Public Document Pack

A G E N D A

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Monday 9 February 2015 at 6.30 pm Committee Room A, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS

Members: Councillor Rankin (Chairman), Councillors Hills (Vice-Chairman), Chapelard, Dawlings, Derrick, Gray, Hill, Ms Palmer, Rogers, Scholes, Waldock and Woodward

Quorum 3 Members

1 Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

2 Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer.

3 Minutes of Previous Meetings (Pages 1 - 18) Minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting dated 1 December 2014 and the minutes of the special Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting dated 12 January 2015. The Chairman will move that the minutes of the previous meetings be signed as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy. Procedure rules applicable to all meetings Part 4, section 6.

4 Items Called in under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 13 If there are any ‘Call-in’ items, details will have been circulated to Members under separate cover.

5 Chairman's Introduction

6 Relative Position of the West Kent Economy (Pages 19 - 40) Councillor Jane March, Portfolio-holder for Tourism, Leisure and Economic Development, and Hilary Smith, Economic Development Manager, will attend the meeting to provide an update on the work of the West Kent Partnership.

Issued on Friday, 30 January 2015 Contact Officer: Mike McGeary, Democratic Services Officer Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS Telephone: 01892 554105 [email protected]

2

Their presentation will include the recently-commissioned Partnership report that examines the success or otherwise of West Kent in drawing in external resources to support economic development in West Kent and what might be done to attract additional investment.

7 Portfolio -holder Plans and Progress (Pages 41 - 46) Councillor Alan McDermott, Planning and Transportation Portfolio-holder, will attend the meeting to provide an update on his portfolio area.

8 Contract Management Procedures (Pages 47 - 52) Gary Stevenson, Head of Environment and Street Scene, and Paul Shipley, the new Contracts Manager, will attend the meeting, to explain the authority’s contract management procedures.

9 Key Decisions To consider a report on the issue of what defines a ‘key decision’, following the motion to full Council on 10 December 2014. (Report to follow)

10 Work Programme 2014/15 (Pages 53 - 54)

11 Date of the next meeting The next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will take place on Monday 13 April 2015 at 6.30pm. Please note that there is also a provisional date of Monday 23 February 2015 for a ‘co-located’ meeting with Maidstone and Swale Borough Councils, which will be held at Maidstone.

William Benson Chief Executive

All visitors wishing to attend a public meeting at the Town Hall between the hours of 9.am and 5.00pm should report to reception via the side entrance in Monson Way. After 5pm, access will be via the front door on the corner of Crescent Road and Mount Pleasant Road, except for disabled access, which will continue by use of an ‘out of hours’ button at the entrance in Monson Way.

Notes on Procedure

(1) Members seeking factual information about agenda items are requested to contact the appropriate Service Manager prior to the meeting.

Agenda Item 3 1

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Monday, 1 December 2014

Present: Councillor Catherine Rankin (Chair) Councillors Hills (Vice-Chairman), Chapelard, Derrick, Gray, Hill, Ms Palmer, Scholes, Waldock and Woodward

Officers in attendance: Lee Colyer (Finance Director), Holly Goring (Policy and Performance Manager) and Mike McGeary (Democratic Services Officer)

Other member in attendance: Councillor Webb

Member of public registered to speak: Tony Pawson

Other member of public in attendance: Michael Doyle

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

OSC38/14 Apologies for absence were reported from Councillor Rogers.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

OSC39/14 There were no declarations made, within the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

OSC40/14 The minutes of the meeting dated 13 October 2014 were submitted.

The Chairman, Councillor Rankin, referred to minute OSC28/14 – minutes of the meeting dated 11 August 2014 – under which Councillor Webb had queried the wording in respect of minute OSC89/13 (Call-in of Public Access Car Club). She advised that she had given Councillor Webb the opportunity to clarify his view but that, in the absence of such discussion, she felt the minutes of the 13 October meeting – whereby the Committee agreed the minutes of the call-in – should now be accepted as a true record.

The Chairman provided a short update on minute OSC31/14 – Portfolio- holder plans and progress – under which Councillor March had reported. Councillor Chapelard had been absent from the October meeting; knowing of his concerns about the contractor’s maintenance standards in Grosvenor and Hilbert Park, the Chairman had raised this issue with Councillor March. The Chairman therefore asked Councillor Chapelard whether he was content with the proposed way forward. Councillor Chapelard advised that the contractor had been given a deadline of spring next year to ensure full compliance with the specification and it was therefore agreed that no further action was necessary at this stage.

In respect of minute OSC14 – health overview and scrutiny – the Chairman reminded the Committee that there would be a member briefing taking place on Tuesday evening on the topic of ‘Health & the Clinical Commissioning Group’, presented by its Chairman, Dr Bob Bowes. The Chairman urged attendance at the briefing, which she felt would benefit Committee members in their Overview and Scrutiny responsibilities.

Page 1 Agenda Item 3 2

Finally, in respect of minute OSC34/14 – electoral review – the Chairman advised that the recommendations of this Committee had been accepted by the full Council. She added that it would therefore be necessary for the Electoral Review Task and Finish Group to meet and progress the further actions necessary, before it reported back to the full Council in the Autumn 2015.

Councillor Rankin then invited the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Hills, to provide a short update on the work of the Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership (MKIP) Joint Task and Finish Group. Councillor Hills explained that the Task and Finish Group was reviewing two specific issues within the Group’s remit, namely governance and communications.

Councillor Hills reported that, so far, the Group had held five evidence- gathering sessions, with a further meeting scheduled for the following week. He advised that the main purpose of that meeting was to formulate a set of recommendations acceptable to the Group’s members from the three partnership authorities, namely: Maidstone, Swale and Tunbridge Wells. A full report would then be drafted and agreed, before being presented to the tripartite meeting of the three Overview and Scrutiny Committees, arranged for Monday 12 January 2015.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 13 October 2014 be approved as a correct record.

ITEMS CALLED IN UNDER OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULE 13

OSC41/14 There were no items which had been called in that required discussion.

SEWERAGE CAPACITY AND NEW DEVELOPMENT

OSC42/14 The Vice-Chairman, Councillor Hills, had led the task and finish group appointed to examine the general issue of foul and surface water drainage in the Borough. He explained that the matter had been brought to the Committee’s attention by Mr Pawson, Chairman of the Warwick Park Area Residents’ Association and their concerns about issues affecting residents in their area.

Councillor Hills wished to thank the former Overview and Scrutiny officers involved in writing the report, namely Ben Bix and Neil White. He added that, although the report had taken some time to evolve, the recommendations had identified practical ways to address the issues that had created the past problems. It was therefore important to ensure these recommendations were carried through, he emphasised.

The Chairman stressed the importance of the group’s work, explaining that it had not been clear how issues of sewerage capacity had been approached historically.

Attention was drawn to the recommendations of the task and finish group, set out on page 11 of the agenda papers.

Councillor Webb, who had registered to speak on this item, addressed the Committee. He felt that, while the recommendations would help to address

Page 2 Agenda Item 3 3

the issues raised, they were not being directed to the right people or authorities, as they were not all within the ambit of the Planning Committee.

The Chairman said that Councillor Webb had mis-read the recommendations and that only (A)(1) and (2) were directed towards the Planning Committee.

Mr Tony Pawson, Chairman of the Warwick Park Area Residents’ Association, who had first raised the issue of sewerage capacity in the Warwick Park area of Tunbridge Wells, had also registered to speak at the meeting. He summarised the problems being caused to residents by the inadequate sewerage system and the unsatisfactory response he had received from Southern Water. His request for Borough Council support for the affected property-owners was in two parts: (i) help in applying pressure on Southern Water to address the problem; and (ii) in respect of the wider issue, securing a commitment that, where new development was approved, a planning condition should be applied, requiring additional sewerage capacity to be provided, to prevent further overloading of existing pipework; this, Mr Pawson added, was not least because it was an old, ‘combined’ system, that had to accommodate both foul and surface water.

Councillor Scholes advised that he had been made aware of the view of Southern Water in respect of the Tunbridge Wells Shooting Club site – land leased to them by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. Southern Water, he added, had stated that new or improved sewage infrastructure was required, before additional flows from the site could be accommodated.

Councillor Waldock asked whether OFWAT had been consulted as part of the process to date. He felt that there might be a technical solution based upon ‘holding tanks’ being installed, to alleviate the pressures on the existing system.

Councillor Hills said he believed that, once the authority had recruited to the current technical officer post within the Sustainability team, the Borough Council would be in a stronger position to play a more effective communications role over flooding and sewerage issues within the Borough, (as set out in recommendation (E)).

In commending the quality of the research undertaken, the Chairman sought clarity over recommendation (D), under which parish and town councils and residents’ associations were being encouraged to maintain records of flooding incidents. Holly Goring, the Policy and Performance Manager, felt that there were some practical ways in which this could be achieved, including inviting Southern Water to address the Town Forum and the Parish Chairmen’s group, as well as publicity being provided through TWBC’s “Local” magazine.

The Chairman referred to recommendation (A), which if approved would involve the Planning Committee, and asked whether the Committee felt the wording should be strengthened by changing “carefully consider the inclusion of appropriate conditions” to “requested to include appropriate conditions”. There was unanimous support from the members of the Committee for this proposal.

Councillor Scholes asked what process would be followed to implement recommendation (A). Miss Goring advised that the most appropriate route

Page 3 Agenda Item 3 4

would be examined and that she would update the Committee at its meeting in February.

In summing up, the Chairman thanked Mr Pawson for raising this important issue with the Borough Council. She added that, while the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had no direct powers to act, it did have influence and pressure it could apply. The Chairman also thanked the members of the task and finish group for their thoroughness and application.

RESOLVED –

(1) That recommendation (A)(1) of the task and finish group be amended to read: That the Council’s Planning Committee be requested to (1) include appropriate conditions, where necessary, on a case by case basis, in planning consents that could lead to an increase in sewage discharged to the standard public sewerage system or to an old combined system (surface water and sewage in the same pipes); and

(2) That recommendations (A)(2) and (B) to (E) be supported unamended.

(Councillor Hills withdrew from the meeting at this point, in order to attend a public meeting in Paddock Wood.)

PORTFOLIO-HOLDER PLANS AND PROGRESS

OSC43/14 The Chairman welcomed Councillor Rusbridge, portfolio-holder for Finance and Governance, to the meeting, to present his priorities for the year and to say how the Overview and Scrutiny Committee might help to achieve those ambitions.

Councillor Rusbridge thanked the Committee members for the opportunity to speak on the key aspects of his portfolio, under which he spoke of the intention for the Borough Council to deliver another balanced budget and aim to repeat the achievement of another ‘clean’ external Annual Audit. Councillor Rusbridge also drew attention to the very high collection rate for both council tax and business rates, the former being particularly noteworthy at a time when national government policy had meant that many residents were now paying council tax for the first time; this had been achieved, he stressed, because of the high level of engagement with individuals ahead of their obligation to pay but also through continued support, financial and otherwise. This, he felt, showed how the authority was following a business-like approach but with a strong element of caring for its residents in their debt management.

Councillor Rusbridge illustrated how the same principle had been followed in the Council’s approach towards helping small businesses to become established, through the ‘small business rate relief’ scheme.

He also described how the authority would benefit from a pooling of business rates across the county, which it was envisaged would assist with the growth of the local economy.

Finally, Councillor Rusbridge drew attention to the following significant topics: first, the importance attached to ‘digital first’ in the provision of Council

Page 4 Agenda Item 3 5

services, an initiative where he stressed that all members had a role to play; secondly, an award from the Transformation Challenge Fund, under which the Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership would benefit to the sum of £569k in promoting the digital delivery of services where appropriate and effective, for which Tunbridge Wells would be the lead authority.

