Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chapelard, Gray and Uddin

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

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

Minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting dated 13 February 2017. The Chairman will move that the minutes of the previous meeting be signed as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy. Procedure rules applicable to all meetings Part 4, section 6.

The minutes of the meeting dated 13 February 2017 were submitted.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Committee meeting dated 13 February 2017 be agreed.

If there are any ‘Call-in’ items, details will have been circulated to Members under separate cover.

There were no items which had been called-in under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 12.

The Chair, Councillor Rankin, confirmed the order of the agenda. Prior to consideration of the substantive items on the agenda, Carl Ward, a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) in Tunbridge Wells, spoke to the Committee and outlined some of the key roles undertaken by him in his role:

·         Reducing anti-social behaviour; assisting and supporting vulnerable people in the community.

·         Helping with crime enquiries and allowing police officers to target specific areas of crime.

·         Working with schools to educate and target nuisance youths.

·         Reacting to incidents at ‘hotspot’ areas and dealing with nuisance young people who commit criminal damage.

·         Developing the job role further including the tackling of domestic abuse.

Members expressed the following views:

Councillor Woodward wanted to clarify whether PCSOs maintained sufficient cover of their own areas and asked whether, in view of limited resources, the deployment of PCSOs was driven by a requirement to cover areas according to demand, rather than the individual skill-sets of officers. PCSO Ward advised that PCSOs had areas where they primarily worked, but that officers would pool together when required, if particular skills were needed. Councillor Woodward further asked if the PCSOs were deployed on a daily basis, following a morning meeting, or whether more advanced notice was given. PCSO Ward confirmed that, when responding to a large-scale incident, more notice was received, but that on a daily basis it depended on the workload and the PCSOs self-briefed. PCSO Ward added that officers were free to attend Community Safety Unit meetings, but that, again, attendance depended on the workload at the time.

Councillor Huggett asked how the PCSOs divided their time between the various roles they undertook. PCSO Ward advised that this was dictated by events. He added however, that where time allowed, the focus would be on patrolling their designated areas. He further added that, where risk assessments identified a need to support vulnerable people, this would become a priority.

Councillor Simmons asked if PCSO Ward was the only PCSO responsible for his patch and also asked under which circumstances a resident should contact a PCSO, as opposed to a police officer. PCSO Ward advised that he covered his area on his own. However, two additional PCSOs were currently undertaking training, and although ultimately they would be given their own areas, broadly it would reduce the workload for all the PCSOs in the borough. In regard to which area of police force to contact, PCSO Ward said that there would be occasions where an incident could only be dealt with by a police officer; however, the first point of contact when reporting a crime would always be calling 101 or 999. PCSO Ward added that the staff who dealt with these calls were skilled at filtering the incidents to the relevant areas.

Councillor Bill Hills commented that he had had cause to contact the 101 number recently and although the member of staff he eventually spoke to dealt with his enquiry professionally, it had taken some time to get through to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC77/15

Councillor Lynne Weatherly, Portfolio Holder for Communities and Wellbeing, outlined the achievements within her portfolio over the last year and her ambitions for year ahead. Councillor Weatherly referred Members to her Portfolio Holder Statement - appendix A to the report and highlighted the following areas:

·         Good progress had been made with community hubs – a model was in place for the Southborough Hub to deliver a new facility and work on plans for Cranbrook and Paddock Wood was ongoing.  A long-term solution was being sought for the TN2 building in Sherwood including potential for a health hub

·         A new Health Inequalities Action Plan had been produced which would help address some of the health inequalities in the borough. Work had also started towards health devolution which would see a new approach to health being delivered across West Kent.

·         A new Housing and Homelessness Strategy was being developed and work had been completed with the new Better Care Funding Scheme - allowing a hospital discharge service to be put in place for older and vulnerable residents. The scheme had already assisted 46 residents in returning to their homes.

·         The Dowding House project was a scheme which would see the council implementing a new solution for temporary accommodation – providing improved accommodation for vulnerable families and at the same time saving the Council money.

