Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

Apologies were received from Councillors Beerling and FitzGerald.

It was noted that Councillor Moriarty was substituting for Councillor Beerling for Agenda Item 8, ‘Disabled Facilities Grants Review – The role of In Touch’ and that Councillor M Robertson was substituting for Councillor Beerling for the remaining items on the Agenda.

There were no visiting Members. 

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

Councillor Paine declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9, ‘Park and Ride Usage’, by virtue of his friendship with Mr Kemp of Nu-Venture Coaches Limited.

Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interview with:

·  The Project Manager of In Touch, David Eaton; and

·  An In Touch Caseworker, Tracy Topley.

The Chairman welcomed the Project Manager, David Eaton, the Caseworker, Tracy Topley and a service user, Gladys Walters, from In-Touch Home Improvement Agency, to the meeting and asked them to provide an overview of In-Touch’s work.

In-Touch

Many of the Home Improvement Agencies (HIA) that operated across Kent, East Sussex and Hampshire were a part of the Hyde Housing Group.  The role of the HIA was to help older, disabled and vulnerable people living across a range of tenures to repair, adapt or improve their homes to increase their independence, warmth, security and safety.  The Maidstone HIA was part of In-Touch, Mid and West Kent HIA, having merged with the HIAs of Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge and Malling.  In-Touch was a non-profit organisation and registered as a charity.  As part of the Supporting People Programme, Communities and Local Government (CLG) and Kent Adult Social Services funded approximately 53% of In-Touch’s income.  40% of its income was received from Local Authorities and the rest was received from customer fees, usually included in the grant payment to cover the administration and technical support of its services. 

In-Touch provided a wide range of services across all four Local Authority areas.  This included the management and administration of technical support for Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) and Decent Home Grants.  It also commissioned Private Works for residents who had not received grants but wanted technical assistance.  In-Touch provided a handy person service, for which Maidstone Borough Council funded two posts.  It was the first Local Authority in Kent to have funded handy persons to deliver different types of services that services users had asked for, including gardening and decorating.  Maidstone Borough Council was also one of the few Local Authorities that financially supported a hospital discharge service for the Primary Care Trust through In-Touch’s work.  Patients who were unable to be discharged from hospital until their home was made safe were given the appropriate minor aids and adaptations to enable them to be discharged. This service, utilising In-Touch’s handy persons, had been in operation since October 2008 and had successfully assisted in 95 cases.  Another key area of In-Touch’s work included the identification and procurement of Disability and Welfare benefits for customers who were unable or did not have the knowledge and skills to apply.  In-Touch was able to serve as a single point of advice, encouraging users to take up every opportunity available to them.  It had supported residents in securing £83,000 worth of income in 2008/09, including for entitlements to Attendance Allowance and Council Tax Benefit.

Client Base

In-Touch advertised its services to residents through the Council, charitable organisations and religious groups; it also worked closely with the Council to advertise in all its appropriate publications.  In 2008/09 it had received 932 enquiries in the Maidstone area, which were processed by four members of staff.  The 932 enquiries were made up of the following client groups:

·  1.9% = Black Minority and Ethnic (BME) group (in line with  Maidstone’s BME average);  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Interview with:

·  The Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy, Brian Morgan; and

·  The Public Transport Officer, Clive Cheeseman.

The Chairman welcomed the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy, Brian Morgan and the Public Transport Officer, Clive Cheeseman, to the meeting to discuss Park and Ride Usage. 

The Committee was informed that there had been a gap in the 2008/09 budget of £61,000 for the Park and Ride Service.  An increase in Park and Ride bus fare was subsequently introduced to meet the deficit.  The full £61,000 was not realised as the increase was not introduced until February 2009.  The Council had also sought to reduce the amount of subsidy from £431,000 to £256,000 by saving £110,000 on the new Park and Ride contract in March 2009, , and by reducing the number of Park and Ride attendants, achieving a saving of £100,000. 

The leasing of additional space at the Sittingbourne Road Park and Ride site had been secured at additional cost, as cars were being turned away from the site towards the end of 2008.  Mr Morgan informed Members that the usage at this site, as at other sites, has subsequently declined for a variety of reasons.  He highlighted that there had been a monthly fall in usage of between 1% and 11% in the five months prior to the introduction of the new contract.  The Committee was informed that there had been a number of issues with Park and Ride following the introduction of the new contract.  Road works in a number of different locations had affected the reliability of the buses and had subsequently acted as a disincentive, particularly on the Sittingbourne Road route.  Members had been concerned that the replacement of Park and Ride buses with Arriva service buses on the London Road route would be an issue, and surveys had therefore been undertaken to monitor customer views on the changes.  This had not shown any substantial negative reaction to the change.  However, the dedicated Park and Ride service buses were reinstated on the London Road route and the routing of buses was amended in response to issues with reliability.

