Cabinet - Thursday 18 September 2025, 5:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Cabinet
Thursday, 18th September 2025 at 5:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jim Martin
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Ms Jemma West
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jim Martin
  2. Cllr Tim Prater
  3. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  4. Mr Andrew Hatcher
  5. Cllr Jim Martin
  6. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  7. Mr Andrew Hatcher
  8. Cllr Tim Prater
  9. Cllr Jim Martin
  10. Mr Andrew Hatcher
  11. Cllr Jim Martin
  12. Cllr Tim Prater
  13. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Mr Andrew Hatcher
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Gary Fuller
  2. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  3. Gavin Edwards
  4. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  5. Cllr Jim Martin
  6. Cllr Gary Fuller
  7. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  4. Mr Andy Blaszkowicz
  5. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jim Martin
  2. Cllr Tim Prater
  3. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
  5. Mr Andy Blaszkowicz
  6. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  7. Mr Andy Blaszkowicz
  8. Cllr Jim Martin
  9. Cllr Tim Prater
  10. Cllr Jim Martin
  11. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  12. Cllr Jim Martin
  13. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  14. Cllr Jim Martin
  15. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  16. Mr Andy Blaszkowicz
  17. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  18. Cllr Jim Martin
  19. Cllr Tim Prater
  20. Cllr Jim Martin
  21. Cllr Gary Fuller
  22. Mr Andy Blaszkowicz
  23. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Gary Fuller
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jim Martin - 0:00:00
Welcome to the meeting of the Cabinet.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:00:06
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the Chamber.
For Members, Officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones
are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting.
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on the matters
under consideration, it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with
respect.
So if we could start with apologies for absence, Gemma.

1 Apologies for Absence

Thank you.
We've received apologies from Councillors Butcher and McConville.
Ms Jemma West - 0:00:51
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:00:53
Okay, jolly good, thank you.
And are there any declarations of interest that members would like to make?
I don't see any declarations of interest.

3 Minutes

So we'll move on to item three, the minutes,
to consider and approve as a correct record
the minutes of the meeting held on the 16th of July 2025.
Are there any issues?
Happy to move them.
Do we have a seconder?
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:01:26
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:01:26
Yeah, Councillor Blakemore.
So Councillor Craig to propose, Councillor Blakemore to second.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much.