The Chairman of the Committee sought further details about the business rate pooling initiative. Lee Colyer, the Finance Director, explained how this arrangement would reduce the ‘tariff’ element paid to central government, which the participating districts – and KCC – would benefit from, thus enabling retention of a larger share of business rates collected. While the exact sum from which Tunbridge Wells would benefit had not yet been determined, Mr Colyer felt that this was likely to be in the region of £50k.

Councillor Woodward asked how the level of council tax collected was assessed, i.e. was it according to the number of properties or the value of the sum achieved. Mr Colyer advised that it was on the basis of the value of the liability in a particular year.

Councillor Woodward referred to Mr Colyer’s description in his Cabinet report to ‘spending power’, a universal benchmarking indicator developed by central government, to enable comparisons between councils, to show how much funding each council received per household to provide local services. From this, it was shown that Tunbridge Wells had by far the lowest spending power in Kent. Councillor Woodward asked what action the authority could take, to improve this situation.

Councillor Rusbridge advised that this was one of the topics for discussion with Greg Clark MP; he added that this was a good example of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council being proactive in trying to address issues of concern, rather than passively accepting them.

Mr Colyer next summarised the report on the Council’s draft budget for 2015/16, which had been circulated with the agenda. Page 31 of the agenda contained a table, which provided headings for how the authority planned to deliver a balanced budget. Mr Colyer took each item and provided the Committee with details of how each element could be achieved. He stressed that this report, if approved by the Cabinet on 4 December, would form the basis of a public consultation process, running until 16 January 2015.

The Chairman next invited members of the Committee to comment on the draft budget, beginning with a visiting member, Councillor Webb, who had registered to speak on this issue. She particularly asked how the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could input into the achievement of the balanced budget.

Councillor Webb praised the work of the Finance Director. He drew attention to the table of risk areas in the compilation of the draft budget, as follows: (i) Land Charges – how will the potential centralisation of this service (under the control of the Land Registry) affect the Borough Council’s budget forecast? (ii) S106 agreements – he had learnt that day that local authority planning authorities would no longer be able to insist on S106 contributions for developments below a specific level. He asked how that would be taken into account in the budget forecasts.

Page 5 Agenda Item 3 6

Mr Colyer advised that S106 developer contributions, in the main, related to capital expenditure; he added that they were not, therefore, taken into account for budget forecasting purposes. On the Land Charges issue and the Government’s Infrastructure Bill, Mr Colyer advised that the authority had invested heavily in improved IT systems to operate this in recent years, but this had been reflected in increased revenue from the service. He felt that, given the track-record of some government-led IT systems, the proposed centralisation of this service was a high risk step. As for its impact on the authority’s budget processes, Mr Colyer had flagged it up as a risk but he did not feel it was necessary, at this point, to adjust the forecast figures.

Councillor Scholes referred to the continuing reduction in core government grant, which was running at the rate of 8.5% per annum. He acknowledged the benefit of the authority’s current policy of disposing of non-performing assets and of investing some of our capital reserves in schemes which would guarantee a long-term revenue stream. His concern, he advised, was that the authority should not be spending any of its reserves on schemes which failed to show any on-going revenue benefit, citing the Five Ways public realm scheme as an example. He voiced similar concerns over the current proposals for a Cultural and Learning Hub, where he felt there would be a continuing revenue commitment rather than income stream. By contrast, Councillor Scholes felt that the John Street car park scheme was a good example of where the use of capital reserves would guarantee the authority a long-term revenue income stream. He was also supportive of the proposals for the Kevin Lynes small business unit scheme and the Mount Pleasant Avenue project. In summary, he sought an assurance from Councillor Rusbridge that the authority would follow a more cautious approach in the future use of capital reserves.

Councillor Rusbridge acknowledged the point made and supported the principle expressed. However, he felt that the Borough Council also had a duty to encourage growth in the local economy, including schemes such as the public realm highway improvements, where the authority’s investment – alongside that of KCC – would result in a general boost to small and larger businesses in the town.

On the John Street car park proposal, he advised that the business case did indeed guarantee an on-going revenue income but he added that the original proposal – which would have seen a greater return for the Borough Council – had been scaled back after taking account of the views of people in the immediate area. Thus, he advised, what had resulted was a scheme which benefitted both the authority and the local economy.

The Chairman focused on the authority’s definition of a balanced budget, set out on page 31 of the agenda. She recalled a figure of £2m which used to be the sum earmarked for specific projects. She noted from the report that this ‘earmarked’ reserve figure had grown to £11.85m and asked Councillor Rusbridge what restraints were placed upon the Cabinet over this significantly larger sum.

Mr Colyer advised that it was a full Council decision to set the level of earmarked reserves out of the authority’s General Fund. He added that, while it was for the Cabinet to agree earmarked reserve expenditure, all such decisions were subject to the call-in procedure, thus a high level of control existed.

Page 6 Agenda Item 3 7

Councillor Chapelard asked how much accumulated expenditure there was on ‘one-off’ priority items, citing the Crematorium and the Assembly Hall as recent examples. Mr Colyer advised that items such as those highlighted would all come out of the £11.85m earmarked reserve.

This prompted the Chairman to enquire how much the authority currently held in its reserves. Mr Colyer confirmed that this was a figure of approximately £19m. He advised that the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy had set a figure of £4m as the minimum level of reserves it should hold, adding that the authority did not budget for possible capital gains throughout the year in its forecasting.

Mr Colyer was asked to explain how the authority had dealt with its capital receipts from when it sold its housing stock in 1992. He advised that, although a capital sum of £55m had been received, the housing stock itself carried an approximate £22m debt; the Council had also committed to help fund 500 new homes at £3.6m and meet liabilities and warranties of £3m on the housing stock. The situation was not, therefore, as straight forward a transaction as it first appeared, Mr Colyer advised. He added that, since 1992, the authority had invested a great deal in capital schemes and currently held property worth in excess of £100m.

The Chairman raised two further issues: (i) first, she felt that heads of service should be proactive in raising issues of future upgrading of facilities, to provide a clearer picture of subsequent financial commitment; (ii) secondly, she focused on S106 developer contributions which, she stressed, were intended to provide facilities which brought a level of compensation for local communities to mitigate against the impact of new development. She felt that sums should be set aside and built up to provide for the future maintenance, refurbishment and replacement of such facilities.

On the first issue, Mr Colyer advised that the opportunity existed to do this each year as part of the setting of the capital programme.

Councillor Chapelard asked why the authority did not seriously consider the option of holding a referendum (as required by statute) if it wished to increase council tax by more than the capped limit of 2%. He felt it was a viable proposal if it were undertaken on the same day as scheduled elections. Mr Colyer acknowledged that, while this would certainly cut the cost of holding a referendum, the Council was prohibited by law from promoting the benefits of exceeding the 2% capped limit. He therefore felt that the proposal might not be in the authority’s best interests.

Councillor Chapelard then asked how the authority could avoid a financial crisis point. Mr Colyer advised that it was not expected that Tunbridge Wells would face a crisis, due to the policies put in place in recent years. However, he felt that some other authorities would face such a situation. When asked what changes at a national level would help local government, Mr Colyer felt that: (i) there should be greater freedom to set council tax levels locally; (ii) the current council tax bands, based on 1990s property values, were in urgent need of revision, as the gaps between bands failed to reflect modern- day property values; (iii) the existing policy of 25% discount given to single occupiers of domestic property would benefit from being reviewed, because of the burden it places on remaining council tax payers; and (iv) centrally-set

Page 7 Agenda Item 3 8

fees and charges, such as those relating to planning applications, should instead be set at a local level, giving local authorities the chance to recover their costs rather than, as happened in Tunbridge Wells, having council tax payers subsidising the users of the service.

Councillor Woodward drew attention to the proposal to achieve staff savings and efficiencies of £138k during 2015/16. He asked how this would be achieved without an adverse impact on services. Mr Colyer advised that this sum had been collated from the proposals put forward by heads of service, in agreement with their relevant portfolio-holder.

Councillor Woodward felt that there would be some benefit from wider member discussion on elements of this proposal; Mr Colyer advised that he was happy to discuss any aspect with members.

In contrast to the staff cost savings which had been identified, Councillor Woodward asked for further information on the anticipated £130k additional staff costs within the Planning Service. Mr Colyer advised that this was on the basis of significant increased activity, adding that it was distinct from the Planning support process.

The Chairman sought clarification over the reduction in staff numbers, expressed in ‘full-time equivalents’ (FTEs). Mr Colyer had earlier advised that the number of FTEs had reduced in recent years from just over 400 to its current level of 270. She asked how significant the Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership (MKIP) model of service delivery was in comparing these figures. Mr Colyer advised that the MKIP initiative was a factor, adding that, in many cases, staff operating from the Town Hall were now employed by one of the other MKIP authorities, although Tunbridge Wells Borough Council paid a percentage of their salary costs. Both the Chairman and Councillor Scholes said that this showed the value of expressing changes over a period of time not in FTE terms but in the cost of providing services.

The Chairman asked how much additional income was being achieved from car park charges now applicable after 6pm. Mr Colyer advised that this was approximately £70k for the year.

In conclusion, the Committee agreed that there were two specific aspects of the portfolio-holder report on which recommendations should be made, as set out below.

RESOLVED –

(1) That the Committee asks the Cabinet to note its concerns about the continued use of the authority’s capital reserves for projects, particularly where there are no obvious on-going revenue benefits, and the longer term impact this will have on the authority’s financial stability; and

(2) That the Committee welcomes feedback from the Portfolio-holder for Finance and Governance on the outcome of discussions held with the MP for Tunbridge Wells in response to concerns about the future treatment of local government and the compelling case for far greater local decision-making.

Page 8 Agenda Item 3 9

DRAFT CORPORATE PRIORITIES 2015/16

OSC44/14 Holly Goring, the Policy and Performance Manager, presented the draft list of corporate priorities for 2015/16, which was based on the Council’s adopted Five Year Plan. She stressed that the 14 priorities listed were essentially a continuation of the current year’s list.

Miss Goring added that this was one of three important strategic issues being consulted upon between now and 16 January, the others being the draft budget for 2015/16 and the draft Asset Management Plan.

Councillor Chapelard referred to project 11 – phase 2 of the public realm enhancements in Tunbridge Wells town centre. He felt there was an urgent need to assess the benefits of phase 1 before the next stage was considered. Councillor Gray felt that the benefit of this initiative was largely in its support of the local economy, as discussed under minute OSC43/13 above and would be difficult to quantify, ahead of the next phase of the scheme. Councillor Derrick also pointed to the support expressed by the business community at the time when public consultation on this project had taken place.

Councillor Scholes believed that subsequent phases of this scheme could realistically only take place once the economic climate was right.

Visiting member Councillor Webb reiterated his strong objections to the public realm scheme and felt that there was no justification in approving any further phases.

Councillor Woodward felt that, generally, the intention behind each corporate priority listed was clear and transparent, but he queried whether that was the case with the public realm scheme. The Chairman acknowledged the point. She said that the lesson learnt was that there should be greater awareness of the link between the corporate priorities and the capital programme, adding that, if there were confusion amongst members then the same was probably true amongst the public. On the public realm scheme, the Chairman added, there might be a role to play for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in taking a look back at the scheme costs.

For the immediate future, the Chairman expressed some concerns about any delay in subsequent phases, on the basis that this might have affected the earlier support voiced for the overall project if it had been known that its extension might be delayed for some significant time. However, she acknowledged that a proper business case had to made for subsequent phases, within the context of the earlier discussion about the impact on the authority’s capital reserves. She asked that Miss Goring feed back the Committee’s views to the Cabinet on this specific corporate priority.

