| 497 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting held on 21 October 2008 was signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
| 498 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Crack, Tony Goulden, Hunter (Chairman) and Stamp. |
|
| 499 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | Councillor Maisey declared a personal interest in agenda item 5(E) Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan as he was the Council's representative on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Forum.
|
|
| 500 | KENT COUNTY COUNCIL SELECT COMMITTEE - HIGH SPEED 1 (CTRL) DOMESTIC RAIL SERVICES |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Public Transport Manager introduced the report setting out the major changes to rail services proposed from December 2009 and summarised the recommendations of the Kent County Council Select Committee detailed on page 57 of the agenda. Councillor Kenneth Bamber attended the meeting at the request of the committee, as he had been invited to join the Select Committee to represent Medway's views during the hearings and in the final report and recommendations.
|
| The committee was advised that the Kent Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) was due to be published for consultation in Spring 2009 and this would identify the growth areas, pressures and gaps in the network for the next 30 years and also be an opportunity for Medway Council to put forward its views to Network Rail about the proposals.
|
| Members asked which stations in Medway could currently accommodate the proposed 12 car trains and were advised that the platform at Chatham station was long enough but that Network Rail was considering how to lengthen Rochester's platform which could only currently accommodate 10 cars. The key reason that Rochester station needed to be extended was because of the need to terminate some services there and the "loop" lines currently did not allow 12 car trains to stop without blocking the main line.
|
| The committee discussed whether Rochester station could be re-located and also whether Network Rail had considered linking Strood and Rochester stations together. Officers responded that a number of options were currently being considered and these would be published in due course.
|
| Members also asked about a rail link to the development at Chattenden but officers responded that it was not likely to be a large enough development for Network Rail to consider this as an option. The proposed freight route to the Isle of Grain after 2015 was seen by Members as an improvement for the area as it would put heavy freight onto rail rather than road use. Members also asked how the new high speed services would run as the current trains were powered by a ground-level rail and the high speed trains used an overhead electric wire. Officers responded that new trains were being purchased, based on the Japanese Bullet train, which could use both types of power supply without having to stop or change tracks. |
|
| | > Appendix 1 - KCC Select Committee High Speed 1 (CTRL) Domestic Rail Services (pdf file 1.3Mb) |
| | > Appendix 2 - KCC Select Committee High Speed 1 (CTRL) Domestic Rail Services (pdf file 154.7kb) |
| | > Kent County Council Select Committee - High Speed 1 (CTRL) Domestic Rail Services (pdf file 119.9kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note the findings of the Kent County Council Select Committee on High Speed 1 (CTRL) Domestic Rail Services;
|
| | (b) | recommend that Cabinet supports the introduction of a formal working arrangement with Kent County Council to consider public transport issues;
|
| | (c) | recommend that Cabinet responds to the consultation on the Kent Route Utilisation Strategy when it is published early in 2009, taking into account overview and scrutiny's views at that time.
|
|
|
| 501 | TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director for Customer First, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance introduced the report advising that the Council had stewardship of 30,000 trees in Medway and provided a regulatory role, where there was any danger caused by trees or where tree preservation was required. The policy formalised the council's approach and set out what the council could and could not do. The presumption of the policy was to retain trees unless for a technical or health and safety reason.
|
| Members asked about:
|
| | • | Coppicing - public consultation before works began
|
| | • | Trees obscuring street lighting and CCTV cameras
|
| | • | Pruning and thinning trees and hedges
|
| | • | Mature trees in grassland areas
|
| | • | Replacement of trees
|
| | • | Planting policy
|
| | • | Dangerous trees - legal right to go onto private land
|
| | • | Legal responsibility and liability for trees
|
| | • | Tree preservation orders
|
| | • | Further information for the public
|
| Officers directed Members to the relevant parts of the policy to cover the points raised. |
|
| | > Appendix 2 - Diversity Impact Assessment - Tree Management (pdf file 93.7kb) |
| | > Appendix - Tree Management Policy (pdf file 763.0kb) |
| | > Tree Management Policy (pdf file 99.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee welcomed the Tree Management Policy and agreed to recommend it to Cabinet for approval on 16 December 2008. |
|
| 502 | STORAGE OF AMMONIUM NITRATE AT CHATHAM DOCKS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Development Control Manager introduced the report which detailed the limited regulations and controls available for use by the council. Members were advised that the council had two controls for ammonium nitrate under planning legislation (detailed in paragraph 5.2 of the report) which depended on the nitrogen content.
