The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Chairman drew attention to the Fire Evacuation Procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 October 2017 (Minute Nos. 265 - 273) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 October 2017 (Minute Nos. 265 – 273) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

Councillor Ben Stokes declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of Item 11 – Cabinet Forward Plan, as his property was included within the Plan.  He explained that he would leave the room, if this specific item was discussed.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, the Head of Planning Services and an Area Planning Officer have been invited to attend for this item.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Planning, the Head of Planning Services and the Area Planning Officer to the meeting.  The Head of Planning Services advised that the Planning Enforcement Contractor who had subsequently been invited had had to send his apologies.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Head of Planning Services gave an update on the planning enforcement team since the structural changes introduced in September 2017.  Members were invited to ask questions.

What was the new structure in Planning Services?

Why would the new system work better?

How much progress had been made to get rid of the problems of the past?

The Cabinet Member for Planning provided some background and advised that the Enforcement Team Leader had retired, and this led to an opportunity to review the Planning Enforcement team.  He explained that staffing levels had increased from 2.8 FTE to 3.8 FTE.  The Team Leaders (two Area Planning Officers) work would deal with 25% enforcement issues, and these would be localised to their area of planning work.  The Cabinet Member explained that a Planning Enforcement Contractor was employed up to the end of the 2017 financial year (March 2018).  He advised that the new way of working had been implemented on 1 September 2017, and he considered it to be too early to determine how successful the new system of working was, and also its impact.  The system needed to embed.  He explained that it was difficult to give feedback on progress made, but he acknowledged that there had been a change of culture in the Planning Enforcement and Development Management teams.  The Planning Enforcement Contractor had brought a different approach, which was appreciated both by officers, and the general public.

The Head of Planning Services provided further details of the new structure.  He explained that the two Area Planning Officers were now also Enforcement Managers.  The Senior Planning Enforcement Officer dealt with complicated cases throughout the Borough, and she reported to one of the Enforcement Managers.  A couple of new Enforcement Officers had also been recently employed.  The Head of Planning Services explained that the Planning Enforcement Contractor was a Senior Enforcement Officer and had been ‘a breathe of fresh air’ to the department.  He had written new procedure and practice notes to deal with enforcement cases.  In future Members could be added to cases as a complainant and this would ensure they were updated throughout the cases.  The Planning Enforcement Contactor had also set up monthly meetings with the Legal Team to review ongoing cases.

The Chairman stated that Members wanted consistency and were keen to get matters established.  He welcomed further comments from Members.

In terms of the contractor’s role, should there be Swale Borough Council (SBC) staff employed, rather than contractors?

What were the changes in the culture within the department?

The Cabinet Member considered it was the personality of the Planning Enforcement Contractor that was helping, plus the procedures that he was compiling for the enforcement staff.

The Head of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 330.

To receive a written update.

The Committee received a written update.

A Member started the discussion with the following questions:

In terms of the Development Agreement, what information was being awaited from Spirit? 

As the deadline was the end of November 2017, was it getting a bit late?

Was there any movement to the developer option to use the car parks for housing and when did the option run out?

The Chief Financial Officer outlined some key issues.  He stated that the Section 278 and land transfers were difficult to resolve.  He acknowledged that it was getting late, but that this was not unusual for this type of development.  With the housing, he stated that he would find out more information for Members.

Construction - How far behind schedule were the works to St. Michael’s Road, Sittingbourne?

Communications – when was Spirit’s website going to be updated?

What was the potential impact on the whole regeneration of Tesco shutting its Forum store?

The Chief Financial Officer explained that Tesco had been losing money from the Forum store.  Another retailer would be moving in.  He explained that there was no direct effect of this on the regeneration plans, and that Tesco were still looking to sell the Forum.

A Member reported that Spirit’s website had shown that the roadworks (Phase 1) would be completed by 20 November 2017.

Members made further comments which included:  there needed to be analysis of risks on regular updates and a timeline of the critical path; the report attached to the agenda needed to be more detailed; risks were self-evident, this was a major investment, and the income returns might not be sufficient.

The Chief Financial Officer stated that there were wider risks than solely financial risks, and the works were in different phases.  He explained that the retail was a fixed price, and had moved past the speculative stage.  With the leisure project, once this had been signed-up, the risks were there as a complicated build.  There was a fixed price, with long leases.  Performance-wise, the whole development was in ‘amber’, but if the leisure part was signed by the end of the month, this could go to ‘green’.  The risks were transferred risks, to Spirit and their builders.

In response, Members made the following further comments:  needed to recognise that if part of the project was late, it would have a knock-on effect to other parts of the scheme; the risks locked into delivering each phase at a particular sequence; we requested a critical path and risk register and had not received them; confident that the risks were being mitigated at each stage, but the nature of some risks could not be mitigated;  would like to see a list of the risks – mitigated or not, and made aware of the risks that could not be mitigated; we requested a continuous update of the risks and this had not been received.

The Chief Financial Officer explained that there were constant meetings on the regeneration, and it was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 331.

The Committee is asked to consider the Review of Fees and Charges.  The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance and the Chief Financial Officer have been invited to attend for this item.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Chief Financial Officer and the Head of Commissioning and Customer Contact to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced the report which invited the Scrutiny Committee to consider the proposals for the level of fees and charges to be levied for the next financial year 2018/19.  He explained that as a result of previous comments from the Scrutiny Committee, the report had become more refined.

The Chairman advised that the Scrutiny Committee would review Appendix I in the report.  Appendix II listed the fees and charges set by Government which SBC had no discretion over.  The Chairman stated that the Committee would go through Appendix I page by page and he welcomed comments and questions.

Page 16

Question:  why was the long stay car parking fees cheaper at Cockleshell Walk, Sittingbourne and the Promenade, Leysdown, than in other locations?

