequers Centre or in one of MBC’s less congested car parks in the Town Centre. This was a one-off concession; new staff in the future would either park in the Chequers Centre or they would not receive a parking permit. This would gradually reduce the number of staff bringing cars into the Town Centre. Showers would be provided in the new offices to encourage staff to cycle to work.
A Councillor asked about ventilation and air conditioning. Mr Wade explained that dual heat units would draw in fresh air through ducts in the ceiling space. Full air conditioning would be provided.
A Councillor asked whether the Council would receive compensation from the Mall Corporation because of the delays to the project. Mr Gasson explained that the agreement with the Mall Corporation allowed the Council to claim compensation if it considered itself to have incurred additional costs as a result of delays to the project. The Council had already submitted the Heads of Terms to the Mall Corporation outlining the areas it wished to claim compensation in, but it was likely to take some time to reach an agreement on how much compensation would be received. The Chairman highlighted to the Committee that Members would receive a report on the final financial position, including compensation payments, on completion of the project. A Councillor stated that a recent report to the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services identified the need for an additional £0.48 million for the project. Mr Wade stated that approximately £170,000 of this was due to increases in mechanical and ventilation costs and inflation in the construction industry in general. The Council would still be substantially in profit compared to the original balance sheet upon completion of the project, and it was not expected that further resources would be required. Revenue savings of approximately £100,000 were anticipated, including efficiency savings due to all staff being situated in one building and a reduction in reception staff following the change from three receptions to one.
In response to a question, Mr Gasson confirmed that the new offices were Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant and many features went beyond DDA requirements. Two disability consultants and the Mobility Focus Group had been involved in the project. Lift access to the Gateway was available from King Street and the lifts could accommodate a Shopmobility scooter.
A Councillor asked about security at the Gateway. Mr Gasson stated that there would not be scanners at the doorway, but the need for a security presence was recognised. It was noted that an informal atmosphere reduced the likelihood of problems but several voluntary sector organisations had expressed concern with regard to being in the Gateway alongside the Borough and County Councils in case this created hostility. A decision therefore needed to be taken on whether more training for officers would be sufficient, or whether a formal security presence was required. Contingency funding would fund additional security measures. However, rental of space in the Gateway by public sector organisations had not been included in the original budget and this would cover the money taken from contingency funds. Staff would continue to have security cards based on the system used at current by staff in the Mall.
A Councillor asked whether equipment from the existing offices would be used in the new offices. Mr Gasson stated that new furniture was required for the open plan sections of the new offices as existing furniture was not appropriate, but meeting rooms would be equipped with older furniture. Mr Wade highlighted that a workstream was currently working on what to do with the old furniture. The Chairman stated that parish councils could be interested in the furniture.
A Councillor stated that officers were to be congratulated on the work that had gone into the office move, in particular the excellent liaison with disability groups.
The Chairman thanked Mr Gasson and Mr Wade for their attendance and stated that she looked forward to receiving an update on completion of the project.
Resolved: That
a) The officers be requested to provide information on whether the biomass boiler and fuel would be sourced from the same supplier;
b) Parish councils be considered when disposing of furniture from the existing offices; and
c) The officers involved with the office move be congratulated on their hard work and excellent consultation.
122. Update from Leader of the Council
The Chairman welcomed the Leader of the Council, Councillor Fran Wilson, to the meeting and requested that she update the Committee on progress made during the Municipal Year 2007-08 within her portfolio and in relation to Cabinet priorities.
Kent Agreement 2 (KA2) and Enhanced Two-Tier Working
Councillor Wilson stated that the KA2 was the area of work into which she had put the most effort during the Municipal Year. It had been both interesting and difficult but she was confident that she would soon be able to bring a recommendation to Council to sign the agreement. Governance issues had been of concern for a significant time but all districts had insisted on a deal that was considered to be less County-led and more of an equal partnership. There were two groups that governance issues applied to: the Kent Partnership and the Partnership Board. Only one of these would be chaired by the Leader of KCC, and one of the groups would feature four district council Leaders, which was likely to be agreed by area, such as Mid-Kent.
