Agenda and minutes

It was resolved that all items be webcast.

Apologies were received from Councillor Mrs Parvin.

Councillor Butler substituted for Councillor Mrs Parvin.

Councillor Burton was present as a Visiting Member with an interest in Item 8, Neighbourhood Action Planning.

Members made the following disclosures of interest in relation to Item 8 Neighbourhood Action Planning:

• Councillor FitzGerald – Chairman and Trustee of Fusion Healthy Living Centre;
• Councillor Burton – Trustee of Fusion Healthy Living Centre; and
• Councillor Hinder – Former Director, Golding Homes.

Councillors Field, FitzGerald, Paterson, Mortimer and Hinder all made disclosures of lobbying in relation to Item 9, Community Development Strategy.

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

It was resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2012 should be agreed as a correct record of the meeting and duly signed.

Interviews with:

·  Sarah Robson, Community Partnerships Manager;

·  Councillor Marion Ring, Cabinet Member for Environment;

·  Representatives from Parents is the Word;

·  Caroline McBride, Head of Community Development, Golding Homes;

·  Eddie Walsh, Kent Youth Service; and

·  Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Sara Hutchinson, Manager at Fusion Healthy Living Centre, Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager, Sarah Robson, Community Partnerships Manager, Caroline McBride, Head of Community Development at Golding Homes, Richard Cannecot, Head of Regeneration at Golding Homes, Councillor Marion Ring, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Jackie Pye, Chairman, Bulk Buy Scheme at Park Wood and Jade Webster, Chairman, Parents is the Word.

The Chairman invited Caroline McBride and Richard Cannecott to give a presentation on behalf of Golding Homes.  This detailed Golding Homes’ involvement in Neighbourhood Action Planning following the Planning for Real process in Park Wood. As a strategic partner they had supported the process financially and additionally through staff involvement and consultation support.  Members were informed that there had been 20 to 25 consultation sessions held at Park Wood.

The Committee were told that Park Wood was a priority area in terms of regeneration. It was explained that there had been significant regeneration in the area and the Planning for Real process had given the organisation an opportunity to engage with residents in a meaningful way and they had sought to build on this.

It was explained that Golding Homes had chosen to look at the whole of Park Wood and as a result the regeneration proposal was going to take place in 3 phases.  Members were informed that Golding Homes had wanted to present the regeneration project to stakeholders and other parties.  This desire had led to a recent four day exhibition.  Golding Homes had used the exhibition as an opportunity to gather feedback from residents, completing 160 feedback forms.  From this they were able to gauge whether the regeneration proposals were endorsed by residents.  Mr Cannecot reported positive feedback in relation to the schemes design.  Residents were said to favour houses to flats and the inclusion of external storage facilities with properties.  CCTV was deemed to be important also.

Mr Cannecott explained that Golding Homes was focused on diversifying the tenure of its housing stock, that at present was mainly socially rented.  Members were informed that if residents were living in an area they were happy they would be more likely to buy their property.

The Committee questioned the approach taken by Golding Homes with regards to setting time frames and informing residents.  It was explained that in relation to the regeneration of Park Wood Golding Homes would not let areas of housing where residents would have to move after a short period of time. Residents had been informed on the entire regeneration project and the 3 phases involved so that there was an awareness of the larger plan for the area. A five year timescale was set. Phase 1 would be completed by the end of the first year, Phase 2 in 18-24 months and Phase 3 in three years. Mr Cannecott explained that Government funding had disappeared after the initial engagement with the community but at the end of 2011 the situation changed which was why Golding Homes were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

Interview with Sarah Robson, Community Partnerships Manager.

Sarah Robson, Community Partnerships Manager, explained that the Community Development Strategy was out for consultation until the end of March.  The document had been set around three priorities and against each priority there were action based outcomes.  

Some Members were disappointed that as a Maidstone Borough Council the strategy said too little about what the Council would do, concentrating on Kent County Council and the Locality Board.

Members highlighted the information presented on Maidstone as a place.  It was felt it read too much like a tourist brochure and should include the priorities and challenges faced by community.

Other areas highlighted included Community Commissioning, it was felt that this term should be explained and the section expanded further. 

Where quantitative data was used it was noted that there was an inconsistency in the approach taken across the report. It was felt that the use of percentages could be misleading in terms of transparency and accessibility to the public. Members suggested that one uniform approach was taken.

With reference to worklessness, the Committee asked that youth unemployment be referenced within the document and addressed separately to include Anti Social Behaviour and how Maidstone hoped to address this with diversionary activities. Mrs Robson explained that the Community Development Team which included Community Partnerships and Community Safety would be less focused on sports and play activities in the future and would have the ability to develop a programme focused on this.

Members questioned whether homelessness should also be considered in the document.  Miss Kershaw informed the Committee that this was already addressed within the Housing Strategy.  Mrs Robson told Members that there was an opportunity to cross reference it within the document.

Members questioned how the consultation had been carried out.  The Officer explained that the first stage had been to circulate the document internally to Parishes, staff and Councillors.  The second stage had been to consult with the community and voluntary sector via Voluntary Action Maidstone. The document had been advertised to the public in the Kent Messenger and had also been taken to the Locality Board.

Some Members felt that with regards to consultation with parishes the consultation process had been too short as Parishes met on a monthly basis.

The Chairman invited Dr Speight, a member of the public in attendance, to speak.  Dr Speight questioned the consultation process and the way in which the public had been consulted. Mrs Robson informed Dr Speight that the public had been consulted via the Kent Messenger, the Council’s website and existing networks.

Dr Speight felt that the community had been excluded from the consultation process.  He felt that there had been a lack of consultation with the public and it was made difficult for people to become involved.

The Chairman referred to Dr Speight’s letter which had been used to lobby some Members.  It was felt that it did not relate specifically to the Community Development Strategy but should be noted.

It was resolved that:

a)  The section describing Maidstone should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

The Committee considered its future work programme and the Forward plan of Key decisions.  It was agreed that that the final meeting should be to approve the Committee’s reports for the year.

It was resolved that the Committee should approve its review report at the April meeting.

6.33 p.m. to 9.08 p.m.