Councillor Hill focused on priority 10, which stated that the authority would “work with parish and town councils to help them take control of local services”. She wondered how realistic this was within the context of local councils and their ability to fund these services. Miss Goring advised that this objective related also to community groups; she added that parish and town councils were not subject to the same capping restrictions in their precept- raising ability.

Councillor Waldock felt that priority 10 did not spell out the full detail. He

Page 9 Agenda Item 3 10

believed that much pressure had been applied to parish and town councils to take on some of these discretionary services currently operated by the Borough Council, leaving them in a difficult negotiating position.

Miss Goring referred to the extensive discussions which had been held with parish and town councils over this issue, leading to a number of compromises having been offered at the previous week’s Parish Chairmen’s meeting, which had been welcomed and supported by the group.

Councillor Woodward referred to priority 9 – “work with parish and town councils to support them in the development of community facilities”. He believed the unparished area of the Borough could benefit from the same approach but it appeared that this was not catered for.

In summary, the Chairman asked Miss Goring to feed back the individual comments made by Committee members, with the point being made that there were no collective resolutions made.

RESOLVED – That the Policy and Performance Manager report the individual views of the Committee to the Cabinet, as set out above.

WORK PROGRAMME 2014/15

OSC45/14 The Committee considered their work programme for the following 12 month period.

Councillor Webb had registered to speak on this item. He drew attention to the two references to S106 funding. He felt that the authority was not always using its S106 contributions correctly and asked if this aspect could be included in the work programme.

The Chairman advised that this could form part of the discussions at the February meeting.

More generally, it was accepted that this item had come at the end of a long meeting and had not, therefore, received the attention it deserved. She asked if the Committee could consider a better way of agreeing its work programme content; this matter would be discussed at the next meeting. Councillor Waldock suggested that this item could be discussed at the start of a future meeting.

In considering the future work programme, the Policy and Performance Manager advised that, at the previous week’s Parish Chairmen’s meeting, it had been agreed to set up a working group to investigate the best way of continuing the civic amenity vehicle service beyond 2015/16. She added that this Committee was being given the first opportunity to appoint three members to the working group and she invited nominations.

Councillors Ms Palmer and Woodward offered to be members of this group, as well as Councillor Hills (subject to his confirmation).

RESOLVED –

(1) That the work programme be noted; and

Page 10 Agenda Item 3 11

(2) That Councillors Hills (provisional), Ms Palmer and Woodward be appointed to the working group tasked with investigating the best way of continuing the civic amenity vehicle service beyond 2015/16.

DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING

OSC46/14 It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would take place on Monday 9 February 2015 at 6.30pm.

Members were also reminded of the date of Monday 12 January 2015 for a joint meeting with the Overview and Scrutiny Committees of Maidstone and Swale Borough Councils.

NOTE: The meeting concluded at 8.40 pm.

Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank AppendixA 1

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Monday, 12 January 2015

Present: Councillor Catherine Rankin (Chair) Councillors Hills (Vice-Chairman), Chapelard, Dawlings, Gray, Hill, Ms Palmer, Scholes and Woodward

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Officers in Attendance: William Benson (Chief Executive), Holly Goring (Policy and Performance Manager) and Mike McGeary (Democratic Services Officer)

Other Members in Attendance: Councillors Jukes and Webb

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

OSC47/14 Apologies for absence were reported from Councillors Derrick, Rogers and Waldock.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

OSC48/14 There were no declarations of interest made, within the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members.

MINUTES OF LAST MEETING

OSC49/14 It was noted that the last special meeting of the three Committees had taken place on 7 July 2014. The minutes of that meeting had been approved at the scheduled meeting of this Committee on 11 August 2014.

REPORT OF THE JOINT MID-KENT IMPROVEMENT PARTNERSHIP (MKIP) TASK AND FINISH GROUP

OSC50/14 The Chairman of the Joint Task and Finish Group, Councillor Booth from Swale Borough Council, introduced the Group’s report and recommendations. He began by reiterating the Group’s remit, namely: to consider how the Mid- Kent Improvement Partnership’s (MKIP) governance arrangements should be taken forward and how an MKIP communications plan should be developed.

Councillor Booth thanked his fellow members of the Task and Finish Group, as well as the Overview and Scrutiny support officers, service liaison officers and all those who had given up their time to meet with the Group and assist with the review.

Councillor Booth explained the methodology followed by the Group, with a number of question and answer sessions having taken place with: members of the MKIP Board; shared service managers; client heads of service from each of the authorities; heads of communication; S151 officers; monitoring officers; and external partners. He added that the Group had undertaken a detailed analysis of the governance arrangements for MKIP and questioned witnesses on the methods of communication currently used, internally and externally.

Councillor Booth advised that the key findings of the Group were set out in their report; these highlighted where it was felt that enhancements could be

Page 13 AppendixA 2

made to improve current procedures and to strengthen the practices of the Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership, within the two areas of the study, governance and communication.

The Chairman of the meeting, Councillor Rankin, invited other members of the Task and Finish Group to comment, before the discussion was opened up to wider debate.

Councillor Gooch (Maidstone BC) stressed how strong the collaboration had been amongst the three authorities in examining this issue. She added that this also reflected the view of the three council leaders in terms of the level of trust that existed.

Councillor Hills (Tunbridge Wells BC) endorsed that view. He advised that, initially, the MKIP joint delivery of services had been viewed with suspicion amongst some councillors in the three authorities; he added that, while that same attitude might continue, he was very hopeful that the findings and recommendations would help to build confidence in MKIP, if approved by the MKIP Board and respective Cabinets.

Councillor Woodward (Tunbridge Wells BC) fully supported the findings and recommendations of the Task and Finish Group, adding that it had been an interesting project and a good learning experience. However, he also voiced some outstanding concerns, caused by the complexity of the issue and the time pressures the Task and Finish Group had been required to operate under.

The Chairman then opened up the issue for general debate.

Councillor English (Maidstone BC) welcomed the report, which he felt was timely and well-written. He proposed the following additional recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Wilson (Maidstone BC), which was of particular relevance to his authority at this stage, due to its plan to revert to a committee structure from May this year:

(n) That, given the change in governance arrangements at Maidstone BC from May 2015, consequential amendments be made to reflect that the Overview and Scrutiny function will be absorbed within the Policy and Resources and three other service committees.

In response to that proposal, Councillor Mrs Gooch, Chairman of Maidstone’s Strategic Leadership and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, said she felt that this aspect would be covered by the proposed new Policy and Resources Committee anyway, adding that the necessary wording and procedure was currently being worked on. However, she acknowledged the importance of protecting the Overview and Scrutiny position under the new governance arrangements.

Councillor Henderson (Swale BC) advised that he had been a fully-active member of the Task and Finish Group throughout its work but that he was absent from the meeting at which the recommendations had been brought together. He proposed four minor amendments, as follows:

Recommendation (a) – Councillor Henderson stressed the importance of Overview and Scrutiny consideration before MKIP Board approval of any

Page 14 AppendixA 3

proposal;

Recommendation (e) – Councillor Henderson felt that this special meeting should resolve to recommend that the post of MKIP Programme Manager should be confirmed without delay.

(Subsequently, Councillor Henderson acknowledged that the wording “if the post is confirmed” within recommendation (e) actually referred to the Mid- Kent Services Director post, so he withdrew this proposed amendment.)

Recommendation (f) – Councillor Henderson proposed that the transfer of the management of the Planning Support and the Environmental Health shared services ‘under the Mid-Kent Services umbrella’ should be worded more strongly than “…early consideration should be given…”.

Recommendation (k) – Councillor Henderson proposed that the following should be added at the end of the sentence: “…before it happens”.

In summary, Councillor Henderson advised that the rationale behind his proposed amendments was both to strengthen and provide greater clarity to the recommendations.

The Chairman of the meeting invited the remaining members to comment on the proposed amendments. Councillor Hills felt that: (a) a certain point of agreement had to be reached first, which he believed should be at the MKIP Board; (e) there remained a need first of all to define more clearly the Programme Manager’s role; and (f) placing these two services within the Mid- Kent Services remit should be supported. Councillor Woodward added that perhaps in relation to (e) it could be phrased to recommend ‘the need to re- examine the role of the MKIP Programme Manager’.

In the wider discussion which followed, Councillor Wilson (Maidstone BC) voiced her appreciation for the quality of the Task and Finish Group’s report. She proposed one amendment, relating to recommendation (f) – the ‘early consideration’ of the transfer of the Planning Support and Environmental Health shared services – under which she suggested that this issue should be deferred until the next special meeting of the three Committees, due to take place in February. Councillor Wilson felt that, at that stage, Committee members would be able to consider MKIP Planning Support in the light of the independent audit undertaken from project implementation.

Councillor Booth (Swale BC), Chairman of the Task and Finish Group, felt that, based upon the very careful consideration of the wording amongst the Group’s members, the proposal set out under (e) was the best way forward. Councillor Rankin supported this view. Councillor English added that, while he would prefer deferral, he could accept the wording as set out.

Councillor Henderson responded to the points made, arising from his proposed amendments. On recommendation (f), he acknowledged that, provided there was only a short delay before a decision on bringing Planning Support (in particular) and Environmental Health within Mid-Kent Services, then he would withdraw his amendment. With recommendations (a) and (k), he still urged that these be strengthened.

The Chairman of the meeting, Councillor Rankin, summed up the discussion

Page 15 AppendixA 4

and proposed that recommendation (a) be amended to read:

“That opportunities for pre-scrutiny should be provided within existing governance arrangements at each authority prior to any new shared service proposals being considered at a tri-Cabinet meeting (i.e. after MKIP Board consideration, if not before).”

This was accepted by Councillor Henderson and supported by all present.

With recommendation (k), Councillor Rankin, having listened to the comments made, proposed that the existing wording should remain unaltered. This too was supported by all members present.

Councillor Mrs Gooch firmly believed that, with recommendation (k), the outcome was beneficial for all councillors, as all would have improved access to what was happening at both a Shared Service Board and MKIP Board level. Councillor Mrs Stockell (Maidstone BC) endorsed that point and signalled her full support for the set of recommendations, as an effective action plan.

The following represents the decision of the Tunbridge Wells members present. (Maidstone BC and Swale BC undertook their own, separate, voting processes.)

RESOLVED –

(1) That recommendation (a) be amended to read: That opportunities for pre-scrutiny should be provided within existing governance arrangements at each authority prior to any new shared service proposals being considered at a tri-Cabinet meeting (i.e. after MKIP Board consideration, if not before);

(2) That recommendations (a) (as amended) to (m) be approved;

(3) That an additional recommendation be added under the ‘governance’ section, namely:

(n) That, given the change in governance arrangements at Maidstone BC from May 2015, consequential amendments be made to reflect that the Overview and Scrutiny function will be absorbed within the Policy and Resources and three other service committees.

(4) That Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Cabinet be requested to consider and respond to the recommendations, which have arisen from this joint study of MKIP governance and communications.

ROLE OF THE MID-KENT SERVICES DIRECTOR

OSC51/14 The Chairman, Councillor Rankin, explained how it had been agreed to invite the Mid-Kent Services Director, Paul Taylor, to this meeting, in order for him to provide an update on the extent to which he was meeting his agreed objectives in the role.

Mrs Zena Cooke, the Director of Regeneration and Communities at Maidstone Borough Council, had also been invited to address the

Page 16 AppendixA 5

Committees, in her capacity as Chairman of the cross-authority project team, established to undertake an independent review of the Mid-Kent Services Director role. The project team’s assessment criteria, against which it was possible to judge progress, had been appended to the agenda.

