Agenda and minutes

The Committee resolved that all items on the agenda be web-cast.

Apologies were received from Councillors Ash, Field and Mrs Stockell.

Councillor Black substituted for Councillor Mrs Stockell.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures.

It was resolved that all items should be taken in public as proposed.

It was resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2011 should be agreed as a correct record of the meeting and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interviews with:

Jim O’Connor, Chief Executive NOAH enterprise;

Steve Gill, Director NOAH enterprise; and

Jennifer Gosling, Waste Manager.

The Chairman welcomed Jim O’Connor Chief Executive and Steve Gill Director from Noah Enterprise. The meeting began with a short presentation which explained the background of the organisation. The Committee were informed that NOAH enterprise would be celebrating its 25 year anniversary having begun in 1987 with little means, providing soup and sandwiches to the homeless in Luton, Bedfordshire.

The organisation had evolved out of a need for furniture for the homeless they housed. Initially this came from donations but the surplus of furniture received provided a starting point from which the organisation had grown. Members were informed that NOAH now found accommodation for over 300 people each year. It was explained that housing was provided by private landlords (Luton had a shortage of Council housing, although the Local authority always tried to meet the need).  Their successful relationship with Private Landlords was attributed to the reputation and behaviour of those they housed.

NOAH took a holistic approach to homelessness and exclusion and their welfare, advice and outreach services included:

• Day centre
• Resettlement and benefits advice
• Drug and alcohol support
• Counselling
• Hot meals
• Healthcare
• Hygiene
• Outreach support to help vulnerable people struggling to cope in their own homes

Mr O’Connor helped convey the organisations ethos and success with examples of those they had helped rehabilitate, predominantly white English men with addictions to alcoholism (70% of those who they dealt with). He described the esteem that working as part of the NOAH enterprise gave and the structure to a life that would have previously been lived in chaos. He explained that a clients two main aspirations were employment and accommodation but the barriers to this included a lack of identification and language difficulties.

It was explained that training was the key tool in breaking the cycle of no money leading to no home and helping people achieve independent living. In 2003 with a £400,000 lottery grant they established a training centre, providing accredited training courses in the following:

• Woodwork and furniture restoration
• White goods refurbishment
• Warehousing
• IT skills
• Life skills

Mr O’Connor explained that becoming a social enterprise was NOAH’s way of contributing to its own sustainability as a charity.  The Social Enterprise included:

• Three Luton-based retail outlets selling a variety of new and used furniture, kitchen appliances, clothing and household goods;
• Furniture and appliance restoration and repair at their two warehouse sites; and
• A second hand furniture and kitchen appliance collection and reuse service.

The Committee highlighted the possible pitfalls of a successful organisation like NOAH with the likelihood of attracting people from surrounding areas.  Mr O’Connor understood their apprehension but explained that this was not a problem at present.  What would alter this would be the legislative changes to Housing Benefit which would change the single room allowance age group from 25 to 35 which could impact on Luton with London as a close neighbour.

Members referenced similar organisations in Maidstone such as the Beacon Centre, explaining that they had struggled to achieve the balance between human need and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Interview with Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager

The Chairman introduced Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager and Ryan O’Connell, Corporate Projects and Overview and Scrutiny Manager. The purpose of the report was to establish the Council’s approach to the bigger society and outlined a pot of £100k that the communities could bid for to deliver the bigger society.

Members questioned whether the funding allocated would be match funded and questioned why this had not been made clearer in the report.  Mr O’Connell explained that the report was primarily about establishing Maidstone’s role as an enabler or facilitator and setting up the pot of money.  As a result the report was  very open and restrictions would not be put in place until people begun coming forward and informed decisions could be made.  In addition to the budget allocation of £100,000, Members were informed that Officer time and expertise would be allocated to this as well as a matching website which would put different entities in touch with each other which would help signpost organisations at no extra cost to the Council. Miss Kershaw informed Members that the Bigger Society already existed where certain issues such as a local post office or library closure had resonated with a local community. A community group may begin in this way but Maidstone Borough Council would enable them to carry on past the initial project or starting point as part of the Big Society. In terms of making the public aware of the Bigger Society there would be work with business on corporate and social responsibility funds and a roadshow to engage with the community.

Members emphasised the need to balance cuts from other services when considering proposals and not just to focus on innovation. Members were informed that a business case would be asked for and an assessment would be made in relations to service gaps in the early stages of all proposals considered.

It was recommended that the Bigger Society programme should progress to Cabinet for Maidstone Borough Council to mover forward with the Bigger Society.

The Committee consider the Forward Plan and their Future Work Programme.  Members felt that a written update from the Local Strategic Partnership on Locality Boards would be sufficient for them to consider.

The Waste Review was discussed and the draft report which the Committee would consider at their January meeting.  Members resolved that they should see sight of this as early as possible.

It was resolved that:

a)  A written update should be requested on Locality Boards; and

b)  The draft Waste review report should be circulated to Members at the earliest venture.

6.30 p.m. to 8.36 p.m.