Public Document Pack
Date: 18 February 2011 Our ref: OSP/Agenda Ask For: Charles Hungwe Direct Dial: (01843) 577186 Email: [email protected]
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
1 MARCH 2011
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel will be held at 7.00 pm on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 in the Council Chamber, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent.
Membership:
Councillor Harrison (Chairman); Councillors: Bruce (Vice-Chairman), Brown, Campbell, Jarvis, Mrs Johnston, King, Mrs Kirby, Lawson, Nottingham, Mrs Roberts, Mrs Rogers, Scobie, Taylor and Watkins
A G E N D A
Item Subject No
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive any declarations of interest. Members are advised to consider the extract from the Standard Board Code of Conduct for Members, which forms part of the Declaration of Interest Form at the back of this Agenda. If a Member declares an interest, they should complete that Form and hand it to the Officer clerking the meeting.
3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS (Pages 1 - 22) To approve the Minutes of the ordinary and extraordinary Overview and Scrutiny Panel meetings held on 11 January 2011 and 8 February 2011 respectively, copies attached.
4. OUTSTANDING ISSUES ACTION PLAN (Pages 23 - 34)
5. PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVE FROM PORCHLIGHT ON HOMELESSNESS IN THANET The presentation is on ‘Homelessness in Thanet’.
6. CALL IN OF EXECUTIVE DECISION - RELOCATION OF RNLI LIFEBOAT STATION (Pages 35 - 46)
7. IMPACT OF CLEANSWEEP IN 2010 (CRIME IN THANET REPORT) This report has been withdrawn.
Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent, CT9 1XZ Tel: +44 (0)1843 577000 Fax: +44 (0)1843 291640 DX 30555 (Margate) www.thanet.gov.uk Chief Executive: Richard Samuel Item Subject No
8. COMMUNITY SAFETY PLAN 2011/12 This report has been withdrawn.
9. RESPONSES OF CABINET & COUNCIL TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL (Pages 47 - 50)
10. COACH HOUSE PROGRESS UPDATE REPORT (Pages 51 - 52)
11. FORWARD PLAN (Pages 53 - 62) To receive the schedule of Cabinet reports which are likely to involve a “key decision” being made during the period from 1 March 2011 to 1 September 2011. A copy of schedule of significant changes will be circulated separately.
12. REVIEW OF OSP WORK PROGRAMME 2010/11 (Pages 63 - 70)
Declaration of Interest form - back of agenda
Public Document Pack Agenda Item 3
!""#$%& "'(&&) * " +#, * #,"# ",-( #. "*. /0( 1 23 ! " # #$ % " ! & 4&( 2 & # ' 4 ( 2 1 & ( ) ' 4%( 1 " # * ! ' 4/( - 56 % + , # " +" * - ." " ' & # ! " !! # * !'& ! ! " ! " ! ' ' /! " ! / " ! # ' & ) * " # * !' % ' ! ! $ 0' # * ! " * 1' 2## O, " + " , % 2## " ! # % R +" * 150061507 "! # P'
Page 1 1
44( 1 # #+ ! 9/ & , * ( ! & # 150061501' ! 2" " * ! #! # ! ' % # ! # ! " " " 2 & : ! " ; ## ' # + ! 9/ " % ! ' % ! * '& # ! ! " & " '& * ## ' & ! " # ! #& R '& " ' ! " # ! # ' " ' ! " ' % " ' ) " # # '& # '& ! # <=5 7=5'+ ! " # # ' " , 1505 * #! # " ' > * ' ! " # ! 1= ' , " ! ' & ! " " ' & " ! " #' & * 6 " ! " ' > ! ! # # " 6 " " ! ' & !! #' # ! # & !# '% # ,* * # ' & ## &>' # ! ! ' #+ ! 9/ ! ! # ' ! # ' ) ! # 2" " * ' & # # !! ! " # ' # " # * ! ' # " * ! ' ## " #&> ' ! ( ! 2" " * 1500'
Page 2 <
$ 0; ! # 2" " * ' 1; ! !#&> 2 * 1500' : ! 6!(! #+ ! 9/ ; 47( 3 ! # " " ' % ! ! !! " ' # ! #R ( " ! ! ! " ! ! " ! ! ! !" )' /! * " " ' & % -! * ! % 2! -" % " ' & # " # " ' # % 2 ! ( # ' # #! ! # : ;& '% # # ! # ! ' # * O !P! !! ' ) " # # # ! '& # ! # ! ! & ! ' /! " ! " # 6 ! " ! ' % # ' , ' # * ! / 2" " * ! " # * O% & P' 48( 2 9 * # 9 *' 4'( 99 1 & " % # 15 , 1505 ## ' 2 ? 1500 " ## '2## # #! # ! " ' ! " ! R ' /! !! ! ! # ## '% " * % # , " * # % '
Page 3 7
) / ! # ' 4:( -1%& &; /! " # ! ) ! ' ! ' $@'0@!
Page 4 Page 15 Minute Item144
# Page 26 #
#
#
Page 37 !" !#
!! $% & %'(& %' !!! #)* !! +!
*! #! ( , - .
#)* *)+ +)! !"
! / ( + * #
4 3 0. 1121" ( , - . Page 48 3+
#)* *)+ +)! $% !*2+" # # !* ! !3
! ! ( , - .
#)* *)+ +)! $
5 13 +
3
!+ !3 6 . !+2*" ( , - .
Page 59 4*3 ( 2 #)* *)+ +)! 5 % % . 2#" '% $ 44 2 1
#
!# ! ( , - .
#)* *)+ +)! ! % % #
4 3 , 1 !
!+ !* !# $% % ( , - .
Page 10 Page 6 . !" '% 3 *)+ +)!
$% ' 4*+ ( &' $ ! % & . ( 2 $% ( ! * ( 12#" &'%% %. ( % . (2 3 7 ( , - .
*)+ +)! ,
! #
Page 711 2!" 3+ 13 + $% & %'(& %' #)* 3
!+
!3 ( , - .
#)* *)+ +)! 7 %(
Page 12 $% ' 3**1 0 Page 8 ' !)3)! 1)+)! $% % %% ( % .
% (" * "# - '(" " " (" '"#+ *$# + '" # %# ") !"# $ & "% " * # +, 7 %(
0 . & % % Page 913 . " 0 Q6'.) R %(& % %( . % 2
' ( " !! ) !
Page 1014 # ,
# 7 0%(
# : (
# (. !
$ * # # @ ( . A # . # < % # % # < ) - # ; . % % # $ ! %
Page 1115 % # , ,. # : % - A # , # A ) # # 5 < # ' # < ' . % # = # 0 ( > R ) R ? Page 1216 <%R BC
#' + . F Page 1317 # $ % - . % !! 2% G% 2 # 0% & 0 & D 6 (2
, !*31 4## # ((' . % !! # ! # $ . % # R % & E' ( This page is intentionally left blank
Page 1418 Agenda Item 3 Annex 1
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
Minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2011 at 7.00 pm in Council Chamber, Council Offices, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent.
Present: Councillor Mike J Harrison (Chairman); Councillors Bruce, Brown, Campbell, Jarvis, Mrs Johnston, King, Mrs Kirby, Lawson, Mrs Roberts, Mrs Rogers, Scobie, Taylor and Watkins
In Attendance: Councillors: D. Green, Mrs E. Green, R. Nicholson
149. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from the following:
Councillor Nottingham who was substituted by Councillor D. Green
Jeremy Chambers, Head of Legal and Corporate Services, Shepway District Council
150. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Jarvis declared a personal interest in item 3, Delegation of Housing Management function to East Kent Housing as he was a member of the East Kent Housing Management Board.
151. DELEGATION OF HOUSING MANAGEMENT FUNCTION TO EAST KENT HOUSING
Members were concerned that they had been advised that shared housing landlord services organisation being created was not going to be an ALMO. Madeline Homer, Interim Director of Community Services said that this was not a typical ALMO as per the original design. ALMOs were created by individual Local Councils to provide decent homes under a specific programme which came to an end in 2010. This ALMO was a shared housing management vehicle. Which shared the characteristics of the ALMO model. Madeline Homer offered to take any governance questions in relation to East Kent Housing to Jeremy Chambers to respond to in due course.
Madeline Homer said that delegating the housing management function to East Kent Housing was the next stage to undertake. She said that the Section 27 application by Council to the Tenants Services Authority (TSA) had been successful. Council had received a formal approval letter from TSA. Cabinet would be making a decision on the issue on 10 February 2011. The governance arrangements and obligations by both the Owners and East Kent Housing had been detailed. The owners controlled the strategic decisions for East Kent Housing.