Mr Taylor presented his update report. He explained how, since his appointment in May 2014, he had focused on three elements: (a) consolidation; (b) delivery; and (c) planning for the future.

Mr Taylor explained that, with four out of five operational services, there were signed ‘collaboration agreements’ in place; he added that ‘service level agreements’ existed in three of the services out of five. With ‘key performance indicators’, it was noted that a shared set was in place and a reporting template had been produced which reflected each authority’s service targets.

Mr Taylor also advised that a shared template had been put in place for service plans and that a shared risk log had been produced.

With service delivery, Mr Taylor advised members that all budgets were currently on target and agreed savings had been delivered. He drew attention to the recent completion of the Legal ‘one team’ under which staff were all now employed by Swale BC.

Mr Taylor also reported that the ICT partnership infrastructure was in place, which allowed staff to work across all three sites as well as from home.

For the future, Mr Taylor advised that a three-year business plan was being produced, to set out their strategic direction. He added that there would also be even greater engagement with staff, through team meetings, by providing a visible presence at each site and through partnership surveys.

Mrs Cooke provided her report. She explained how, following the decision to trial a single lead director model of operation for Mid-Kent Services for a period of twelve months, a project team had been asked to measure its effectiveness. Members were reminded that the project team consisted of: Phil Wilson, Chief Accountant (Swale BC); Jonathan MacDonald, Deputy Chief Executive (Tunbridge Wells BC) and herself. Mrs Cooke added that the assessment of the effectiveness of the role was based on the original assessment criteria; she added that the project team would provide recommendations for the MKIP Board to consider and discuss at its meeting in March 2015.

Mrs Cooke also advised that support for the project team continued to be provided by Val Green, Head of Organisational Development (Tunbridge Wells BC), Holly Goring, Policy and Performance Manager (Tunbridge Wells BC) and Jane Clarke, MKIP Programme Manager.

Mrs Cooke advised members that the project team’s assessment would be based on evidence gathered during the period May 2014 to March 2015, adding that this would form the basis of the recommendations to the MKIP Board.

The Chairman of the meeting, Councillor Rankin, invited members to comment on the update report.

Page 17 AppendixA 6

Councillor Woodward (Tunbridge Wells BC) drew attention to recommendation (e) under the previous item. This stated: “that the role of the MKIP Programme Manager should be re-examined and aligned with the reporting arrangements arising from the appointment of a Mid Kent Services Director (if the post is confirmed).

Councillor Woodward felt the future role of the MKIP Programme Manager remained an element of uncertainty, as there was no specific mention of ‘change-related directions’, which would have a direct impact. This, he thought, might have some implications for the Director role, a point which Mr Taylor acknowledged.

Councillor Henderson (Swale BC) asked Mr Taylor whether he felt his objectives could still be achieved if the Planning Support service were brought under Mid-Kent Services. Mr Taylor advised that, should that decision be made, the objectives set out for him would still be achieved within the same timeframe.

Councillor Mrs Gooch (Maidstone BC) pressed for Mr Taylor’s views on the proposal to bring Planning Support services within the remit of Mid-Kent Services. Mr Taylor endorsed the proposal on operational grounds, adding that he would welcome the opportunity to be responsible for this area.

In summing up, Councillor Rankin reminded members that the work would continue, with a further meeting being arranged for the three Overview and Scrutiny Committees to meet to consider an independent audit of the project implementation of MKIP Planning Support.

RESOLVED –

(1) That the members of all three authorities thank Mr Taylor and Mrs Cooke for their reports; and

(2) That the reassurance provided by the Mid-Kent Services Director over achieving his objectives for the year be noted.

NOTE: The meeting concluded at 8.10 pm.

Page 18 Agenda Item 6

Overview and Scrutiny Committee Report

Report to Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Meeting date 9 February 2015

Report title Relative position of the West Kent economy

Lead member Cllr Catherine Rankin

Why is this At the meeting of 2 December 2013, the Chairman advised Committee report coming to members of the need to consider the relative position of the West Kent this Committee? economy in relation to other parts of the region. The Chairman made reference to a report produced in 2009 which suggested urgent intervention was needed to prevent the economic decline of West Kent. Summary of the In 2014, Wessex Economics were commissioned by the West Kent report Partnership to examine the success or otherwise of West Kent in drawing in external resources to support economic development in West Kent and what might be done by members of the West Kent Partnership to attract additional resource into West Kent. The summary report attached at appendix A and full report in the background papers identifies the characteristics of the West Kent economy, examines available data on the distribution of resources and advises the West Kent Partnership what actions to take to increase the level of external resource to the West Kent area.

Portfolio Holder for Tourism and Economic Development, Councillor Jane March, and Economic Development Manager, Hilary Smith, will be attending the meeting to highlight the key findings of the report and the proposed next steps of the West Kent Partnership in taking forward the report’s recommendations. How does this This piece of work is integral to the delivery of the Five Year Plan. In link to the Five order for the borough to remain prosperous, green and confident we Year Plan 2014- need to attract economic growth and investment into the borough over the next five years to secure its future. The Wessex Economics report 2019? provides a wide range of statistics which would be useful in future bid proposals but also sets out a number of recommendations for strengthening current frameworks and placing West Kent on the map. Recent Scrutiny activity on this  OSC55/13 – Work Programme (10 February 2014) topic  OSC44/13 – Work Programme (2 December 2013)

Type of Scrutiny  Making a contribution to the locality by in-depth analysis of policy expected issues  Liaising with other external organisations operating in the locality, whether national, regional or local, to ensure that the interests of local people are enhanced by collaborative working Intended At the meeting of 2 December 2013, the Chair of the Overview & outcome of this Scrutiny Committee raised the need to consider the relative position of Scrutiny activity the West Kent economy in relation to other parts of the region. The West Kent Partnership have commissioned a study into the characteristics and distribution of resources within West Kent. Committee members are asked to consider whether they wish to undertake any further work in

Page 19 Agenda Item 6

this area.

Chairman’s In the knowledge that this report is also being considered by the Local suggested Area Board, the Chairman should ask the Committee whether they wish course of action to take any further action.

OSC44/13 - MINUTES OF OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 2 DECEMBER 2013

WORK PROGRAMME 2013-14 Drawing attention to the forthcoming items on the work programme, the Chair explained that she felt that there needed to be some analysis of the relative position of the West Kent economy in relation to other parts of the region. A 2009 report had urged that positive and urgent intervention needed to be taken to prevent the economic decline of West Kent relative to other parts of Kent and to the South East region as a whole. There was a perception that, following recent infrastructure and cultural investment in East Kent, West Kent had indeed fallen behind. This relative position needed to be evidenced in order that West Kent could redress the imbalance.

Mr Chalmers tabled a short summary of a meeting between Councillors Palmer and Hills and the Council’s Director of Development and Environment on planning issues. Councillor Stanyer acknowledged the summary, but felt that matters had not been resolved. Councillor Rook added that some of the issues seemed to relate to a lack of continuity amongst staff, and Councillor Hills noted that he had been made aware that a similar matter had been raised at the Parish Chairs meeting. Mr Chalmers emphasised that members needed to provide specific examples, so that any themes could be examined.

Councillor Hills explained that the Chair and he had met with a wider group of interested councils on aircraft noise. He had also liaised with Greg Clark MP. Whilst there were important consultations to respond to, local residents were still not happy that their voice was being heard at GATCOM. However, positively, County Councillor Clive Pearman (Sevenoaks South) had come forward as a knowledgeable and committed advocate for residents’ views on aircraft noise and it was hoped that he would provide some much- needed advice, guidance and authority, for local campaigners.

RESOLVED – That:

1) An overview of the work of the West Kent Partnership in relation to the West Kent economy, be added to the work programme of the Committee;

2) Committee members forward specific planning matters to the Overview and Scrutiny Officer for collation

Page 20 Agenda Item 6

OSC55/13 – MINUTES OF OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 10 FEBRUARY 2014

WORK PROGRAMME 2013/14

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Mayhew, drew attention to the Committee’s work programme, starting with a review of the West Kent Partnership, where she felt that, once the administrative support for the Committee was in place, an examination of the division of funding across the county was an important first step.

Next, the Chairman referred members to the progress being made by the current task and finish groups.

On the matter of the ‘annual review of the Community Safety Partnership’, the Chairman invited the Committee’s views. There was support for examining aspects of the CCTV system – the impact of changes in its operation, the value of the system in prosecutions, its link to the success of the night-time economy etc.

There was also support for proposals for a joint meeting with Maidstone Borough Council Scrutiny Committee, to look at the governance structure that surrounded the Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership.

Councillors Woodward and Stanyer believed there was an important scrutiny role to play in terms of improving the standard of the Council’s written communications, specifically (a) in some of its claims (e.g. “we delivered 52 affordable homes”) and (b) removing unnecessary jargon and improving the grammar and the clarity of reports. Councillor Stanyer felt that the ‘cross-cutting themes’ within committee reports contained far too much irrelevant information and that, often, important financial aspects were omitted. Holly Goring, the Policy, Performance and Partnerships Manager, acknowledged that this was a good time to review the template used for committee reports; she also undertook to speak to service managers to reinforce the message that report-writers must use plain English and ensure that their reports improved in terms of content and focus.

Finally, in terms of the work programme, the Chairman advised that she would like to see the Committee respond to the draft Vision, but that this could not await the next meeting, as the deadline for a formal response was 28 March. It was therefore agreed that a small working group, consisting of the Chairman together with Councillors Woodward and Scott, prepare a draft response and invite the Committee’s views.

RESOLVED – That:

(1) That an overview of the work of the West Kent Partnership begin once the administrative support for the Committee is in place;

(2) That the annual review of the Community Safety Partnership focus on the night time economy, with a particular examination of the value and future of the CCTV system;

(3) That proposals for a joint meeting with Maidstone Borough Council, to discuss the governance structure surrounding the Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership, be progressed.

Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

The Case for West Kent

Final Report – Executive Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations

Client: West Kent Partnership January 2015

Berkshire House 252-256 Kings Road, Reading RG1 4HP

T: 0118 938 0940

M: 07881 348 244 E: [email protected]

Wessex Economics Ltd Berkshire House 252-256 Kings Road Reading RG1 4HP

T: 0118 938 0940

Contact: [email protected] 23

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Page 24 AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 5 Conclusions ...... 5 Recommendations ...... 9 The Project Prioritisation Process ...... 10 Step 1: Stage 1 Prioritisation of Project Proposals for West Kent ...... 10 Step 2: Development of Stage 1 Project Plans ...... 10 Step 3: Stage 2 Prioritisation of Project Proposals for West Kent ...... 11 Step 4: Development of Detailed Project Plans ...... 12 Step 5: Identifying Match Funding ...... 13 Step 6: Matching the Project to the Funding Opportunity ...... 14

Page 25 AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Page 26 AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Executive Summary

1. The West Kent Partnership needs to communicate the evidence that economic development is not a zero sum game in Kent and Medway. The success of West Kent is good for Kent and Medway as a whole. This is a message that the West Kent authorities and its partners, particularly business, need to convey to decision makers in Kent, notably KCC and the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership.

2. West Kent is clearly more prosperous and more buoyant economically than other parts of Kent and Medway, but it is also more constrained in some dimensions – for example, its ability to accommodate space-hungry businesses and in its capacity to accommodate new homes. Along with North Kent, West Kent has the best prospects for securing output and employment growth over the next 20 years.

