Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 27 June 2013.

The record of the meeting held on 27 June 2013 was agreed and signed as correct by the chairman. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hubbard, Juby and Turpin. 

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

The chair proposed to change the order of the agenda to allow the lead petitioner for the “Say NO to Rochester Airport Masterplan” to address the committee as the first item on the agenda.

The committee agreed to the change in the order of the agenda.

(A)              Disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests

A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons.

(B)            Whipping

The Council’s constitution also requires any Member of the Committee who is subject to a party whip (ie agreeing to vote in line with the majority view of a private party group meeting) to declare the existence of the whip.

There were none. 

This report advises the Committee of the petitions presented at Council meetings, received by the council or sent via the e-petition facility, including a summary of officer’s response to the petitioners.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out petitions received and a summary of Officer’s responses to petitioners.

The Committee was informed that in accordance with the Council’s petition’s scheme, Mr McLennan (lead petitioner) for the ‘Say NO to Rochester Airport Masterplan’ petition had asked for the petition to be referred to this Committee.

The Chair invited Mr McLennan to address members.

Mr McLennan representing all the signatories of the “Say NO to Rochester Airport Masterplan” addressed the Committee and explained that there had been an oversight in the petition process on his behalf, as he had not collected the addresses of those who had signed the petition, however he was in the process of collecting all addresses in order for the petition to be properly validated.

He informed the committee that the petition statements addressed to the Council were not prescriptive, instead they were seeking the Council to consider all the options available. He expressed concern that the proposals set out in the Masterplan had a wide range of safety and environmental impacts, which would be prejudicial to the local community.

Mr McLennan then addressed the committee on each of the responses to the petition and raised the following:

Ensuring residents safety – Mr McLennan stated that it was an individual pilot’s responsibility to decide whether to fly in difficult weather conditions. The creation of a single paved runway increased the risk of accidents occurring, as the final decision on whether it was safe to fly remained with the pilot.

Consultation process – Mr McLennan felt that the consultation process had been compromised, as earlier publication documents contained the views of the area Ward Councillors. The purpose of the consultation was not to try and influence public opinion.

He stated that parts of the local community could not raise their concerns over noise sensitivities owing to a previous civil agreement.

Economic Strategy – Mr McLennan questioned what independent studies had been carried out in respect of the financial returns that would be made on the airport. Providing the results of an independent study would allow residents and businesses to consider the proposals and allow for a range of options to be explored.

Financial Investment – The WS Atkins financial statement confirmed that having a paved runway was not financially justifiable. As a business Rochester Airport would not make significant financial return on its investment. The creation of a single paved runway would increase the non-domestic rate of the airport site to £300,000 a year.

Mr McLennan referred to the development of Buckmore Park, which had resulted in this site encountering financial difficulties and subsequent bankruptcy. He considered that should the proposals for Rochester Airport go ahead then similar issues could occur at this site unless there was a significant increase in air traffic and flyers to cover the costs.

The committee thanked Mr McLennan for addressing his concerns and he responded to a number of questions from members as summarised below:

·        The percentage/number of accidents that had been caused  ...  view the full minutes text for item 275.

This report considers a draft Masterplan for development at Rochester Airport. The committee’s views on the draft Masterplan are sought as part of a current public consultation process.  Following consultation, the intention is to adopt a final version of the Masterplan as planning policy guidance to shape future development at the site.

Discussion:

The Planning Policy and Design Manager introduced the report to the committee. He explained that Rochester Airport was a strategically important site for the regeneration and growth of Medway and had the potential to meet a significant proportion of the area’s future employment.

Consultation was open to the public and businesses for comment until 20 September 2013. The current consultation provided more detail on proposals for developing the area in comparison to previous consultations and a report setting out results of the initial consultations was set out at Appendix 1.

The masterplan had been submitted to Council on 25 July 2013 and Cabinet on 6 August 2013. A summary report on the early findings of the consultation would be presented to this committee at the next meeting.

A copy of the Masterplan was attached to the report at Appendix 2.