Sarah Martin, Financial Services Manager said that the employee’s pension liability would be transferred to East Kent Housing fully funded. The ALMO’s pension value assessment would be done by the actuaries. Auditors would need to be satisfied that East Kent Housing will be a viable going concern. This could be done if the participating Local Councils become the guarantors. Technical support had been sought to determine whether the ALMO would face a potential pension deficit.
Madeline Homer said that East Kent Housing would not realise any savings in year 1. There would savings as in year 2 of £45,000. A more operational budget would be provided in due course. It was anticipated that more savings would be achieved in the future. Procurement policy would remain with the Council. Madeline Homer said that current contracts are with the Council. In the longer term, if there were efficiencies to be
Page 19 2
made then there would be a case to consider assigning that function to East Kent Housing. She said that there were break clauses every 5 years within the repairs contract which could provide an opportunity for the Council to consider delegating the function to East Kent Housing provided that would be a good idea.
Madeline Homer said that Council could review its appointments to the Board as and when they so wished. She said that the Independent Board Members to be appointed would be professionals who would bring skills and experience in financial, legal and housing matters. There would be four tenant board members to ensure balance. Madeline Homer said that the Tenant and Leaseholders Forum would become the Area Board and it’s meetings would be open to the public. Council would also appoint two Councillors to the Area Board.
The Officers Panel would make operational decisions while the Owners Committee would make significant decisions. Officers Panel decisions would have to be unanimous and where unanimity was not achieved then the issue would have to be referred to the Owners Committee.
Harvey Patterson, Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that as per the Teckal Exemption, there would be no stock transfer to East Kent Housing. Madeline Homer said that the original business case stated that the initial objectives of setting up the shared housing ALMO was primarily about improvement of services and then efficiency savings. Harvey Patterson said that the HRA was ring-fenced and was re-investing the revenue it had generated. Members queried if East Kent Services would be charged for the current services being provided by Council’s officers to the ALMO. Madeline Homer said that there was a commitment from East Kent Housing to purchase support services from the Council for two years after which the ALMO could then choose to continue with this arrangement or purchase the services elsewhere. A proper procurement process would be undertaken.
Madeline Homer said that Council and East Kent Housing would be drawing up Service Level Agreements for the implementation of the Delivery Plan. She said that the current advertising of Council housing would still be done through the Choice Based Lettings. Harvey Patterson added that the Choice Based Lettings will remain with Council. The tenancy agreement for those renting TDC housing stock would be between Council and the tenant. Madeline Homer said that the additional costs cited in the report were due to the costs incurred in setting up East Kent Housing.
Members made a request for information relating to the likely transport costs. Madeline Homer said that the information on transport costs would be provided separately. A detailed Delivery Plan would indicate the improvements to be achieved by the ALMO, it was currently in draft form. Details for each local Council were still being worked out by East Kent Housing. A number of Service Design Groups had been set-up, these groups held meetings to work on the Delivery Plan and the expectation was that the Delivery Plan would be in place by end of March 2011. Data and performance information for the four local Councils had been collected.
Members requested that they be given access to the detailed Delivery Plan and the Service Level Agreements. Madeline Homer said that information on service improvements was detailed in the consultation document and that the Delivery Plan would be made available to Members of the Panel once it was finalised. She added that flexibility regarding tenancy would remain TDC’s responsibility and East Kent Housing would manage the tenants. The four local Councils would have conversations about policy issues but each Council would decide its own policy path. She confirmed that each Council would have its own Management Agreement with East Kent Housing. If TDC wanted to vary the Management Agreement and there was a disagreement with East Kent Housing then reference would have to be made to the dispute resolution procedure
Page 20 3
within the Management Agreement. If it was a budget issue then Cabinet and Council would decide its position through the budget process.
Madeline Homer explained that no Council property would be transferred to East Kent Housing. Members requested for the Three Star Audit Commission document which details the definition of a three star service. Members were concerned about the public consultation figures submitted to the TSA. Madeline Homer said that the majority of tenants who responded were in favour of setting up the housing ALMO. She said that TSA reviewed the consultation process rigorously.
Madeline Homer said that she would provide the confidential application document that was submitted to TSA and the approval letter from TSA. Harvey Patterson said that Council had a right to set up a company before delegating authority is granted. Madeline Homer said that it was a TSA requirement that TDC sets up the company before the Section 27 application could be approved. Harvey Patterson added that the decision made by the TSA was a binding one and could only be reviewed through a Judicial Review.
It was proposed by Cllr Mrs Johnston proposed that:
Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel were unable to support officer recommendations to Cabinet on the grounds there was insufficient information made available to the Panel and were therefore awaiting additional information.
This proposal did not find a seconder.
MOTION FELL
It was then proposed by Councillor Harrison and seconded by Councillor Campbell
“To adjourn the meeting until; the TDC Section 27 application documents, the Audit Commission Three Star document, the Transport Costs, the Detailed Delivery Plan and the SLA with East Kent Housing were made available to Members of the Panel.”
Harvey Patterson said that adjourning the meeting would not be viable because it was not possible to have the level of detailed information for the SLA at this stage.
THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs Johnston and seconded by Cllr King that:
“That Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel were unable to support officer recommendations to Cabinet on the grounds there was insufficient information made available to the Panel, namely the TDC Section 27 application documents, the Audit Commission Three Star document and an estimate of the Transport Costs”
MOTION ADOPTED.
Meeting concluded : 8.47 pm
Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 22 Agenda Item 4
OUTSTANDING ISSUES ACTION PLAN REPORT
To: OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL – 1 MARCH 2011
Main Portfolio Area: Outstanding Issues from OSP Meetings
By: Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: Not applicable
Summary: To agree a process for addressing matters arising from previous meetings and reporting on progress.
For Decision
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Members requested that there be a way of recording and reporting on any matters raised by Members at previous meetings of the Panel. This report suggests a format for reporting any outstanding issues arising from the minutes, meeting proceedings and reports of the preceding Panel meeting.
1.1 Members agreed that any additional matters outstanding would have to be raised by Members outside the meetings and responses prepared for the subsequent meeting.
1.2 It is suggested that Members are required to forward such matters in writing, or by email, to the Democratic Services & Scrutiny Officer not later than 5pm on the Friday before agenda despatch of the Panel meeting at which such matters are to be considered. That would allow the matters to be incorporated into the published agenda.
1.3 An Annex to this report suggests a format for recording any outstanding issues and noting the action taken by responsible officer(s). Any issues that the Panel agrees have been resolved would be removed from the plan of the subsequent reports.
1.4 Note that this procedure would not apply to the recommendations emerging from scrutiny Working Parties, because it has already been established that formal reports on those should be presented to the Panel noting their proposed recommendations, and subsequently the actions taken by Cabinet and/or Council.
2.0 Corporate Implications
2.1 Financial
2.1.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
2.2 Legal 2.2.1 There are no legal implications arising directly from this report.
Page 23 2.3 Corporate
2.3.1 Progressing any outstanding issues arising from minutes through an “Outstanding Issues Action Plan” is an effective means of creating a verifiable audit trail for any decisions and actions that would not normally fall within the usual project activities reporting framework.
2.4 Equity and Equalities
2.4.1 There are no relevant equity and equalities issues emanating from this report.
3.0 Recommendation
3.1 That the Panel receive progress reports and make appropriate decisions on the Outstanding Issues in the Action Plan.
4.0 Decision Making Process
4.1 The Panel can take this decision as it is an operational decision for managing any matters raised by Members of the Panel emanating from previous meetings.