3. It is important to Kent and Medway as a whole that West Kent remains successful and capitalises fully on its strengths. It has a stronger relative representation of higher value, knowledge based businesses than other parts of Kent and Medway, and has a capacity to attract inward investment from other parts of the Greater South East in such sectors. All of Kent and Medway are likely to benefit from such inward investment through supply chain linkages and additional job creation.

4. West Kent has enjoyed strong job growth and is anticipated to continue to experience job growth. Already West Kent provides large numbers of jobs for those from outside West Kent and it is likely to provide more jobs in the future. Compared to other areas in Kent, West Kent provides relatively large numbers of high skill, better paid jobs. Retaining and boosting the number of people in Kent and Medway with high level skills is important to the long term growth of the Kent and Medway economy.

5. However, there is evidence from analysis by Locate in Kent that West Kent is less favourably regarded as an inward investment location than Maidstone and Ashford. Locate in Kent staff have commented that a key factor in West Kent being less favourable regarded as an inward investment location is the relative lack of choice of good quality sites and premises for modern business operations compared to Maidstone and Ashford. This means that Kent is probably less able to compete with other locations in the eastern M25 corridor.

6. A successful and growing West Kent economy will contribute to economic development in Kent and Medway as a whole. It is important to nurture those features of the business environment that make West Kent an attractive place to do business. West Kent is primarily competing for business growth with other similar locations to the south, north and west of London, not with the rest of Kent and Medway.

7. At the same time market pressures will encourage employers who do not derive competitive advantage from being located in West Kent to consider relocation. The authorities responsible for economic development in the County – KCC and Locate in Kent – need to ensure that such businesses find a home elsewhere in Kent and Medway. Such relocation is good for West Kent and good for Kent and Medway as a whole.

8. The biggest threat to the success of West Kent is neglect or complacency about the future of West Kent. In a modern economy there is a need continually to look to improve the environment for business if an area is not to lose its competitive edge. Such a programme of continuous improvement has to be adequately resourced. That resource has both to come from within West Kent and to be supported at County level.

Page 27 1

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

9. An analysis of KCC’s capital expenditure on regeneration on a per capita basis shows that Maidstone receives more than twice the investment identified for West Kent; North Kent receives almost three times as much investment as West Kent; and East Kent receives 3¾ times as much investment as West Kent. The capital programme may well have been reshaped in the light of the outcome of LGF Round bids.

10. In terms of LGF Round 1 expenditure on transport schemes, North Kent and East Kent will receive more than double the level of per capita expenditure of West Kent, and Maidstone more than three times the per capita expenditure in West Kent. From an external perspective it is particularly the differential between West Kent and Maidstone that is most marked.

11. The analysis presented in this report would indicate that potentially West Kent has been disadvantaged in the allocation of KCC and LGF resources. However, care must be taken in automatically accepting these benchmarks as suggesting that West Kent is deliberately disadvantaged in the allocation of funding. The allocation of funding through the LGF process has been based on project outcomes and deliverability, without any weighting applied to where projects are based.

12. WKP needs to recognise that the most obvious possible reasons why West Kent has secured proportionately less funding through the LGF process than other parts of Kent and Medway was that it submitted proportionately fewer bids measured by value, and the bids submitted scored less well than competing bids from elsewhere in Kent and Medway. It is important that WKP learn lessons from the unsuccessful bids submitted.

13. One possible reason for lack of success in LGF bids could be that a key criterion in the appraisal of LGF bids is the certainty of match funding. To the extent that KCC gives different priorities to expenditure in different parts of Kent this could be a factor in skewing LGF resources in favour of those areas other than West Kent, because KCC is the key source of LGF match funding. District Councils have relatively limited capital resources for economic development.

14. However, the West Kent authorities also need to consider whether they are also doing everything they can to provide match funding for projects that they are putting forward for competitive bidding programmes such as the Local Growth Fund. This match funding may come from their own resources, but private sector match funding, or resources secured through Section 106 agreements or through the Community Infrastructure Levy can act as match funding.

15. Another possible reason for lack of success in LGF bids may be that the West Kent authorities have devoted fewer resources in terms of people and money than other authorities. This could have constrained the ability to undertake the preparatory work necessary to develop funding-ready projects, which impacted on the number and quality of bids. However, despite on-going financial challenges affecting all three Councils, there are now plans in place to strengthen staff resources for economic regeneration and therefore, West Kent Authorities should be better placed in the future to secure further funding from the LGF and other funding streams.

16. While this report has focused on the distribution of capital expenditure for economic development and transport, it is important to acknowledge that KCC incurs significant revenue expenditure on running Kent and Medway wide-projects. It has not been possible to analyse the relative spend under these programmes by Kent and Medway sub-region. West Kent is likely to benefit proportionately more than other sub-regions in Kent and

Page 28 2

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Medway from business support programmes because of relatively high representation of growth businesses and high levels of business start-up.

17. Discussion around what is an equitable distribution of resources between the different sub-regions of Kent and Medway is also complicated by other major infrastructure investments, not captured by the analysis of KCC and LGF Round 1 programmes. The planned expenditure of £70 million by the Highways Agency on the dualling of the Tonbridge–Pembury section of the A21 is not included in the analysis – but neither is the Highways Agency scheme for improvements to the A2 at the Bean and Ebbsfleet junction in North Kent.

18. Making the case for West Kent should be a part of the economic strategy for West Kent; but as important is having well-developed projects that fit the criteria that external funding bodies are looking for, and which can realistically use the funding available and deliver outputs in the timescale required.

19. A number of recommendations flow from the findings of this study, focusing on communicating clearly to decision-makers why growth in West Kent helps the Kent and Medway area as a whole, and actions to be taken by WKP itself to improve its success rate in bidding for external funding. These are summarised below:

 WKP should review the bids submitted in Round 1 of the LGF process, identify where they fell short in terms of the scoring matrix and see what lessons can be learnt for future bids. KCC should be asked to provide the scores given to the bids submitted.

 This report has set out why securing the on-going prosperity and growth of West Kent is good for Kent and Medway as a whole. This message needs to be refined into a format that can readily be communicated to the Kent and Medway Economic Development Board, KCC members, and KCC officers.

 WKP should galvanise the business community in West Kent to identify clearly what is good about being based in West Kent, to articulate what needs to be improved, and the risks associated with failure to take appropriate action. WKP should help the ‘Voice of West Kent’ businesses to be heard.

 In helping WKP and the business community communicate how growth in West Kent works to the benefit of Kent and Medway as a whole, WKP should identify case studies on how West Kent businesses, including inward investors, deliver benefits to other parts of Kent and Medway.

 Given the likelihood of continuing central government reliance on competitive funding programmes, the three West Kent authorities should review and further develop its strategy (The West Kent Priorities for Growth report) for securing external funding. Wessex Economics recommend that this be undertaken on a collective basis rather than an individual authority basis.

 The core of a successful funding strategy is an adequately resourced programme which identifies priority projects to deliver local economic development goals, and uses a pipeline approach to project and programme development. This report identifies the key elements of such a process.

 Given the increasing need to work closely with the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership and SELEP in future years, it is suggested that a review of the role and structure of the West Kent Partnership be undertaken to ensure this is fully fit for the future and is representative of local business needs. Page 29 3

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

20. The West Kent authorities also need to ensure that robust and up to date Local Plans are in place to identify new employment sites suited to the future needs of the economy and business. The local authorities should also set out in their Local Plans and economic development strategies how they will promote the retention and re- use of key existing employment sites and redevelopment of older sites to accommodate new modern accommodation.

21. It is also important that robust and up to date Local Plans identify the scale of additional housing required to ensure the future supply of labour for local employers. This is not to deny the significant constraints that exist on new development in West Kent.

Page 30 4

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section of the report brings together the conclusions of the analysis undertaken. In the light of these conclusions Wessex Economics makes a number of recommendations. These should be regarded as the starting point of a discussion with WKP. Wessex Economics would be pleased to contribute to this debate and bring the firm’s experience from elsewhere to bear.

Wessex Economics believe there is much that the members of WKP, particularly the three local authorities, can do to enhance their success in attracting external funding to West Kent. There is nothing in the scoring matrix for the allocation of LGF moneys that has a bias against West Kent; but there may be a presumption among different funding partners about the relative priority of expenditure in different parts of Kent.

Conclusions

West Kent Partnership needs to communicate the evidence that economic development is not a zero sum game in Kent and Medway. The success of West Kent is good for Kent and Medway as a whole. This is a message that the West Kent authorities and its partners, particularly business, need to convey to decision makers in Kent, notably KCC and the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership.

West Kent is clearly more prosperous and more buoyant economically than other parts of Kent but it is also more constrained in some dimensions – for example, its ability to accommodate space-hungry businesses and in its capacity to accommodate new homes. Along with North Kent, West Kent has the best prospects for securing output and employment growth over the next 20 years.

It is important to Kent and Medway as a whole that West Kent remains successful and capitalises fully on its strengths. It has a stronger relative representation of higher value, knowledge-based businesses than other parts of Kent and Medway, and has a capacity to attract inward investment from other parts of the Greater South East in such sectors. All of Kent and Medway are likely to benefit from such inward investment through supply chain linkages and additional job creation.

West Kent has enjoyed strong job growth and is anticipated to continue to experience job growth. Already, West Kent provides large numbers of jobs for those from outside West Kent and it is likely to provide more jobs in the future. Compared to other areas in Kent, West Kent provides relatively large numbers of high skill, better paid jobs. Retaining and boosting the number of people in Kent and Medway with high level skills is important to the long-term growth of the Kent and Medway economy.

At the same time, market pressures will encourage employers who do not derive a competitive advantage from being located in West Kent to consider relocation. The authorities responsible for economic development in the County – KCC and Locate in Kent – need to ensure that such businesses find a home elsewhere in Kent and Medway, probably in locations with lower property and labour costs, rather than move out of Kent. Such relocation is good for West Kent and good for Kent and Medway as a whole.

A successful and growing West Kent economy will therefore contribute to economic development in Kent and Medway as a whole. It is important to nurture those features of the business environment that make West Page 31 5

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Kent an attractive place to do business. West Kent is primarily competing for business growth with other similar locations to the south, north and west of London, not with the rest of Kent and Medway.

The biggest threat to the success of West Kent is neglect or complacency about the future of West Kent. In a modern economy there is a need continually to look to improve the environment for business if an area is not to lose its competitive edge. Such a programme of continuous improvement has to be adequately resourced. That resource has to come both from within West Kent and to be supported at County level.

It is clear that in terms of both KCC capital expenditure and the distribution of planned funding under approved Local Growth Funding projects, West Kent will receive significantly less funding per capita, per household, per ‘000 jobs and per ‘000 anticipated job creation than the other sub-regions.

KCC’s capital expenditure on regeneration on a per capita basis results in Maidstone receiving more than twice the investment identified for West Kent; North Kent receiving almost three times as much investment as West Kent; and East Kent receives 3¾ times as much investment as West Kent. The capital programme may well have been reshaped in the light of the outcome of LGF Round bids.

In terms of LGF Round 1 expenditure on transport schemes, North Kent and East Kent will receive more than double the level of per capita expenditure of West Kent, and Maidstone more than three times the per capita expenditure in West Kent and East Kent. From an external perspective it is particularly the differential between West Kent and Maidstone that is most marked.

It is likely to be deemed reasonable that the less economically advantaged sub-regions of Kent should receive proportionately more funding on any of these benchmarks than West Kent. The real issue is whether the scale of differential funding is appropriate. This is properly a matter for discussion between the West Kent authorities and KCC; and within business forums including the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership.