|
| Members asked why no sampling had taken place on the first shipment, why only the statutory minimum public consultation had taken place because in this case there were wider implications than normal and what arrangements were in place for liaising with the Health and Safety Executive, as they had greater powers and control than the council.
|
| Officers responded that by the time they had received information about the first shipment in 2006, they could only check the documents to assess the concentration rather than take a sample for testing. The importer did not have to inform the council of a shipment but did have to inform Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and this prompted the council to contact Defra to tighten communication links for the future. Defra contacted the council before the second shipment arrived in early 2008 which is why officers were forewarned of the shipment and a sample was obtained.
|
| Officers also advised that applicants for Hazardous Substance consent had to advertise where the product would be stored and a notice had been placed at the site and in the press but the planning authority had also decided to advertise the application for Hazardous Substance consent for the second shipment which was more than the required statutory minimum. There had been a learning process for officers throughout the time the two shipments were known about and delivered and this would help all officers and other relevant authorities in the future.
|
| Officers recognised that there was a need for improved monitoring of the site and better contact between Trading Standards with Defra and the planning authority with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency which officers were working to resolve. The owner of the site had been contacted and officers had arranged a meeting to inform him of their future monitoring plans. The learning process had been about the overlap of functions between the planning authority, Trading Standards and the Health and Safety Executive and officers were working to strengthen communication as a result of the two shipments to Chatham docks. |
|
| | > Chatham Docks - ammonium nitrate (pdf file 105.8kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note the report;
|
| | (b) | request that officers regularly monitor this site in the future;
|
| | (c) | request that officers review current working practices to ensure better communication with appropriate agencies and that the lessons learnt are applied in practice.
|
|
|
| 503 | PARKING CHARGES UPDATE |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Head of Highways and Parking Services introduced the report explaining the background to the two-staged increase in car park charges in November 2007 and 31 August 2008. The additional revenue from the increase in charges was detailed in paragraph 2.9 of the report and this had allowed the council to meet the increase in energy costs and maintenance of the car parks. Any surplus money was ring-fenced to be re-invested within highways services.
|
| Members discussed the amount of time parking meters and pay and display machines were out of order and the lost revenue from this, together with
|
| the year on year increases in charges since the formation of Medway Council in 1998. Members also commented on the loss of easily accessible disabled parking provision, particularly in Gillingham town centre and the use of the CCTV Smart car and its operational use.
|
|
|
| | > Parking Charges Update (pdf file 132.0kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note the report;
|
| | (b) | request that a briefing note is provided giving details of the percentage number of on-street parking meters and car park machines that are out of service and the revenue loss from the down time, together with the costs for maintaining the equipment/machinery, further information on parking charges year on year since 1998 and the provision of easily accessible disabled parking bays in Gillingham town centre;
|
| | (c) | request that a report is submitted to a future meeting on the operational deployment of the CCTV Smart car.
|
|
|
| 504 | STROOD IMPACT STUDY |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director for Development, Economy and Transport advised Members that following a Council decision on 14 June 2007 (minute 65C(e)) the council had commissioned an impact study on the effects of the closure of the Civic Centre in Strood on town centre businesses. The conclusions showed a very small short term effect on retail businesses and once the site had been developed, the situation would improve. The study also concluded that Strood was well served with car parking.
|
| The committee was advised that there had been further advances since the study was concluded in that Matalan had re-opened, a Netto store had opened and the market was increasing its number of stallholders. The council's Economic Development team was supporting local businesses, looking at improved access to the High Street and using the Civic Centre car park for public parking before the site was re-developed.
|
| Members welcomed the report but questioned how relevant and current the information was, as there had been an economic downturn since its publication. Local ward Members advised that their information was that retailers were experiencing a severe downturn in trade and that no initiatives had come out of the study to resolve the issues in Strood. Members referred to action plans for other areas in Medway but were concerned that there was currently no action plan for Strood.
|
| The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture informed Members that £5 million had recently been granted for significant investment towards improving the roads in Strood which would help inform an action plan.