The KA2 targets had been agreed on a general scale but the fine details still needed to be confirmed. Maidstone had had a key role in ensuring that climate change issues, including air quality, carbon footprints and water issues, were included in these targets. Transport issues were also very important and as this was a county-wide issue, local authorities needed to work together.
Partnership working was required to help districts to reduce costs. Excellent partnership working existed between Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks and Ashford councils and discussions were ongoing with Swale Borough Council. The Chairman highlighted that good joint working existed between the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Overview and Scrutiny departments. The Leader stated that cluster-working was very important and a Mid-Kent Cluster, made up of Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells, Swale and Ashford, was being worked towards.
In response to a question on the Council’s aspirations to become a unitary authority, the Leader confirmed that work on this, led by Councillor Julia Batt, was progressing so that when the opportunity arose in the future to apply for unitary status, the Council would be in a position to do so, if it still wished to. The Leader suggested that the Council was too small to apply for unitary status alone, however none of the Council’s neighbouring authorities were currently interested in this. Continued partnership working was therefore important to build relationships and trust, and to lay foundations for the future dependant upon the wishes of each individual authority. The Committee felt that feedback from Councillor Batt on this work would be of interest.
Local Strategic Partnership (LSP)
Councillor Wilson stated that there had been progress in establishing LSP sub-groups. Three sub-groups: the Health Action Team; the Climate Change Partnership; and the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP), were now established, the Children’s Trust was in the process of being established and two more needed further work. The Childrens Trust was slightly different and some work was required to establish how it would fit into the overall framework of the LSP.
One difficulty with the LSP was that it needed to meet Government targets as well as addressing the needs and wants of Maidstone residents. There was also some confusion as to how the Maidstone LSP worked with the Kent Partnership, the Kent-wide LSP.
The Leader stated that, in her opinion, Overview and Scrutiny was well-placed to monitor the work of the LSP and its sub-groups. These groups would have a key role in helping the Council to achieve its targets, and it was therefore important that they were held to account.
A new method of consultation for the Sustainable Communities Strategy had been trialled at the recent Urban Conference which had highlighted a number of key themes with regard to residents’ views of Maidstone. The LSP was required to produce the Sustainable Communities Strategy following further consultation.
Housing
Housing was one of the Cabinet priorities and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration had specific responsibility for this. Councillor Wilson stated that the Council’s target for affordable housing had been exceeded and the occupation of privately rented flats had improved. There was an issue with developers selling land to housing trusts and associations, sometimes with planning permission, and this land was then developed with 100% affordable housing. This needed to be monitored in order to ensure balanced development.
A Councillor asked whether any houses had been brought back into use as a result of the Empty Homes Strategy. Councillor Wilson stated that this information would be forwarded to the Committee following the meeting.
A Councillor asked the Leader for her opinion on the subdivision or demolishing of Victorian houses in the Borough, such as those on Sittingbourne Road. Councillor Wilson stated that each case needed to be considered individually, for example, some older houses made excellent flats provided the subdivision was of good quality. It was important to maintain the character of an area, hence the importance of Character Areas Assessments (CAAs). A policy framework was needed to cover significant changes to properties.
Waste and Recycling
The Leader stated that she was very pleased with the smooth roll-out of the new waste and recycling scheme, which was a credit to the officers involved, in particular with regard to the publicity. Recycling bins would be introduced in the town centre and the major villages at the end of March. A “Green Page” would be featured in the Downs Mail on alternate months to promote recycling and other ‘green’ issues. This was in line with best practice, which suggested that the profile of recycling had to be kept high to maintain high recycling rates.
A Councillor referred to recent press reports that in some areas, recycling was being sent to landfill. The Leader gave her assurance that, provided most residents co-operated with the new waste and recycling scheme, 100% of the Borough’s waste would not go to landfill. This was, however, reliant upon the continued operation of the Allington Incinerator.
