Skip to content

H1 - do not remove

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room B12. View directions

Items
No. Item

12.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs Cole and Mr Lees. 

13.

Declarations of Interests

To receive any declarations of interest Members may wish to make including the term(s) of the Grant of Dispensation(s).

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interests.

14.

Minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2012 pdf icon PDF 81 KB

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2012 as an accurate record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting of the Locality Board held on 12 June 2012 were confirmed as a correct record.

15.

Urgent Items

The Chairman will announce his decision as to whether there are any urgent items and their position on the agenda.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

16.

References from Other Committees, if any

Minutes:

There were no references from other committees.

17.

Lot 4 - Youth Grants

There are no papers for this item.

Minutes:

The Chairman explained that the purpose of this item was to build on the positive discussions that had taken place between Dartford and Kent County Council about delivering youth services since the last meeting of the Locality Board. The main focus of discussion had been around the first 3 lots from the £101,000 commissioning budget for Dartford which respectively sought to benefit youth in Central Dartford, Reduce Health Inequalities and Improve Emotional Health. Whilst lots 1-3 were centrally commissioned there had been agreement to setting aside a budget of £20,000 for projects to be commissioned locally according to the priorities set by the Dartford Locality Board, Lot 4. Dartford was the only borough within Kent to have negotiated a separate local commissioning budget. The purpose of the meeting was to move this work forward and to determine the priorities and parameters for commissioning local projects.

 

It was noted that whilst an aim had been to ensure that small voluntary providers could have access to Lot 4 funding this would not necessarily exclude anyone who had bid for funding under Lots 1-3. Assurances had been given that small providers would be able to enrol on the Kent Commissioning Framework and would be processed within 28 days. It would be important to determine whether the budget should be used to commission one or two projects or whether there should be smaller allocations to a larger number of projects. Consideration was also given to whether any gaps in either the type of youth provision or the geographical delivery of youth services existed. It was felt that the nature of the services contained in Lots 1-3 ensured that there were no significant gaps in the type of youth service work but possibly, given that Lot 1 focussed on Central Dartford, Members considered whether projects that were either based outside of central Dartford, or that facilitated access to centrally based services might be worthy of support. Members also discussed the benefits of making smaller commissions to existing voluntary groups to encourage their service to be expanded in terms of volume, frequency or geographical location.

 

Members considered whether money could be provided to churches which ran clubs or to schools to encourage more after school clubs and activities or could be used as start-up funding for activities such as junior football clubs where funding was needed for shirts and equipment etc. It was recognised that such proposals were more appropriate to a grant scheme than the commissioning model currently under discussion.

 

It was generally felt that the funding would have more impact and benefit if it was targeted on existing providers who already delivered youth work on a voluntary basis and that this could tap into existing activities to develop them further.  It was felt by some members that Salute to Youth could provide a model for commissioning and that as much of the funding as possible should be spent directly on services.   Whilst recognising the success of Salute to Youth concern was expressed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

Locality Boards in Kent

Minutes:

Mr Burr provided an update on the work being carried out by other Locality Board’s in Kent. It was noted that most Locality Boards were up and running and undertaking various projects. It was felt that the Dartford Locality Board was operating effectively and that good work and greater understanding had been carried out between Dartford and Kent County Council on the youth and highways projects discussed at previous meetings. It was accepted that there were other important and sensitive areas of work that had yet to be approached, such as Library provision across Kent where difficult decisions would be needed.    

19.

Paramount Leisure Development in Swanscombe

Minutes:

The Chairman provided a short update on the status of the proposed major leisure development on the Swanscombe peninsula. The proposal to build the 5th largest theme park in the world in conjunction with London Resort Holding Company Ltd in the Swanscombe peninsular had been under discussion for nearly a year and was a significant achievement for the locality. The location had been chosen as it had good transport links with Europe and London and was one of the few places large enough for the development. Potentially the project would deliver over 27,000 local jobs, 6,000 running the theme park, 11,000 support staff and 10,000 indirectly. The organisation behind the project was very committed and enthusiastic and the development would not only include a theme park but would also have strong educational and business aspects. Clearly whilst there was still a long way to go it was important to get the correct planning and infrastructure in place and discussion and information would be shared with Kent County Council as appropriate. The development could also have implications for the proposed third river crossing.