Contact Officer: Glenn Back, Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager Reporting to: Harvey Patterson, Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Annex List
Annex 1 Outstanding Issues Action Plan
Background Papers
Title Details of where to access copy None N/A
Corporate Consultation Undertaken
Finance N/A Legal N/A
Page 24 Actions arising from minutes of meeting of Overview & Scrutiny Panel on 11 January 2011
Decisions / Actions Actions/ who Status/ comments Issue
OSP Agreed that: Last Minutes of the East Kent Local 1. East Kent Local Investment Plan Strategic Partnership (EK LSP) are (LIP) 1. Minutes of the Local Strategic Madeline Homer attached to this Action Plan. Partnership be made available to the Panel Minutes of the (EK LSP) are published on the following link:
http://www.eastkentlsp.org.uk/?q=content/minutes- partnership-board-meetings
Page 25
2. Officer recommendation to Cabinet Madeline Homer / Cabinet made the following decision:
should read, “Delegated authority is Councillor Mrs Johnston given to the Interim Community was asked by OSP to raise Delegated authority is given to the Interim Services Director and Housing the issue at Cabinet on 12 Community Services Director and Strategy Officer to negotiate and January 2011 Housing Strategy Officer to negotiate and agree the delivery plans for the agree the delivery plans for the HCA’s HCA’s Investment Programme Investment Programme 2011-2014 in 2011-2014 in consultation with the consultation with the portfolio holder.
relevant portfolio holder”. Annex 1 Agenda Item4
OSP Requested for permission to attend the Mark Richardson Scrutiny sub panel will be invited to 2. CDRP Strategic Assessment Community Safety Partnership meetings. seasonal workshops Report Mark Richardson to make arrangements to enable Panel Members to attend future Partnership meetings. A research project would be commissioned Mark Richardson This has been requested and Kent Police
by Council to look into the impact of CCTV in are currently working on it Actions arising from minutes of meeting of Overview & Scrutiny Panel on 11 January 2011
crime detection in Thanet District and would be reported to the Panel in March 2011. Page 26 Actions arising from minutes of meeting of Overview & Scrutiny Panel on 11 January 2011
OSP Agreed that a report on crime with Mark Richardson This will be the community safety plan
statistical information be presented at OSP in March 2011 OSP Requested that they be given detailed Madeline Homer / Mark A separate report will be given at the 3. Presentation by Councillor Wells feedback regarding the outcome of “Clean Richardson march 2011 meeting Sweep” Operations OSP Requested that they be consulted on Harvey Patterson Once Council is in a position to proceed
the forthcoming decision relating to the with making and serving a CPO, the Dreamland CPO. Overview and Scrutiny Panel would be informed. OSP Agreed that a presentation on Madeline Homer Issue is in hand
“Homelessness in Thanet” be made by Porchlight Representatives at the next OSP Meeting OSP asked Councillor Mrs Johnston to Councillor Mrs Johnston Councillor Mrs Johnston spoke at Cabinet 4. Coach House Progress Update
Page 27 request Cabinet not to extend the on the issue. Cabinet decision on issue Report compliance deadline for the Coach House reported elsewhere in the agenda. tenant Members requested that officers update the Charles Hungwe / Lead Officers submitted updated comments for 5. OSP Work Programme 2010/11 comments in the table in the report Officers the working party activities as reflected in the relevant report in the agenda
Outstanding Issues from 14 September 2010 Action Sheet OSP to consider the Strategic Assessment Mark Richardson Report considered at the OSP meeting on 9. Community Safety Scrutiny report 11 January 2011 Arrangements 2010-11
CDRP TORs to be drawn-up and Agreed by Mark Richardson
the Panel
CDRP Working Party to identify two topics Mark Richardson
for reviewing in April 2011 CDRP Working Party to present final report Mark Richardson Not yet due
to OSP in November 2011
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 28 Agenda Item 4 Annex 2
BOARD MEETING
17 th December 2009 15:00 – 17:00pm Guildhall, Canterbury
DRAFT MINUTES
Present
Meeting Chair: Cllr. Paul Watkins, Dover District Council
BOARD Alistair Stewart, Shepway District Council Gill Budden, Jobcentre Plus Andrew Gower*, Canterbury Christ Church University Kevin Charles, Pfizer Andrew Ogden, Environment Agency Malcolm Barry, Dover District Compact Implementation Group Barbara Cooper, Kent County Council Nadeem Aziz, Dover District Council Bob Perfect*, Kent County Council Cllr. Robert Bliss, Shepway District Council Brian White*, Thanet District Council Rupert Williamson, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust Charles Bicker, K&M Social Enterprise Network Cllr. Sandy Ezekiel, Thanet District Council Colin Carmichael, Canterbury City Council Steve Barlow*, Kent Police David Tamsitt, K&M NHS and Social Care Partnership Stuart Skilton*, Kent Fire and Rescue Trust Di Woolloff, GOSE Sue Buss , Thanet College Geoff Miles, The Maidstone Studios Trevor Minter, Strand House and Creative Foundation
* = Representatives
OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE Janice Wason, East Kent LSP David East, East Kent LSP Consultant David Powell, David Powell Associates Nick Ewbank, Creative Foundation Ross Gill, Kent County Council
Meeting minutes recorded by: Marie Hamm, EKLSP
Apologies
Cllr. Alan Marsh, Kent County Council Ch Sup. John Molloy, Kent Police Alison Clarke, Canterbury College John Ratcliff, Learning and Skills Council Dr. Andrew Scott Clark, Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT Dr. Katharine Harvey, SEEDA Bob Goldfield, Port of Dover Keith Hargrave, Kent County Council Bob Jones, Business Link Kent Monica Box, South Kent College David Ashworth, Homes and Communities Agency Cllr. Nick Chard, Kent County Council Denise Everitt, University of Kent Cllr. Paul Carter, Kent County Council Des Crilley, Kent County Council Peter Hobbs, Channel Chamber of Commerce Gerry Pack, Holiday Extras Richard Samuel, Thanet District Council Ian Driver, Thanet District Citizens Advice Bureau Rodney Williamson, Kent Association of Local Councils Prof. Jan Druker, Canterbury Christ Church University Sari Sirkia Weaver, Canterbury District Community
Page 29
Alliance Jan Perfect, CASE Kent Ven. Sheila Watson, Canterbury Cathedral Janet Hughes, Kent Adult Social Services Stephen Kingsman, DMA Group Cllr. John Gilbey Canterbury City Council Steve Griffiths, Kent Fire and Rescue
2
Page 30
1. Welcome and apologies The Chairman welcomed the Board and informed those present that apologies would be circulated with the minutes. The Chairman explained that due to illness and having trouble speaking, Cllr. Paul Watkins had kindly agreed to chair the meeting on this occasion.
2. Minutes of last meeting and matters arising
High Speed 1 It was noted that the full High Speed service was launched on 13 th December. Concerns were raised about the increased journey time from Margate to London.
Decision The minutes of the 24 th September 2009 meeting were agreed by the Board.
It was also agreed to monitor the impacts of High Speed 1 and produce reports after three and six months which could be used to lobby for changes to the service and supporting infrastructure. Management Group to progress this further.
3. Coastal Communities Update The Partnership Director asked the Board to note the South East Coastal Towns Report and the launch of the Coastal Regeneration Handbook on the 27 th /28 th January 2010. David Powell (David Powell Associates) and Nick Ewbank (Creative Foundation) then presented the findings of the South East Coastal Towns Report.
Comments from the Board included: • This is a huge opportunity to develop a coordinated approach to coastal regeneration, and to pull together resources. There is frustration at the continued lack of an East Kent approach to coastal regeneration despite years of lobbying for this. • East Kent LSP should take the report forward. • How do we tap into other strategies to deliver this further? • Links should be made to FE and schools not just HE. • Reference should be made to the effects of vulnerable people being relocated to East Kent from London. Can the East Kent LSP lobby to stop this?
Decision It was agreed to use the report to develop a coordinated approach to coastal regeneration in East Kent. Management Group to progress this further. The East Kent LSP will respond to SEEDA to acknowledge the report.
3 Page 31
4. Draft Action Plan David East, East Kent LSP Consultant, and the Partnership Director summarised the recent action planning process and the first draft action plan.
There followed a discussion which suggested considering the following points further: • Establish some short term plans viewing East Kent as an economic sub region preparing for any post election changes. • Concentrate on three or four targets only – key practical things that the partnership can lobby for to help attract people to East Kent. • The East Kent LSP has good working links with Kent County Council and the Kent Economic Board. Environment, transport and business sub groups can report back to the East Kent LSP.
Decision It was agreed to refer the draft action plan to the Management Group for further development
5. Local Economy Assessment (LEA) The Partnership Director recommended that the Kent and Medway Joint Local Economic Assessment Scoping Report be noted and that a decision be made about the East Kent LSP’s involvement in the LEA.
Comments from the Board included: • The business and VCS sectors find it difficult to understand documents such as LEAs or the advantages that the documents could bring them.
Decision The LEA was noted and it was agreed that later topic papers be referred to the East Kent LSP Board as appropriate.
6. Ministerial Visit The Partnership Director summarised the plans for the Ministerial visit on 21 st January 2010.
Comments from the Board included: • There should be an HE representative present for the visit.