In response to a question, the Leader stated that it was still the intention of the Council to be carbon neutral by 2010. The Maidstone Museum East Wing, the new offices and the new depot would all be carbon neutral. A wider issue affecting climate change was transport in the Borough and there was an urgent need to address this issue. A change was needed in residents’ attitudes towards transport and car use. A Councillor pointed out that it would interesting to see what impact the Kent Freedom Pass would have on traffic levels especially during school terms. The Leader agreed and stated that the Cabinet was also actively pursuing park and ride sites on every main entrance to the town. Joined-up thinking was needed at central government level to address transport issues.
Crime
Councillor Wilson was extremely pleased by the reduction in crime rates across the Borough, however it was accepted that there were crime ‘hotspots’ and crime and disorder would always be an issue. Partnership working was vital in tackling crime. There had been an ongoing issue with regard to the funding of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) as the Council felt it should not pay for the core service of another provider, in this case the Police. An agreement had been reached whereby three PCSOs would be funded by the CDRP as they were additional to the core service, though the Service Level Agreement would need to be carefully negotiated.
A new generation of CCTV was required for the Borough and this had now been costed. Town Centre Management was also rolling out StoreNet across the Borough, with the exception of Marden. Maidstone had a reputation across the country for best practice in CCTV operations.
Resolved: That
a) Councillor Batt be requested to provide an update on the work towards unitary status; and
b) Details of whether any empty homes had been brought back into use as a result of the Empty Homes Strategy be provided to the Committee.
123. Call-In Procedure
The Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer informed Members that the Monitoring Officer required the call-in procedure, as outlined in the Constitution, to be reviewed annually. Members discussed a number of issues with regard to the call-in procedure:
Members to Call-In a Decision
Members agreed that requiring 2 non-executive Members to sign a call-in was still appropriate, and there should not be a requirement for these Members to be cross-party.
Public Call-Ins
Members felt that allowing the public to call-in decisions could lead to vexatious call-ins and the ‘filtering’ role of the ward Councillor was important. The Committee agreed, however, that the call-in procedure should be advertised more widely so that the public could request their ward councillor to call-in decisions on their behalf. This would also require a review of the ways in which decisions being taken by Cabinet Members were advertised, for example, the use of a mailing list.
Time Periods
Members agreed that five working days between the publication of a decision and the call-in deadline was appropriate, particularly as the report for decision was published before this.
However, it was agreed that five working days between the call-in deadline and a meeting of the appropriate Committee being called was insufficient. Members noted the busy meetings diary and the need for time to carry out research on the decision in question, as well as time for the Overview and Scrutiny Team to prepare a suitably detailed briefing note to ensure that a well-informed discussion was held. The Committee agreed that 10 working days would be more appropriate, with the option to extend this to 15 working days in exceptional circumstances with the permission of the Mayor.
The Committee agreed that five working days for Cabinet Members to reconsider decisions was appropriate, as they would already have considered a wide range of information prior to taking the original decision.
Criteria
Members agreed that criteria should not be attached to call-in as the current system operated satisfactorily.
Resolved: That it be recommended to the Standards Committee that the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules within the Council Constitution be amended to allow 10 working days, or 15 with the permission of the Mayor, between the end of the call-in period and the calling of a meeting of the appropriate Committee for the consideration of a call-in.
124. Future Work Programme
The Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer informed Members that an update on the 2006-07 Partnerships report would be received at the next meeting and the Outside Bodies Review would be considered. Members were also informed that the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services was due to attend another meeting on the date of the next Committee meeting, and Members agreed to begin the meeting at 6:00 p.m. to ensure that the Cabinet Member could attend.
The Officer also highlighted that some Councillors had concerns with regard to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee terms of reference and suggested that this should be reviewed. Members suggested that this should be considered by the Liaison Committee and a written report provided to the Committee at a future meeting.
Resolved: That
a) The meeting on 1 April 2008 begin at 6:00 p.m.;
b) The Liaison Committee review the Overview and Scrutiny Committee terms of reference; and
c) The Future Work Programme be noted.
125. Duration of the Meeting
6:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.