Resolved:

That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

It was noted that Councillors Butler and Nelson-Gracie were substituting for Councillors Mrs Gibson and Mrs Parvin respectively.

Councillors FitzGerald and Warner were present as visiting members.  Councillor FitzGerald requested to speak on Agenda Item 9, “Railway Services Review”.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

There were no disclosures.

Resolved:

That all items be taken in public as proposed.

With regard to the minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2009 it was requested that the second paragraph of page five be clarified to read ‘In response to a question regarding the potential loss of the Council’s ‘golden share’ of Maidstone Housing Trust shares, Councillor Garland explained…’

A Member enquired as to the progress of minute number 18, resolution (a).  The Chairman informed the Committee that a letter had been written to the Chief Executive outlining the Committee’s concerns with regard to resources for Overview and Scrutiny.  The Chairman had been informed that officers had produced a work schedule, which showed that subject to no additional work load, resources would be adequate until the end of 2009.  Further information would be provided with regard to this matter at the Committee’s next meeting.

Resolved:

  That;

a.  The minutes of the meeting of 16 June be agreed, subject to the amendment of the second paragraph of page five, to read;

‘In response to a question regarding the potential loss of the Council’s ‘golden share’ of Maidstone Housing Trust shares, Councillor Garland explained…’

b.  The Committee be provided with an update as to resources for overview and scrutiny at its next meeting.

Interview with Dr J M Speight and the Community Planning Co-ordinator, Jim Boot.

The Chairman introduced Dr Speight to the Committee and reminded Members that Dr Speight had written to the Council identifying concerns with regard to the production, and particularly the consultation process, of the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS).  Members were informed that at their last meeting the Leader of the Council had informed Dr Speight that the development of the SCS was an ongoing process and his opinions would be considered during revision of the Strategy.

Dr Speight informed Members that he had submitted a 25 page response to the SCS consultation which had been received by the Council on the last day of public consultation.  He was of the impression that inappropriate haste and pressure to deliver the Strategy had resulted in a number of errors and omissions.  Appendix A outlines the argument presented to the Committee by Dr Speight.

The Community Planning Co-ordinator, Jim Boot, introduced himself to the Committee as the editor and substantial author of the Strategy.  He informed Members that due to the complexity of the Strategy he had worked closely with a number of officers, in particular the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy, Brian Morgan to facilitate its development.  Members were informed that government guidance for the production of the Strategy had not been released until July 2008 and had not been tested by other authorities.

Mr Boot identified that 81% of people who responded to the final public consultation on the draft SCS were supportive of the vision and objectives outlined in the Strategy.  Nevertheless, he thanked Mr Speight for his comments and recognised the benefit of robust debate and having a member of the public acting as a ‘critical friend.’

In response to a question concerning the time scales of the final consultation process, Mr Boot informed the Committee that producing a consultation summary of the draft SCS, following its agreement at Cabinet on 11^th February, took longer than expected.  Therefore public Consultation was only able take place over three weeks.  However, the Committee was informed that Parish Councils and voluntary organisations, of which there were approximately 250, had been invited to view the papers online as soon as they were put on deposit in February, therefore these groups had roughly eight weeks to consider the SCS.  Additionally, consultation with the public had been carried out over a protracted period of 15 months throughout the development of the document.  For example, two focus groups had been run by IPSOS MORI in December 2007 and March 2009, and all the Parish plans published in the last five years had been drawn upon.  An initial ‘Stick up for Maidstone’ consultation had been carried out throughout the previous summer, at a wide range of locations, including the Chequers shopping centre, the River festival, Maidstone Mela, Kent County Show and Peace One Day. The police’s Partnerships and Communities Together consultation and Place Survey had also been utilised. In addition numerous workshops had taken place with interested groups.

Dr Speight identified that the final consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Interview with Mathew Nash and Laura Cloke of “Keep Our Trains”.

The Chairman introduced Laura Cloke, the Chair of Maidstone and Bearsted Rail Users Association; and Mathew Nash, of Keep Our Trains, to the Committee.  He outlined that the Committee would be investigating Maidstone’s rail services as a whole and would not only be focusing on the removal of the fast service from Maidstone East to Cannon Street but would also consider the efficiency of services more generally.

Mr Nash informed the Committee that there were two main services into London via Maidstone; the first was to west London, via London Victoria and the second was to Charing Cross via Cannon Street and London Bridge.  The fast service to Cannon Street ran from Maidstone during the off peak and ‘shoulder peak’ times.  He informed Members that the average journey between Maidstone and London Bridge took approximately 48 minutes.  To travel via London Victoria, however would increase this journey time to between an hour and a half and two hours, which was particularly difficult for commuters to London, who would typically work until 7pm.  Mr Nash stressed the likelihood that this would discourage businesses and people from locating in the Maidstone area, and may force existing residents and business to relocate to areas with more efficient rail services.

