Contact your Parish Council

 

 

Maidstone Borough Council

 

Partnership and Well Being Overview & Scrutiny Committee

 

Tuesday 12 April 2011

 

End of Year Progress Update from the Leader of the Council

 

Report of: Overview & Scrutiny Officer

 

1.      Introduction

 

1.1     The Committee are advised to consider the report of the Leader of     the Council on the progress made with the priorities set for 2010-      11.

         

1.2     The Committee should consider the statement made by the      Leader of the Council at the beginning of the year with reference to        his mid year update at their meeting on 11 January 2011 and ask        questions with regard to progress that has been made on those         issues highlighted as priorities. The Partnerships and Well-being         Overview and Scrutiny Committee is responsible for holding to      account those Cabinet Members whose portfolios fall within the           remit of the Committee. The Cabinet Members whose portfolios          relate to the Committee are the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Community Services.

         

 

2.      Recommendation

 

2.1        That the Committee interview the interview the Leader of the Council with regard to progress that has been made on the priorities within his portfolio over the last municipal year.

         

 

3.      Background

 

3.1     The areas of the Leader’s portfolio that are relevant to the        Committee are as follows:

 

     Licensing

 

·         To ensure the delivery of an efficient and effective licensing regime.

 

Local Strategic Partnership

 

• Improve the delivery of community services to local people through an effective local strategic partnership.

 

Sustainable Community Strategy

 

• To take responsibility for the Sustainable Community Strategy and to work with the LSP in delivering its objectives.

 

Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership

 

• Working with partners to deliver more efficient and effective council services

 

3.2     The Committee interviewed the Leader of the Council on 13 July        2010, the relevant extract from the minutes is set out below:

 

“The Chairman welcomed Councillor Chris Garland, Leader of the Council, to the meeting.

 

The Leader referred to the earlier discussion on maternity services in the Borough and informed the Committee that he had just received an emailed letter from Steve Phoenix [West Kent Primary Care Trust]. The letter confirmed the Secretary of State had not referred the decision for review. 

 

The Leader said that partnership working would be increasingly important over the coming years. The financial situation meant the way services were delivered would have to change and the Borough would need to use partnership working to help deliver savings and services. In many cases the Council may become a facilitator instead of a service provider.

 

In response to questions concerning investment in the Borough, the Leader said that Homes and Communities Agency funding had been cut by half. This would affect housing and community development.  Indications earlier in the year that the recession was ending now appeared less likely and it was becoming increasingly difficult to obtain grants. The Museum Trust was required to raise £1.3 million for the development of the Museum, but that may not be achievable. 

 

A Member asked about the relevance of the Local Development Framework (LDF) now the Regional Strategy had been abolished. The Leader replied there were rumours the LDF would be replaced in time, but the Council would continue working with it until that occurred. Whilst centrally imposed housing targets had been abolished, the Leader believed the Borough needed to deliver new housing that reflected the local infrastructure, which in places was under pressure. Another major element of the LDF was the provision of gypsy and Traveller sites. The Borough was now only required to provide the sites it needed, so there may be a change in plans once the detail of the announcement is known.

 

Members asked how the Leader intended to increase the transparency of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP). He agreed there was a need for improved transparency and communications. He believed minutes of LSP meetings should be circulated more widely, and suggested the Committee could consider calling the Chairman of the LSP to scrutiny twice a year. Members agreed that the Chair and Vice chair of all Committees should receive a copy of LSP meeting minutes and that this Committee should have a standing item on the LSP.

 

A member asked if the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) would need re-writing as a result of the government scrapping National Indictors [performance indicators set by central government]. The Leader said he did not believe the SCS would need major changes as it reflected the goals of the Council, but acknowledged more relevant indicators may need to be developed.

 

          The Chairman thanked the Leader for assisting the Committee.

 

          Resolved: That:

 

a)   The Chairman and Vice Chairman of each Overview and Scrutiny Committee should receive a copy of the minutes of LSP meetings;

b)   Regular updates on the progress of the LSP be received; and

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

 

3.3     The leader provided the Partnerships and Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Committee with a Mid-Year Update on 11 January 20.  The relevant extract from the minutes is set out below:

 

          “The Chairman welcomed the Leader of the Council, Councillor Chris Garland to the meeting to update the Committee on the relevant           areas of his portfolio.