4 Welfare Report and Overview 2024/25

Cllr Jim Martin - 0:01:47
Okay, moving on to the first substantive item,
item for welfare report and overview 2024 -2025,
pages 19 to 34 in your pack,
and Councillor Prater is going to lead us on this item.
Thank you, Tim.
Thank you.
As you have seen from the 15 page report,
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:02:09
this is the annual overview, so you've seen this before,
of the work of the Welfare Compliance and Development team.
So for the financial year 2054 to 25 and it includes a lot of detail about the additional support that we've been able to offer residents on top of the standard housing benefit and council tax reduction support.
As ever the report is in front of you and if there are any difficult questions you should absolutely be asking Andrew about those and he enjoys that stuff.
But one point that I would raise within this is under 10 .1 and 10 .2, as Andrew has uncharacteristically
buried then towards the bottom of the report, is that in terms of external evaluation of
how the welfare team is doing, we were nominated in the Institute of Revenue's Ratings and
annual awards last October for the benefits and welfare reform team of the year and also
for the excellence in social inclusion, excellence in partnership working and excellence in innovation
awards. And one, not just the excellence in social inclusion award, but also the benefits
and welfare team of the year. So in terms of external validation of how good our team
is being the best in the country is what our team is validated as by the IR that you've
got. That is a huge credit to everybody in the team, but I've really got to say it's
a massive credit to Andrew who leads that team. So I'd like to thank them for their
work and I said if you have any questions on this report I'm sure Andrew and I will
share them equally. He can deal with the difficult ones and I'll give an answer later to the
others.
Thank you very much. Councillor Spakeman.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:04:06
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:04:08
Yes, I mean forgive me for being an ancient social worker, but what struck me about this was it seemed a lot that I seemed to recall covering when I was in social services way back when.
but you seem to have a plethora of funding streams or intervention,
discretionary housing payments, financial support, housing support fund,
home essential fund.
Some of that obviously seems housing related in terms of council tax
and rent arrears, etc.
But when you have an objective which says to support households
and prevent household needs from escalating into crisis,
it sounds to me very much like a social services.
and I'm just wondering, how do we avoid potential overlap here,
or have we taken over some aspects of what used to be done by social services?
It struck me as a doing liaise to make sure there isn't any kind of overlap.
Having said all that, there's clearly very good work being done,
so I wanted to make that clear from the outset.
Thank you. Where do I start?
There is a lot of work that goes in there.
Mr Andrew Hatcher - 0:05:27
And we try and avoid the overlaps by working with the teams at KCC particularly.
The scheme is everything is household support fund in particular, which is the food element
that you mentioned there, that's devolved down from KCC and they keep most of that money
for themselves.
20 % of it is for districts and boroughs.
For example, a large chunk of that goes towards free school meals during holidays for families
that qualify for free school meals.
So we try not to overlap with any work they do.
And in past rounds of doing a House of Support Fund,
we round things like bed schemes and carpet schemes,
which then they've adopted, so then we move away from that
because we don't want to replicate.
And similarly with the recent rounds,
one which is just about to end now for KCC,
they've been doing a food scheme.
So although we're going to maintain that going forward
for the next half year of House of Support Fund,
we're also looking at other things we can do
to expand what we're doing for support that's needed.
When it comes to social care, some of that support does still exist
and that sits within the Helping Hands team at KCC.
Also, a lot of the families we deal with
wouldn't even sit under those households that would be under social care.
A lot of these households are anybody on the street.
A lot of people are struggling.
People sometimes slip between the benefit needs and the fit in that gap.
There's a lot of people that need that support
which don't fit in that criteria of KCC support as well.
We do work with them and we do work with social workers still on a case by case basis
when we get safeguarding referrals or referrals through things like that.
So we do have the team have those conversations and at a higher level I have regular meetings
with KCC to make sure we're not overlapping and we kind of agree on what we're doing in
a sense.
That happens across the county as well but yeah, mainly KCC.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Blakemore.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:07:10
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:07:14
I just wanted to congratulate the team at the Bank and for the work that they do.
It's brilliant work. It goes far beyond what many people would imagine the District Council are doing.
Looking proactively at where they need life.
My concern is that it feels a little bit like a pot of money that is staying the same,
is having more and more demands placed upon it.
I was concerned that the District Council's housing payment, for example, has been frozen.
We've already in the previous year had to move £27 ,000 from the house of support funds to prop that up
which we obviously needed to do it but we shouldn't really be doing that because that's taking away from
everything that's left now to this or another.
And likewise following the changes to the winter fuel payment or the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment
having to identify those hundred homes that weren't taking financials is really alarming.
Again, great proactive work for a sum map but how can we be confident that we can meet that
if we can, how we can be confident
and we can meet that goal going forward
and then after stretching the further and further, thank you.
Yes, thank you. We would always like more money to help people.
Mr Andrew Hatcher - 0:08:18
Don't get me wrong. We try and spread it as easy as we can.
And the demand is high, as you rightly stated.
Discretion of housing payments, it's not just an issue for us,
that's an issue nationally in terms of that freeze.
And just to complicate matters, again, I won't go into detail here,
but discretionary housing payments and house of support fund as they sit now
will end at the end of this financial year
and become a new scheme called the Crisis Resilience Fund.
I can't give any more information on that because it's not out there,
but it will be managed in a slightly different way
and that's a potential other issue on top of what we've currently got.
But the funding, we've been told, will still match across.
The chance of it going up is probably unlikely
and that's what we're trying to, as I mentioned just now,
trying to vary that support so people aren't reliant on one element.
We're aware that people are reliant on the food market vouchers we do.
We don't want to go down that route of people being reliant on what we've got
because we know that funding could change out of our hands
here at the district council for next year, out of our control,
so we don't want people reliant on it.
That's why the team do a lot of proactive work
to try and get people into work or help them with their budgeting.
so it's not just a stick and plaster, it's a more of a long -term solution.
That's what the team is trying to do, trying to alleviate those problems going forward.
Councillor Price, yeah.
Thank you, yeah. I think it's...
A lot of this money is grant -based, so it's passporting money
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:09:46
that the government grants, etc, which comes to us sometimes via KCC,
sometimes directly, sometimes through other mechanisms.
and would it be simpler and better for us to get one block of money in order to support
all of these things and be able to make our own decisions about that?
Yes, yes it would.
And please, somebody have a conversation with government about that, but pretty much every
minister gets into place and comes up with another way of distributing a small amount
of money in an inefficient way and then giving it to councils to try and do that with a new
set of rules.
So there are a number of these schemes that are varied year for year
in terms of the people who are targeted for them.
And that doesn't help quite that, because again, you're moving into...
this year you're going to support pensioners,
this next year you're going to support families with children and things
with the same pot of money.
So you even develop a scheme at that stage,
you develop a mechanism, develop a way of talking to people,
you will get to the pensioners in a different way
to the way that you get to families with children.
And you develop that mechanism, you get good at that,
You get the scheme, it opens, you spend all of the money on doing all of those good things
and next year you get a different amount of money with a different focus and have to reinvent
that scheme in order to support that.
So that is part of the challenge and that is part of the challenge which the team rises
to of making sure that that money gets to A. the people who need it most but also the
people who need it most that fit the criteria that we are given within that scheme.
and I think that's a key thing for families.
But yes, absolutely would more money to help support that work help?
Absolutely.
Some of this money goes into, and some of this money also goes into,
which I'll make that clear at the stage, into supporting, for instance,
the council tax payments that we charge everyone at the end,
25%, a minimum 25 % of the council tax pay charge,
some of this money goes into supporting the 25 % that they can't afford.
So, we're charging them money for council tax and then we're going through an application process
and a vetting process and a job process in order to give them money back.
Well, A, that's inefficient and B, there are a lot of people who don't apply for stuff like that.
There are a lot of people who look at the form no matter how much you sit there
and you try and make this thing easy and you try and make it outreach and simple to apply for,
who just don't then apply for it.
So you're creating a situation where there are a number of people who are entitled to
something aren't getting something as well.
And that is a theme that we will return to in I think it's November or December when
the paper comes back around a Council of Tax Reduction Scheme.
Any other members with questions or comments?
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:12:34
I'd just like to make a comment, Andrew.
One is to thank you very much for clearly your hard work and the team's hard work.
I just want to ask a kind of speculative question.
Obviously we have a significant sum of money which we spend
and listed in the report is the details of all of the people that we've helped.
Just in very broad terms, it's the people that we can't help
and the people that you have to say no to,
that are essentially the problem that we leave out there, as it were.
Could you just give us a very, very rough idea
of how much you wouldn't...
Is it double the amount of money that you spent?
Is it 50 % more or is it 300 % more?
Just to give us a feel for the problems that we can't help solve.
Mr Andrew Hatcher - 0:13:42
I can speculate. It's difficult, isn't it?
Because there's probably needs out there which we're not aware of
and as much engagement as we do and as much outreach work we do,
there are people that we know still find it difficult to engage with the council
or even with our different products we have
and the different doc entries sent out
are differently branded, normal council branding,
to try and avoid some of those issues.
In terms of percentage wise, it's difficult to say.
We could easily spend more money on people.
For example, one big demand on us over the past few years
has been the provision of white goods,
something that used to be provided by KCC many, many years ago.
A lot of people are struggling,
particularly people who are coming,
either fleeing violence to set up a new home
or coming out of a homeless situation,
obviously homes they would have
often don't have suitable white goods
or any white goods at all.
So there's been a big demand on that
and we could have easily spent more money
last year on that.
We spent as much as we could
and we prioritised on the highest need
for those cases like I just mentioned.
There's more people you could support as well.
So you could easily double those amounts
that they can spend on those categories
and things like beds you could spend more on
because there's a big demand on
sufficient bedding for families.
There are definitely more people out there,
and that's a small part for this year for what good I mention it,
because we're having to prioritise a little bit
in terms of those with the most need and demand.
We could do a lot more support for those types of households,
but again, it's difficult to know exactly,
because there's households out there which you haven't engaged with yet.
It's always changing as well, it's a very transient nature,
because someone who's in need now won't be in need,
hopefully, with the work we do, in a year's time,
but then there's always more people that are going to come into times of struggle.
It's very difficult to predict,
but there's always going to be people in need, unfortunately.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:15:29
So, did we have a proposer?
I am very happy to move the report.
I'm very happy to second.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:15:37
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:15:38
So, all those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you once again, Andrew.
Okay, moving on then to item five,