Decision
4 Page 32
The suggested plans for the visit, including the suggested addition above, were agreed
Date of next meeting:
5 Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 34 Agenda Item 6
CALL-IN FOR RELOCATION OF RNLI LIFEBOAT STATION
To: Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 1 March 2011
By: Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: Cliftonville West
Summary: This report sets out the reasons for call in from the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel, together with the report that was considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 10 February 2011.
For Decision
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel requested that the Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager call in the Cabinet decision regarding the relocation of the RNLI lifeboat station, made at its meeting on 10 February 2011.
1.2 The decision made at the meeting of the 10 February being:
“To give in principle support to the objective to move the Margate RNLI Lifeboat Station and request receipt of a full business case.”
1.2 The Chairman has on behalf of the Panel invited the Cabinet Member for Customer Services and Business Transformation & Regulatory Services and the Director of Regeneration to attend and give evidence at the meeting.
2.0 Reasons for Call In
2.1 The reasons for the call in given by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel are that:
“1. Safety of the boat on this open site.
2. Difficulties during very High tides.
3. Safety of beach users when the boat is launched.
4. Free Parking for Lifeboat personnel in the vicinity.”
2.2 Attached to this report are the officer report to Cabinet on 10 February 2011 on the relocation of the RNLI lifeboat station (Annex 1), and the minutes of the Cabinet meeting (Annex 2).
3.0 Call In procedure
3.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Panel must now scrutinise the decision made by the Cabinet. It has the following options;
Page 35
3.2 It may do nothing, in which case the Cabinet decision in question is considered implementable at the conclusion of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting.
3.3 If, having considered the decision, the Panel remains of the view that an alternative decision is preferable, then it may refer the decision back to the decision making body, which in this case is Cabinet, for reconsideration; setting out in writing the nature of its concerns.
3.4 If the Panel decides to refer the issue back to Cabinet, the decision making body has 15 working days in which to meet to consider the recommendation(s) of the Panel.
4.0 Corporate Implications
4.1 Financial
4.1.1 Refer to the Cabinet report attached in Annex 1, section 4.1.1.
4.2 Legal 4.2.1 The Call In of decisions is a statutory function in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000. The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is obliged to meet to consider the call in within 15 days of the request to call in the decision.
4.3 Corporate
4.3.1 Call In relates to the Modern Council theme of the Council’s Corporate Plan
4.4 Equity and Equalities
4.4.1 None Apparent
5.0 Recommendations
5.1 The Panel is invited to decide whether it wishes to:
a) Not take further action
b) Refer the issue back to Cabinet
6.0 Decision Making Process
6.1 If the Panel refers the decision to Cabinet for there is already a scheduled meeting of Cabinet on the 17 March 2011 at which it could be considered.
Meeting: Overview and Scrutiny Panel Date: 1 March 2010
Contact Officer: Glenn Back, Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager Reporting to: Harvey Patterson, Head of Legal and Democratic Services & Monitoring Officer
Page 36 Annex List
Annex 1 Relocation of RNLI lifeboat station Cabinet report – 05 August 2010 Annex 2 Minutes of Cabinet - 10 February 2010
Background Papers
Title Details of where to access copy None N/A
Corporate Consultation Undertaken
Finance N/A Legal Harvey Patterson Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38 Agenda Item 6 Annex 1
RELOCATION OF RNLI LIFEBOAT STATION
To: Cabinet – 10 February 2011
By: Richard Samuel, Chief Executive
Main portfolio area: Leader
Ward: Margate Central
Classification: Unrestricted
Summary: This report describes discussions and agreement with the RNLI to explore the possible relocation of the Margate Lifeboat Station from the current Rendezvous Site to a possible location on Margate Main Sands For Decision
1.0 Background
1.1 The main Margate Lifeboat Station has been sited in its current location for many years. However the recent construction of the Turner Contemporary and the intentions by the RNLI to introduce larger rescue vehicles in the medium term have prompted discussions on a possible relocation. This has been brought forward by the experience of running the service from its current temporary location which the RNLI have found more satisfactory.
1.2 A meeting was recently held between the RNLI, KCC and the Council facilitated by Roger Gale MP and there as broad agreement that the feasibility of permanently moving the lifeboat station to a location similar to its current temporary position should be explored.
1.3 There are a number of side issues for examination that will also require detailed consideration. These include examining the relationship of the forthcoming flood defence works, opportunities for co-located services such as lifeguarding and the possible tourism benefit of a more prominently located building. Previously feasibility work suggests a preferred location adjacent to the current beach kiosk near the clocktower.
1.4 The purpose of this report is to provide the Cabinet with the opportunity to endorse these proposals and request that officers examine the detailed implications
2.0 Next Steps
2.1 Working with the RNLI and KCC the intention is to prepare an outline business case and costings alongside a technical assessment prior to presentation of a report setting out the way forward. It is hoped this can be completed over the next few months.
3.0 Options
3.1 To agree to participate in the business planning process.
3.2 To not participate as above.
4.0 Corporate Implications
4.1 Financial
4.1.1 None at this stage other than the cost of officer time.
Page 39
4.2 Legal
4.2.1 None at this stage. Any relocation to other TDC land would require appropriate conveyancing.
4.3 Corporate
4.3.1 Consistent with regeneration and tourism objectives for Margate.
4.4 Equalities
4.4.1 None at this stage. EIA will be considered in the business case.
5.0 Recommendations
5.1 To give in principle support to the objective to move the Margate RNLI Lifeboat Station and request receipt of a full business case.
6.0 Decision Making
6.1 Not a key decision and not in the Forward Plan.
Contact: Richard Samuel, Chief Executive
Annex List
None N/A
Background Papers
None N/A
Corporate Consultation Undertaken
Legal Peter Reilly, Litigation Solicitor Finance Sarah Martin, Financial Services Manger
Page 40 Agenda Item 6 Annex 2
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting held on 10 February 2011 at 7.00 pm in Council Chamber, Council Offices, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent.
Present: Councillor Robert W Bayford (Chairman); Councillors Latchford, Moores, Wells and Wise
In Attendance: Councillors D Green, Ms E Green, C Hart, King, R Nicholson, and Watkins
98. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
There were no apologies received at the meeting.
99. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
100. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes were agreed by Members and signed by the Chairman.
101. ANNUAL AUDIT LETTER
The Audit Commission’s Annual Audit Letter summarises the findings from the 2009/10 audit. The Councils financial statements received unqualified opinion. Council achieved some efficiency savings and received unqualified Value For Money auditors’ opinion. Council had strengthened its risk management measures.
Councillor Bayford moved, Councillor Wise seconded and Members agreed the following:
1. That Cabinet notes the Annual Audit Letter for 2009/10.
102. 2011/12 BUDGET AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2011-15
The development of the 2011/12 budgets and Medium Term Financial Plan 20111-15 was a rigorous exercise. The Council had to take into consideration the current economic environment and the Government financial settlement. An attempt had been made to insulate the vulnerable members of community. The budget process involved internal corporate consultation process, the Star Chamber and the public consultation process which captured the views of the Thanet residents.
This budget proposal will see council make savings of £1.7million. Shared Services would make £400,000 savings per year and the staff restructure would make £1 million savings for 2011/12. Council would freeze an increase in Council tax for the next two financial years and receive a Government grant of 2.5% per year over the corresponding period.
Councillor C. Hart was present and spoke under Council Rule Procedure 24.1
Some concerns were raised regarding the proposed removal of the Members despatch for Councillors’ mail. Although this proposal was meant to cut down on mailing costs, it was felt that some Members may be disadvantaged by its withdrawal
Page 41 2
Councillor Bayford confirmed that a Cabinet Working Party be set up to consider the impact of removing the Members despatch.
Councillor Bayford moved, Councillor Wise seconded and Members agreed:
1. That Members recommend to Council the draft Medium Term Financial Plan at Annex 1 of the report;
2. That Members recommend to Council the draft scale of Fees and Charges (Annex 2 of the report refers);
3. That Members recommend to Council the draft General Fund Revenue budget estimates for 2011/12 to 2014/15 and resulting budget requirement for 2011/12;
4. That Members recommend to Council total requirement from Council Tax of £9,870k be raised through precept to meet the 2011/12 budget requirement (paragraph 6.3.4 and table 12 of the report refers);
5. That Members recommend to Council the Council Tax annual charges as set out in the report for the listed property bands;
6. That Members recommend to Council the level of general reserves be held at £2,076k, and specific earmarked reserves be used as identified in Annex 3;
7. That Members recommend to Council the HRA budget estimates for 2011/11 to 2014/15 (paragraph 7.6.1 of the report refers) and the HRA service charges (see Annex 4 of the report);
8. That Members recommend to Council the General Fund capital budget of £10.06m for 2011/12 and Housing Revenue Account Capital Budget of £3.26m for 2011/12, with the proposed approaches for funding (paragraph 8.8 of the report refers);
9. That Members recommend that Council adopt the Prudential Indicators contained within Annex 7 (of the report) to the report and that the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Statement also contained within Annex 7 which sets out the Council’s policy on MRP be approved;
10. That Members note the latest treasury update for 2010/11 (paragraph 9.2.3 of the report refers);
11. That Members recommend that Council approve the Annual Treasury Management and Investment Strategy and the treasury prudential indicators shown at Annex 7 of the report.
