Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 14 August 2013.

The record of the meeting held on 14 August 2013 was agreed and signed as correct by the chairman. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mason, Stamp 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 chairman proposed to change the order of the agenda and move the Member’s Item: Use of the bus lane, Canal Road, Strood before the Rochester Airport Masterplan Consultation – Update.

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 details the area covered by the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, which falls 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 Strategic Development and Economic Growth had provided a report that set out activities and progress on work areas with her Portfolio during the past year and the committee asked her questions about these, which included:

TIGER Loans Fund – Impact in Medway – The Portfolioholder reported that a number of applications for TIGER Loan funding had been submitted by Medway businesses and two had been successful so far. TIGER Fund loans were being promoted locally by the Local Enterprise Partnership and also by the Council’s Economic Development team with the aim of making the scheme easy to access by local companies.

Inclusion of references to fracking and mineral development in the Local Development Framework – The Portfolio Holder advised Members this had not been an issue when the Local Development Framework was written but that the Framework could be expanded and updated as necessary.

Free Parking to revitalise High Streets – The Portfolio Holder was asked if she had changed her view and would now agree that the availability of free short-term parking would help revitalise High Streets in Medway in light of the Portas Initiative and views expressed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. . The Portfolio holder stated she did not necessarily agree with the views expressed by Mary Portas and that this would require wider discussion. She stated that parking charges in Medway were among the lowest in the South East and reminded members of the provision in Medway in a number of locations for short term free parking in the run-up to Christmas.

Youth Unemployment – The Portfolio holder reported a 22% fall in youth unemployment across Medway, which was in contrast to the rest of the country were youth unemployment was increasing in many places. She attributed the exceptional figures in Medway to the attitudes of young people locally who were prepared to take up the opportunities that had been made available to them.

Broadband Development – timescales for completion of survey work. The Portfolio holder confirmed that planning and surveying work was underway and information was expected later in the autumn as set out in her report. She referred to the particularly poor reception and connection issues on the Peninsula. The rolling out of Broadband would be concentrated on local schools within Medway and created an opportunity for schools to work with their local communities. .

Strood Community Hub – request for provision of limited (one-hour) free parking for library users.  The Portfolio Holder noted concerns that ward members had not been told about the proposed location for a Strood Community hub ahead of a public announcement by two Cabinet members at a Friends of Broomhill meeting. She stated that the idea of limited free parking for users of the new Community hub could be considered but she could not give any assurances at this time. Members of the Committee referred to the previous (but now defunct) agreement with Tesco involving three hours free parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 435.

This report responds to the Committee’s request for preliminary information on the responses received to the consultation on the draft Rochester Airport Masterplan. 

Discussion:

The Chair advised the committee that a member of the public had asked to make an audio recording of the discussion on this item and put the request to the vote. The majority of members present voted to refuse the request.

The Development Policy and Engagement Manager introduced the report, which provided preliminary information on responses received to the consultation on the draft Rochester Airport masterplan.

The Committee was advised that a report on the analysis of the responses to the masterplan consultation was due to go to Cabinet on 26 November 2013 and a final report for decision would go to Full Council on 23 January 2014. These reports would include a schedule of all the responses received.

Some members commented that they felt the report implied that less weight would be given to the large number of responses that had been handed in on pre-printed forms. The Development Policy and Engagement Manager advised the committee that a summary of all responses would be reflected in the final report to Cabinet and that each response would be considered in full. She also confirmed that any responses from residents and businesses in Tonbridge and Malling would be reflected in the final report.

A view was expressed that the majority of residents consider expenditure of £4.4 million on Rochester Airfield to be a waste of money which could be better spent on investing across the towns in Medway and creating more jobs. It was suggested that the Council could follow the example set by Dover and hold a ballot of residents to seek their views, or review the proposals in light of the high percentage of responses against the masterplan proposals. Some members of the Committee expressed a view that a decision to proceed with the masterplan would make a mockery of the consultation process.

A Member proposed a recommendation to Cabinet, which was seconded, to reconsider the proposals in light of the outcome of the consultation process. On being put to a vote this proposal was lost.

A Member proposed that a scatter gram map showing where residents who had responded to the consultation lived be included in the final reports to Cabinet and Council.

Decision:

The committee:

1)           Noted the information provided on the responses to he consultation on the draft Rochester Airport masterplan and;

2)    Recommended that the final report to Cabinet and Council should include a scatter gram map showing where residents who had responded the consultation lived.

This report sets out a response to an issue, raised by Councillor Osborne, requesting information on car parking enforcement and resident parking permits. 

