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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Paterson and Sherreard.

It was noted that Councillor Warner was substituting for Councillor Paterson.

There were no visiting Members.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

There were no disclosures.

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

Resolved:  That Councillor Marchant be elected Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2009-10.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman proposed that Agenda Item 14, “Urgent Item: CCTV Control Centre and Multi-Agency Community Safety Unit” be taken after Agenda Item 9, “Holiday Play Schemes” as all other items on the agenda did not require attendance by the officers.

Resolved:  That Agenda Item 14, “Urgent Item: CCTV Control Centre and Multi-Agency Community Safety Unit” be taken after Agenda Item 9, “Holiday Play Schemes”. 

Interview with Paul Taylor, Assistant Director of Customer Services and Partnerships.

The Assistant Director of Customer Services and Partnerships, Paul Taylor, stated that the intention of the Hotfoot Report was to answer fundamental questions about why the scheme was run, how it was funded, what the objectives of the scheme were, whether it offered best value and how it linked with the Sustainable Community Strategy objectives.  GIS (Geographical Information System) mapping had been used to identify where people were coming from to use the scheme as location was extremely important but was limited by the availability of venues.  Work had taken place during the past few years to make the scheme as accessible as possible.  The subscription rate for Hotfoot was currently 80-90% and more work needed to be done to identify why this was not nearer 100%.  Mr Taylor emphasised that the scheme set out to educate, inform and involve children; it was well respected and received good feedback from parents.

The Chairman highlighted that Hotfoot was not a statutory service for the Council to provide and the Cabinet was under pressure to cut costs.  The report demonstrated that demand for Hotfoot, however, had been strong for the past three years, and community play schemes in rural areas were also very popular.  The provision of Hotfoot and grant funding for community play schemes contributed to the Council fulfilling its commitment to community well-being and the promotion of equality.  It was clear from the report that Maidstone was ahead of other Kent district authorities with regard to play schemes.

A Councillor referred to figures on the income from Hotfoot and noted that while the text stated that income had increased in 2009, the figures showed a decrease.  Mr Taylor agreed to check these figures.  In response to a further question on the potential savings achieved by ceasing the Hotfoot scheme, Mr Taylor stated that the figures in the report were based on projections, however the actual saving expected if the scheme stopped was £14,610.

With regard to the Ofsted inspection of the Marden play scheme, which stated that the scheme “did not meet all the requirements of the childcare register”, Mr Taylor stated that this was unlikely to relate to the child protection register, however the Council was not permitted to receive all of the information about this grading.

A Councillor noted that some of the feedback from parents requested activities for children over the age of 11 and Mr Taylor confirmed that this would be provided.

A Councillor stated that there was no Hotfoot scheme provided near the Senacre Community Hall, however it would be extremely worthwhile to provide the service there.  Mr Taylor stated that venues for the scheme were based on access to schools, however if the Senacre Community Hall was considered a valuable potential venue then this would be investigated.

A Member highlighted that community play schemes charged less for places but received much less funding from the Council than Hotfoot.  The Sports and Play Development Assistant, Michelle Fowler, explained that the community schemes were much smaller  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Interview with:

·  Councillor Marion Ring, Cabinet Member for Community Services;

·  David Petford, Chief Executive;

·  Paul Taylor, Assistant Director of Customer Services and Partnerships; and

·  Steve McGinnes, Head of Revenues, Benefits and Community Safety.

Reason for Urgency

The Chairman requested that this item be brought to this meeting to ensure its consideration by Overview and Scrutiny prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 13 January 2010.

The Chairman welcomed the following witnesses who were in attendance to present the report on the CCTV Control Centre and Multi-Agency Community Safety Unit:

·  Councillor Chris Garland, Leader of the Council;

·  Councillor Marion Ring, Cabinet Member for Community Services;

·  David Petford, Chief Executive;

·  Paul Taylor, Assistant Director of Customer Services and Partnerships; and

·  Steve McGinnes, Head of Revenues, Benefits and Community Safety.