5 Investigations and Fraud Overview 2024/25

Investigations and Fraud Overview, 2425, pages 35 to 42 in your pack.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:15:59
And again, it's Councillor Prater who's going to lead us through this.
I absolutely promise that unlike some other meetings, I stop after this one and other
people get a go instead, which will be a relief to everyone.
This is the, you can see the Investigations and Fraud Overview of last financial year
as well.
So it goes through the work that our investigations unit, more of in a second, does in that year
and covering housing benefit, fraud, council tax, non -domestic rates and housing.
And the reason why we're doing that work is because when we're giving money to people
and we're supporting people in the way that Andrew has outlined in the previous report,
we want to make sure it's going to the people who actually need it and the people who have
a point for it on the basis of their need and that they are getting it on the basis
of their need.
And in terms of council tax, we want to make sure that as many people that should be paying
council tax are paying that council tax, because that allows us to support all of our other
activities and indeed support those people who we are giving them to.
And you go through the various different sections in terms of council tax reviews, the amount
money that we get from council tax where people have either misclaimed or overclaimed, the
housing section there, the housing benefits section and housing support fund etc. and
it totals to somewhere over £790 ,000 worth of fraud which was identified, not in one
year, over a number of years. You look at how much that, in terms of housing for instance,
you look at how much it's saved you, how much it meant saves over a period of time. But
this report identifies something like £790 ,000 worth of that fraud which has been saved by,
as I said, the unit. And you think, there must be thousands of them doing that. £790 ,000
worth of savings to this councillor last year. And he's a lovely guy.
There is genuinely one full -time equivalent doing this work and saved this Council and
allowed us to redirect £790 ,000 to people who applied for it correctly and had that
need over the course of last year.
So again, it sits within Andrew's theme, but again I think it's a huge contribution to
this Council, it makes a huge difference.
I think the figure is not dissimilar to it was last year.
It's not that he's had a bumper year, and this is a bumper amount.
This is pretty much in line with what he does each year.
And you can see how much money that would total to year after year
going to the wrong people if we weren't doing that work.
And that is why that work is important,
so that we're making sure that we are directing the right people
and when somebody applies who has that genuine need
and genuinely needs that money and can evidence the need that money,
but we can fund them and not the person who was applying
that hasn't got that genuine need, hasn't really.
So again, I'm very happy to move the recommendations on this report.
I'm very happy for anyone to ask any really difficult questions about it.
Thank you very much, Councillor Proater.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:19:22
Members, do we have any questions or queries?
I have one, Andrew, again, it's a rather speculative one.
I rarely get an opportunity to ask you all this interesting stuff.
But with one officer generating that huge amount of...
What was that?
With two officers...
I'm sure we wouldn't get double.
Again, it's a question of the stuff we leave out there.
Because we're restricted on what we can do,
are we leaving problems out there that we should be addressing?
Or just completely speculatively, I know, again,
but I'd just like to get your feel for it.
I think Councillor Fazen hit the nail out there,
Mr Andrew Hatcher - 0:20:16
but I'd happily have more as always.
But yeah, I think we do, we target the key areas
that we obviously have data for,
that obviously we're comfortable with.
We could, with extra resource, in theory,
you could look at doing additional proactive work
in some of the other areas in housing.
We'd actually just start on a pilot
with a few other councils on temporary accommodation,
which is a whole other issue in terms of costs
to the local authority, but it's a national issue
and we're looking at potential fraud there,
which is another piece of work.
But we have actually got somebody who is doing an apprenticeship
to be a fully trained counter for investing,
for resilience if nothing else.
So we're aware it's a little bit of a specialist area.
You could do more work,
and there is potential if you ever want to in the future.
With other councils, some have more resource than we do
and some have less than us,
which is difficult when you've only got one,
but some have none at all.
But that is the case.
So some councils do sell some of their services as well.
So with more people you could potentially do that.
But it's quite complex to do some of that piece of work.
But there is a potential there to do it and there is extra piece of work you could target
and create the potential if you wanted to.
Thank you very much.
That's terrific.
So Councillor Prater proposed.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:21:35
I'm very, very happy to second this report.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much and thank you once again Andrew.

