Borough Secretary's Section
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Directorate of Finance and Administration ] [ Directorate of Planning and Development ] [ Directorate of Housing ] [ Directorate of Borough Services ] [ Borough Secretary's Section ]

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE DELEGATED

MINUTES OF COMMITTEE AS SET OUT IN THE COUNCIL MINUTE BOOK DATED

16 JULY 1997

1. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - 20 MAY 1997
   
   1. Maidstone Town Centre Management Initiative (Minute 23, Page Dl.42)

The Director of Planning and Development submitted a report to the Committee regarding the position of the Maidstone Town Centre Management Initiative at the end of its second three year term and considered options for the future. The Committee expressed the view that the Town Centre Management Initiative worked reasonably well and one of its main benefits was to provide a link between the public and private sector. However, it was felt that the Initiative needed a higher profile to highlight its existence and achievements and that small businesses should be targeted to become members of the Initiative. The Director of Planning and Development added that the Federation of Small Businesses was proposing to become a funding partner for the following three year period.

The Committee expressed concern that the Kent county Council was not to be full funding partners in the Initiative and it was felt necessary to ask the County Council to reconsider their position with regard to the Initiative as soon as possible.

It was agreed:

1. That the Committee confirm all party support for the Maidstone Town Centre Management Initiative in principle and its support for the current format of the Initiative;
   
   
2. That the following proposals be recommended for consideration to the Town Centre Management Initiative Steering Group:-

1. That for all the achievements of the Initiative it may be felt that a slight change in direction for the Initiative, particularly in terms of achieving a higher public profile would be desirable.
   
   
2. That without underestimating the achievements of the current Town Centre Manager, not least in establishing the Initiative, it may be felt that it would be beneficial after six years to advertise the position for the next three year contract and test the market, perhaps to bring a new approach to the task.
   
   
3. That the full private/public sector partnership basis of the Initiative has been vital in attracting external finance to the town. Borough and County Council commitment has been a key feature. If Kent County Council are not sponsors they can not be partners and this could have a very significant impact, not just on internal finances, but external funding for local projects. Kent County Council should be asked to give serious further consideration to maintaining financial interest in the Initiative.
   
   
4. In any event, the Initiative should continue its quest for additional sponsors, perhaps seeking wider representation from long established local independent businesses and the small business sector, as well as the major national multiples.
   
   
5. The desirability of the Town Centre Management Initiative assuming a high profile presence in the town centre through appropriate ground floor premises should be supported in principle, if necessary through the Borough Council acting as facilitator providing the Initiative is set up for the next three year period in a manner which meets the Borough Councils ideals as one of the sponsors.
   
   
6. That there is a need for cross party political representation on the Initiative and that there should be appropriate consultation and liaison with Borough and County Ward Members over issues likely to have an impact with the public.

3. That the Director of Planning and Development write to the Kent County Council asking them to reconsider their position with regard to the Initiative as a matter of urgency.

2. Consultation by Kent County Council: Fundamental Review of the Transport Capital Programme (Minute 23, Page Dl.44)

The Committee was informed that a consultation document published by the Kent County Council had been received. The document examined the County Councils programme of proposed new roads and other transport schemes and suggested that the majority of them were deleted from the programme. The Kent County Council had stated that the review was being undertaken in the light of a realistic assessment of likely funding levels, the significant shift in government attitude concerning large scale highway improvements and the aims and objectives of the County Council.

The Committee considered the schemes in the Borough that were affected and it was noted that the mid Kent Metro, the Leeds/Langley by-pass, the Maidstone Urban Transport package and the improvements to the A274 Sutton Road/Willington Street junction were proposed to be included.