Members welcomed the report and raised a number of points and issues including:

Financial Justification – A member stated that they welcomed the partial redevelopment of the airport as it would create much needed jobs in the community. It was felt that the current proposals to spend £4.4 million would benefit only a small proportion of the local residents. There was concern that there had been no reports detailing the pros and cons of having a single runway at the airport. It was felt that a full Community Impact Study should be taken to allow a range of options to be considered with regards to the redevelopment of the airfield. It was suggested that building an urban park was one option that could be a better use of the land and bring a higher rate of return on investment. Concerns were also expressed about the value for money, as taxpayers would be required to meet the cost for the development of the airport.

A member commented that the current lease on the airfield was nearly at an end, and that it would be more appropriate in times of austerity to look at how the land could bring about the greatest economic output and was not dependent upon spending the money on a residual flying area.

A comment was made that the current proposed investment would help facilitate the growth of jobs and the creation of a more advanced technological park. The return on investment would not be instant, however in the long term the Council envisaged a significant economic benefit to Medway as a whole. It was felt that if investment was not made then the airfield might cease to exist, which could be detrimental in the long run to the local community.

Number of movements at the airport – Officers were asked to clarify the total number of movements on the site. A member questioned the statement that there were 35,000 movements a year and doubted that this would increase to 50,000 once the site had been re-developed.

Officers explained that the total number of movements were specific to aircraft that were taking off and landing and nothing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 276.

This report details the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, which fall within the remit of this Committee. These are listed each time a Cabinet Member is invited to attend any of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees to be held to account.

Discussion:

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services had provided a report that set out activities and progress on work areas within the his Portfolio during the past year and the Committee asked him questions about these which included: 

Planned and Winter Maintenance –A correction to the length of pavement resurfaced was noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services stated that the perception of road maintenance was about timing. When customers were surveyed about the state of the roads there had been a period of heavy snow, which had caused many of the surfaces on the road to break up. The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services was confident that satisfaction with the maintenance of roads would balance out in the next quarter.. Investments had been made to keep roads in good condition and were among the best in the South-East.

Capital Projects – The Council were progressing a number of schemes in the next year, this included improving school access at Woodlands Road in Gillingham, and the creation of a new car park at the former railside in Gillingham. Following a member’s concern that the installation of a build up and pedestrian crossing at Woodlands Primary School could exacerbate the problems at this site, the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services advised that he was happy to re-visit the proposed scheme and look at it again.

The Portfolio Holder advised the committee buses were having difficulty accessing the Medway Hospital, due to ongoing site congestion. The Committee was advised that there was recognition that buses currently had problems accessing the Hospital site and options were currently being investigated.

In relation to the new primary school in Chatham, safety audits would be carried out to ensure all safety aspects were covered.

The Portfolio Holder assured the committee that the Council were working hard to obtain the necessary funds to improve the Sans Pareil roundabout and had bid for funds from the South-East Local Transport Body for both this roundabout and the route between Four Elms roundabout and the Medway Tunnel.

Recycling – Starting at the end of October recycling collections would be made on a weekly basis. Recycling rates were increasing each year and were currently at 40%. In relation to other local authorities it was difficult to compare overall recycling figures, as they used different systems to Medway and some would most likely use incineration. The Council recognised that some people lived in flats and did not have the facility to put their recycling in a bin, however the introduction of the weekly recycling would alleviate many of the problems.

Chatham Bus Station – The Council was aware of the issues during periods of windy weather at the bus station and were looking into ways of improving protection for the public, particularly on Platform B. Proposals would be reported in due course.

Road Safety – The figure of 51 killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road accidents was still too high, a number of interventions were looking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 277.

This report summarises the performance of the Council’s Key Measures of Success for April – June (quarter 1) 2013/14 as set out in The Council Plan 2013/15.

The following information is provided against the relevant council’s priorities and two values for this committee

·        Summary of key measures of success (performance indicators)

·        Service comments

·        How our performance compares with other authorities (benchmarking) where this is available

Discussion:

The Performance and Intelligence Manager, Regeneration, Community and Culture introduced the report to Members which provided performance information against the Council’s relevant Key Measures of Success for quarter 1 (April – June 2013).

For quarter 1, 19 out of 25 Regeneration, Community and Culture Council Plan Key measures of success were on target or exceeded their target. The Performance and Intelligence Manager outlined a number of successes under each priority.