6 2024-25 Annual complaints and service improvements report

Moving on to item six, 24 -25 annual complaints and service improvements report, pages 43 -104
and it is Councillor Fuller who is going to lead us through this.
Thank you.
Thank you Chair.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:22:07
So the report presents the complaints handled by the District Council during 24 -25.
It's recommended by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Housing Ombudsman's
complaints codes.
Easy for me to say.
It details the volume of complaints at different stages, breaking them down by service area
and compares them with 23 -24.
In the report you'll note a reduction of 43 % on Stage 1 complaints as well and from memory
a reduction in stage 2 down 16 % and a reduction in Ombudsman investigations down 50%.
The top areas that received complaints were the housing landlord service and the housing
strategy and options teams.
The stats for those complaints were upheld.
The stage 1 complaints are broadly similar to last year, so about 40%.
The number of stage 2 complaints that were up -air was dropped a bit, so it's 16 % down
from 23%.
Generally looking at benchmarking against region and nationally, we get fewer complaints
than national and regional trends.
Our response rates as well are generally meeting the new 10 day deadline that we brought in
at the end of last year and our satisfaction rating for complaints is above average.
Also in the report there are 53 lessons learned identified.
Most of those are from the housing service.
Common themes are around communication, staff combat,
that kind of thing, contractor performance and so on.
We've introduced a new learning log to share lessons between teams and so on.
In terms of the Ombudsman activity, I think there's 14 determinations from memory.
The main issues are around service failure and things like that, but they've been reflected
in the report.
We've also tracked third party complaints involving meers and swam eating and so on.
Another thing that's been added is service requests.
So these are not necessarily complaints, but they might be contacts from people that are
maybe a bit dissatisfied, but don't reach that level,
but we're still monitoring those as well.
The most common for those was the waste service and housing.
And obviously all of this comes out
of the new complaints policy that was adopted in April.
So that hence the change in the deadlines and so on.
And yeah, that pretty much covers the report.
If you've got any questions,
I will plead the fifth and make Gavin answer them.
I have a question.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:25:19
Declaring an interest from my waste portfolio and the waste service request went up a whopping
level of 127 in 24, 25.
I'm just trying to get my head around how these figures work because it's just curious,
I find it was curious, the pretty massive drop in complaints,
stage 1 complaints, for 43%, was quite remarkable.
And that waste went down from 37 to 7.
But then we went up to 127 in service requests.
So my sense is that there's been a slight kind of redefinition
of what's a complaint is and what is a service.
If I've been entirely cynical, which of course I'm absolutely not,
but I'm just wondering if it's been a...
I think I can understand, and looking at it,
you're talking a service request,
and you could complain about a bin that's been damaged,
or you could have a service request saying,
could I have my bin replaced?
So, I don't know if we could unpick that a little bit.
Thank you for your comments on that, Councillor Speake.
We've seen the report as well, we mentioned in section 9 .1
Gavin Edwards - 0:26:30
the definition of what a service request is, and that's in line with the complaints handling
code as well.
Obviously, you noted the point with the 127 waste service requests.
I mean, we obviously have a housing and corporate complaints officer that works for me, that
deals on a day -to -day basis with complaints handling.
And obviously, we try and take a very proactive approach in dealing with, you know, she's
the first point to call for the assessment of these complaints when they come in.
And obviously, particularly noting the point with waste as well, as you say, it is for
like a replacement bin that's not shown up,
or a broken bin lid, or a collection that's not been done,
we wouldn't necessarily then log that
as in a stage one process and make the resident
wait 10 days, the same if it was initially
something to do with a housing repair as well.
If it's something that we can action very quickly
in terms of getting on top of that dissatisfaction
very quickly, we will do that and try
and quickly as possible treat that as a service request
before then having to log it on to a stage one
and necessarily having to make that person
go through a 10 day process.
So really that's in essence the first stage
really at the point is the service request and then on to initially stage one if that
is the case.
But we try and sort that dissatisfaction as quickly as possible in that case.
That's why you'll see probably a larger number of service requests as opposed to stage one
in particular some of those operational things that we mentioned there were wasting some
repairs.
If I could just come back on that.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:27:45
I guess the thing I would be interested in, there are chances I don't know, but I guess
if you're getting a lot of service requests for broken bins,
then maybe that's an issue to look at.
Even if they are replaced very quickly,
you still have to think why are we getting so many broken bins?
But that's something I can take back to my portfolio.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Any other questions?
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:28:14
I think a really telling table in this report
is the perception table.
I think you can only really benchmark against your peers
and that shows us in a very favourable light.
So I would say congratulations to the team.
Thank you very much as always for your input.
Councillor Fuller, are you ready to propose?
Yeah, I'm ready to propose.
Just to mention though on the service request,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:28:48
the number hasn't changed significantly from the previous year.
So, although obviously the reporting identifies the more significant areas,
you'll probably find that that was a more significant area last year.
So, it's more about being proactive though,
it's about being able to nip a potential complaint in the bud
and solve the problem rather than the person having to escalate further
and go through the formal process.
But yes, I'll move the...
So, Councillor Fuller has proposed.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:29:21
Would someone care to second it?
Councillor Blakemore, thank you very much.
So, we have a proposal and a seconder.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank the whole team.