One of the schemes recommended for deletion was the A229 Maidstone Southern Approach Road (Town Centre Environmental Improvement Scheme). The Committee felt that it was vital that aspects of the scheme were kept in the programme to provide environmental benefits for the residents of the Borough. In that regard, it was felt that the A229 All Saints bypass and a scheme for the proposed widening of Upper Stone Street should be retained, along with the property necessary to achieve the schemes. The Committee also felt that the Staplehurst by-passshould not be deleted from the scheme as it provided environmental benefits for the residents of Staplehurst. Also, the scheme for the improvements of the traffic signals at the A20 London Road/Queens Road junction should be included to enable better public transport facilities to be possible.

The Committee also felt that as the building of the Northern River Crossing was unlikely in the foreseeable future it should not be retained in the programme. Rather as part of the Millennium Park proposals, a footbridge may be provided in the area.

It was agreed:-

1. That the Borough Council raise strong objection to the provisions of the County Councils fundamental review of the Transport Capital Programme in respect of its impact on the All Saints by-pass, the Staplehurst by-pass, the Medway Towns Southern peripheral road, elements of the Bearsted Road scheme relating to the pedestrian crossing, the A20 London Road/Queens Road signal improvements and elements of the Tovil Hill/Farleigh Hill improvement;
   
   
2. That in particular the County Council be asked to consider formally at the next meeting of the Environment committee the proposals for the All Saints by-pass and confirm support for the scheme, a willingness to make such property that they own and is required for the scheme available as a contribution to the construction of the by-pass and confirm support for the relevant single regeneration budget bid and other bids for funding that may be submitted by the Borough Council;
   
   
3. That the County Council be asked to prepare proposals for the widening of Upper Stone Street in place of the southern Approach Road and retain such property as might be required to facilitate this; and
   
   
4. That the views expressed above be conveyed to the Members of the Kent County Council for the Borough of Maidstone.

3. HEALTH COMMITTEE - 28 MAY 1997

1. Kent County Council Operated Civic Amenity Recycling Centre - Tovil (Minute 22, Page Dl.57)

The Director of Borough Services reported that Kent County Council had decided to keep open the Civic Amenity Recycling Centres within their County including that at Tovil but that they had decided to introduce a height restriction barrier at each of the recycling centres. He then indicated the various concerns that had been raised including inability of people wishing to dispose of their own private waste by the introduction of these barriers at the recycling centres.

It was agreed::

1. That the concerns of the Borough Council be conveyed in the strongest possible terms to the Kent County Council as a result of the complaints being received from the public following the introduction of the height restriction barrier at Tovil Recycling Centre;
   
   
2. That the Borough Council issue a press release concerning the introduction of the height restriction barrier at Tovil Recycling Centre and what action the Borough Council was taking in this matter;
   
   
3. That the problems arising out of the introduction of the height restriction barrier at Tovil Recycling Centre continue to be monitored including the effect this would have on this Councils budget; and

2. Payment of Recycling Credits (Minute 27, Page Dl-60)

The committee considered the report of the Director of Planning and Development advising the Committee of a letter he had received from the Kent County Council setting out the value of the recycling credits and of a decision to continue payments to third parties for the Financial Year 1997/98 but that in subsequent years these payments would cease.

It was further reported that the Borough Solicitor was still researching the matter of whether it would be possible for the Borough Council to purchase paper direct from third party groups and the Council then claiming the relevant recycling credit and returning these credits to the third party groups.

It was agreed:

1. That the Council write to the Kent County Council expressing considerable disappointment in the County Councils decisions which would reduce the scale of recycling and seeking them to review the matter of ceasing to pay recycling credits to third party groups before IL the next Financial Year;
   
   
2. That the Director of Planning and Development write to the third party groups and advise them of the Kent county Councils decision and what action the Borough Council was taking to try to rectify this matter;
   
   
3. That the officers report back to the next meeting of the Committee on what alternative measures could be taken to maintain the current paper collection method; and
   
   
4. That the Director of Planning and Development write to the Secretary of State for the Environment bringing the matter of the termination of the recycling credit payments to third party groups by Kent County Council for future financial years and the impact this would have on recycling and whether there was any action the Government could take with regard to preventing this action.