·         Looking ahead the Council would aim to secure planning permission and external funding for the Cultural and Learning Hub. Work would start on-site with the Southborough Hub and detailed plans would be worked up for community hubs in Cranbroook and Paddock Wood.

·         The Health Devolution agenda would move forward and work undertaken to establish a West Kent Community Safety Partnership (CSP), ensuring that West Kent had the appropriate partners involved with regard to community safety.

·         There were pockets of deprivation in Tunbridge Wells and it was vital that these areas were included when looking forward, and that families who struggled financially, did not find it difficult living in a town considered to be relatively wealthy. The Council would be working closely with the Town and Country Housing Group as part of the Sherwood Partnership to address issues such as job finding and skills learning.

Councillor Weatherly also updated Members on the work of the West Kent Clinical Commissioning Group Health and Wellbeing Board which included: the appointment of task and finish groups; reviews of policies and strategies such as safeguarding; presentations from groups such as Healthwatch; and reports from other Kent health and wellbeing boards.

Members expressed the following views:

Councillor Woodward expressed concern at the level of resources available for community safety and particularly in respect of PCSO numbers. Councillor Woodward questioned whether the already scarce resources would be reduced further as a result of devolution to a West Kent CSP. Councillor Woodward also asked whether the police were using PCSOs in an expanding role that prevented them from undertaking their traditional duties.

Councillor Weatherly did not consider that the plans for a West Kent CSP had  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC78/15

The Chair, Councillor Rankin, introduced the report which detailed the work of the Community Safety Unit over the previous year. The Community Safety Manager, Terry Hughes, highlighted the following areas:

·         Tunbridge Wells remained the safest place in Kent, with an increase the previous year of 245 crimes in a twelve month period (the smallest increase in the 12 Kent areas).

·         Most of the crime recorded had been in the town centre and residential areas such as Broadwater, Southborough and High Brooms; much of the CSP’s work was focused in these areas.

·         There was no discernible increase in anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the twelve month period although there were places where ASB was a persistent problem and these were being targeted.

·         Loud and nuisance motorbikes had been an issue, although one instance could generate several crime reports, which sometimes exaggerated the depth of the issue.

·         Groups of 13-20 year olds congregating in the evenings in certain areas resulted in the generation of crime reports. Larger groups of (slightly older) youths congregated in the town centre, and in and around car parks, with some anti-social behaviour taking place.

·         There had been a reduction in burglaries although outbuildings still remained a target; there would be more focus on encouraging householders to lock up sheds and garages.

·         There had been a sharp rise in sexual offences (after a consistently low number in previous years) although this included a number of historic cases.

·         There had been a 50 percent reduction in drug trafficking, with Chief Inspector Dave Pate’s zero tolerance policy and focus on tackling London drug gangs who dealt in the town, having an effect. However, drug possession offences had only reduced by 3 percent over the same twelve month period.

·         Vehicle crime was low in Tunbridge Wells when compared to other Kent areas and had reduced steadily over a four year period.

The priorities over the year ahead were:

·         Although increasing across the county, Tunbridge Wells had the lowest rates of domestic abuse in Kent. However, the repeat rates (42 percent) were higher than other areas and would be a focus for providers over the next twelve months.

·         There had been a low take-up of the Community Domestic Abuse Programme and this would be looked at as part of the Partnership’s work. Domestic Abuse continued to be a priority for all authorities in West Kent and the Partnership would continue to support the Programme and the Domestic Abuse Volunteer Support Services.

·         There had been a good reduction in most categories of road safety (including children). Injured and slightly injured figures had reduced by half. There had, however, been an increase in the killed or seriously injured figures for cyclists from five to ten. There had also been a small increase in the slightly injured figure for over 65s. The CSP had invested in two speed indication devices, one of which had gone to the St John’s area to support the work being done by the 20’s Plenty programme. KCC wardens would continue their  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC79/15

The Chair, Councillor Rankin, introduced the report which updated Members on the civic development. The Head of Economic Development, David Candlin, highlighted the following points:

·         The report focused on highlighting the information made available by the Council including previous reports. Information was also available on the Council’s website together with links to redacted reports. A number of questions had been received from residents and responses from the Council signposted the enquiries to the reports that held the relevant information.