Discussion:

Councillor Osborne was invited to address the committee as he had submitted the item for consideration. He expressed a view that the Council had a more aggressive policy on parking enforcement based on the high number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) that had been issued within Kent and Medway in comparison with other areas across the country, citing London as an example and the high number of appeals against PCNs in Medway. Councillor Osborne referred to information provided in the report showing a fall in the number of PCNs issued by the CCTV cars and questioned whether the cars were now cost-effective in terms of future revenue projections. He also drew attention to a significant rise in PCNs issued for bus lanes and queried whether the number of double yellow lines in Medway should be reviewed.

In response to the questions raised, officers advised the committee on the following issues:

CCTV cars – The Assistant Director, Frontline Services advised members that the two CCTV cars currently targeted cars parking outside of schools and were used in areas of high risk. In addition these cars were used as second resource in transporting Community Enforcement Officers (CEO’s) to areas where road safety was an issue or where CEO’s were subjected to abuse by the public. In response to concerns that the mobile units were now costing as much to run as money they made the Head of Highways and Parking informed members that as well as providing protection for CEO’s the CCTV cars were hugely visible, which had prevented people from parking illegally and had the ability to respond quickly to requests across a large area. In addition they provided protection to school children at the beginning and end of the school day, which was a primary concern for the Council.

The Assistant Director Frontline Services, in response to a question raised, informed the committee that in the year 2012/13 there had been 326 visits to schools.

A member commented that one of the issues that needed to be considered was how to best use the CCTV cars, in particular the amount of time these cars spent visiting schools. Members requested officers produce a statistical analysis of the number of visits made to schools by CCTV cars and the number of PCN’s issued in the vicinity of schools.

Appeal rates – The appeal rates reflected that there was a two-stage process in deciding appeals and that a significant number of appeals are upheld by the Council at stage 1.of the process. In total there had been 15,470 appeals received in 2012/13 of which 5326 had been upheld. The Assistant Director, Frontline Services reported that. in total 78 appeals had progressed to the external adjudicator at stage 2  of which   46 had been upheld.

PCN’s issued in bus lanes – The Assistant Director, Frontline Services confirmed that static cameras were now in place at Chatham bus station and in the bus lane at Canal Road. In addition the road layout at Chatham  ...  view the full minutes text for item 437.

This report sets out a provisional response to an issue, raised by Councillor Hubbard, regarding whether taxis could be allowed to use the Bus Lane in Canal Road in Strood. A verbal update following initial consultation will be presented at the committee. 

Discussion:

Councillor Hubbard was invited to address the committee as he had submitted the item for consideration. He supported a proposal to allow use of the bus lane in Canal Road in Strood by taxis on the basis that this is a strategic transport link, the Council has an integrated transport policy and taxis are allowed to use all other bus lanes in Medway. He argued that the change would enable taxis to access Medway City Estate more quickly and relieve pressure of traffic flow in Commissioners Road and other residential roads in Strood, such a Banks Road and Station Road.

The Head of Integrated Transport informed Members that the consultation period finished on 3 October 2013. The first part of the consultation focused on 28 properties that would be directly affected by the change of use, eight responses had been received so far of which 4 were in support and 4 were against the change of use. Following a request from Councillor Hubbard a further 32 properties on Commissioners Road were consulted. Fourteen responses had been received, of which nine supported the change in use and three disagreed with two neutral returns

An alternative view was expressed by Councillor Etheridge who referred to assurances originally given to residents of Canal Road that the bus lane would not be extended for use by taxis or other vehicles. She also argued there was a possibility taxis would still use residential roads in Strood even if the bus lane was available to them.

Decision:

That the committee agreed to:

1)           Note the provisional findings of the consultation

2)      Receive a further report outlining proposals at the next meeting, and to include an evaluation of the possibility for minor works that could be taken to mitigate the impact on residents in Canal Road.

This report sets out an update of the planned works at Darnley Arches in strood, it follows a report taken to the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 31 January 2013. 

Discussion:

The Senior Transport Planner introduced the report to the committee on the planned work at Darnley Arches, Strood. She directed Members to the attached appendix showing the proposed alterations and improvements to Darnley Arches.  The Council currently held £526,673 of Section 106 contributions from Morrison’s with a deadline to complete works by August 2014.

The committee welcomed the proposals and supported the proposed option but asked for additional provision to secure pedestrian safety in the detailed design, particularly in Northcote Road.