4. HOUSING COMMITTEE - 11 JUNE 1997

Redevelopment and Regeneration - Shepway Estate (Minute 185, Page Dl.78)

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Housing updating the Committee with regard to progress on the proposed redevelopment scheme on the Shepway Estate, particularly in relation to the timetable for tenant consultation and the disposal of the open space at Cumberland Avenue.

The Director of Housing also updated the Committee with regard to the possible lease of the Worcester Road Depot to Age Concern which had now hit a number of problems in that the lottery money that it was envisaged would be allocated to Age Concern to enable them to take over the lease of the Worcester Road Depot, was being withdrawn and therefore they would not have sufficient resources to take on the Worcester Road Depot this year. It was indicated that it might be possible for them to seek a further lottery bid in twelve months time, but it was intended to discuss this matter with representatives from Age Concern in the near future. It was then put to the Committee that if Members were minded to leave the option available for Age Concern to take over the Worcester Road Depot, following a further lottery bid in twelve months time, a potential use of the depot site could be for a construction workshop using locally unemployed people which could be supported by the local Technology College and Hall and Tawse.

It was agreed:

1. That the progress being made in the preparation and implementation of the statutory tenant consultation on the redevelopment scheme at Shepway, be noted;
   
   
2. That a report on the tenant consultation representations and the representations received under the Controlled land Procedure for the disposal of open space be considered at a special meeting of the Committee to be held on 30 July 1997;
   
   
3. That the Director of Housing discuss further with Age Concern their potential lease of the Worcester Road Depot site and their current problems arising from the lack of available funds; and
   
   
4. That following the discussions set out in (iii) above the Director of Housing report back to the Committee on options available for the Worcester Road Depot site, including the temporary use of the site for a construction workshop whilst waiting for Age Concern to obtain sufficient funds to undertake the lease of the site at some stage in the future.

5. LEISURE SERVICES COMMITTEE - 18 JUNE 1997

Maidstone Leisure Centre Management Retendering - Policy Issues (Minute 47, Page Dl.104)

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Borough Services addressing the policy issues associated with the retendering of the management and operation of the Maidstone Leisure Centre. The report covered the basis upon which the Contract was to be let; the Compulsory competitive Tendering Regulations and the submission of in-house DSO bid; the tendering procedure to be adopted; the packaging of the Contract and specifically the separation of the catering elements; the requirement for the service contractor to provide a bond and/or a Parent Company Guarantee; the Contract period; the minimum liquidated damages value to be applied to each default notice; the arrangements for annual price adjustments; the potential to delete or amend the service levels currently in operation at the Leisure Centre; the possibility of giving tenderers the opportunity to submit bids based upon self-financing investment proposals which could include the provision of new artiste changing accommodation and the reconstruction of the reception area; the tender programme; and the staffing implications.

The Director of Borough Services advised the Committee, inter alia, that although it would be possible theoretically to submit an in-house DSO bid it was important to consider the ramifications. He explained that from the Service committee's or client's point of view an internal DSO bid did provide a useful price barometer, particularly in markets where competition was limited. However, experience from elsewhere suggested that the leisure management market was buoyant and it was judged that there was sufficient market competition to ensure that the Council received a competitive bid. It was proposed to include within the retendering exercise, the possibility of tenderers inputting capital investment into the Leisure Centre. An internal DSO was subject to the same financial constraints as the Council and would not be in a position to raise the necessary finance to respond to this initiative. Further, an in-house DSO would have difficulty in providing the same level of expertise as an experienced national leisure management practitioner particularly as there had been no leisure centre management DSO activity in-house for some time. For these reasons, it was recommended that the Policy and Resources Committee be advised that on balance the Client Committee sees no advantage in progressing a DSO bid for the management and operation of the Leisure Centre.