·         The Council was due to move forward with a significant element of consultation (including an all-member briefing the following day) which would highlight some of the key elements of the framework and broaden out the significance of the project in terms of planning.

·         Members would be updated on the massing and scale of the development as well as the impact on Calverley Grounds. There would also be engagement with stakeholders such as the Friends of Calverley Grounds.

·         The Development Framework consultation would start on 20 June 2017; however, the Planning Policy Working Group had already been consulted on the development framework by the Head of Planning Policy.

·         The consultation was high level but would include a section focusing on the design and vision for the complex. The consultation would be open to the public for a six week period and would include staffed events to encourage public engagement.

·         An online petition had been received and accepted by the Council which asked for reconsideration of the proposals and cited, in part, the potential damage to Calverley Grounds. The member briefing would detail the actual impact on part of Calverley Grounds during any construction phase and the overall impact post-development.

·         Looking ahead, there would be a more intense communications framework; with a continuing open door policy for Members should they have questions.

Members expressed the following views:

Councillor Woodward felt the Council membership had been well informed throughout the process. He went on to ask whether those Members on the Planning Committee would fetter their discretion when considering a future application. Mr Candlin said he would contact the Legal Team and ask them to provide a broader comment for Planning Committee members.

Councillor Bill Hills asked when residents in the borough would be consulted on the cost of the development and the potential impact on Council services. Mr Candlin clarified that a report would be presented to Full Council that dealt with cost. Mr Candlin advised that Members had already been briefed by the Council’s Director of Finance, Policy and Development on the budget for the development. Mr Candlin added that the Council would need to make two key decisions based on an overall package of information that would be included in the RIBA stage 3 report on the development – funding and affordability. Mr Candlin said the work included in Stage 3 would provide significantly more detail and a level of information that offered greater assurance to Members in terms of the estimated development costs. Mr Candlin further added that, as the  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC80/15

The chair, Councillor Rankin, introduced the draft report and advised Members that they should contact the Scrutiny and Performance Officer, Nick Peeters, should there be any amendments they wished to be considered. Councillor Rankin confirmed that, subject to any further amendments, the report would be considered by Full Council on 26 July 2017.

RESOLVED to note the report.

The Chair, Councillor Rankin, introduced the report which detailed the work undertaken by the Council towards project planning. The Business Development Unit Project Manager, Michael Josh, highlighted the following points from the report:

·         The Programme Management Office (PMO) was a standard approach within many local authorities and businesses towards project planning, ensuring a consistent view of projects across the organisation.

·         Through the PMO, dependencies are known and managed, the risks of combined delivery of projects are understood and security is provided for the delivery of those projects.

·         A report is produced every month for each project and the reports are made available to the Council’s Management Board regularly. The PMO ensures that an independent assessment of the status for each project and how it links to other projects is undertaken.

Members expressed the following views:

Councillor Rankin asked if Mr Josh had received Prince 2 training. Mr Josh said the training was available within the Council and he had an understanding of the principles. Councillor Rankin then noted 2.2 and 2.3 of the report which referred to the function being either ‘passive’ or ‘active’ and asked how this status was determined. Mr Josh advised that this element was in the gift of Management Board – who understood the roles of the PMO. Mr Josh added that, primarily, the approach taken was passive and this included the provision of consistent information, but in some instances health checks and reviews on projects were undertaken and this represented a more active approach.

Councillor Woodward asked if there was any Member involvement in the Programme Management Board. Mr Josh advised that the Programme Management Board was a role undertaken by Management Board and there was no Member involvement.