Mr Morgan highlighted that Canterbury had seen a 7.54% reduction, Medway a 28.85% reduction, Norwich a 9.61% reduction, Salisbury a 4.5% reduction and Maidstone a 9.45% reduction in Park and Ride usage for the period October 2008 to September 2009. Winchester had however reported a 2.99% increase.  Some of the reduction in usage may be attributed to the recession and the impact on people’s town centre activities.  The Committee considered how members of the public were getting into Maidstone town centre and noted that Maidstone Council’s car parks had shown a 2% increase in usage between April 08 and October 09, and Town Centre Management had also revealed a reduction in footfalls for the Mall and Fremlin’s Walk.  This suggested that some Park and Ride users had either started driving and parking in the town centre, but also indicated that others had reduced their visits to the town centre.  The reduction in Park and Ride usage had created a £195,755 deficit in the 2009/10  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Interview with:

·  The Assistant Director of Environmental Services, Steve Goulette;

·  The Pollution Team Leader, Steve Wilcock; and

·  The Senior Pollution Officer, John Newington.

Amended Report Attached

The Chairman welcomed the Assistant Director of Environmental Services, Steve Goulette, the Pollution Team Leader, Steve Wilcock and the Senior Pollution Officer, John Newington to the meeting.  The Committee received a presentation on the Contaminated Land Strategy, attached at Appendix A.  This highlighted the statutory duties on the Council and the progress in reviewing the strategy.  The existing strategy fulfilled the Council’s duties and was in line with government guidance.  It was, however, being updated as it had been produced in 2001 and processes and software in the Council had since changed. 

The Council did not proactively look for contaminated land, but nevertheless pursued its statutory role under Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act (EPA) 1990.  In response to a question, Mr Goulette advised Members that remediation of land would be undertaken as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) process.  He also highlighted that Section 106 Agreement (S106) money was a method in remedying contaminated land.  The Committee agreed that the strategy should incorporate that a S106 be sought for remediation of land where appropriate.

Occasionally new information related to contamination within the Borough was highlighted through environmental searches for public conveyance checks or directly from the public.  All information regarding suspected contamination was investigated and dealt with appropriately.  The contaminated land ‘prioritisation working list’ was updated to reflect and new information.

Mr Wilcock informed Members that the majority of contaminated land was as a result of industrial activity, but that contamination conditions were also routinely put on agricultural land.  Contaminated sites were continually monitored to ensure that risks of contamination did not change, pollutant linkages of the contamination source, its possible pathways and its receptors were therefore monitored to ensure that the receptor was not at risk of contamination.  Receptors were living organisms, ecological systems or property which may be harmed by contamination.  Remediation was not immediately required unless there was a significant risk of contamination to the receptor.  When a potential risk was evidenced, remediation options were investigated in accordance with the Contaminated Land Strategy. 

A Member noted that internet based companies had previously raised unnecessary concern with regard to areas of mild contamination and asked if this continued to be the case.  Members were advised that the information was commercially available to companies and that a number of companies had taken the information and provided customers their own interpretation on the data sets.  However, the initial heightened public concern stemming from internet based companies had reduced significantly.  Mr Goulette informed Members that initial investigations of the sites originally identified as having a potential contamination risk had resulted in the contaminated land list being reduced.

The Chairman thanked the witnesses for an informative presentation and agreed to consider the draft contaminated land strategy at its meeting on 26 January 2010. 

Members noted that all suspected contaminated land was investigated and agreed that the strategy should incorporate a method for residents to report suspected contaminated land.  Members also felt that as the Council’s progress of remediation using  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

The Overview and Scrutiny Officer informed Members that research had recently been published by the University of Bristol on Housing Associations and Home Adaptations.  It had reached a number of conclusions including a possible Adaptation Policy with regard to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), whereby it was recommended that RSLs would carry out works under £1,000, contribute 40% to DFGs up to £10,000 and would negotiate for costs above £10,000.  The Committee felt this was of particular interest and requested that copies of the report be circulated to Committee Members. 

The Chairman reminded the Committee that the meeting originally scheduled for 22 December meeting had been cancelled unless urgent business arose and therefore the Committee’s next meeting would be on 26 January 2010.  Mr Horton, Kent County Council’s Road Safety Team Leader would be in attendance to update Members on Maidstone Road Safety issues. 

The Committee noted the sections of the Forward Plan that were relevant to the Committee’s remit and agreed to maintain a watching brief.

Resolved:  That

a)  Copies of the ‘Housing Associations and Home Adaptations: Making it Work Smoothly’ Report be circulated to the Committee; and

b)  The Forward Plan be noted.

6.30 pm to 9.05 pm.