The analysis presented in this report would indicate that potentially West Kent has been disadvantaged in the allocation of KCC and LGF resources. However, care must be taken in automatically accepting these benchmarks as suggesting that West Kent is deliberately disadvantaged. The allocation of funding through the LGF process has been based on project outcomes and deliverability, without any weighting applied to where projects are based.

WKP needs to recognise that the most obvious possible reasons why West Kent has secured proportionately less funding through the LGF process than other parts of Kent and Medway was that it submitted proportionately fewer bids measured by value, and the bids submitted scored less well than competing bids from elsewhere in Kent and Medway. It is important that the WKP learns lessons from the unsuccessful bids submitted.

One possible reason for lack of success in bids could be that a key criterion in the appraisal of LGF bids is the certainty of match funding. To the extent that KCC give different priorities to expenditure in different parts of Kent, this could be a factor in skewing LGF resources in favour of those areas other than West Kent, because KCC is the key source of LGF match funding. District Councils have relatively limited capital resources for economic development. Page 32 6

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

However the West Kent authorities also need to consider whether they are also doing everything they can to provide match funding for projects that they are putting forward for competitive bidding programmes such as the Local Growth Fund. This match funding may come from their own resources, but private sector match funding, or resources secured through Section 106 agreements or through the Community Infrastructure Levy can act as match funding.

Another possible reason for lack of success in LGF bids may be that the West Kent authorities are devoting fewer resources in terms of people and money than other authorities. This will constrain the ability to undertake the preparatory work necessary to develop funding-ready projects, which will impact on the number and quality of bids. It may also result in bids where the level of local funding levered is less than many other competing bids.

It has not been part of this study to compare the resources that all the lower tier local authorities in Kent and Medway devote to economic development. Wessex Economics would note, however, that the level of staffing resource and available revenue and capital funding devoted to economic development by the three West Kent authorities appears to be modest. With economic development relying increasingly on external funding, there is a closer relationship between the resource authorities are willing to invest themselves and success in attracting external resource.

While this report has focused on the distribution of capital expenditure for economic development and transport, it is important to acknowledge that KCC incurs significant revenue expenditure on running Kent and Medway-wide-projects. It has not been possible to analyse the relative spend under these programmes by Kent and Medway sub-regions.

However, West Kent is likely to benefit proportionately more than other sub-regions in Kent and Medway from business support programmes that are delivered throughout Kent and Medway and are demand-led, because it has a proportionately larger and more dynamic business base that the other sub-regions of Kent and Medway. The rapid take up of business loans through the Escalate scheme is indicative that West Kent businesses are likely to be more ready to access business support services than in other parts of Kent.

It is also important to recognise that West Kent has been comparatively successful in securing HCA funding under the 2015-18 Affordable Housing Programme. This appears to be associated with two particularly large Extra-Care schemes in Tunbridge and Malling so the allocations may not be indicative of past or future HCA allocations. However, it serves as a reminder that the analysis does not indicate West Kent has lost out in every aspect of Government supported funding.

Discussion around what is an equitable distribution of resources between the different sub-regions of Kent and Medway is also complicated by other major infrastructure investments, not captured by the analysis of KCC and LGF Round 1 programmes. The planned expenditure of £70 million by the Highways Agency on the dualling of the Tonbridge–Pembury section of the A21 is not included in the analysis – but neither is the Highways Agency scheme for improvements to the A2 at the Bean and Ebbsfleet junction in North Kent.

Making the case for West Kent should be a part of the economic strategy for West Kent; but as important is having well-developed projects that fit the criteria that external funding bodies are looking for, and which can realistically use the funding available and deliver outputs in the timescale required. Often funding does not Page 33 7

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

flow to the projects identified as those that are strategically the most important; rather it flows to those that are funding-ready in the sense that the funding provided can be spent and deliver the promised outputs in the required timescale.

Data from Locate in Kent shows that that West Kent is less favourable regarded as an inward investment location than Maidstone and Ashford. Locate in Kent staff have commented that a key factor in West Kent being less favourably regarded as an inward investment location is the relative lack of choice of good quality sites and premises for modern business operations compared to Maidstone and Ashford.

Thus, it is of great importance to the economic health of West Kent that the three local authorities in West Kent have robust and up to date local plans in place to identify new employment sites suited to the future needs of the economy and business, supplemented by policies which promote the retention and re-use of key existing employment sites, redevelopment of older sites to accommodate new modern accommodation along with a focus on promoting the use of redundant rural buildings for employment use.

Page 34 8

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Recommendations

A number of recommendations flow from the analysis and findings of this study, and particularly West Kent’s relative lack of success in securing funding support in Round 1 of the LGF process; and the analysis that shows that West Kent secures, on a pro rata basis, very much less of KCC’s capital spending than other parts of Kent and Medway.

1. WKP should review the bids submitted in Round 1 of the LGF process, identify where they fell short in terms of the scoring matrix and see what lessons can be learnt for future bids. KCC should be asked to provide the scores given to the bids submitted.

2. This report has set out why securing the on-going prosperity and growth of West Kent is good for Kent and Medway as a whole. This message needs to be refined into a format that can readily be communicated to KCC members and to the Kent and Medway Economic Development Board.

3. WKP should seek to galvanise the business community in West Kent to identify clearly what is good about being based in West Kent, but also to articulate clearly what needs to be improved, and the risks associated with failure to take appropriate action.

4. In helping WKP and the business community communicate how growth in West Kent works to the benefit of Kent and Medway as a whole, WKP should identify case studies on how West Kent businesses, including inward investors, deliver benefits to other part of Kent and Medway.

5. Given the likelihood of continuing central government reliance on competitive funding programmes, the three West Kent authorities should develop a strategy for securing external funding. Ideally, this would be undertaken on a collective basis rather than an individual basis.

6. Wessex Economics’ would regard the core of a successful funding strategy to be an adequately resourced programme which identifies priority projects to deliver local economic development goals, and uses a pipeline approach to project and programme development. The steps to developing such a process are set out below.

7. The West Kent authorities need to ensure that robust and up to date Local Plans are in place to identify new employment sites suited to the future needs of the economy and business, supplemented by policies which promote the retention and re-use of key existing employment sites and redevelopment of older sites to accommodate new modern accommodation.

8. In a similar fashion it is of considerable importance that robust and up to date Local Plans are in place that identify the need for housing to ensure the future supply of labour for local employers. This is not to deny the significant constraints that exist on new development in West Kent.

Page 35 9

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

The Project Prioritisation Process

Wessex Economics set out below, an indicative process for identification, development, prioritisation and promotion of economic development projects requiring external funding – though the same principles could very well be applied to projects not requiring external funding.

Step 1: Stage 1 Prioritisation of Project Proposals for West Kent

A vital first step is to identify the projects or initiatives that are deemed to be of importance to the economic future of West Kent; and which of these require external funding.

There are broadly two approaches to project identification:

 A top down process that focuses first on the key sources of competitive advantage in the local economy and identifies mechanisms by which strengths can be reinforced or weaknesses addressed. Such a process would most likely be undertaken by the WKP in partnership with businesses in West Kent.  The second approach is essentially a more bottom up approach with projects being identified at the local level and being put together with other proposals for appraisal as to which would contribute the most to local economic development.

These two approaches are likely to be complementary in that projects that are of strategic significance to the economy – for example, improvements to rail services into London – will often take a long time to secure; while projects identified at the more local level which deliver real benefits may be more deliverable in the short term, because they are smaller, involve fewer stakeholders, and may not require assembling a cocktail of funding.

WKP has already identified a set of priority schemes/locations in the document ‘West Kent Priorities for Growth’. This document was put together at the time that SE LEP was preparing the Growth Deal and Strategic Economic Plan. In this document WKP identifies 18 specific projects of importance to economic growth.

The document has been useful in setting out initial priorities for the area but should be regarded as only the first step in arriving at a prioritised list of projects requiring future external funding. Assuming that the projects set out in the ‘West Kent Priorities for Growth’ document are still regarded as priorities by WKP, they need to be further worked up as project proposals. Some of them have been or are being.

Thus, a review of that document is now required taking account of the learning gained from the first two rounds of LGF and to gear up for making future bids to other funding streams including revenue funding for business support and skills development. A refreshed West Kent Partnership, with an enhanced business focus, would also assist in ensuring the area is best placed to achieve future funding bid successes.

It is also important to be clear about the governance process for establishing priorities. Essentially, the choice is between West Kent as a whole taking responsibility for this, recognising that the West Kent area is a functional economic area; or individual authorities taking responsibility for prioritisation. The former approach could allow partners other than the local authorities to contribute to identifying what it is most Page 36 10

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

important to do for the economic wellbeing of West Kent; but it might not lead to an even distribution of projects across the three West Kent authorities.

The alternative approach is essentially that each local authority puts forward its top priorities and these are ranked but with a view to seeking balance in the funding that might be secured by each authority. The latter approach is less strategic and likely to result in less funding being secured in West Kent as a whole compared to the former approach. In Wessex Economics’ view there would be great merit in partners in West Kent being willing to make strategic decisions on what is best for West Kent as a whole.

Step 2: Development of Stage 1 Project Plans

The task of prioritising projects that require investment calls for the development of project plans. Project plans bring together the essential information for assessing the worth of a project, determining what funding is required, and when realistically what funding will be required. Having a project plan in place should make it very easy to complete the forms required for a funding bid. Indeed, the headings of the SE LEP Growth Deal Project Templates provide a good starting point for structuring project plans.

The core elements of the project plan, which are essential in enabling decision makers to make an informed judgement about priorities, are as follows:

 The sponsoring organisation (and named individuals) who take responsibility for the project plan  The rationale for the project, covering the problem or need to be addressed  Different ways that the problem might be addressed and the preferred option  Indicative costs and the scale of any requirement for public funding  Timescales for delivery including consideration of timescale for securing consents, procurement, etc  Anticipated outputs and outcomes  A well-defined action plan that sets out the tasks to be completed to make the project funding-ready  Well defined responsibilities for completing identified tasks  Definition of the resource (time and money) to deliver the action plan.

At the early stages of developing programme and project priorities, it is appropriate to call for outline business cases/project plans. This reflects the fact that the preparation of a full project plan is time-consuming and staff resources are limited. Part of the prioritisation process is to determine which projects to devote further time and money to working up into fully-costed project proposals, and which are deemed low priority.

It is particularly important that project plans make a realistic assessment of implementation timeframes, identifying the minimum length of time required to get a project to the point where it is funding-ready; a funding-ready project is one that would be able to commence spending any funding awarded within no more than a three or six-month period, depending on the scale of the project.

Step 3: Stage 2 Prioritisation of Project Proposals for West Kent

The purpose of the next stage in project prioritisation is to let individual authorities and their partners know which project proposals should be worked up in more detail, and hence how staff and other resources should be deployed. This reflects the simple fact that the West Kent authorities have limited resource to devote to Page 37 11

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

project development and effort needs to be concentrated on those projects that are deemed of highest priority.

It is a sensible approach when prioritising to identify a broad ranking of projects. It is a fruitless and time- consuming exercise to seek to put every project in order of priority. It is better to identify the top three or four projects, the top 10 and the top 20. This communicates a clear sense to all partners of where their project sits in the ranking and allows them to make sensible decisions about how much resource to allocate to working up each of the projects they are responsible for.

It is useful, however, in prioritising projects also to be conscious of the scale and timing of the different projects. It will often be easier to incorporate smaller scale projects into bids that are being put forward as part of a Kent and Medway-wide portfolio of projects, or to get them incorporated into a programme made up of a number of small projects, such as the Pinch Point schemes being funded through Round 1 of the Local Growth Fund allocations.