7 Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Discretionary Disposal Policy

I know it's not a single thing, so thank you.
Item 7, housing revenue account,
discretionary disposal policy and Councillor Shroop is going to lead us through this.
Rebecca.
Thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:29:51
So this paper is seeking cabinet approval for an HRA disposal strategy so that we can
make best use of HRA assets.
So it's about rationalising our stock and disposing of any surplus underperforming assets
or assets that have no beneficial, strategic or social use.
But I want to stress that the vast majority of our stock
is absolutely fit for purpose
or can cost -effectively be adapted or improved to make it so.
However, the HRA does have a few assets,
such as commercial units, garages and small parcels of land,
and we need to make sure that whatever we are holding
does make sense for the long term benefit of our existing and future tenants.
So any money that is raised from disposals will be ring fenced for the HRA so that we can then
use it to acquire more homes or improve our existing homes.
So we've got Nick here,
Officer in charge of this who I'm sure can answer any questions and I'd like to move the recommendations.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:31:06
Thank you very much Rebecca.
Members, do we have any questions or queries on this?
Seems very straightforward.
I just had one question.
Did we lack this policy?
Was it missing or did we cover it under other, you know, because it's all flipping common
sense isn't it?
It's all a really sensible thing to do.
I'm just wondering why we're doing it now.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:31:36
Not why, I mean I know we need it.
I'm just wondering, was there a lack, was there something missing?
Sorry, yes.
Mr Andy Blaszkowicz - 0:31:47
Head of assets, sorry.
Thank you, Leela.
It is a new policy.
It was outlined as a new policy that was required
when we did the Housing Asset Management Strategy.
Obviously, this is a whole suite of documents
that have been getting completed since we bought the service back in house.
So this is essentially outlining the process that we undertake now and just formalising
that to provide the framework in which we can operate under.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:32:15
Okay, I mean there isn't anything that I would disagree with or query in the policy.
I was simply just wondering, you know, because it obviously fits the bill, just why we didn't
have one that we were replacing.
But good, I mean, and a bit of tidying up and reinvestment, always a very good thing
to do.
So I'm very happy to second this if there's no discussion, no questions.
So Councillor Shrew proposed that I second it.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much, members.
Sorry to drag you in.

8 Corporate Asset Management Strategy

Okay, so moving on to item eight,
the corporate asset management strategy,
which is something that I am introducing.
The corporate asset management strategy
is a substantial document that has been on the table
on a journey through the council process.
And I'm sure that none of it will be new to you.
I'm sure that you've seen a great deal of it.
And I just want to quote one element of this
before we start discussing it.
A robust annual management strategy is essential
to provide a relevant framework for decision making
surrounding future use and management of corporate assets.
Now we are about to enter a massive period of change,
which ultimately we will disappear at the end of.
So a robust asset management strategy is essential.
Yes, it flipping is.
I think this document is excellent.
It's sharp. It's sharp and it's to the point.
I like that very much.
Just going through the recommendations, just to draw your attention.
Item 3, which is a new element,
and the Note 4, the Disposals procedure.
for operational use.
Now, I mean, it's already happening.
You will have already been lobbied by other organisations,
principally Town and Parish Councils,
about asset transfers and, you know, CALC,
that's all they're talking about at the moment.
So this is why we need a robust asset management strategy
and a specific focus on the disposals procedure
for operational use.
This is very, very important because the council
will come under a great deal of pressure
to dispose or not to dispose.
And we will have a procedure that's set down,
agreed by us in order to measure
those individual applications that come to us.
So not only do I think this is an excellent report,
thanks very much to the team,
and thank you Helen,
but I think it's particularly timely
because this will be a much used document
over the next two years.
So I'm very, very happy to move the document
and ask members to chip in
and ask questions or make comments.
Councillor Proctor.
I was just saying I'm happy to second.
I did such a long introduction.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:36:20
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:36:20
Sorry, Councillor Blakemore, please.
Thank you.
The bit that caught my eye,
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:36:31
and it was a really articulate and easy to understand strategy,
so I found it really helpful,
But I was concerned about the play area strategy
and the fact that we may be looking to lose some play spaces
if the town and parish councils aren't prepared
to take them on in the new world that we're moving into.
And I'd be concerned about that.
So my question was really how many are we talking about?
Which ones are we talking about?
And when are we talking about potentially losing these?
I think that's a real area of concern.
I can answer the first bit
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:37:11
and then I'll have to come to the officers for the details.
Play areas and toilets are going to be central to all of these discussions.
While Town and Parish Councils may want one, they may not want the other,
or if they get the other, they will want money, a dowry, to manage it.
So there's a long...
I think the report, and the officers will speak for themselves,
is just highlighting the areas where we are going to get into discussion.
There isn't anyone that's going to apply to take on this building.
That's what it's all going to be about.
It's going to be about those kind of assets that are out in the community.
And first and foremost in our thoughts
those assets as they facilitate the community.
And that will be our primary issue around it.
So I'll leave it at that and come to,
Andy will you pick that up in terms of numbers and things?
Thank you, Leda.
Mr Andy Blaszkowicz - 0:38:17
So the player strategy has been in place since 2020.
So we worked very hard on getting it together
because the initial problem we had,
I think there was something like 89 play areas in the district.
I think about, I mean, caveat,
it don't quite be on the numbers
because it's going back sometime.
I need to refresh myself.
But essentially about 58 of them were in district ownership.
And a lot of these have been small play areas
that have transferred over as part of the development
in where you get a little community sum
and then it's yours in perpetuity.
So we've accumulated a number of play areas
through the last 20, 30 years.
So we did the play area strategy and all the play areas were defined in a number of categories.
We had priority play areas, which would be like the Coastal Park and Redwood Park, so the charity lands essentially.
We have strategic play areas, which were based within population densities and a certain number of minutes to walk to them.
And then you had non -priority play areas, which are not as important, nice to have if you can have them.
But obviously when something's 20, 30 years old
and you have very limited maintenance budgets,
you have to make some decisions
of where it is appropriate to spend your limited budget.
So in summary, since 2020,
I think we've probably transferred about 25
of the strategic and non -strategic players
to town and parish councils.
Notably, Folkstone were the first to go.
Hawkins, we've been working with them
over a number of years, even prior to the strategy,
because they were very interested
in taking them through section 106s
and other planning agreements,
so they were sort of ahead of the curve,
but we've done all of the others with walking stints,
Hythe have taken them on stints,
and then some of the smaller parishes
have also taken on players.
I think we've done a couple in Liming,
and we're working with other parishes.
So we haven't closed anything to date.
I think there's possibly one in Dimchurch
which we haven't replaced the equipment in,
but we've spent a significant amount of money
in the nearest adjacent play area,
and the town council are happy that we closed that one
because no one really uses it after spending the money in that.
So it's looking and working with the town and parishes
to make best use of those play areas.
And town and parish councils, obviously closer to their community
for the smaller play areas, can draw on funding
that we might not be able to as a district
and are better placed to deliver those play areas.
So that kind of makes sense.
I can do more. I can send a strategy over to you if you're interested.
That makes sense.
It was just to understand the thinking behind it.
and yeah, that's going to make sense in this showing. Thank you.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:40:46
I think importantly, as we go through LDR as well,
these are the sorts of assets that might not receive funding
Mr Andy Blaszkowicz - 0:40:53
from a bigger successor body.
I think the toilets that Kim just mentioned,
play areas and things like that,
those are the things that we need to really be looking at now
to help the future of those continue.
Councillor Pritchard.
Thank you. I welcome bodies mentioning this
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:41:09
because it may be look at the play area strategy
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:41:15
and I'd like to A. build on what Andy's just said and B. point out a notable error in that
the players are transferred to Hawking, Hyde, Fergston, Limage Town parish councils and
officers are working on other transfers.
Obviously, Sangate Park and Fremantle Park are transferred to Sangate parish council
before anything transferred to Folkestone.
It was the precursor of any of these.
So the first to take charge of their barriers was the Sandgate Parish Council and it would
be remiss of me not to mention it and it is clearly remiss of the report not to mention
it as well and I hope a drafting amendment can be made to ensure that that is recorded.
Also to build on Andy's point is that it does allow you to then improve those both
parts.
So the Parish Council through both its own funding and through getting grant funding
through the National Lottery have spent in the last two years just over £30 ,000 on putting
the soft play surfaces into both of those parks in Fremantle Park and into Sandgate
Park, which would have been outside what the district could have afforded, not least because
bidding to the National Lottery for resurfacing two play parks is not something that they
but the parish could take that on. And therefore we've got better parks in Sandgate than we
used to have because we could focus that time on them, we could speak to local residents
about what they wanted, we could remove bits of equipment that weren't right anymore, we
could put in play areas that were better and we could improve those play services so that
they now actually meet modern play service requirements as opposed to the play service
requirements of when I was seven years old which was that's concrete, that is, see how
and now it's soft and spongy and nice to walk on and stuff.
So yes, it does allow for our town and parish councils to have that,
and make those improvements to those areas, but I absolutely would like to see
Sangh get acknowledged as one of the forerunners within that.