|
|
|
| | > Strood Impact Study - Appendix (pdf file 321.7kb) |
| | > Strood Impact Study (pdf file 116.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note the report and the outcome of the study;
|
| | (b) | request that officers report back to the next meeting with a timetable for producing a Strood Town Centre Action Plan. The plan should include retail, transport and housing measures to be operational as soon as possible and adopted as part of the Local Development Framework.
|
|
|
| 505 | KENT DOWNS AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB) MANAGEMENT PLAN |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Rural Strategy Manager introduced the report advising that the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was a statutory designation recognising a nationally protected landscape in order to conserve and enhance natural beauty. The work of updating the existing plan, seeking issues of concern and how these were to be addressed had been carried out by the Kent Downs AONB Management Forum on behalf of partner local authorities in Medway, Bromley and Kent.
|
| The committee asked questions about the map shown at Appendix 1 of the report, as there was no key provided. Officers responded that the green line shown on the map indicated the North Downs Way and the yellow area showed the area covered by the Kent Downs. Members congratulated the Rural Strategy Manager on the work that had been carried out, particularly at Ranscombe Farm. |
|
| | > Appendix - Kent Downs AONB Management Plan (pdf file 1006.2kb) |
| | > Appendix 1 - Kent Downs AONB Management Plan (pdf file 167.1kb) |
| | > Appendix 2 - DIA extra information (pdf file 60.1kb) |
| | > Appendix 2 DIA screening form (pdf file 90.5kb) |
| | > Kent Downs AONB Management Plan (pdf file 134.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee requested a briefing note giving clearer details of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty within Medway and agreed to recommend:
|
| | (a) | that the Cabinet adopts the First Revision of the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan in fulfilment of its statutory duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act;
|
| | (b) | the formal date for adoption is set at 27 February 2009;
|
| | (c) | the Cabinet delegates authority to the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture in conjunction with the appropriate portfolio holder(s) the responsibility to accept minor changes made by other local authorities during the adoption process.
|
|
|
| 506 | PERFORMANCE PLAN 2008/2009 MID YEAR PROGRESS REPORT |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Business Quality Assurance Manager introduced the report advising that it was shown in a different format than usual. The report referred to an updated basket of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) having been agreed which included a total of 132 measures. Information was not available for all of these indicators at this stage as data for some was only collected on an annual basis. However, there were 67 performance measures that could be monitored on a monthly or quarterly basis and 19 had been included in the report for Members consideration.
|
| The one indicator that required remedial action was on second stage complaints and the problems in this area had arisen due to staff vacancies. Action had been taken to address this by training Customer First staff as backup support and a fundamental review of complaints procedures had been carried out.
|
| The sickness data shown in the report was council-wide and not for the Regeneration, Community and Culture Directorate. New sickness data for each directorate would able available from February 2009.
|
| Members expressed concern that because of the committee's new role to monitor and scrutinise Local Area Agreement (LAA) targets it may be overwhelmed with similar performance reports on a regular basis. Members requested that officers consider a new method for dealing with performance reports for all overview and scrutiny committees. |
|
| | > Appendices A & B - Performance report (pdf file 376.1kb) |
| | > Mid Year Progress report 2008-2009 (pdf file 171.3kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee noted the report and remedial actions taken to deliver the Council's priorities and requested that officers consider the following recommendations:
|
| | (a) | in the future, reports should focus on areas of poor performance in the form of an 'Exceptions Report' and where the council is meeting targets, this information is circulated separately to Members on a regular basis between meeting cycles;
|
| | (b) | that further consideration is given to reporting annual data on a more frequent basis in order to allow Members the opportunity to discuss it and make recommendations, if necessary.
|
|
|
| 507 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Members considered the current work programme. |
|
| | > Work Programme schedule (pdf file 129.7kb) |
| | > Work Programme (pdf file 80.7kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note the presentations by the Police and Road Safety team had been deferred until 13 January 2009;
|
| | (b) | note that the Sports and Recreation Strategy had been deferred until 25 February 2009;
|
| | (c) | note that a Member's Item would be submitted to the meeting on 13 January 2009 on the sustainability of any future funding plan for Medway Tunnel;
|
| | (d) | request that a report is submitted to a future meeting on the operational deployment of the CCTV Smart car, (as set out in the decision for Parking Charges Update report shown above);
|
| | (e) | request that a report is submitted to the next meeting with a timetable for producing a Strood Town Centre Action Plan, including retail, transport and housing (as set out in the decision for the Strood Impact Study report shown above.)
|
|
|