Resolved: That all items be web-cast.

Councillors Paterson, Mortimer, Blackmore, Stockell, Ash, Yates and Parvin sent their apologies.

It was noted that Councillor Fran Wilson was substituting for Councillor Paterson, Councillor Joy was substituting for Councillor Mortimer, Councillor Nelson-Gracie was substituting for Councillor Ash and Councillor Butler was substituting for Councillor Stockell.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures.

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

Resolved: That the minutes of the meetings held on 25 May 2011 be agreed as a correct record of the meeting and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interviews with:

John Littlemore, Head of Housing and Community Safety; and

Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Officer

The Chairman introduced Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Officer and John Littlemore Head of Housing and Community Services.  Ms Kershaw introduced the Draft Housing Strategy. She explained that Maidstone had taken the opportunity to refresh its Housing Strategy at a time when the coalition Government was introducing new legislation affecting housing and the financial climate was making it harder for people to obtain mortgages.  The key aim of the document was to develop Maidstone borough’s urban and rural communities as models for 21^st century quality and sustainable living.  The Officer described it as an overarching plan that would guide the Council and its partners in tackling the major housing challenges facing the borough.  The Strategy was looking ahead, covering 2011-2015, and aligning itself with the Homes and Community Agency’s four year development framework. Members were informed that the Strategy covered two of Maidstone Borough Council’s three priorities; For Maidstone to be a decent place to live and Corporate and customer excellence. The strategy also reflected the vision and long term objectives of the Sustainable Communities Strategy 2009-2020.

Members questioned the gaps in the document. It was explained that the document was a draft and the gaps would be completed as part of the ongoing consultation process and the targets would be informed by those meetings. With regards to targets Members agreed that the document would make more sense if these were referred to as target dates. The Committee felt that the way in which the document demonstrated that its four priorities were actioned could be made clearer by simply changing the order of the four elements used to explain this. Members made a number of suggestions regarding the wording of the document. They were assured that the examples given had been altered at an earlier stage in the consultation process (after the report had been submitted to this Committee).  Officers were able to additionally take on board Members advice on referencing within the document as it was felt that background documents had been used to inform the document in areas such as Risk Targets and other statements. It was agreed a brief footnote highlighting the document or website used would be sufficient. The Committee questioned some of the wording in the document that made reference to legislation that had yet to become law. This led Members to question the timing of the document. Mr Littlemore explained that the Housing Strategy had expired and they had been faced with the choice of waiting or moving forward with the legislation pending.  He told the Committee they had chosen the latter option, making informed assumptions where necessary. Members felt that the wording could be changed to reflect this. The Committee additionally asked that the outcomes for the priorities were altered to read as a statement rather than an explanation for greater impact.

Members specifically queried Priority 3 in the document in relation to Actions. It was highlighted that only small landlords were mentioned.  It was felt that there should be an additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Chairman asked for nominations for representatives for the Joint Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Health Sub Committee.  The Committee was requested to enable the protocol agreed in Maidstone’s Overview and Scrutiny procedure rules based on the principles that Overview and Scrutiny ‘should minimise the additional administrative burdens on local authorities or NHS bodies’. It was also stated in the protocol that District Councils should coordinate or have joint committees to consider local service issues to ensure cross-district issues are dealt with jointly.

Absent Members Councillor Paterson and Councillor Mortimer were nominated and appointed as representatives for the Joint Health Sub Committee.  A third represented could not be appointed due to the level of absence and Substitute Members present.

It was resolved: that a Joint Health Sub Committee with Tunbridge Wells be formed with Councillors Paterson and D Mortimer nominated with an invitation for the 3^rd appointment to the Joint Health Sub Committee should be sent by email to all Members of the Committee and the appointment made at the next meeting.

Members were asked to consider the draft scoping document for the ‘Making waste work for Maidstone’ review.

The Committee discussed ways in which evidence could be sought and the possibilities of co-opting other bodies, members of the public and internal Officers. The Committee felt that it was important to firstly establish where the Council was nationally in the area of waste.  Members also felt that it was important to understand how satisfied businesses were with waste services and in particular the smaller businesses.  The emphasis of the review was stressed as being about reuse and recycling.  The Committee also considered the Scrutiny Officers briefing note which gave the informed perspective of the Waste Services Manager, Jennifer Gosling on the draft scoping document and relevant dates to consider in relation to the tendering process for the new Waste Contract, provided by Steve Goulette, Assistant Director Environment & Regulatory Services. In relation to the advice given by Ms Gosling that the focus should be on medium and small businesses, the Committee felt that their focus should be smaller and independent businesses.

It was resolved that:

a)  Steve Goulette, Assistant Director Environment & Regulatory should be contacted regarding an invitation to co-opt officers to the Committee for the purpose of the waste review;

b)  A representative from Defra should be invited as a witness to inform the Committee;

c)  Background information on Dr Jane Beasley should be provided to the Committee so an informed decision could be made on her suitability as an expert witness;

d)  A public meeting held in the Business Community at either the Federation of Small Businesses or the Marden Business Forum should be added to the scope.  The meeting should provide an open forum for businesses;

e)  The Federation of Small Businesses should be added to the witnesses already suggested;

f)  A visit to the Incinerator and Blaise Farm should be added to the scope as site visits to be organised;

g)  The ‘invitation to tender’ document should be circulated to all Members; and

h)  The briefing note provided should be circulated to absent Members and the updated scope should be circulated to all Members, including Substitute Members present.

The Committee considered their future wok programme and the relevant reports for decision in the Forward Plan.

It was resolved that the Community Development Strategy 2011 to 2016 should be added to the future work programme and the relevant Officers invited to the next meeting.

6.30 p.m. to 8.02 p.m.