Members were told by Mr Nash that he did not find out about the removal of the service from Southeastern, who he considered to have been secretive about the proposal, but rather from a member of the West Malling Rail Users Association.  Once he knew of the proposals he sought to begin a petition with regard to the service cuts.  Over 1,200 signatures had been collected.  He met with Ann Widdecombe MP who suggested lobbying the Secretary of Transport, which had been done.  A meeting had been held with Ann Widdecombe, the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy and representatives of Southeastern.  The most likely chance of success was to ensure the Department for Transport (DfT) was aware of the opposition towards the proposal.  Members were also informed that a list of email contacts had been collated.

The Committee was informed that the DfT outlined minimum standards which rail operators were required to meet, including particular service requirements.  The fast service to Cannon Street via Maidstone was not required by the DfT, nor was the High Speed 1 service which was to operate from Kent into London.  No subsidy was available from the DfT to Southeastern for these services.  A Member requested that the Committee be provided with details of the requirements the DfT made for services which ran through Maidstone.

Mr Nash informed Members that Keep Our Trains was of the impression that service usage figures produced by Southeastern were misrepresentative.  He noted that a significant proportion of commuters drove to stations such as Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Paddock Wood because services were often more frequent, faster and more cost effective.  Nevertheless, had services from Maidstone been more efficient, commuters would wish to travel from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Interview with the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration, Alison Broom.

The Director of Prosperity and Regeneration, Alison Broom, informed the Committee that the Sustainable Communities Act (SCA) had been introduced in 2007, but had received considerable attention within the Council in April 2009.  On 21 May 2009, the Cabinet had made decisions as to how it would respond to the legislation.  The purpose of the Act was to allow for amendment of who holds power over various issues, or in order to enable the amendment or enactment of legislation so as to enable a request to be carried out.

Three triggers were devised by Council via which the SCA could be used.  The first was where an outcome or objective of the Sustainable Community Strategy would not be achievable using current legislation.  The second was where an individual or group of residents put forward a proposal, and the final arose if an issue was already being pursued by another Council.  An application would then be subject to two conditions.  The first was that the Council must consult on the issue.  The second was that it must be demonstrated that the application was an efficient use of resources, because promoting change through the SCA was an onerous process and would be resource-intensive, therefore the outcome needed to be very strong.

Members were informed that a consultation panel was to be established in conjunction with the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP).  The Act was to be publicised in the August edition of the Borough Update and the Regeneration and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee was to be invited to consider proposals as part of their future work programme.  A Member raised concern that consultation with the LSP would not necessarily be appropriate, as the extent to which they represented the general public was questionable.  Mrs Broom responded by stating that it was not the LSP board that would be consulted, but rather the wider LSP membership.  In response to a question the Committee was informed that a member of the Communications Team would produce the Borough Update and it would be written in Plain English.  It was requested that the Committee be provided with a copy of the article prior to its publication.

Mrs Broom informed the Committee that the SCA was only one method of ensuring that community involvement was satisfied.  The Council’s culture and attitude towards involvement, in response to the white paper ‘Communities in Control’, had been reviewed to ensure the Council consulted adequately and that sufficient information was provided to the general public.  The SCA provided only one possible solution for increasing involvement.  The Local Government Act 2000, for example, outlined that well-being powers could be used to carry out objectives outlined within the SCS.  A Member identified that Neighbourhood forums, for example, could also be used to encourage community involvement.

Mrs Broom informed the Committee that no applications under the Act would be made by the July 2009 deadline.  It was unknown whether a new deadline would become available in October, but it was suspected that an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Resolved:

That the Committee note the Community Safety statistics.

The Committee was provided with a written update on the mental health review.  Members were informed that the group had met with a representative of the Kent Local Involvement Network (LINk) at its last meeting, with whom they intended to keep in close contact.  It was requested that an update of the review be given at each Committee meeting.  A Member informed the Committee that Age Concern was in the process of introducing a day centre in which elderly people with mental health problems could receive care to enable careers to have a rest period.

The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager informed the Committee that she had met with Chief Superintendent Hope to discuss scrutiny of the Safer Maidstone Partnership (SMP).  He had been keen to have two meetings a year with the Committee although requested that one of these be during the day.  The Committee agreed,  provided that adequate notice be given with regard to day time meetings.  The Committee was informed that the first SMP scrutiny meeting would be on 7^th September and that this would replace the Committee’s meeting which was originally scheduled for the 15^th September.

It was questioned whether the Committee wished to co-opt a Member or an Officer from Kent Police Authority (KPA) onto the Committee.  It was agreed that the Committee be provided with further information on the KPA and provide the Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager with a response by Friday 24^th July.

Resolved

That;

a)  An update on the progress of the Mental Health Services review be provided at each meeting;

b)  A representative of the Kent Police Authority be co-opted onto the Committee when scrutiny of the Safer Maidstone Partnership is carried out;

c)  The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager send information on membership of the Kent Police Authority to the Committee, and that Members respond by 24 July 2009 as to whether they consider an officer or member of the KPA to be the most appropriate co-optee for scrutiny of the Safer Maidstone Partnership; and

d)  One of the meetings each year to scrutinise the Safer Maidstone Partnership be held during office hours.