Members welcomed the report and raised a number of points and questions including:

Satisfaction with road maintenance – A member expressed concern about the decline in the level of satisfaction with road maintenance. Referring to the previous report from the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, he drew attention that only 9 miles out of 1800 miles had been resurfaced, and therefore it had hardly been surprising that satisfaction levels had dropped. It was stressed that this should be an area that should be closely monitored. Concern was also expressed in the amount of money that had gone into the budget to improve road surfaces, which had subsequently been removed.

The Highways Maintenance and Parking Manager explained that the perception from residents had been that roads were not being maintained, however, there had been snow on the ground when the satisfaction survey had been undertaken.  Snow had caused the road surfaces to break up and these had taken time to be repaired. He also confirmed that Medway was getting a much better return on the money it spends with its suppliers than other local authorities.

Local Development Framework (land at Lodge Hill/Chattenden) – A member noted that following Hearing Sessions held as part of the Examination of the Medway Core Strategy, the Planning Inspector concluded that significant further work was required in relation to the strategic development allocation at Lodge Hill, and she advised the Council to withdraw the plan. Natural England’s proposal to notify much of the Lodge Hill area a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) created significant difficulties, putting the Core Strategy in a precarious position. This could undermine the authority in defending its unbuilt environment from development.

Open top tour bus –A member asked whether the Council had offered concessionary travel on the new open top tour bus to workers across the public sector. They also asked if this was part of a wider project to get people on the bus.

The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture informed the committee that for events such as Undersiege the Council had issued vouchers to young people so that they could use the bus. In respect of public sector workers, he would check and advise the member direct. However, he stated that as the bus was a funded service, it was available for anyone to use.

Riverside 1 – Customer satisfaction rates – A member commented that it was pleasing to see that customer satisfaction rates were good in respect of services provided at Riverside 1, particularly as during the quarter, there had been welfare benefit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 278.

This report informs members of consultation on a draft management plan for the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

This is a revision to the current management plan and it is anticipated that the Council will adopt the revised plan later this year, as part of its legal duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000.

The revised draft plan is largely based on the current Kent Downs AONB management plan, which the council has previously agreed. The policies in the plan are not land use planning policies; they are policies for the wider management of the AONB. 

Discussion:

The Development Policy and Engagement Manager introduced a report on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Management Plan. The current plan expired in April 2014 and the Kent Downs AONB Unit had carried out a review to ensure that a new plan was to be in place by April 2014.

The plan that was out for consultation represented much of the existing plan’s ambitions and policies. There would be some changes made, most notably adding additional detail to the sections considering biodiversity and green infrastructure. The Development Policy and Engagement Manager explained that the AONB plan was much more than a planning document and could take note of a wide range of issues including farming and rights of way.

The committee were advised that the consultation ran until 18 September 2013. Following revisions to the draft plan, the Council would be required to formally adopt the management plan as part of its policy framework. A final report would be presented to Cabinet in late 2013/ early 2014.

Members commented that they had discussed the Management Plan at a previous Local Development Framework Advisory Group meeting and were supportive of the plan. A member commented that a number of voluntary organisations had carried out excellent work in the countryside.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and supported the aims and objectives of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014/19.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows them to adjust it in the light of latest priorities, issues and circumstances. It gives Members the opportunity to shape and direct the Committee’s activities over the year.

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report and highlighted to the Committee the additions to the Cabinet Forward Plan, as set out at paragraph 4 of the report.

The committee was advised of a request for a Members Item regarding car-parking enforcement and a geographical map of resident parking permits to be submitted to the next meeting. This report was to look specifically at the revenue made from parking enforcement, including a breakdown of the source of the revenue e.g. CCTV cars, fixed cameras or via parking wardens

The committee agreed to visit Chatham Bus Station in the middle of November, prior to a report being presented to the committee in December.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to note:

1)           The Committee’s work programme as attached at Appendix 1;

2)           The inclusion of an annual update on domestic abuse, a summary report on the early findings following the completion of the Rochester Airport Masterplan consultation, and a Members Item on car-parking enforcement and resident parking permits.

3)           The transfer of housing issues to the remit of the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee as outlined at paragraph 3.3. 

4)            In accordance with minute 7 above a report be submitted to a future meeting on the proposed improvements at Darnley Arches.