Councillor Garland explained that when the original decision to move the CCTV Control Room had been taken, the Council’s financial situation was better, and the impact of the recession had called for a review of the capital programme.  Moving the CCTV Control Room to make it part of the Community Safety Unit (CSU) would cost £700,000, therefore the project had been revisited and it had been confirmed that the health and safety risks in the existing CCTV Control Room could be mitigated.  Some of the saving achieved through not moving would be invested in 5 additional mobile CCTV cameras.  Councillor Garland also informed Members that an audit of existing CCTV cameras would be carried out to test their effectiveness and value for money, as the service was very expensive and was funded only by the Council.  Councillor Ring emphasised that CCTV was not just a town centre initiative, as the 5 additional mobile cameras could be used to target anti-social behaviour hot spots around the Borough.

Mr Petford reminded Members that the Best Value Review of CCTV had recommended leaving the CCTV Control Room in its current location.  Staff, police and other partners did not believe it necessary to have the CCTV Control Room and the CSU in the same location. It was essential to ensure services were being delivered as efficiently as possible in the current economic climate, and leaving the control room where it was would save £278,000 after all health and safety issues had been mitigated.

A Councillor asked why the decision on the CCTV control room had changed.  Councillor Ring stated that the recession had necessitated a review of the Council’s capital programme.  Previous advice had suggested that partners were keen for the CCTV control room to be located within the CSU, and that there were serious health and safety concerns with the current location, however more recent advice indicated that this was not the case.

A Councillor expressed some concern over the proposal to include a fire suppression system in the CCTV cabinets in the control room, as the control room was a confined space with limited oxygen available.  The Committee therefore requested written assurance that the fire suppression system would not present a further health and safety risk to CCTV operators in the event of a fire.

In response to a question, Mr Taylor stated that the new CCTV cameras could be maintained by existing staff.  The audit of the existing cameras would identify the number of arrests attributable to each camera so that the cost benefit of each camera could be identified.  GIS mapping would be used to target mobile cameras  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Louise Smith, advised the Committee that Home Office guidance on the implementation of powers to scrutinise Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) recommended establishing a protocol with CDRP partners to outline mutual expectations and responsibilities.  The draft protocol had been developed with the Committee Chairman and the co-Chairmen of the Safer Maidstone Partnership.

A Councillor asked why paragraph 10.2 stated that the co-opted member from the Kent Police Authority would “be an officer rather than an elected member where possible”.  Miss Smith advised that when the issue of co-option had first been raised with the Committee, Members had agreed that an officer would be preferred to avoid any political conflict.  It was, however, agreed that this line would be removed to give flexibility in the future.

In response to a question, Miss Smith confirmed that the protocols had been approved by the co-opted member for CRDP scrutiny.

Resolved:  That the draft CDRP Scrutiny Protocols be approved subject to the removal of the sentence “This member will be an officer rather than an elected member where possible” from section 10.2.

The Committee considered the update on the Diverse Communities Report.  In response to queries, the Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer explained that one further update would be requested in 6 months, after which updates would only be sought upon request from Members.  Following the retirement of the Community Development and Social Inclusion Manager, responsibility for these areas was currently with the Assistant Director of Customer Services and Partnerships.

Resolved:  That the update on the Diverse Communities Report be noted.

A Councillor raised that no second round for local authorities to make submissions to the ‘national selector body’ under the Sustainable Communities Act had been announced and recommended that the Committee lobbied local MPs for a second round.  The Committee approved this recommendation.

Resolved:  That a letter be sent on behalf of the Committee to local MPs lobbying for a second round for submissions to be made under the Sustainable Communities Act.

The Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer informed the Committee that a representative of Southeastern would be attending the 9 February 2010 meeting, along with Councillor Robertson, the Council’s railways champion, to discuss rail services in the Borough.  A representative of Kent County Council would also be invited to discuss holiday play schemes.

It was noted that a meeting would be held at 10 a.m. on 24 March 2010 in Maidstone House to scrutinise the Safer Maidstone Partnership. 

Resolved:  That the Future Work Programme be notedl; and

That the Committee review the provision of holiday play schemes

6:30 p.m. to 8:35 p.m.