103. MID YEAR PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS AND TREASURY MANAGEMENT MONITORING REPORT
Consideration of the report was a requirement of the regulatory framework of treasury management which asks Council to consider the mid year treasury review. The review would include consideration of the forward looking annual treasury strategy and backward looking annual treasury report. None of the prudential indicators had been broken and TDC was above the bench-mark.
Councillor Bayford moved, Councillor Wise seconded and Members agreed to recommend the following to Council:
Page 42 3
1. “Note the report, the treasury activity and recommend approval of any changes to the prudential indicators.”
104. BUSINESS CONTINUITY STRATEGY AND POLICY
The Civil Contingencies Act requires that councils have business continuity management arrangements in place. All Local Authorities are designated as Category 1 responders within the Civil Contingencies Act, along with blue light agencies and health services. The Act requires that Category 1 responders maintain plans to ensure that they can continue to perform their functions in the event of an emergency so far as is reasonably practicable.
Councillor Bayford moved, Councillor Wise seconded and Members agreed:
1. That Members approve the reviewed Business Continuity Management Strategy and Policy.
105. THIRD QUARTERLY CORPORATE PERFORMANCE PACK
The Corporate Plan sets out the council’s priorities. The key projects for 2010 – 2011 (the last year of the 2007- 2011 plan) were submitted to Cabinet on 17 th June, and following ratification, the 31 key projects were set up on PerformancePlus™ for monitoring and reporting.
This is a quarterly Corporate Pack report notifying progress against current year projects for the period to December 2010.
Councillor Bayford moved, Councillor Wise seconded and Members agreed:
1. That Cabinet reviews the Council’s performance as set out in the Performance Pack and takes action to improve performance where required.
106. DELEGATION OF HOUSING MANAGEMENT FUNCTION TO EAST KENT HOUSING
Progress had been made in establishing an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) - to be called East Kent Housing (EKH) which would be responsible for managing the council housing stock of Canterbury, Dover, Shepway and Thanet District Councils. The Arrangements between the councils and EKH have been developed. Approval to delegate responsibility for housing management functions to East Kent Housing Limited with effect from 1 April 2011 would make the new company functional. The report also deals with the creation of a new joint committee and delegates functions to it relating to the ownership and control of EKH.
The Tenants Services Authority (TSA) was satisfied with the processes undertaken by TDC leading up to the Section 27 application. TSA approved the Council application.
Councillor Wells moved, Councillor Latchford seconded and Members agreed:
1. To receive and note the report;
2. Subject to Council being satisfied that any impact on the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) can be accommodated, that pursuant to the powers contained in, or having effect under the Local Government Acts of 1972 and 2000 and the Housing Act 1985 with effect from 1 April 2011, the powers and functions of the Executive as set out in Annex 1 to this report be discharged by East Kent Housing Limited;
Page 43 4
3. The principles of the draft Owners Agreement between Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council and of East Kent Housing, as detailed in Section 3 of this report.
4. The principles of the draft Management Agreement between East Kent Housing and Thanet District Council as detailed in section 4 of this Report;
5. That the Director of Community Services be appointed as the Council Representative under the Management Agreement, and be authorised to discharge the functions ascribed to him/her therein, including but not limited to approving the draft year one Delivery Plan of East Kent Housing as detailed in section 4.6 of the report and attached as Annex 2 and that future appointments be made by the Chief Executive;
6. That the Director of Community Services be appointed to the officer panel to be established under the Owners Agreement and be authorised to discharge the functions ascribed to him/her therein and that future appointments be made by the Chief Executive;
7. To note the proposed staff transfer as set out in section 4.7 of the report;
8. To enter into the Owners Agreement and Management Agreement subject to the Chief Executive acting in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Head of Legal and Democratic Services settling the detailed terms of the agreements.
9. That Cabinet:
a) Approve the establishment of a joint executive committee comprising Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council, to be known as the EKH Owners Committee, with effect from 1 April 2011;
b) Approve the terms of the Operating Arrangements for the Owners Committee as set out in Annex 4 of the report;
c) Approve the delegation of functions to the EKH Owners Committee as set out in Schedule 1 of the EKH Committee Operating Arrangements;
d) Appoint the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing from time to time as the nominated member of the Council in accordance with the EKH Owners Committee Operating Arrangements;
e) Authorise other members of the Executive to act as substitutes for the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing as mentioned in the EKH Owners Committee Operating Arrangements;
10. To note that Council will appoint two members to serve on the Thanet Area Boards described in paragraph 2.5 of this report;
11. To note the proposed Financial Arrangements and provisional Management Fee (as set out in section 4.9 and Annex 5 of the report) and to delegate authority to the Section 151 Officer in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance to settle the detailed financial terms;
12. To authorise the Chief Executive or his nominee to discharge the powers and functions of the Council in its capacity as a member of East Kent Housing and to represent the Council at any meeting pursuant to Section 323 Companies Act 2006.
Page 44 5
107. FORT ROAD HOTEL
The item was withdrawn from the agenda.
108. RELOCATION OF RNLI LIFEBOAT STATION
The main Margate Lifeboat Station has been sited in its current location for many years. The recent construction of the Turner Contemporary and the intentions by the RNLI to introduce larger rescue vehicles in the medium term has prompted discussions on a possible relocation. This has been brought forward by the experience of running the service from its current temporary location which the RNLI have found more satisfactory. RNLI, Kent County Council and Thanet District Council met on the issue and there was broad agreement that the feasibility of permanently moving the lifeboat station to a location similar to its current temporary location should be explored.
Councillor Wise moved, Councillor Bayford seconded and Members agreed:
1. To give in principle support to the objective to move the Margate RNLI Lifeboat Station and request receipt of a full business case.
109. ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2007-2011 (PRELIMINARY REVIEW)
The report comprises a review of the performance of the Asset Management Strategy. In the context of continued public sector spending restraint and in anticipation of new Government guidance on asset management in the public sector, the report makes recommendations of areas within the Strategy where change is appropriate. A revised draft Asset Management Strategy for the period 2011 – 2015 would be presented at Cabinet in the next Municipal Year.
Councillor Moores moved, Councillor Latchford seconded and Members agreed:
1. That the following areas of the Council’s Asset Management Strategy be reviewed, with officers reporting a draft document to Cabinet in June 2011;
a) Review and draft revision of the Asset Disposal process; b) Improved arrangements, working in close co-ordination with the Community Development Team, to provide and release Thanet’s assets in the most effective and efficient way to support community groups, whose objectives are complementary to those of the Council and its own core strategic objectives; c) Use the Asset Register to operate in a commercial manner and increase income streams; d) Retain the Thanet Leisure Contract as a separate agreement from the Asset Management Strategy.
110. PETITION TO COUNCIL: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF HARTSDOWN PARK, MARGATE, KENT (MARGATE FOOTBALL CLUB / HARTSDOWN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD)
The report was in response to the petition forwarded to Cabinet by Council. A petition containing 555 signatures was received expressing opposition to proposed development by Margate Football Club at Hartsdown Park. The Petition states that “We the undersigned do wholly and irrevocably object to the development of Hartsdown Park for the purposes of constructing an artificial football pitch, causing the natural environment to be changed. We demand that Thanet District Council revoke the authority granted to develop this park land which is protected under legal agreement.”
Page 45 6
Councillor Moores moved, Councillor Bayford seconded and Members agreed that:
1. Cabinet notes that no lease regardless of period will be granted by the Council regarding land at Hartsdown Park, unless public consultation is undertaken through the Asset Disposal Procedure, and on completion of consultation a further report is considered by Cabinet. Cabinet would also need to receive a report on covenants, attached to Hartsdown Park, and restricting development.
