After the members of the MKIP Board had departed, members of the three Committees considered what further action was necessary at this stage, based upon the responses they had just received and the evidence before them.

• Councillor Butler (MBC) felt that committee members required more detailed information about the financial consequences of the numerous difficulties which the joint Planning Support service had suffered since its launch. The Chairman acknowledged that this was important further evidence, which she asked be circulated to all Committee members as soon as this was available;

• Councillor Booth (SBC) voiced his dissatisfaction with the responses the committees had heard at the meeting. He proposed that a further more detailed examination of the situation was required, which considered was best undertaken by a Joint Task and Finish Group;

• Councillor Booth (SBC)  acknowledged that Swale Borough Council’s all out elections on 7 May meant that the Task and Finish Group was faced with a dilemma; either it was required to complete its work before the election or delay the start of its work until mid-May; when the newly appointed Overview and Scrutiny Committee was in place.  
  
  

This was seconded by Councillor Henderson (SBC).

• Councillor Gooch (MBC) sought clarification over exactly what the Task and Finish Group was being tasked to undertake. Councillor Woodward endorsed this view, adding that it was vital that the scope of the Task and Finish Group was determined first, before any work could begin;
  
  
• Councillor Henderson (SBC) felt that there were two distinct functions for the Task and Finish Group: an element of ‘looking back’ and identifying why and how the project had been so poorly managed. This, he felt would help to identify and frame a set of recommendations for the MKIP Board to apply to any subsequent MKIP project. The second function was to look at the future of the Planning Support service and determine what remaining operational activities were required to be implemented (e.g. land charges, GIS mapping, a paperless system, problems of accuracy etc). Councillor Henderson also felt that the financial performance of the service should be a factor that the Task and Finish Group should consider;
  
  
• Committee members discussed whether these elements would be beneficial, with Councillor Hills (TWBC) preferring an approach which focused on frequent, detailed and reliable reports being presented back from the Planning Support Project Board which could demonstrate whether the actions now being followed were delivering the service. Councillor Gooch (MBC) also felt it would be helpful to determine what ‘normality’ looked like. The evidence the Interim Head of Planning Support Services had offered to provide would be vital in helping the three committees in their next stages;
  
  
• Councillor Rankin (TWBC) endorsed the view that there was little benefit in looking back. At this stage, Councillor Rankin felt there were three Overview and Scrutiny tasks (i) the need to be satisfied that the MKIP Board’s response was the right one, (ii) the need to have a detailed performance update; and (iii) the opportunity to examine what operational efficiencies are being led by the interim Head of Planning Support Services. On this basis, the work of the Task and Finish Group could be delayed until June;

• Councillor Booth (SBC) reiterated his concerns and urged that further Overview and Scrutiny action be taken. Councillor Rankin (TWBC) stressed that it had to be the ‘parent committees’ that established the terms of reference for the Task and Finish Group, not for the group itself to undertake this;

• Councillor Booth (SBC), based on the clarification of member discussions, proposed that (i) a task and finish group be formed in early May; (ii) that in the intervening period, each separate Overview and Scrutiny Committee decide what outstanding concerns they have; (iii) post-election the three Committees delegate responsibility to their Chair and Vice Chairs to nominate representatives and agree the terms of reference.

Members agreed that a Joint Task and Finish Group could look to the future and establish confidence in the PSSS going forward through the monitoring of its progress.

RESOLVED:

1. That the joint Committees of the Maidstone, Swale and Tunbridge Wells Overview and Scrutiny Committees consideration of the reports and appendices be noted, including:

a.    The Audit Report on MKIP Planning Support Implementation;

b.    The response of the MKIP Board to the Audit report; and

c.    The issues raised by each.

2. That in the next Municipal Year, the three newly formed Scrutiny or Policy and Resources Committees of Maidstone, Swale and Tunbridge Wells should delegate responsibility to their Chairman and Vice-Chairman to nominate two representatives to join a Joint Task and Finish Group and agree the terms of reference of this Group for further examination of the performance and financial information of the MKIP Planning Support Shared Service and project methodology for future MKIP Shared Services.