Equally, it is important to have a portfolio of projects that can be delivered in different timeframes. Because of slippage in expenditure on approved projects, there is often scope to secure funding for a project that can be implemented quickly and spend available funding in a particular window. It is useful always to have identified projects that could be implemented quickly to use funds released as a result of slippage. The more that projects can be broken down into different phases that can seek sequential funding, the easier it is to secure funding.

Thus, in developing a portfolio of projects requiring external funding it is important to have a mix of projects of differing scale and complexity, that require different amounts of external funding, that can be delivered in different timescales; to know which projects are capable of being broken down into separate phases if full funding cannot be secured in one go.

In managing the complexity, it is imperative to keep a clear sense of priorities and to avoid the trap of chasing funding for projects that are not of strategic importance. In addition, it is important that projects that do not require external financing are prioritised, since the WKP are likely to have to devote resources in terms of staff time to progressing those projects. These projects will compete for staff time – and it is important for staff to know how best to allocate their time between different projects and responsibilities.

Step 4: Development of Detailed Project Plans

The required elements of preparing project plans are to know:

 The objectives of the project and how it will achieve the stated objectives  The overall cost of the project  Who the key partners are in the project  The decision making process as to whether the project is progressed  The key milestones to be completed before the project is ‘funding-ready’  The resources and responsibilities to be allocated to achieving the milestone  How the project will be funded o a key part being what element of match funding the sponsor can contribute o the scale of external funding requiredPage and potential 38 sources 12

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

o identified dates when the opportunity to bid for funding may arise  Who will deliver the project, including management plans  Anticipated outputs and outcomes.

Each individual authority will need to consider what staff resource or external resource it can apply to developing these project plans, and in the light of this decide the number of projects that it can be working upon at any point in time and the relative priority of those projects.

Step 5: Identifying Match Funding

Government is rarely in the business now of providing 100% funding for economic development and regeneration projects that are brought forward by local authorities. Almost always, match funding is required and generally the larger the amount of match funding, the greater the likelihood of securing funding from an external source. The willingness of local authorities to commit their own resource to a project is seen as a sign of serious commitment.

However, local authorities, particularly District Councils, are generally constrained in terms of both revenue and capital funding. The members of the West Kent Partnership need to consider how they can pull together the resource to provide an element of match funding for schemes they wish to pursue. There are a number of options that need to be considered:

 In general the property market in West Kent is more buoyant than in other parts of Kent; there should in principle therefore be a greater scope to secure an element of private funding for schemes for which external funding is required. This may come through planning obligations; it may come through being smart as to how the ‘project’ is defined so that there is an understanding that if public funding for one element of a scheme is provided, a private partner will deliver another element of the scheme.

 The whole process of developing bids and maintaining a pipeline of funding-ready bids requires an appropriate level of staff resource. Providing local authorities can evidence the staff resource used on a project, this can be expressed in monetary terms and built into the total estimated cost of projects, and presented as part of the local authorities match funding. This would require an effective and disciplined system of recording time spent on different projects. In reality this is not very different to what would happen if the authority decided to use a consultancy to act as project manager; it would be conventional that such professional fees are rolled up into the capital costs.

 Local authorities should consider what capital resources they can release for strategically important projects. Of the three West Kent authorities, only Sevenoaks District Council has put in place the means to collect development contribution from all development in its area by implementing the Community Infrastructure Levy. Both TWBC and T&MBC might wish to consider whether CIL would in the longer run start to generate the match funding that they are likely to need when submitting bids for government money that need matching.

 Certain types of project partner may have the ability to raise match funding through new and novel approaches. Social enterprises and businesses are becoming adept at raising funding through crowd- source funding. Social enterprises may be able to source funding through the Big Lottery Fund or Nesta.

Page 39 13

AppendixA The Case for West Kent 2015

Step 6: Matching the Project to the Funding Opportunity

If the process outlined above is followed, the WKP will have a well-developed portfolio of projects that are funding-ready and for which it needs an element of match funding. When a particular window opens to secure external funding, WKP would then:

 Identify which of the projects in its portfolio best matched the criteria of the funding opportunity and would score best on whatever evaluation or scoring matrix is going to be used to appraise the project. Projects may need to be tweaked or re-presented in a slightly different way to make them well matched to the funding opportunity.

 Assess the scale of the funding opportunity and the timescale for project spending; in the light of this, decide which projects best fit into the funding window and scale. As part of this, there may be scope to bundle small projects together or to bid for funding for Phase 1 of a larger scheme.

 Identify which projects will bid for funding. In this process it would be important that WKP check that its priorities are not being skewed by a particular funding opportunity. It is important not to raid the source of local match funding for projects of secondary importance.

 Refresh and tweak project plans to reflect the particular requirements of the bid process concerned; complete the necessary business case proformas or applications, and have an eye to the particular criteria that will be used by the body responsible for evaluating and prioritising bids.

Page 40 14

Agenda Item 7

Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 9 February 2015

Item 7 – Portfolio Holder Plans and Progress

Background

In 2012-13, it was agreed that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would meet with each of the Portfolio Holders to talk about progress made towards the Council’s strategic priorities.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee are keen to understand from the Portfolio Holder his or her ambitions for the year, the aspiration as to how that ambition will be realised and then to ascertain whether it has been achieved. In particular, Portfolio Holders should focus on how our residents and businesses will see a difference as a result of the actions the Council has taken.

These meetings are an opportunity for the Portfolio Holder, in their own words, to explain to the Committee and the public how the Council has made a difference.

Procedure for the meeting

1. Chairman’s introduction. The Portfolio Holder presentation will be limited to ten minutes by the Chairman.

2. The Portfolio Holder will outline their recent achievements.

3. The Portfolio Holder will outline his/her desired ambitions and future aspirations in relation to the Council’s Five Year Plan and for the coming year.

4. Committee Members can consider whether the current ambitions of the Portfolio Holder are adequate and appropriate steps are in place to deliver the Five Year Plan.

5. The Committee, and the Portfolio Holder will work together to identify what would be the best ways of doing things in the future, based on learning from past successes, and how the Overview and Scrutiny Committee can help with achieving the Five Year Plan.

Supporting information

The minute from the meeting held on 5 August 2013 when Councillor Alan McDermott, Portfolio Holder for Planning & Transportation, attended the Committee (OSC17/13).

Page 41 Agenda Item 7

OSC17/13 – MINUTES OF OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (5 AUGUST 2013)

PORTFOLIO HOLDER PLANS AND PROGRESS Councillor McDermott thanked the Committee for its invitation to speak about the plans and progress within the planning and transportation portfolio.

Progress  A new staff structure for the planning service had been introduced, saving £170,000 per year  A single planning committee had been established in June 2013, a review of which would take place in September  Performance indicators for the planning service were showing an improvement, and complaints had fallen  Charging for pre-application advice had commenced  Planning officers had visited a number of town and parish councils  The site allocations consultation had received 548 responses and 1414 comments, which were now being considered by the Planning Policy Working Group  The Quality Bus Partnership had overseen the introduction of more modern busses to the town centre  The Council had transferred responsibility for its three car parks in Cranbrook to Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council. The car parks would remain free to use  Parking charges after two hours had been introduced at Yew Tree car park

Plans  Consultation was underway on the public realm scheme for the Five Ways area  Work was ongoing with the Leader and Chief Executive to maintain pressure on the owners of the cinema site, asbestos removal had commenced  Sherwood and Ramslye housing regeneration projects would be progressed  The Council would continue to support Kent County Council on the North Farm relief road scheme  Consultation on the Borough Transport Strategy had been extended and the feedback would be considered by the Joint Transportation Board  The Council would continue to liaise with Paddock Wood Business Association on car parking in Paddock Wood, and a six month extension to the two hour free parking scheme had been agreed

Committee questions

Councillor Woodward questioned whether the responsibilities for planning, development and building control held by the portfolio holder might be seen as conflicting roles. Councillor McDermott explained that there was a range of safeguards in place, including the governance structure at the Council, the officer management structure and that the Leader was responsible for larger developments.

Councillor Stanyer said that the preparation of the Local Plan appeared to be taking too long and queried whether there was a timetable for completion. Councillor McDermott described the role of the Planning Policy Working Group in involving Councillors with the preparation of the Local Plan and said that the submission to the Secretary of State was scheduled for summer 2014.

With reference to the residential development proposals at Calverley House, Councillor Mayhew said that the government had relaxed planning legislation to allow developers to

Page 42 Agenda Item 7

change the use of office space to residential properties without planning permission. The proposals contained no provision for car parking for the 51 flats and there was a risk that a precedent might be set which could have a negative impact on the town. It was unclear how the car parking issue would be resolved or enforced through planning conditions and the potential ongoing effects had not been considered. Councillor Stanyer agreed and explained that his experience of such developments in London showed that the long term impact would be that residents would have cars and try to park them elsewhere in the town, which would put pressure on existing parking provision for residents and visitors. He felt that it was a poor form of development.

Councillor McDermott responded by saying that the Council had not received formal notice of the development When notice was received, the Council would give it the appropriate level of consideration. Councillor Mayhew was concerned that the shared space scheme proposed for the Five Ways area had not taken into account the traffic impact of the enforcement of the bus gateway. Testing had shown that 100 cars in one hour had used the gateway, and with the new scheme, those vehicles would have to take alternative routes which would be likely to lead to congestion elsewhere within the town centre. Councillor McDermott explained that consideration had been given to traffic flow management during the initial making of the bus gateway restriction and that Kent County Council would be a partner in the improvement scheme as it progressed.

The Chair thanked Councillor McDermott for his attendance.

RESOLVED: That: 1) Councillor McDermott be invited back to the Committee in 2014 as part of its cycle of Portfolio Holder sessions; and

2) That the timetable for the adoption of the Site Allocations DPD be forwarded to Committee members.

Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION PORTFOLIO STATEMENT 2014-15 Councillor Alan McDermott

1. Portfolio responsibilities 3. Our achievements in 2013-14 5. Our priorities for 2014-15

My role is responsible for leading on Planning; ensuring . Completed consultation on the Site Allocation  Encourage future growth and investment in Royal we balance the enhancement of the borough’s natural Development Plan Document Tunbridge Wells Town Centre through delivering and built assets whilst ensuring that the economy the local plan and transport strategy develops in a sustainable way. I also lead on transport . Supported the Highways Agency and Kent Highways and parking issues from engaging with Kent Highways on the A21 dualling between Pembury & Tonbridge  To see the commencement of the North Farm Services as the Highways Authority and strategy, through that saw the dualling of the A21 given the go ahead infrastructure improvements works and A21 to the operation of the Council’s car parking facilities and dualling enforcement. . Worked with the owners to implement an approved scheme for the Kent and Sussex Hospital site  Working with the owners to ensure the proper My work contributes to all the Council’s strategic priorities discharge of conditions for the approved scheme particularly to provide a prosperous borough. This link is . Drafted the Transport Strategy in association with Kent for the Kent and Sussex Hospital site supported through the Local Development Framework, County Council and carried out consultation on this which will shape the future of the borough for several . Maintain high performing Development document alongside the Site Allocations Development Management functions in terms of processing decades. Plan document applications and dealing with enforcement

. Worked with Kent County Council to agree an 2. 45 Page Functions and services . Ensure that building proposals are designed and infrastructure plan at North Farm. An urban traffic carried out in accordance with modern standards As Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation, I am control scheme was introduced and Kent County set out in the Building Regulations & Approved responsible for all services, covering a 2013/14 revenue Council have since secured funding for an approved Documents budget of £1,168,790, that relates to: project to be delivered by 2015  Work with local developers to secure suitable . Planning Policy and the Local Development . Introduced a road safety campaign to develop road development schemes/applications for further Framework safety awareness across the borough; working with housing development and associated community . Development Management local schools and communities infrastructure in allocated sites . Planning Enforcement . Conservation & Heritage Planning . Transferred the management of two car parks to parish  To continue to enhance and promote the

. Building Control councils Council’s off street car parks AppendixA . Land Charges . Parking (on and off street) . Transportation 4. Key plans and strategies 6. Contact

I am the Deputy Leader and the Lead Cabinet member on Specific plans for which I have responsibility: Councillor Alan McDermott a range of partnerships and working groups, namely: . Core Strategy & Local Development Framework Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, . Conserving the Natural and Built Environment Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1RS . Planning & Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board . Planning Enforcement and Compliance Strategy Phone: 07910 351596 (Chairman) . Transport Strategy Email: [email protected] . Planning Policy Working Group (Chairman) . Parking Strategy (incl. Enforcement & Permit policies) . Public Transport Forum (Chairman) . Quality Bus Partnership . LGA Rural Commission

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

Overview and Scrutiny Committee Report

Report to Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Meeting date 9 February 2015

Report title Contract Management Procedures

Lead member Cllr Ben Chapelard

Why is this Following discussions at the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting on report coming to 13 October in relation to issues raised by Councillor Chapelard this Committee? regarding the Council’s Grounds Maintenance Contract, it was agreed that a report be submitted to the Committee meeting on 9 February 2015 on the authority’s contract management procedures, and a further report be submitted to the Committee meeting on 13 April 2015 specifically on the external performance of the Landscape Management Contract. Summary of the This paper provides a summary of the Council’s procedures and report performance monitoring of major contracts. This update is being provided in response to questions raised at the Committee meeting on 13 October 2014, to inform members of the Council’s procedures.