Not least because sometimes people assume it's only town councils that can do this stuff,
and sometimes parish councils got there first and did it well.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:43:34
I'll go to Councillor Sweetman first, then Councillor Blakemore.
Thank you.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:43:38
Just looking at the strategy document, page 138, I think, it's this comment from Grant
Thornton, our auditors, advising the importance for all councils going through LDR to continue
to operate effective governance and decision -making arrangements
and to maintain appropriate financial stewardship?
Well, I mean, surely aid goes without saying anyway.
So I'm not quite sure why they are saying that,
but presumably they are saying it for a reason.
I mean, are they saying that we cannot...
I mean, we know LGR is coming.
Can we not make any decisions in relation to our assets
in the light of LGR?
Or does that kind of freeze everything?
It seems to be a nonsense to say,
we can't do anything with our assets because LDI is saying
we might get into trouble for doing so.
I'm just a bit confused about what all that means, really.
I think that remark, that comment by Grant Thorne
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:44:39
is in response to some councils
claiming that they were going to enter a fire sale.
and effectively asset strip.
This council never made those kind of remarks,
but of course we all catch it as the reminder, as it were.
I don't think, given, shall we say,
our fairly steady way of managing our assets,
I don't think we will go even remotely into that kind of grey area.
But I have no doubt that some councils will.
I think it's really just...
They're just red -flagging that there is an area in which you cannot go
and if you do, you will face government action.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:45:36
Presumably, though, we could consider that it might be appropriate
either to bring forward a disposal of an asset because of LGA.
We can't preclude it from our thinking, surely, I would have thought.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:45:48
Absolutely. That will clearly be in our thinking.
The whole idea that underpins
our potential asset disposals
will be about community facilitation.
So that we want to leave our communities in as robust health as we can, but there's
no way we're going to sell a huge number of assets and then pour our money into Folkestone
Town Council or High Town Council or whatever.
It's just really just a red flag, I think.
It doesn't really apply to us.
Councillor Blakenore.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:46:42
I think we've let it transfer. We haven't felt the need to close a need yet and all
Mr Andy Blaszkowicz - 0:47:19
the conversations have been very proactive so the ones that we've been working on that
has been a priority working with the councils that want to transfer them and we haven't
got as far really as the ones not yet but as I say there are certain ones which might
not be classed as players that we would want to keep, but where we recognise that they
were in a population density where maybe there is a real need for a play area and there's
no appetite from the parish council to do that, then we would consider keeping it and
improving it.
An example of that is rates field, which you approved recently on the IFS funding for about
£30 ,000 to redo the play area down there in Dimchurch and that will be taking place
later this year.
So we are very mindful of which the community need around this and if the parishes are keen
to take them on or not and what we need to do off the back of that.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:48:18
Councillor Pro Tem?
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:48:27
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:48:29
The only circumstances I could imagine that happen is if player equipment became dangerous
and it got to the stage whereby it shouldn't be used anymore and we were faced by a decision
of either you remove it at that stage or you leave something taped off.
Then we're going to have a question about both.
I just came back on the Grant Thornton point.
That's what an asset management strategy helps protect you against,
is making decisions outside a reasonable strategic framework
and making those decisions in a way which is to the detriment of this council
or in the detriment to council taxpayers of the council.
So our best protection against Scrub, Fort and Turning Land and going,
why did you do that, is to have a robust strategy and to follow it
and to make sure that the reasons why you're doing it
to the benefit of the council and the areas and the residents of the area.
So that's part of the reason for doing it is exactly that statement.
If you don't have that in place, if you don't have that strategy in place,
then absolutely, your auditor could turn round at the end of it and say,
why did you do that? Why did you give those away?
And we've got a business case developed for why under those circumstances we've done that.
We can point at reasons, you know, pointed areas like Sandgate and Folkestone and Hyde
where they have taken and improved those assets which would otherwise be the cost to this
council but better things are then in place.
You can turn around and you've got a robust offence against it's allowed a better facility,
it's allowed for better investment, it's allowed for external investment, you wouldn't have
got from other places and you can defend that in terms of the strategy.
Without that you end up in a conversation about well what was that worth?
have you given away an asset for what reason, for different reasons, have you given away
an asset that you should have as an operational asset because it was worth money?
Although Andy will tell you how much he values the public toilets in this area, in terms
of whether that's an asset or a liability to this council, I think he'd have strong
views on most of them, that generally that's a liability.
But what we wanted to see is that that service being protected, see that those toilets remain
open and improved and are good going forward and that's where within this you can have
that conversation because you can say, well, we're going to take on that asset but we're
also going to take on some of the liability of that and that's where you can have a discussion
about the value of it and where Grant Thornton can't then turn around and go, well, why did
you do that?
You just gave away a toilet block which theoretically has a value but actually has a cost.
Good.
Well, thank you very much, members.
Oh sorry, Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:51:11
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:51:15
Just one brief question on the disposal process that I've probably just missed in the report
but I wasn't clear on.
So obviously you've got for assets under 500k you've got a process for deciding to dispose.
Well I wasn't necessarily clear on it.
Are there opportunities for council or cabinet in those cases, say there was a decision not
to dispose of an asset for some reason, is there the opportunity for a cabinet to review
potentially even make a different decision, no one would hope not.
But is that opportunity part of the process? I mean I can see council determines the appropriate method of sale and so on,
if a decision has been made, but it was more about maybe smaller assets where you might say well it's not a priority to dispose or whatever,
but then council might say well actually it is. Is there that review process or is it just under 500k?
officers and nothing else that I meant.
Andy?
Mr Andy Blaszkowicz - 0:52:13
If it's under the 500 ,000 threshold, which is the key decision threshold for you to make
decisions, if it was politically sensitive, we're going to bring it to members.
It's a CLT decision.
We would discuss with the portfolio holder anyway, and I think if it was politically
sensitive, we would bring that back.
but the framework is to provide that guidance for us
to operate within, have this approved by you
so we can go off and do the job.
But I say if it's gonna be contentious,
we are gonna bring that back.
But this is also to protect some of our assets
because we're gonna be incredibly busy
over the next three years shaping the future authorities
and working very hard to do that
and also maintaining what we have now
and making sure that everything that we have here
is in good shape to go to the successor body and that is a fundamental point of
this and really important this is about protecting some of the assets that are
here. Provide the enabling to look at others which might be better with a
smaller Authority, play parks, toilets etc etc and maybe assets that might not be
on top of the list for continuing with as part of a bigger successor body but
is also protecting the assets to make sure that the successor body is in good shape moving
forward.
Good, thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:53:32
Excellent discussion.
So I to me, and I, if I haven't proposed, I'm very happy to propose.
And I think Councillor Prater seconded.
So all those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much, members.