111. SHOP LOCAL
A number of different factors have contributed to the number of empty shops across Thanet; including the development of Westwood Cross, changing trends in the way people go shopping (online and the ‘big shop’ at supermarkets) as well as the current economic climate. Through the Council’s Corporate Plan, the council has highlighted its commitment to supporting Thanet’s economy, local businesses and employment. Town Centre regeneration is an important function of supporting local economy. The Shop Local Scheme had been successful.
Councillor Latchford moved, Councillor Wise seconded and Members agreed:
1. Instruct officers to put in place Option 4 including;
b) assess the viability of the option with the town partnership organisations and contacting the other shopping areas to promote the widest possible interest;
c) develop and put in place pricing structures for the different types of shops;
2. It is requested that £8,000 (£6k Margate and £2k Ramsgate) is taken from the empty retail funding and that the income gained is re-invested into the scheme for 2011-12.
Meeting concluded : 7.47 pm
Page 46 Agenda Item 9
RESPONSES OF CABINET & COUNCIL TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL
To: Overview & Scrutiny Panel – 01 March 2011
Main Portfolio Area: All portfolios
By: Democratic Services & Scrutiny Manager (Deputy Monitoring Officer)
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: N/A
Summary: This report is to let the Panel know how Council responded to the recommendations made by the Panel at its meetings and to invite the Panel to consider the best way forward in relation to further scrutiny of such matters.
For decision
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 When the Panel makes recommendations to Cabinet/Council, it is felt that the outcomes of those recommendations should formally be reported back to the Panel for its information.
1.2 It is for that reason that the responses of Cabinet/Council to recommendations made by the Panel in relation to shared services are set out in Annex 1 to this report.
1.3 Although the Panel is unable to change decisions taken by full Council, it might now wish to reflect on the effectiveness of the scrutiny processes followed to date and consider whether any changes should be made in the way it scrutinises such matters in the future.
2.0 Corporate Implications
2.1 Financial
These are set out in the respective Directors’ reports attached to the Council agenda.
2.2 Legal These are set out in the respective Directors’ reports attached to the Council agenda.
2.3 Corporate
These are set out in the respective Directors’ reports attached to the Council agenda.
2.4 Equity and Equalities
These are set out in the respective Directors’ reports attached to the Council agenda.
3.0 Recommendation
3.1 The Panel is asked note the report.
Page 47
Contact Officer: Glenn Back, Democratic Services & Scrutiny Manager (Deputy Monitoring Officer) Reporting to: Harvey Patterson, Head of Legal & Democratic Services (Monitoring Officer)
Annexes
Annex 1 Cabinet/Council’s decisions on Panel recommendations
Background Papers
Title Details of where to access copy None N/A
Corporate Consultation Undertaken
Finance N/A Legal Harvey Patterson, Head of Legal & Democratic Services (Monitoring Officer)
Page 48 Overview and Scrutiny Panel Cabinet Decision Council decisions Recommendations
OSP Coach House Findings & Recommendations Report
1 Cabinet Agreed. There is no requirement for final In view of the efforts now being made to bring The Panel is asked to note that the decision by Council. the property back into its specified use:- recommendations of the Panel at its meeting on 16 November 2010 were considered by 3.1 No repossession action be taken at Cabinet on 12 January 2011 resulting in the this time although this will remain an following: option, if the terms of the Lease are not adhered to, Councillor Moores moved, Councillor Latchford seconded and Members agreed: 3.2 The terms of the lease, the boundary of the leased property and breaches a) To note the report are again explained to Mr. Miles, b) The findings and recommendations (3.1 - Page 49 3.3 Regular visits are made to the 3.7) from the Overview and Scrutiny Panel property to ensure continued compliance, as reflected in Sections 2 & 3 of the Cabinet report. 3.4 The Council expects the building to
be in use as a museum by Easter 2011,
3.5 Any alterations should be subject to Building regulations, Planning Consent and Landlords Consent as applicable,
Annex 1 Agenda Item9 3.6 When the property is being used for the specified purpose (a museum) and renovations are complete and in accordance with the schedule attached to the Lease and to Officers satisfaction further consideration is given to additional uses to allow the Leaseholder the opportunity for additional income streams,
3.7 Regular updates are given to Overview and Scrutiny panel on progress and compliance. Overview and Scrutiny Panel Cabinet Decision Council decisions Recommendations
Page 50 Agenda Item 10
THE COACH HOUSE, NORTHDOWN PARK, MARGATE
To: Overview and Scrutiny Panel - 1 March 2011
By: Asset Manager
Classification: Unrestricted
Summary: This is an update on the progress of refurbishment works at The Coach House, Northdown House.
For Information
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 At its meeting on the 20 TH October 2010 The Coach House Working Party Agreed the following Recommendations :
a) No repossession action be taken at this time although this will remain an option, if the terms of the Lease are not adhered to,
b) The terms of the lease, the boundary of the leased property and breaches are again explained to Mr. Miles,
c) Regular visits are made to the property to ensure continued compliance,
d) The Council expects the building to be in use as a museum by Easter 2011,
e) Any alterations should be subject to Building regulations, Planning Consent and Landlords Consent as applicable,
f) When the property is being used for the specified purpose (a museum) and renovations are complete and in accordance with the schedule attached to the Lease and to Officers satisfaction further consideration is given to additional uses to allow the Leaseholder the opportunity for additional income streams,
g) Regular updates are given to Overview and Scrutiny panel on progress and compliance.
This approach was endorsed by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel at their meeting on 16 th November 2010.
2.0 The Current Position
2.1 A further inspection was carried out on the 3 February 2011, to assess what progress has been made. Some works have been carried out to the rain water goods and roof areas. Internally, some further decoration has been carried out. A substantial amount of work still remains to be completed to put the building into repair. TDC have agreed to provide the tenant with a schedule of outstanding works during the week commencing 21 February, 2011. Another inspection will be arranged for the beginning of March.
Page 51
3.0 Corporate Implications
3.1 Financial
3.1.1 At present, there are no matters to consider under this heading.
3.2 Legal 3.2.1 There are no matters to consider under this heading. 3.3 Corporate
3.3.1 The monitoring of this project is consistent with good asset management.
3.4 Equity and Equalities
3.4.1 There are no matters to consider under this heading.
4.0 Decision Making Process
This report is for information only.
Contact Officer: Justin Thomson, Asset Manager Reporting to: Brian White, Director of Regeneration
Page 52 Agenda Item 11
FORWARD PLAN
To: Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 01 March 2011
Main Portfolio Area: All
By : Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager
Classification: Unrestricted
Summary: To update Panel Members on the revised Forward Plan of key decisions and allow the Panel to consider whether it wishes to be consulted upon any of the items
For Decision
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 The law requires that the Council regularly publish a Forward Plan of Key Decisions. Thanet’s Forward Plan is updated monthly and published on the Council’s internet site www.thanet.gov.uk/council__democracy/cllrs,_democracy__elections/forward_pl an.aspx and on the Members’ portal. 1.2 The aim of the Forward Plan is to allow the general public and Council Members to see what decisions are coming up over the next few months and how they will be handled i.e. whether a decision will be taken by Cabinet or Council, and whether there will be input from Overview & Scrutiny during the process. 1.3 Overview & Scrutiny receives an updated copy of the Forward Plan at each Panel meeting. The Panel can identify any item on the Forward Plan to be added to the Overview and Scrutiny work programme in order to be scrutinised further. A copy of the latest version of the Plan is attached at Annex 1 to this report.
2.0 Corporate Implications
2.1 Financial
2.1.1 None
2.2 Legal
2.2.1 None
2.3 Corporate
2.3.1 The development of a Scrutiny and Overview Forward Plan will help to deliver the Modern Council theme of the Corporate Plan, by focusing on transparent and accountable decision making.
