Resolved:  That all items be web-cast.

No apologies were received.

There were none.

Cllr Fran Wilson was present as a Visiting Member.

There were none.

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

Resolved:  That the Minutes of the Partnerships and Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting of 17 September 2010 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

Resolved: That Agenda item 9, The Local Strategic Partnership Update be taken before Agenda item 8, Local Strategic Partnership – Safer Maidstone Partnership.

Interview with:

Martin Adams, Chairman of the Safer Maidstone Partnership

Zena Cooke, Director of Regeneration and Communities and Sarah Robson, Community Partnerships Manager were welcomed to the Meeting.

Zena Cooke began by highlighting to the Committee that there had been little information provided by the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) over the past 12 months. Ms Cooke then put the LSP into context by explaining that it was a non- statutory body that brought together public, private, voluntary and community sector partners to improve the quality of life for everyone living and working in Maidstone. It had an overarching vision to deliver the priorities set out in the Sustainable Communities Strategy through community engagement and involvement. The officer explained that the LSP’s primary purpose was to deliver outcomes for Maidstone residents based on the priorities set with the community.

The desire, she explained, had been to review and refresh the LSP and clarify its role. It was agreed 12 months ago by the then board to review the terms of reference and objectives, the membership and criteria for membership. Members raised concerns about wider engagement being lost in the reducing and refocusing of the LSP priorities. Wider engagement, it was stressed by the officer, would not be lost. In line with national best practice there was now an LSP reference group in place. The LSP reference group, she explained, demonstrates ‘a backward look’ giving the LSP an opportunity for developing for the future. The reference group were in the process of contacting all partners and stakeholders providing information on the role of the LSP. The reference group allowed for wider engagement with stakeholders including the business and voluntary sectors as well as special interest groups. The officer explained that Voluntary Action Maidstone was currently providing details of the LSP to over 400 voluntary organisations to see if they would be interested in joining the LSP. The officer explained that when considering priorities it was done on the basis of evidence and research, this had included Scrutiny reports for example the recent road safety review.

It was stressed that the structure of the LSP was not set in stone and that the constitution required the membership to be reviewed to ensure it does not become outdated. It was highlighted that the LSP should be apolitical and the chairs of the LSP delivery groups were independent from the council. A member raised concern regarding the Town Centre Management’s representation and requested that this be followed up. Visiting member Cllr Fran Wilson highlighted issues in this area with regard to the juxtaposition of influential persons in the delivery groups and their vested interests. She did not feel it should preclude them from taking part but suggested that a manner similar to the way in which Councillors declare their interests be adopted. The officer agreed that any prejudicial interests should be cited.

The officer gave the current position of the LSP and what had been achieved so far. The LSP had completed Phase 1 of resource mapping. This involved assessing the total public service and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Interview with:

·  Zena Cooke, Director of Regeneration and Communities; and

·  Sarah Robson, Community Partnerships Manager

Martin Adams, Chairman of the Safer Maidstone Partnership and Sarah Gupwell, Detective Inspector were welcomed to the Meeting, joining Zena Cooke and Sarah Robson.

The Chairman of the Safer Maidstone Partnership (SMP) began by explaining his background as Area Manager of Kent Fire and Rescue to the Committee. He stressed that he was an independent chairman and not acting as a representative of Kent Fire and Rescue. He explained that it was clear that the Partnership was trying to ensure it was not solely focussed on the police and had sought to be more inclusive and look more broadly at how they deliver their work.

The first decision, he felt, was to look at the membership. The SMP are a delivery group within the Local Strategic Partnership.. Mr Adams explained that it was important to have the right people around the table to provide value and make a difference to the community and people of Maidstone including the voluntary sector. He explained that it was also important to have people at the right level who could allocate resources and make decisions.

Currently the SMP had 9 priorities. The officer explained that the SMP were reviewing the working groups and the priorities alongside the Strategic Assessment. With priorities such as Road Safety they were looking at and the impact this had on Fire, Police, Highways, and Mental Health and the broader effects. They were working towards reducing the priorities to 4.

The Committee questioned the name of the Delivery Group as it had been referred to as the Community Safety Partnership as well as the Safer Maidstone Partnership. Zena Cooke clarified this for the Committee explaining that the legislative name was the Community Safety Partnership but the group should be definitively known as the Safer Maidstone Partnership.

The officer went on to explain some of the work the SMP had been involved in such as looking at the Royal Engineers Barracks in Maidstone in relation to reducing Road Traffic Accidents. He explained that they had carried out a risk assessment and had found that the attitude of the soldiers in terms of risk was understandably different coming back from Afghanistan. An additional action was the Smart Water initiative carried out with local parishes and other groups. This involved marking valuable items with a liquid that had a unique chemical signature which allowed it to be traced.

The group had also been tackling Domestic Violence which they had identified as a priority. Sarah Gupwell explained that an out of hours service was being provided by an independent domestic violence coordinator at Maidstone Police Station on Friday and Saturday nights. The Independent Domestic Violence Coordinator acted in an advisory capacity to victims, was not a Police Officer and was not part of the judicial system.

Members questioned the prosecution process in Domestic Violence cases where the authorities want to prosecute but victims do not want to proceed.  The Detective Inspector explained that the Domestic Violence Coordinator was there foremost to support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The Committee considered the future work programme and agreed that they would be happy to accept a written report from the Cabinet Member but would like to see the Leader in January.

Resolved:

a)  That the future work programme should be amended to allow for the Leader to be seen in January; and   

b)  That a written report should be requested from the Cabinet Member.

6.30pm to 8.20pm.