Councillor Rankin asked if the PMO was set up as a result of the number of projects due to be undertaken by the Council, or because of issues that had arisen with projects in the past. The Director of Change and Communities, Paul Taylor, advised that it was combination of the two. He said an example of a project that could have been delivered more successfully was the Partnership Planning Support Project. Mr Taylor added that one of the first projects undertaken by Mr Josh was to bring the Planning Support Service back in-house, which was completed on time and within budget. Mr Taylor further added that the Management Board had looked at the risks associated with the growing number of large cross-cutting projects being undertaken and resourced a passive PMO. Mr Taylor went on to say that individual projects had their own, separate project support and there was Member representation on the relevant project board.

Councillor Rankin suggested that a similar presentation be provided for all Members.

RESOLVED to note the report.

The Chair, Councillor Rankin, introduced the report which provided an update on the review of the Civic Amenity Vehicle Service. The Head of Environment and Street Scene, Gary Stevenson, highlighted the following points:

The Recycling/Household Waste Contract Task and Finish Group, as part of its work, had recommended that a report on the review be provided to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, following input from the Parish Chairmen’s Forum.

The report provided a six-month update following changes to the service and appendix A was an extract from minutes of the Parish Chairmen’s Forum meeting ( where the same report was considered).

The report included detail on the amount of materials collected since the service had changed and how this was separated. The report confirmed that the amount of waste sent to landfill had reduced and the split-service allowed more compostable material to be collected as garden waste.

The changes helped residents focus on which materials could be recycled. Work had been done with residents at the point of disposal and enforcement work had also been carried out to deal with illegal commercial waste.

Councillor Hannam said the figures for fly-tipping had been useful and asked if an annual report could be produced for these figures solely. Mr Stevenson advised that the figures could be extracted and provided as twelve-months of data, as part of the Sustainability Portfolio Holder’s update.

Councillor Rankin asked if there was an intention to start charging residents for potentially non-domestic waste e.g. DIY waste. Mr Stevenson advised that, as a waste disposal issue, this was a county council function. He was aware, however, that Kent County Council was reviewing its waste disposal strategy and the household waste recycling sites would be included as part of the review. Councillor Rankin asked if there was any update on the provision of an additional amenity site to the east of the borough by KCC. Mr Stevenson advised that the Leader of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Councillor Jukes, had been in conversation with the KCC Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste, Matthew Balfour, about exploring opportunities for an additional site. Mr Stevenson added that KCC had not identified any land that would be suitable.

Councillor Dawlings said it would be ideal from the borough council’s perspective for a new site to come forward at the same time as a new household recycling and waste contract was agreed, and asked if this was likely. Mr Stevenson reiterated that it was ultimately a decision for KCC but added that the recommendation from the Recycling/Household Waste Contract Task and Finish Group, that KCC and neighbouring district councils be asked to discuss the feasibility of a site, was due to be considered by the Cabinet and would hopefully receive support.

RESOLVED to note the report.

The Chair of the Tackling Excessive Speeds in Rural Areas Task and Finish Group, Councillor Bill Hills, advised Members that a full draft of the report would be made available to next scheduled meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny, Committee, 12 June 2017, subject to the views of the Task and Finish Group.

Councillor Hills advised that one of the draft recommendations from the Task and Finish Group (the distribution of road safety posters by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Licensing and Food safety Teams when visiting premises) had already been taken up by the officers concerned.

RESOLVED to note the update.

The Scrutiny and Performance Officer, Nick Peeters, updated Members on the status of the Committee’s task and finish groups.

RESOLVED to note the update

The Committee discussed its work programme for 2017/18.

Councillor Palmer had received comments from residents and parish councillors regarding the provision of rural bus services and asked that it be considered as an item for the work programme.

Councillor Hills suggested that a review of how scrutiny operates in other authorities would be useful piece of work and serve to inform the scrutiny function at Tunbridge Wells.

RESOLVED to note the Committee’s work programme and options for adding to it.

To consider any other items which the Chairman decides are urgent, for the reasons to be stated, in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business.

The next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will take place on Monday 12 June 2017.

It was noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would take place on Monday 12 June 2017.