Appendix A

Presentation to meeting of External OSC, 14th July 2009 – Dr. J.M. Speight

I don’t intend to go into the detail of my 25-page submission. That’s not the issue. In any case, Members may recall – Councillor Garland, at the last meeting of this committee, not only remarked on the worth of my contribution, but also indicated that much of what I have had to say may well find its way into subsequent versions of what he described as an evolving document. This is some, albeit small, measure of a consolation. Mr. Boot had previously said something along similar lines, though perhaps not quite as definitive.

My letter spells out the nub of my complaint, outlining the history and other details of the foreshortening of the public consultation.

Unquestionably, in the later dealings, pressure to deliver the Strategy was brought to bear, resulting in inappropriate haste. Haste is the key-word. It’s vitally important to recognise the consequences of the rush to get the Sustainable Community Strategy onwards to acceptance by Full Council.

The unhealthy rapid progression to approval by Cabinet involved a substantial number of omissions – not only regard for my contribution, but also amendments agreed by Cabinet on 11th February and/or External Scrutiny on 17th February. Very briefly these were:

·  targets for affordable homes,

·  the target for bringing empty properties back into use,

·  the number of houses built since 2004,

·  assessment of Maidstone and Tonbridge wells NHS Trust’s management of its finances,

·  the phrase ‘smaller market towns’,

·  removal of a reference to the Leeds and Langley bypass.

None of these was undertaken in the Consultation Draft. And, despite most being marked for correction in the Track Changes version of the Strategy presented to Cabinet on 8th April, they were not implemented in the final version. So there they are – minor though some may be, still slip-ups.

There was a number of other premature amendments to the document, dating as far back as 25th March. Unfortunately, I have not the time to delve into these here. I say premature because it is hardly right and proper that alterations are made before the import of the total consultative process is assessed. Time was needed for this.

Time was also a factor as regards analysis of responses to the twelve – very important – key actions. These were ranked in order of preference as early as 1st April. I am led to believe that the input from 20 respondents, who used the online toolkit (and possibly another 4 who used other means), was not included. Although an updated version of the results incorporating these was presented to Cabinet, this did not make it to the final document. And so, it appears that I am not the only one whose views were left out.

Turning now to dealings by Full Council. The fact that Councillor Horne’s comment regarding the absence of appendices fell on so many deaf ears is only part of the story. All fifty Councillors,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Appendix B

Presentation by Councillor Mike FitzGerald – Kent rail Community Partnership

Medway Valley Line

We accept that there is at present insufficient demand to justify 2 trains per hour (Option 7.3) between Maidstone West and Paddock Wood/Tonbridge during the off peak although we believe that current peak hour service levels are too low. However, we are also conscious that possible housing and industrial development of the old Syngenta site adjacent to Yalding Station would boost traffic to some degree. We also wonder what demand might be created for passengers to access HS1 services at Strood or even Maidstone West in future. We believe this option should be kept under review. (Please note that extension of services from Paddock Wood to Tonbridge in December will only apply off-peak).

We are disappointed that you have not fully investigated Option 8.4. We understand the view that a Strood to London Bridge service via Tonbridge and Redhill would be fragile, but we wonder what the demand for a through service to London Bridge from stations between Tonbridge and Redhill actually is? Passengers at Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Redhill have frequent trains to London on other routes. A through service from Strood to Redhill would provide improved connections to Gatwick from Kent and opportunities from Tonbridge and beyond to access HS1 services with fewer connections. Is there any evidence to say which market would be greater? There would be a further benefit in that such a service pattern would reduce platform occupancy at Tonbridge Station.

The Kent CRP strongly supports proposals to extend St Pancras – Ebbsfleet services to Maidstone West. As the County Town and main administrative Centre of Kent, Maidstone does not benefit from HS1 services currently being implemented and is also losing direct services on classic routes to London. Direct services to St Pancras would go a long way to correcting this anomaly. We do not agree that Aylesford should be the intermediate stop for any such services. Although there has certainly been a good deal of new housing in the area, there has been more in the New Hythe area and we would recommend that if HS1 services were to have an intermediate stop between Maidstone West and Strood it should be at Snodland. Snodland is already the busiest intermediate station between Maidstone and Strood and may benefit from additional car parking in the near future. By contrast, there is almost no car parking at Aylesford.

Journey Opportunities Para 7.3.15

(4^th bullet point). We wish to see improved connections from Kent to and from Gatwick (see above) and there is strong community support for this, but we also recognise that shift patterns of airport staff and flight schedules mean that in order to really compete with cars and taxis, rail services would need to operate almost 24 hours a day and we accept that this is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Never-the-less, there is a need to develop routes and journey opportunities other than those radiating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

6:30 p.m. to 8:58 p.m.