Contact your Parish Council


POLICY & RESOURCES COMMITTEE

24 April 2019

 

Nominations to an Outside Body Ė Rochester Bridge Trust

 

Final Decision-Maker

Democracy Committee

Lead Head of Service/Lead Director

Angela Woodhouse, Head of Policy, Communications and Governance

Lead Officer and Report Author

Caroline Matthews, Democratic Services Officer

Classification

Public

 

Wards affected

All

 

Executive Summary

 

The Committee are requested to consider the nominations for the position on the Rochester Bridge Trust which expires on 31st May 2019.†

 

 

This report makes the following recommendations to this Committee:

1.   That the Committee considers the nominations received and makes an appointment to the Rochester Bridge Trust as the Councilís representative with effect from 1st June 2019.

 

 

 

Timetable

Meeting

Date

Policy & Resources Committee

24 April 2019



Nominations to an Outside Body Ė Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board

 

 

 

1.††††† INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

 

1.1     The Councilís current representativeís term of office is due to expire on 31st May 2019 for the position of Assistant Warden on the Rochester Bridge Trust.†

1.2     Since 1999 the Trustís Charity Commission Scheme has provided for twelve wardens and assistants, three nominated by Medway Council, two by Kent County Council and one by Maidstone Borough Council and six assistants appointed by the Trust.† However, the nominee does not need to be a member of the appointing body, i.e. the local authority.

1.3     The Trust owns and maintains the two road bridges and the service bridge at Rochester and has contributed toward the cost of many other road crossings of the River Medway, including Maidstone Bridge.† In addition, the Trust provides civil engineering education services and provides grants for engineering education, research, restoration of historic buildings and projects related to the river.†

1.4     If appointed, Maidstone Borough Councilís nominee would serve a term of four years on the Trust.

 

 

2.        AVAILABLE OPTIONS

 

2.1     To appoint one nominee to the Trust who need not be a member of the appointing body.

 

2.2     The Committee could decide not to appoint but this would mean that the Council would not have any input to the work or funding carried out by the Trust and may present reputational damage to the Authority.†

 

 

 

3.        PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

3.1     The preferred option would be to appoint a nominee to the Rochester Bridge Trust. Appointing a representative ensures that the Council is properly represented and continues to have input to the vital services that the Trust provide.

 

 

 

 

 

4.       RISK

4.1    There is a risk that should the Council not be represented on the Rochester Bridge Trust then they would not have an input into future funding opportunities for Maidstone and present reputational damage to the Authority.

5.       CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

 

5.1     An email was circulated to all Members seeking nominations by 23rd April 2019. †To date only one nomination has been received which is from Mr Derek Butler who is the Authorityís current representative.

5.2     An update on the nominations received will be provided at the meeting on 24th April 2019.

 



6.       NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION

 

6.1     The current representativeís term of office expires on 31st May 2019 and in an effort to provide continuity to the Councilís involvement in this outside body, the nomination is sought now rather than waiting until the June Committee.

6.2    The Trust would be notified of the appointment and the successful nominee would be required to report to Policy and Resources Committee on an annual basis to provide feedback on the work of the Trust during that year.

 

 

7.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

 

Issue

Implications

Sign-off

Impact on Corporate Priorities

We do not expect the recommendations would by themselves materially affect the achievements of the corporate priorities.

Democratic Services Officer

Risk Management

There is a risk that should the Council not be represented on the Rochester Bridge Trust then they would not have an input into future funding opportunities and its reputational damage.† However this risk is well within the Councilís risk appetite and does not need to be added to the Councilís risk register.

Democratic Services Officer

Financial

There are no current financial implications.†

Democratic Services Officer

Staffing

There are no staffing implications.

†Democratic Services Officer

Legal

There are no legal implications

Democratic Services Officer

Privacy and Data Protection

There are none.

Democratic Services Officer

Equalities

There are none.

Democratic Services Officer

Crime and Disorder

There are none.

Democratic Services Officer

Procurement

There are none.

Democratic Services Officer



8.        REPORT APPENDICES

 

Appendix 1 Ė Nomination Form from Mr Derek Butler

 

 

9.        BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

None