Page 53 2.4 Equalities
2.4.1 None.
3.0 Recommendation
3.1 Members’ instructions are invited.
Contact Officer: Glenn Back, Democratic Services & Scrutiny Manager, ext.7187 Reporting to: Harvey Patterson, Head of Legal & Democratic Services
Annex List
Annex 1 Forward Plan
Background Papers
Title Details of where to access copy None n/a
Corporate Consultation Undertaken
Finance Not applicable Legal Not applicable
Page 54 Agenda Item 11 Annex 1
!" # $ %#! & '# ! ! R ) # !* ) $ $$ !$ R $+ )$ $ # $ $ %, $ # $ O#!P # ! !$ ! " $ *
!" # $ ') " $& / % / $ $ ! % '%% 0 ) ') " $& !& 2 %3 & $ & 1 ! % % #! $ ' )% ') " / % / $ $% ' )% ' ) " # $% / % / $ ' )% ') ! #% /4 /5 ' )6 $ $% /4 /5 ! % 3 ! % 7 8 7 9 $ :;;<= !5 % > %$ %#%
Page 55 $9 ! * 1 6! 9 @ 7 9 A "! 9 B 7 1$ 9 1$ @B " 7 9 9 7 @6 1$ !7 A 9 !7 A ! # # R 7 9 $ 7 " 7 8 %3 # % % %&'
Page 56 # % %% ( !!& ) %* " +!% " +& % ' "" )" ' % " +!%% ""% +!%% +'& %%"% &' ' % , 3 ! $! ?% ?;C R 9 $ 1 ' $ 1 , %9 1$ ?? 9 $ ! $ , 3 9 $ ! ) " , $'9,) ! 9 B $ , $' 7 1$ B "
5?5 # % %% ( !!& ) %* " +!% " +& % ' "" )" ' % " +!%% ""% +!%% +'& %%"% &' ' % , $ ?% ?;C /4 /4 " B $! %9 #7 9 D ?? B 7 $! " A"! 7 $!@ B 7 B 9 B 7 3 3 ?% ?;C 6 $ 1 1 A ?? ??5? $! % 6! !%, ! $ % , ?< $ #$ $ $ 6 ?? ! !%
Page 57 # $ 3 6 $ ! $ 8 9 %6 $ % ?C $ " ? & 7 # ?D ! %3 ??% 5! $ & ! % ! ?% ?;C 9 A # ! 7 ! # ! !7 ! %9 # ?? !7 ! $ 7 ! ??4? 1 A $ $ & $ # % !7 ! $ $ $ " % 9 $ 9 $ ! ! 9 ?? #! 7
55 # % %% ( !!& ) %* " +!% " +& % ' "" )" ' % " +!%% ""% +!%% +'& %%"% &' ' % , 2 $ ?% E< 7 ! F M 1 7 $!??4?: 27 $!??4?: %7 ?? 7 +B $$ " 7 $! $ ! A + R + " 7 $! " 6 M 8 9 * 2 ! D !??C? ! 7 9 ?? B B 3 ?% ?? B 7# B 3 !, 9 ?? + ! D ! 3 * $ !',) ! +1$ 7 +B 57 $ B ! % 7 E< 7 &@ $ $ ! , !, $ ?? 7# 7 $ 9 $ ,R3 7 $!8 /,7 $ + $ ??5?< A + 65, 8 @7 !
Page 58 ?%?%??* M??D !??+ B 3 7# $ !H # 3 $ ! $ $ , ??5?: $ !R3 $ $# % E%<%??* # $ $ ! ,R $ ??5?< , $7 $! $ $! ?% / 7# $ + " 7 $! I % ?< 75 K 9 K+ A ?? $ + F + %9 !$ + 9 $+ , 3 9 / 1 + A # " ! ?< +" + ! 7 ?? J ! +3 % 7
5C5 # % %% ( !!& ) %* " +!% " +& % ' "" )" ' % " +!%% ""% +!%% +'& %%"% &' ' % , " , 8 ?% / /4 /4 1 1 " ! ! 0 1$ ?: 7 $! $ ?? & %6 A " 9 / 1$ 1$ ?: 7 ?? B " $ ?% C= 1 7 ?5 # 9 ?? $5 ! $ $5 ! $ ! ' 3) $$ ! ! %6 A 7 ?<; $ " ?? 3
Page 59 3 1$ 9 $ 7 1$ B " ,17 ! M?;D ? ?% ?;= M?D ? 9 $ 1 7! ? , $ % 5 $! D ! $ %9 9 C= ?% ! ! , 3 ?? F !% " # ! 7 MCD ?? 7 7 7 $1 I 9 9 8 ? , $7 !7! 7 9 $ ! ! $$ 7 $ 7 " ?% ,1%" ! %
5<5 # % %% ( !!& ) %* " +!% " +& % ' "" )" ' % " +!%% ""% +!%% +'& %%"% &' ' % , 1 ;5?? ?% <E?? B& $ 9 $ 9 $ 7 $! 9 ! $ 9 $ 7 $! " ??$ ?;?? B& $ 7 $!;5 9 $ %6 A 7 @ ?? ?? 7 $! " 6 1$ 7 A 5D 1$ ! 7 7 /$ 9 $ 9 ! 7 9 " ?% / I + J " 9 9 9 ?; !
Page 60 ?? ' )+B $ , $+ %6 A 7 @ 1$ + " 6 / 6 +8 @ 1$ ?; 7 ! 7 ?? 1$ ! 7 9 1$ B "
5:5 # % %% ( !!& ) %* " +!% " +& % ' "" )" ' % " +!%% ""% +!%% +'& %%"% &' ' % , $ ! ?% ?;?? 7# $ 7# !+ " ! $ ! $ ?? +75 $ + A $ + + $ % !7! E??? !$ + 1 H $ # , $7 $! 9 1 H + + @B $8 ! +" + " 7 J ! +3 " ? ?% "! ?;?? $ / $ 1 $ 0 $ %9 #7 ?? $ & 9 $ 1$ " 9 $ :;! B
Page 61 ! 7 9 B 7 9 DA
5=5 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 62 Agenda Item 12
REVIEW OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2010/11
To: Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 01 March 2011
Main Portfolio Area: All Portfolios
By: Democratic Services & Scrutiny Manager
Classification: Unrestricted
Ward: All
Summary: This report reviews the Overview and Scrutiny Panel work programme for 2010/11
For Decision
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 This paper allows the Panel to review the Overview and Scrutiny Panel work programme agreed at the meeting on 11 January 2011.
1.2 Members of the Panel agreed the recommendations for moving forward the issue regarding the Coach House and Cabinet approved the Panel’s recommendations. Of particular note is the fact that the Panel would be receiving regular progress update reports from Council Officers as a way of ensuring compliance to the lease agreement.
1.3 The Panel received the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Strategic Assessment report on 11 January 2011. Members then asked that a further report with crime statistics be presented at the March Panel meeting. The issue is covered elsewhere in the agenda.
1.4 Members of the Panel asked the CDRP Working Party to identify potential scrutiny projects that relate to community safety for approval by the Panel before any work is undertaken by the working party.
1.5 The Airport Working Party met on 20 January 2011 to consider the peer review report from Bureau Veritas.
1.6 The size, composition and status of the working parties reflected in Table 1 below, is the position agreed to at the extraordinary Panel meeting on 15 June 2010 regarding the work programme of the Panel for 2010/11 and had since been updated.
2.0 The Work Programme Table
2.1 The table is sub-divided in order to illustrate the suggested nature of the work involved:
a) Formal Working Party – a formal sub-committee which will report its findings back to the Panel for recommendation onto the executive. b) Involvement in policy development – this entails the relevant Members being involved by officers in the review/development of policies by the executive. That
Page 63 work will be reported back to the Panel prior to recommendations being passed to the executive. c) Presentations – these are presentations to the Panel that will allow the Panel to consider whether any further work should be undertaken and a specific item included in the Panel’s work programme. d) Status to be determined – possible additions to the work programme. The Panel will need to decide whether to undertake work on them, and if so, how that work will be organised.