With regard to the packaging of the Contract, the Director of Borough Services drew Members' attention to the policy which had been adopted of separating the catering elements within the Leisure Centre and letting them to a catering specialist. He expressed the view that whilst a better price might be obtained by letting both operations as one Contract a higher quality would be achieved if the operations were let separately. He reminded the Committee of the negotiations which were taking place with the Catering Contractor regarding the provision of a new cafeteria in Mote Park and explained that in view of these negotiations it would be necessary to report further in due course to the Leisure Services Committee Contracts Subcommittee if agreement to a draft agreement was reached with the Contractor.

The Director of Borough Services also drew the Committee's attention to an offer which had been put forward by Serco Limited, the existing Leisure Centre Management Contractor, who wished to pursue a negotiated extension to the current Contract.

It was agreed:

1. That in the event of it being decided not to pursue the offer by Serco Limited, the Leisure Centre Management Contract be retendered on the following basis:

1. The Contract be let on the basis of the Management Contractor acting as a Facility Manager and Operator;
   
   
2. The limited tendering procedure be used;
   
   
3. With some minor exceptions to the specification, the catering and the management and operation of the Centre remain separate;
   
   
4. A performance bond to the value of £100,000 or an equivalent Parent Company Guarantee as appropriate be required;
   
   
5. The Contract period be co-terminus with the Catering Contract and not less than seven years;
   
   
6. The minimum liquidated damages value of £35 be applied to each default notice;
   
   
7. Both the Councils contract subsidy and the Centre's core prices (rounded to the nearest five pence) be increased annually in line with the Retail Price Index;
   
   
8. Subject to no adverse capital implications, tenderers be given the opportunity to submit bids based upon self-financing investment proposals which may include the provision of new artistes changing accommodation and the reconstruction of the reception area;
   
   
9. The following tender programme be adopted:-

24 September 1997 - Leisure Services Committee agree service levels and specification.
1 November 1997 Advertisements for interest.
March 1998 Leisure Services Committee agree Select List.
1 May 1998 - Tenders sent out.
Mid August 1998 - Tenders returned.
November 1998 - Leisure Services Committee accept tenders.
1 February 1999 Contract commences.

2. That the Policy and Resources Committee be advised that on balance the Leisure Services Committee as the Client Committee sees no advantage in progressing an in-house DSO bid for the management and operation of the Maidstone Leisure Centre.

6. POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 2 JULY 1997

Corporate Budget Strategy 1998/1999 Onwards (Minute 35, Page Dl.113)

The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Finance and Administration and the Chief Executive setting out the financial background against which future budget strategies should be considered and projections of the Councils budget for the next five years.

The report concluded that the budget strategy should be based upon the requirement to produce a budget which would avoid capping. In the absence of a change in current Government regulations and controls, there would be a need for continued savings over the five year period. A saving requirement for 1998/99 was likely to be in the region of EO.5m with a total savings projection of £2.5m over the five year period to keep pace with projected inflation of 3% without allowance for expansion in services. The Committee's aspirations currently shown in the Capital Programme were unlikely to be met over the next five years without an increase in projected resources.

The Committee was asked to consider a number of strategic issues prior to setting Service Committee targets for future consideration in the overall context of the range of budget projections presented.

The Committee was mindful of the need to consider the relative merits of the application of the Councils budget in terms of Service Plans as reflected in the revised strategic planning process and felt that Members should be involved at an earlier stage in the preparation of service

Plans and savings options.

It was agreed:

1. That the proposal for no further contributions to balances over the next two years be accepted.
   
   
2. That Service Committees be instructed to consider the provisional savings targets as follows:-
   
   

   Committee	Target (£)
   Health	98,000
   Housing (General Fund)	23,000
   Leisure Services	123,000
   Planning & Transportation	86,000
   Policy and Resources	148,000
   Total:	478,000

3. That the current procedures and timetable for reviewing the budget strategy as set out in the report be approved, subject to the involvement of each Committee's Political Group Spokesmen in the preparation of Service Plans and savings options at the appropriate time.