Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct. For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer before the meeting.

It was noted that Councillor Palmer was a Director of Property Holdings (Reference Agenda Item 9).

To receive any declarations by members of instruction given by or on behalf of a political group as to how that member should speak or vote on any items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of a party whip, please contact the Monitoring Officer before the meeting.

There were no declarations that any Member was subject to a party whip.

To note any Visiting Members or members of the public wishing to speak, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18 or 19, and which item(s) they wish to speak on.

There were no members of the public or visiting Members registered to speak.

To approve the minutes of a previous meeting as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

Members reviewed the minutes.  No amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 10 November 2022 be approved as a correct record.

Members reviewed the minutes.  No amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 21 November 2022 be approved as a correct record.

To consider any items ‘Called-In’ under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 13, details of which will have been circulated to Members under separate cover.

There were no items which had been called-in.

Councillor Nancy Warne, Cabinet Member for Community Safety introduced Terry Hughes, Community Safety Manager who presented the report set out in the agenda.

Questions from Members included the following:

-       There was currently no active County Lines in Tunbridge Wells.

-       Intelligence on County Lines was being collected all the time and there was currently nothing coming through.  However, County Lines was a specific type of drug dealing.  Other types of drug dealing was taking place throughout the district.

-       For the purposes of the report, the category for Complex and High needs cases related to domestic abuse. 

-       Further details regarding the number of slight road traffic injuries in Goudhurst and Lamberhurst would be forwarded after the meeting.

-       At present TWBC didn’t have the resources available to go into schools to talk about race/hate crime.

-       The police used to have a team of schools’ officers, but this had now been put on hold due to other competing priorities.

-       As from June 2023, a Child Centre Policing Team would take on some of this work, looking at the issue of hate crime and getting into schools to see what could be done to educate people around what was acceptable and what was not acceptable.

-       It was very important that hate crime was reported and that there was a specialist team available to provide advice and support.

-       The Near Miss Register wasn’t advertised regularly but this was something the Community Safety Unit could consider.

-       The Near Miss Register had been ‘live’ for about 2 years and to date about 250 incidents had been reported.

-       Going forward, consideration was being given to the format of the Near Miss Register form.  A form of multiple choice was being considered as the preferred format.

-       Further work to analyse the data would be undertaken, which would be presented at a later date.

-       Remedial action at specific sites where accidents had occurred were a matter for Kent County Council (KCC).  KCC had their own set of criteria that they used to determine what if any action was taken.

-       The data from the Near Miss Register might be something that KCC could use in the future.

-       Tackling anti-social behaviour in parks was likely to be an issue this year as there was a lack of resources available to carry out this work. 

-       Currently, 12 evenings at 4 hours per evening had been allocated for security officers to undertake some engagement work with retailers and members of the public.  Going forward, consideration would need to be given to an action plan for open spaces.

-       There wasn’t a breakdown of figures for hate crime.  However, reports of hate crime were looked at on a daily basis to see if there were any traits or trends.  At present there were no particular trends.

-       Residents should be actively encouraged to report instances of anti-social behaviour.  The level of response by the police would however depend on priorities.  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC8/22

Councillor Hugo Pound, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning introduced Stuart Clifton, Housing Services  Manager who presented the report set out in the agenda.

Before questions and to help aide Member discussion, a summary of the comments raised at the Communities and Economic Development Cabinet Advisory Board was given:

-       Properties would be sought with the minimum EPC standard, with the aim of aspiring to those with a higher than minimum EPC standard.

-       Properties would be sought that required as little refit as possible.

-       Properties would be available to those on the Housing waiting list and assessed against the Council’s current policy.

-       Properties would not be purchased outside the Borough.

-       The scheme required the purchase of 1 x 4 bedroom property, with the rest likely to be either 2 or 3 bedroom properties. 

-       It was anticipated that the Council would be able to find properties within the prescribed budget set.

-       Only s106 money could be used for the scheme.

-       If the Council failed to find all the properties, it was likely that a proportion of the money would have to be returned to Central Government.

Questions from Members included the following:

-       Acquiring properties with an average purchase price of £300k would be challenging.  Properties would also need to meet certain criteria, e.g. close to amenities, schools, transport and close to local communities.  This would probably mean the more rural areas of the Borough would be unsuitable.

-       Ultimately, the key driving factor would be affordability.

-       Given the tight timescales there would be no time to build new properties for this scheme.  Existing housing stock would be used.

-       An additional £20k per property would be available for other capital costs, including ensuring the property was sustainable. 

-       In terms of ongoing support, the Council had a Ukrainian Support Team, there was also support from the voluntary sector.  With regards to the Afghan families, Kent County Council working with the Home Office were in the lead.

-       There was a strong social network for Ukrainian families.

-       Government had not given any guidance to Councils in respect of how long families would be housed in these properties, but instead would allow Councils to be flexible in their approach depending on local need.

-       The Council’s minimum contribution to the scheme would be £2.8m.  It could choose to add more s106 money but it was unlikely that the Council would use all its available s106 money for one scheme. 

-       The £300k per property (for 14 of the 15 properties) was an average price, so there was flexibility depending on the price of each property found.  The Government were contributing 50% for the 4 bedroom property so this would be dealt with separately.

-       The scheme required the Council to provide 1 four bedroom house. 

-       If the Council was unable to acquire all 15 properties a proportion of the funding would be returned to Central Government.

-       The Government’s contribution amounted to  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC9/22

Caroline Britt, Democratic Services Officer introduced the report set out in the agenda.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       Councillor Atkins had not been included in the Membership – this would be amended. 

-       The minutes of the meeting held in January 2023 had been delayed, but they would be available for the next meeting in June 2023. 

-       The minutes of this meeting would also be available for the next meeting in June 2023.

RESOLVED – That the draft Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report 2022-23 be approved subject to updates following the meeting dated 13 March 2023 to be presented for final approval at the next meeting in June 2023. 

To consider the Committee’s future work programme.

The Work Programme was presented to the Committee.

-       It was noted that this was the end of the municipal year so the majority of the items had been actioned/completed.

-       The work of the Contracts Task and Finish Group was ongoing.  A report would come to Overview and Scrutiny in due course.

-       Suggestions for items to be included in the Work Programme for 2023-24 should be sent to the Chair of OSC for consideration.

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.

To note that the next scheduled meeting is Monday 19 June 2023

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday 19 June 2023.