Page 64 Table 1 – Draft Work Programme
Issue Composition/ Lead Comment Status Members Officer Formal Working Parties Date of Cllr Bruce Brian White The working party This Group is still Establishment: Cllr Mrs Roberts had a meeting on active 02.10.07 Cllr Campbell 20 January and Airport Working Party Cllr Harrison considered the Cllr R Nicholson review report presented by a Representative from Bureau Veritas. Currently considering background information regarding the proposal for a night-time flying policy from Infratil in respect of Manston Airport. Before making recommendations to Overview and Scrutiny and thence Cabinet. Date of Cllr Lawson Brian White The Working Party This Group is still Establishment: Cllr Mrs Rogers continues to review active 02.10.07 Cllr Taylor all decisions taken Asset Management Cllr Harrison regarding asset Working Party Cllr Mrs disposals. To Johnston ensure that they comply with the Council’s agreed procedure. Date of Cllr Mrs Kirby Sue This group is still Establishment: Cllr Bruce McGonigal/ active 28.05.08 Cllr Lawson Sarah Corporate Cllr Mrs Roberts Martin Improvement and Cllr Harrison Budget Working Party Cllr D Green Cllr Campbell
NOTE this is an amended composition Agreed by the Panel. Date of Cllr Brown Active to enable any Establishment: Cllr Bruce reviews necessary 15.06.10 Cllr Mrs Kirby for the next stages Shared Services Cllr Taylor of Phase 1 services Working Party TBA following Council’s Cllr Campbell adoption of the Cllr Harrison business case. Cllr Mrs
Page 65 Issue Composition/ Lead Comment Status Members Officer Johnston Cllr R Nicholson Cllr King
Date of Establishment Cllr Mrs Kirby Madeline The sub-group is 17.11.09 Cllr Mrs Homer still active Shared Services Johnston Working Party:- Cllr King Housing Landlord Services Sub-Group
Date of Establishment Cllr Bruce The sub-group is 17.11.09 TBA still active Shared Services Cllr Campbell Working Party:- Cllr R Nicholson Shared Services Vehicle Sub-Group
Date of Establishment Cllr Brown Mark Seed On hold until the 28.07.09 Cllr Taylor Council develops its Shared Services Cllr Harrison approach to the Working Party:-Waste delivery of common & Recycling Sub- waste services Group across East Kent in the run up to 2013. Involvement in policy development Date of Establishment Cllr Mrs Roberts Mike Marsh On hold until new 24.04.08 Museums Cllr Scobie opportunities for Working Party external funding and partnerships are forthcoming Date of Cllr Bruce Brian White Awaiting firm Establishment: Cllr Watkins proposals regarding Pre-March 2003 Tivoli the Dreamland Brook Working Party redevelopment proposal – because the Council’s policy requires redevelopment to include remediation of the Tivoli Brook contamination problem
Page 66 Issue Composition/ Lead Comment Status Members Officer Date of Establishment Cllr Bruce Mark Seed On hold from an 25.05.08 Recycling in Cllr Watkins officer perspective Thanet Working Party as the future of development recycling in Thanet is through the East Kent joint waste service project which is being assessed by another working party. Date of Establishment Cllr Mrs Rogers Paul Verrall There are some The Group is still 24.04.08 Allotments Cllr Mrs matters arising that active Working Party Johnston require information and a further meeting in late February Date of Cllr Mrs Roberts Barry Establishment: Cllr Mrs Mileham The Group is still 25.11.08 Johnston active Thanet Works Cllr D. Green Working Party Date of Establishment Cllr Jarvis Brian The Working Party This Group is still 28.07.09 Cllr Mrs White/Colin is still active and active Local Development Johnston Fitt will meet again Framework Working once a new Party consultation programme has been drafted and considered by the LDF Cabinet Advisory Group. Date of Establishment Cllr Bruce Brian White Draft Masterplan in This Group is still 28.07.09 Cllr Mrs Rogers process active Ramsgate Port & Cllr Taylor Marina Working Party Cllr D Green Cllr Watkins Date of Establishment Cllr Jarvis Madeline Projects will be put 01.10.09 Cllr Lawson Homer/Mark forward for Crime & Disorder Cllr Mrs Richardson approval after the Reduction Johnston open forums in Partnership Working Feb/ March Party Date of Establishment Cllr Mrs Rogers Harvey The issue is The Group has 23.03.10 Cllr Harrison Patterson covered in detail fulfilled its mandate Coach House Cllr King elsewhere in the and the Panel is Working Party agenda asked to stand it down - Continued monitoring of the issue is being done through regular reports to the Panel Date of Establishment Cllr Bruce Mark Seed A further meeting of The working party is 11.05.10 the working party is still active
Page 67 Issue Composition/ Lead Comment Status Members Officer Seaweed Working being sought but a Party date has yet to be confirmed. A potential trial project to reduce the impact of the unavailability of land at certain times for spreading is being worked on. This is on top of the Environmental Permit the Council received for its seaweed spreading operations in November 2010.
Page 68 Issue Composition/ Lead Comment Status Members Officer Presentations 10/11 Presentations N/A All Portfolio Each meeting of by Portfolio Holders Holders and OSP receives a and Directors Directors presentation from a Cabinet Portfolio Holder and Director 10/11 All Working All Directors Each meeting of Parties the OSP receives verbal reports (informal reports) from members of working groups Status to be determined 10/11 Review of TBA Harvey The Panel to Royal Mail’s Patterson/ continue keeping an Processing Glenn Back eye on the issue. Operations in Kent
3.0 Corporate Implications
3.1 Financial
3.1.1 None directly from this report but elements of the suggested work programme may have financial and resource implications.
3.2 Legal
3.2.1 There are no legal issues arising directly from this report
3.3 Corporate
3.3.1 The work programme should help to deliver the Modern Council theme of the Corporate Plan by focusing on the best use of people, technology, buildings and assets in order to deliver high quality and efficient services. An active Scrutiny programme is part of good governance and will, ultimately underpin the Council’s use of resources assessment.
3.4. Equalities
3.4.1 None directly but the Council needs to retain a strong focus and understanding on issues of diversity amongst the local community and ensure service delivery matches these.
4.0 Recommendations
4.1 That Members note the report.
4.2 Agree that the Coach House Working Party had completed its task and should stand down.
Page 69 5.0 Decision Making Process
5.1 These are all decisions that can be taken by the Panel, though any suggestion affecting the Council’s Constitution would need to be referred to the Constitutional Review Working Party.
Contact Officer: Charles Hungwe, Democratic Services and Scrutiny Officer, Ext: 7186
Reporting To: Glenn Back, Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager, Ext 7187
Annex List
None N/A
Background Papers
Title Details of where to access copy None None
Corporate Consultation Undertaken
Finance Sarah Martin, Financial Services Manager Legal Harvey Patterson, Head of Legal & Democratic Services
Page 70 Annex
THANET DISTRICT COUNCIL DECLARATION OF INTEREST FORM
Do I have a personal interest?
You have a personal interest in any business of your authority where it relates to or is likely to affect: a) An interest you must register . b) An interest that is not on your register, but where the well-being or financial position or you, members of your family (spouse; partner; parents; in laws; step/children; nieces and nephews), or people with whom you have a close association (friends; colleagues; business associates and social contacts that can be friendly and unfriendly) is likely to be affected by the business of your authority more than it would affect the majority of :
• Inhabitants of the ward or electoral division affected by the decision (in the case of the authorities with electoral divisions or wards.) • Inhabitants of the authority’s area (in all other cases)
These two categories of personal interests are explained in this section. If you declare a personal interest you can remain in the meeting, speak and vote on the matter, unless your personal interest is also a prejudicial interest.
Effect of having a personal interest in a matter
You must declare that you have a personal interest, and the nature of that interest , before the matter is discussed or as soon as it becomes apparent to you except in limited circumstances. Even if your interest is on the register of interests, you must declare it in the meetings where matters relating to that interest are discussed, unless an exemption applies.
When an exemption may be applied
An exemption applies where your interest arises solely from your Membership of, or position of control or management on: 1. Any other body to which you were appointed or nominated by the authority. 2. Any other body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g. another local authority)
Is my personal interest also a prejudicial interest?
Your personal interest will also be a prejudicial interest in a matter if all of the following conditions are met: a) The matter does not fall within one of the exempt categories of decisions b) The matter affects your financial interests or relates to a licensing or regulatory matter. c) A member of public, who knows the relevant facts, would reasonably think your personal interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.
What action do I take if I have a prejudicial interest? a) If you have a prejudicial interest in a matter being discussed at a meeting, you must declare that you have a prejudicial interest as the nature of that interest becomes apparent to you. b) You should then leave the room, unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter , by statutory right or otherwise. If that is case, you can also attend the meeting for that purpose. c) However, you must immediately leave the room once you have finished or when the meeting decides that you have finished (if that is earlier). You cannot remain in the public gallery to observe the vote on the matter.
Page 71 d) In addition you must not seek to improperly influence a decision in which you have a prejudicial interest.
This rule is similar to your general obligation not to use your position as a Member improperly to your or someone else’s advantage or disadvantage.
What if I am unsure?
If you are in any doubt, Members are strongly advised to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer or the Democratic Services Manager well in advance of the meeting.
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL AND, PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS
MEETING ………………………………………………………………………………………………...
DATE …………………………………………… AGENDA ITEM ……………………………………
IS YOUR INTEREST:
PERSONAL
PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL
NATURE OF INTEREST:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
NAME (PRINT): …………………………………………………………………………………………
SIGNATURE: ……………………………………………………………………………………………
Please detach and hand this form to the Committee Clerk when you are asked to declare any interests.
Page 72