Answer:  Charged less at Leysdown to bolster the tourism trade, and with Cockleshell Walk, this was out-of-town and under utilised, and the lesser charge was to bolster the capacity.

Page 18

Question:  Why had outdoor fitness charges increased, when there were aims to increase fitness throughout the Borough?

Answer:  Charges were aimed at commercial companies, and this allowed checks to ascertain they were legitimate to work on SBC-owned land.  This was about formalising the process regarding risk, and making profit from SBC land.

Question:  We might not know who was operating a franchise on outdoor fitness?

Answer:  The vast majority were self-employed; SBC asked whoever ran the session to pay the fee.  If the company was larger, they would pay an increased fee.

Question: Why had the replacement of a paper licence certificate (taxi licensing) been reduced by 50p, to £10?

Answer:  This was an across the board charge, i.e. dual driver badge replacement was £9.50, it was now £10.

Question:  at last year’s equivalent meeting, the Cabinet Member had advised that fitness sessions for 1 – 4 people should have no charge made against them, why had this changed?

Recommended: 

(1)          That the re-introduced charge for once a week outdoor fitness licence fees (1 – 4 people) be deleted.

Page 19

Question:  who paid for additional litter bins?

Answer:  SBC would pay for additional bins if they considered a new one was required and that it made a positive impact upon street cleansing.

In response to a question on additional litter bins, the Chief Financial Officer agreed to amend the schedule so that it included the wording ‘where levied’ instead of ‘where needed’.

Question:  Would community events be adversely effected by the charges?

Answer:  A full review had not been carried out on every event, but events that might be impacted had been advised.

Question:  Had there been an adverse reaction to the charges?

Answer:  Yes.

Page 22

Question:  who paid the costs of Traffic Regulation Order consultations?

Answer: the answer would be forwarded to Members.

Page 23

Question:  should more be charged for harbour  ...  view the full minutes text for item 332.

The Committee is asked to consider the Performance Monitoring Report - 2017/18 Quarter 1.  The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Policy and Performance Manager and the Business Improvement Officer – Planning Services have been invited to attend for this item.

The Chairman welcomed the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Policy and Performance Manager and the Business Improvement Officer to the meeting.

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced the report which presented the quarterly portfolio-based balanced scorecard performance records for the first quarter of 2017/18 (April – June 2017). 

Corporate Overview

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance explained that several targets had increased from the previous year, which partly accounted for the fact that the proportion achieving target this quarter had deteriorated.  The Policy and Performance Manager confirmed that the proportion of ‘greens’ had decreased, but noted that the proportion of ‘ambers’ had increased more than ‘reds’ and that a dip in performance was normal during the first quarter.

Members asked the following questions:

Question: Long term sickness was a concern, could there be more detail about this?

Answer:  this involved a very small number of SBC staff for various reasons and all justified.  He explained that when a member of staff was off on short term sickness, they were required to complete a back to work interview on their return.

Question: as the Infrastructure was red on risk, an adverse audit opinion, and the figures were from the first quarter, i.e. a bit dated, were more resources required?

Answer:  further information could be supplied on the risk and the adverse audit opinion.  Acknowledged that it would be preferable for the Committee to receive more timely information, but rather than this being a question of resource, it was more a function of the cyclical nature of the information and the Committee meetings.  The Policy and Performance Manager undertook to discuss with the Committee Chairman outside the meeting whether there were options to improve this going forward.

A Member requested information on the proportion of long term sick days due to work-related stress and those due to work-related depression, and the Policy and Performance Manager undertook to provide this.

Housing and Wellbeing

A Member requested more information on the meaning of ‘amber’ status for projects.  The Policy and Performance Manager explained that the descriptions of the meaning of ‘green’, ‘amber’ and ‘red’ as they applied to projects on the scorecards were generic ones in order to facilitate consistency among project executives in selecting the most appropriate status for their projects.

Planning Services

A Member stated that it would be interesting to see Quarter 3 figures to show the changes that had taken place within the Planning Department.

Regeneration

Question:  why had there been a dip in the business support graph?

Answer:  this was partly due to the online resources that SBC had.

Safer Families and Communities

The Deputy Cabinet Member reported that the Safeguarding training had been a good piece of work.

The Chairman thanked the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, the Policy and Performance Manager and the Business Improvement Officer for attending the meeting.

Post Meeting Note:  The Policy and Performance Manager provided updates to Members.

The Committee is asked to review the updated log of recommendations (attached).

The Policy and Performance Officer introduced the report and highlighted the updated notes for the Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration item.  The Visitor Economy Strategy notes had also been updated, and the Strategy would be submitted to Cabinet in February 2018.

A Member spoke against the rejected recommendation from Cabinet in relation to social housing under the Housing Services item.  Members were disappointed that the Visitor Economy Strategy had been delayed again.

Resolved:

(1)      That the report be noted.

The Committee is asked to consider updates on other reviews.

The Policy and Performance Officer reported that Cabinet’s response to the Housing Services report from the Scrutiny Committee would be submitted to Council on 22 November 2017, for information.

The Non-Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration review was at the scoping template stage.

The Development Services review was ongoing and a progress report would be provided at the next meeting.

The Committee is asked to consider the Forward Plan with a view to identifying possible items for pre-decision scrutiny.

A Member requested further information on the Sale of Land at Minster Cliffs Estate on page 63 of the report.

The Committee is asked to consider any requests from Committee Members to commence a review.

There were no urgent business requests.

The Committee is asked to note the Committee’s Work Programme (attached) for the remainder of the year.

The Policy and Performance Officer confirmed with the Committee that they were happy for the Waste Team to be invited to the February 2018 Scrutiny Committee.