9 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) policy

The final substantive item, number nine,
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,
pages 155 to 236, and Councillor Fuller
is gonna take us through this, our annual journey
through this, I think, Councillor Fuller, thank you.
Through the world of spies and surveillance,
as it were here.
I think this is the first meeting I've ever had to,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:54:16
I think, is to speak on, it's an honour.
Okay, so the policy sets out when the councils could potentially use either
directed surveillance or covert human intelligence sources under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
And it ensures that we comply with the Human Rights Act and the relevant codes
of practise with the Home Office.
And we review it and it's annually approved by the council.
So just to cover a few of the key points.
Directed surveillance is basically,
it's covert surveillance.
It's not intrusive and it's to
cover private information.
There's a, as you'd expect,
there's thresholds for it,
so it's got to be approved by a magistrate
and only senior officers can authorise it.
And there are circumstances where I
think you can do urgent authorizations,
but they're limited to 72 hours,
The other aspect of it, covert human intelligence sources,
that's effectively where an individual befriends
or becomes close to the target, as it were,
in order to gather or disclose information.
The council's never used that bit of the policy
and wouldn't do so without significant advice to do so.
The surveillance itself can only be authorised
where there's a criminal offence taking place or something like that,
under a sales of alcohol and tobacco,
and even then it's got to have a maximum sentence of more than six months.
In terms of our usage of the process,
we haven't used any rip -up hours since the last report,
and indeed the last time we used directed surveillance was June 2012.
We also had an inspection in 2023 in August, which confirmed that we're complying with
everything we need to do.
The officers that we have to train as part of this process, they're going to get their
next round of training in November 2025, which I'm sure they're really looking forward to.
Other than that, there's been some small updates for 2025 around who the authorising officers
are and that kind of thing.
But, yes, that's the crux of the report and I'll move it, as it were.
Thank you very much, Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:56:54
I'm very happy to second the report and open it up for discussion or questions.
None?
Jolly good.
Okay.
It is very much just a kind of a standby, something that we need, and I'm grateful to
the officers for keeping us fully up to date and compliant in this difficult area of operation.
So we have a proposal, we have a seconder.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much everyone, that's unanimous.
And that is the end of our business for this evening.
So thank you all very much, thank you to the officers for attending.
And I hope you have an excellent evening.