 

          The Leader began by updating the Committee on the Mid-Kent          Improvement Partnership. He explained that Maidstone and       Tunbridge Wells had now entered into a formal arrangement to     share the back office functions for Revenues and Benefits. The          original arrangement had included Ashford, Swale, Maidstone and        Tunbridge Wells as the partnership had progressed two of the        partners had withdrawn so it was now a joint venture with           Tunbridge Wells. The savings will be £250,000 year on year but did   Involve an initial investment of £500,000 for set up costs which was        shared between the two partners, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells.         The Leader responded to the Committee’s questions about how the       service works explaining that Maidstone were equal Partners with      Tunbridge Wells. Councillor Garland also confirmed that the service          was monitored to ensure it was working well the service delivery        was not reduced.  Other areas of MKIP were also reported to be      working well including the Audit Partnership. Ashford had withdrawn           from MKIP but Swale, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells were all      committed to driving the partnership forward.

 

          The Leader referred to the last meeting and Maternity Services          moving to Pembury. He confirmed that Maidstone did not approve        of the recent decision and that they would be writing a joint letter        with Paul Carter, Leader of Kent County Council (KCC), to the Secretary of State.  The Committee discussed the issue of a           decision being made without GP’s formal support and possible       financial implications being the main reason for the scheme to go           ahead. It was suggested that there would be £6 million costs   incurred if it did not. KCC had urged the Secretary of State to wait      until there has been a review. The Committee agreed to discuss the        matter further under Item 9 on the agenda.

 

          The Leader moved on to Localism and suggested to the Committee    that it would be development issues that people would come          together on as they had done with the Kent International Gateway.    He said he envisaged groups forming within communities with           referendums on planning issues.  His concerns were with the lack of power that would remain with the Council if Localism arrived via the           Planning System. He warned that communities could become       divided and this could create fragmented communities with           disparate goals. The financial implications were also discussed and    it was suggested that the referendums that come forward would be        paid for by the local authority but the ‘New Burdens’ grant from        central government would be available to finance this.

 

          Cllr Garland updated the Committee on the progress of The Local       Strategic Partnership. He explained that the last year had been     taken up with governance issues and refocusing which had resulted         in four main delivery groups: health and well-being; the Safer           Maidstone Partnership; Economic Development; and Regeneration     and Environmental Quality. He explained that the groups’ priorities     were relevant to Corporate and Strategic Issues. The groups had   considered any exceptions and National Indicators that were not           present.  The task of Resource Mapping had been completed which    was analysing where public money was being spent to avoid        duplication.

 

          The Leader informed the Committee that The Local Development       Framework would come to Cabinet in January. He explained that       the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives had worked closely on this     and there would be Public Consultation. The Leader felt a Political           consensus had so far been achieved and suggested that the figure   for new housing would be 10,080, 1000 less than under the last    government. He explained that this would maintain the growth        point status and make use of the existing infrastructure as there           was no more money for development in this area. This would be a      Dispersal option rather than an Urban Extension. It was emphasised         that this could change during the consultation process.

 

          In terms of current funding issues the Committee brought to the       Leader’s attention matters arising from the previous meeting   regarding the future of voluntary organisations such as Women’s           Support Services. Councillor Garland could only confirm that    funding was tight and highlighted to the Committee the 93m   reduction in funding at the County Council which would have an      affect on the Voluntary Sector. His advice was to lobby hard as           money would have to be found from other sources.

 

          Finally Licensing was addressed; the partnership with Sevenoaks       was working well with a shared back office. Another example the   Committee were told of where shared services are working well.

 

          The Chairman thanked the Leader for attending.”

 

3.4     The Committee could choose not to interview or receive written          updates from the Leader however in doing so they would        not be          fulfilling the crucial role of holding the executive to account

 

 

4.      Impact on Corporate Objectives

 

4.1     The Committee should seek to review whether the Leader’s priorities for his portfolio are aligned to the Council’s corporate objectives as set out in the strategic plan.