A Member voiced their concern that the table attached to the report showed that the work would only cost £100,00, which was nowhere near the amount of money the council could spend on the project. He urged officers to consider spending as much of the money available to secure improvements for residents The Senior Transport Planner advised the committee that the £100,000 figure was significantly understated as it did not include service charges, labour costs and the cost of materials to be used in carrying out the work. In addition she informed the committee that officers were looking at a number of options to slow traffic down on Northcote Road.

The Assistant Director, Frontline Services advised the committee that the Section 106 money was specifically to be used for pedestrian improvements at Darnley Arches and could not be used for other unrelated improvements in the area. With regards to the August 2014 deadline the Committee were advised that officers could deliver the planned work at Darnley Arches within the required timeframe.

Members of the committee suggested that Strood South and Strood North ward members should be invited to meet with officers to discuss further more detailed proposals at a later stage and that all members of the committee should have the opportunity to comment on the final design, following meetings of the ward members and further consultation with Strood Town Centre Forum.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

Support the recommended option for Darnley Arches with additional priority to be given to pedestrian safety and an opportunity for members of the Committee to comment on the final design by email once finalised after a ward member meeting for Strood North and Strood South members with officers and consultation with Strood Town Centre Forum.

This report details the current method of measuring average journey times along key transport routes and details proposed enhancements. 

Discussion:

The Head of Integrated Transport introduced the report to the committee. He explained that members had expressed concern about the data being produced using the current measurements of journey times across Medway.

Members were advised that the report outlined a number of options to look at specific traffic corridors across Medway. Using ANPR cameras that the police own, the Council could alter the method of reporting journey times on Medway’s highway network and that this would focus on individual key routes along a revised collection of routes. It was stressed that only routes where the ANPR cameras were located could be looked at.

A Member commented that they supported the recommendations, but expressed the view that there are more routes contributing to the economic growth of Medway than the three listed in paragraph 3.6 of the report, citing routes affected by congestion off Four Elms roundabout as an example.

A Member expressed concern in relation to the public’s civil liberties on how data was stored and the importance for the public to be made aware that their information was out in the open. In response the Assistant Director, Frontline Services confirmed to Members that any data used by the Council is de-personalised.

Decision:

The committee agreed that:

1)           The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture is recommended to alter the method of reporting journey times on Medway’s highway network and that this be amended to focus on individual key routes and average journey times on the network along a revised collection of routes;

2)           The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture, in consultation with a small group of Members from this committee (on the ratio 2:1:1 with names to be provided by Group Whips), is recommended to agree the key routes to be monitored following the introduction of additional ANPR cameras;

3)           Officers report back on the operation of the additional cameras to enable the effective monitoring of key routes.

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 the petitions received and a summary of officer responses to petitioners.

A Member drew the committee’s attention to the petition requesting the council to relocate the bus stop outside Woodlands Academy. They were of the view that this bus stop was dangerous, especially during the school day as parents and children would often have to walk on the road when the bus shelter was congested. There was a fear that unless the bus stop was moved there might be a casualty in the future. 

The Assistant Director, Frontline Services advised the committee that there were other bus stops in Medway that had a higher priority of relocation. The committee asked officers to organise a site visit to the bus stop during school hours, which involved the ward members and the lead petitioner, to which the Assistant Director, Frontline agreed. In addition the committee agreed that while officers reviewed the Woodland Academy bus stop, they could also review traffic issues between Sturdee Avenue and the traffic lights in Woodlands Road.

A Member suggested last year that they had offered some of the funds from the ward improvement funds to carry out work in relation to relocating bus stops.

Decision:

1)           The committee noted the responses to the petitions in paragraph 3 of the report and appropriate officer action and;

2)    Recommended that officers meet the lead petitioner in relation to the Woodlands Road bus shelter, along with Ward Councillors for Twydall and Gillingham South, and that the site visit should be used to also review other issues in the vicinity during school hours.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows the Committee 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. In addition the committee was advised of an additional item on the Cabinet Forward Plan, Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report, which had been added after the work programme report was published.

A Member advised the committee of the Snow Angels project, which was a volunteer scheme aimed at assisting residents that are community minded and want to help vulnerable members of the community get on with their daily activities without the dangers when snow and ice hit. All snow angels would receive, 20kg bag of salt, a high visibility vest, protective gloves and snow scoop or plastic shovel.

The committee agreed that a members item on the possibility of introducing the scheme be brought to this committee.

Decision:

The committee agreed to note:

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

2)     That a Members Item be added on the possibility of introducing the snow angels scheme.