How does this This item links closely to the priorities of the Five Year Plan, particularly link to the Five ensuring the borough remains prosperous and green. It also links in with Year Plan 2014- the priorities of the Plan which advise that we will work in partnership and work closely with those best placed to deliver services. 2019?

Recent Scrutiny  OSC31/14 - Portfolio Holder Update (13 October 2014) activity on this topic

Type of Scrutiny  Consider any matter affecting the Borough of Tunbridge Wells or its expected inhabitants  Liaising with other external organisations operating in the locality, whether national, regional or local, to ensure that the interests of local people are enhanced by collaborative working Intended This item is being submitted to the Committee meeting on 9 February to outcome of this improve understanding of the Council’s Contract Procedures and assist Scrutiny activity in improving this understanding prior to a specific review of the Landscape/Grounds maintenance contract at the meeting on 13 April 2015.

Chairman’s To ensure that all Committee members are adequately informed and suggested updated on the Council’s procedures and monitoring of major contracts. course of action

Page 47 Agenda Item 8

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 13 OCTOBER 2014

OSC31/14 - PORTFOLIO-HOLDER PLANS AND PROGRESS Councillor March, Portfolio Holder for Tourism, Leisure and Economic Development, highlighted the plans and progress within the portfolio. In addition to the portfolio statement 2013-14, Councillor March outlined that:

 Community consultation had been undertaken at the Grosvenor and Hilbert Recreation Ground that had resulted in the design and implementation of the Skate Park, the opening of the Dripping Wells and choosing trees which had received a community award and had now been planted  In the last year the ice rink had received thirty thousand visitors;  Calverley Grounds had received extra sound baffling following consultation with local residents  The Gateway continues to be voted each week as the best Gateway in Kent by our customers  The Council’s first jobs fair has been a resounding success with 800 people attending the event  Saw a successful summer of anniversary events for a cost of only £13,000  Very good results for the Council’s parks with a Gold award in the Britain in Bloom as well as Green Flag awards  Public art being celebrated in the borough with the Arch at North Farm, the contemporary artists Hoodwink and the production of art booklet “things” that had been sold at Morrisons  A project enquiry form had been submitted to the Heritage Lottery Fund for the Cultural and Learning Hub in Tunbridge Wells. The Borough Council was working with the County Council on this scheme to achieve the best outcome.  A number of Christmas events had been arranged with the Christmas lights being turned on 13 November 2014, free car parking in Tunbridge Wells on 13 November and 11 December. There would also be a High Street Christmas event on 11 December and the Ice Rink would be open from 21 November to 4 January 2015 in line with the pantomime  The Destination Management Plan was continuing to be developed with the Visit Tunbridge Wells webpage being completed by the end of November  The County Council would be match-funding the Council’s contribution for the creative work space in Monson Road  Local Enterprise Funding was in the pipeline for schemes in the Borough  The Leader programme funding was going ahead and would be ready for January but there was more work needed to be done on identifying the right projects for this funding

Committee questions Councillor Mayhew commented that there had been some concerns raised by Councillor Chapelard regarding the Council’s Landscape Management Contract and Councillor March advised that following discussions with the contractor there had been a dramatic improvement in performance and the overall quality of the service was now better.

Councillor Waldock referred to some work that had been by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on standardising the Council’s contracts and asked what procedures and penalties for non-performance were contained within the Landscape Management Contract and whether they had been enforced.

Page 48 Agenda Item 8

Councillor March commented that the Council had also looked at how this contract was being managed and with the appointment of a contract manager who was due to start in December it would be possible to undertake a full review to contract management.

The Committee considered that it would be appropriate for a report to be submitted to its February 2015 meeting on the authority’s contracts management procedures and for a report to be submitted to its April 2015 meeting on the external performance of the Landscape Management Contract with an invitation to members of the public to attend for their views on this issue.

Councillor Woodward asked what percentage of the 400 jobs that had been on offer at the Jobs Fair had been taken up.

Councillor Dawlings commented that with the current level of unemployment in the borough being at 0.8% whether there might a level of core unemployment and had the Job Fair helped with the long term unemployed.

Councillor March stated that there had been 80 taken up over the first two weeks but it would take up to two months before a full evaluation of the total number could be undertaken.

Councillor Scholes commented that it would be good to get an update on the success of this year’s and any future Jobs Fair at full Council.

Councillor Hill whilst happy with the work that had been done in relation to the recommendations from the Allotments Task and Finish Group, wondered where the price of the allotments was deterring potential users.

Following a question from Councillor Woodward, Councillor March stated that there had been a geohydrological investigation into the problems with the Water in the Wells and that the report was due soon.

RESOLVED: that 1) a report be submitted to the Committee meeting on 9 February 2015 on the authority’s contracts management procedures, and

2) a report be submitted to the Committee meeting on 13 April 2015 on the external performance of the Landscape Management Contract.

Page 49 This page is intentionally left blank AppendixA

Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 9 February 2015

Item 8 – Contract Management Procedures

Recommendation:

(A) That the Committee receive and consider the update provided in relation to the Council’s Contract Management Procedures.

1. Background

At its meeting on 13 October 2014, the Committee resolved to receive a report on the Council’s contract monitoring arrangements. Gary Stevenson, Shared Head of Environment and Street Scene, and Paul Shipley, Contract Services Manager, will be attending the meeting to give some further background to the topic and answer members’ questions.

2. Our approach to contracts management

The Council operates and receives a range of services through the use of contracts, including property maintenance, property cleaning, refuse and recycling collection, street cleansing, ground maintenance, and sports centre management, CCTV monitoring, banking and insurance.

The respective Head of Service responsible for the service will appoint a supervising officer to make arrangements to procure a suitable contractor and for the management of the delivery of the service over the term of the contract. The Council’s Constitution contains contract procedure rules and procurement guidance for officers to follow during the commissioning process to the award of the contract. The procedure rules also set out that during the life of the contract the supervising office must monitor performance, compliance with the specification and contract, cost, any best value requirements, user satisfaction and risk management.

The exact arrangements for monitoring will vary from contract to contract depending on the nature of the service being delivered, the length of the contract and the agreement that is in place.

2.1 Monitoring

In general, the supervising officer and other staff involved in monitoring the operation of a contractor will assess method statements and check on the contractor’s records of monitoring of their own activities. They will carry out sample checks on works in progress to assess quality and compliance with method statements and completed work, visiting sites or locations of work as necessary.

Page 51 AppendixA

2.2 Contract meetings

The supervising officer and service managers will hold scheduled meetings with representatives of the contractor at appropriate frequencies such as monthly or quarterly; in addition an annual review will be held to monitor performance against specifications and performance indicators, as well as identify and resolve issues of concern and plan for the future. In some cases there will be a dialogue with contractors on a daily basis, for example at the North Farm Depot our contacts monitoring staff are co-located with our contractors.

2.3 Handling poor performance

Performance that is not to the required standard may be resolved through dialogue and if necessary through the default or rectification processes.

Where necessary, arrangements will be in place to escalate unresolved issues to higher levels of management in the Council and/or the contracting company, which could ultimately lead to termination of the contract.

2.4 Ensuring effective contract arrangements

A positive collaborative approach and good working relations between the Council’s staff and those of the contractor are essential for delivering a service to the required standards and achieving the flexibility that is sometimes required to deal for unforeseen issues. These relationships, coupled with the use of the formal performance management arrangement and ability to take action to remedy under-performance provides supervising officers with a balanced approach to contract management.

2.5 Alteration of contracts

If the authority were to consider altering a contract midway through the agreement period, this would be very much dependent on what element of the service you were looking to change and what the contract stated about variations.

If you were to consider altering a service such as the Civic Amenity Vehicle, this was an optional service added into the original tender and was priced separately. This type of arrangement would therefore be fairly straight forward to remove from a specification by a variation order, or if you were looking to reduce the service this would require seeking a quote for the new reduced service.

Therefore any alteration to a contract would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

3. Consideration

Committee members are invited to consider this update and ask questions of the Shared Head of Environment and Street Scene and Contract Services Manager.

Background Papers: None

Page 52 Agenda Item 10 Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 9 February 2015 Item 10 - Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme

Subject Committee Status

Portfolio Holder Update – Planning & Transportation 9 February 2015 From 11 August 2014 - the use of Section 106 funding call-in Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s contract management From 13 October 2014 procedures Relative position of West Kent economy in relation to other Deferred from 1 parts of the region December 2014 meeting Motion from Full Council relating to the definition of a key From 10 December decision 2014 Full Council

Special Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting Provisional date: Co-located with Maidstone and Swale Councils to look at 23 February 2015 the MKIP Planning Support Audit

Portfolio Holder Update – Sustainability 13 April 2015 Follow on from 14 April  To include an annual review of Crime and Disorder 2014 dealing with, at least : A. the impact of KCC’s night-time street lighting policy; B. the effect of the Police’s targeting of dealers in tackling the issue of drug misuse. External performance of the Landscape Management From 13 October 2014 Contract. Annual Report 2014/15

Informal meeting to agree work programme for 2015/16 June 2015 (TBC)

Portfolio Holder Update – Communities and Wellbeing 15 June 2015 From 10 February 2014  To include an update report on homelessness  To include an update from the Health & Wellbeing Board Appoint representative to County Health Overview and From 13 October 2014 Scrutiny Committee

Portfolio Holder Update – Leader of the Council 17 August 2015

Portfolio Holder Update – Tourism, Leisure and 12 October 2015 From 13 October 2014 Economic Development  To include update on job fairs Report from Electoral review TFG From 13 October 2014

Portfolio Holder Update – Finance & Governance 30 November 2015  To include Draft Budget Consultation

Subject Councillor Committee Status Date Review effectiveness of Joint Transportation Board Rankin 10 Feb 2014 Councillor Rogers has in receiving/responding to resident feedback been advised of this The use of Section 106 funding Committee 11 Aug 2014 From call-in at 11 August meeting Impact of changes to leisure discount scheme post Waldock/ TBC TBC introduction of Universal Credit Hills

Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank