| 111 | RECORD OF THE MEETINGS |
| | | The record of the meetings held on 7 April 2009, the Joint Meeting of all Committees on 6 May 2009 and the special meeting on 19 May 2009 were signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
| 112 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andrews, Sylvia Griffin and Hubbard. |
|
| 113 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillor Brice declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5(A) (Petitions), as he was acquainted with one of the residents who had written to the committee with reference to the petition referral.
|
| Councillor Hunter (Chairman) declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5(B) (A Masterplan for Central Strood) as he was a member of the Local Development Framework Advisory Group. He also declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5(C) (Rochester Castle Conservation Plan) as he was a member of English Heritage.
|
| Councillor Stamp declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5(D) (Contracts for the collection and disposal of waste) in any reference to disposal of waste and incineration as he worked for the Environment Agency.
|
|
|
| 114 | PETITIONS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman welcomed members of the public who had attended for this item and invited the lead petitioner, Tracy Coutts, to address the committee with the residents concerns.
|
| The lead petitioner advised that the petition had started in April 2009 and aimed to keep services and encourage investment at the Maidstone Road Sports Ground in Chatham. Currently, the toilets were boarded up and the tennis facilities were poor and shabby. There were also no benches in the greater part of the site.
|
| In April, residents found out that the attendant's post was to be removed. The site had always had an attendant, who not only collected the money for the tennis courts but also helped to keep the area clean, look after the toilets and prevent anti-social behaviour. Thousands of people lived around the site with no other facilities nearby. Now that it was un-manned, with no facilities and no deterrent to anti-social behaviour the site had fallen into disrepair. There was no longer an incentive for local people to use the site.
|
| Petitioners advised that various officers and contractors regularly visited the site and it had recently been cleared up but residents wished for the reinstatement of an attendant. They believed that this could be a wonderful project for the future.
|
| The Leader of the Labour Group, Ward Member for this site, advised that he had met with the petitioners on site and could not stress enough the importance of this green area for the local community. It was the only open space close to a deprived area, which had been very well used and was worthy of investment. He was grateful for officers on-going work but believed that more could still be done, for example:
|
| | • | the Pavilion and toilet block were an eye-sore and a public space of that size should offer public toilet facilities;
|
| | • | new benches were to be installed but there were still an insufficient number. He offered to add a further number of benches using monies from the Ward Improvement Fund;
|
| | • | the grass court area was sited away from residential properties and an ideal area for young people to use. This should be cost-assessed for a hard surface area to allow for all year multi-purpose use with free tennis available;
|
| | • | officers should investigate the possibility of a concession located at the site (eg. food kiosk) that could oversee the activities and toilet facilities.
|
| The Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat Group asked that monies received by the Council for a telephone mast located in Bourneville Avenue, Chatham was ring-fenced and allocated to help maintain and upkeep this site.
|
| The Assistant Director (Customer First, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance) responded to the issues raised. Officers had received complaints about the member of staff working at this site and there were already issues over the cost of maintaining the post and the income received for use of the facilities which were detailed in the report. He clarified the number of times various council teams and contractors visited the site and advised that standards had improved - which was acknowledged by everyone.
|
| There had been a lot of dialogue with the lead petitioner and officers had suggested setting up a 'Friends Group' which residents were not keen on. They were now working with residents to address the points raised in paragraph 5.2.6 of the report. Officers were supportive of progressing ideas and suggestions, working jointly with residents, within the funding available and if proposals were affordable. |
|
| | > Final Petitions report (pdf file 117.8kb) |
| | > Petitions - Appendix A (pdf file 286.0kb) |
| | > Petitions - Appendix B (pdf file 138.2kb) |
| | > Petitions - Appendix C (pdf file 5.8Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee:
|
| | (a) | noted the petition responses and appropriate officer action in paragraph 3 of the report;
|
| | (b) | noted the action taken by officers in paragraph 5 of the report and requested that officers:
|
| | (i) | investigate reinstating toilet provision on the site;
|
| | (ii) | continue community engagement with Ward Members and residents;
|
| | (iii) | provide a briefing note on the cost of attendants at other green space sites in Medway;
|
| | (iv) | investigate the possibility of a concessionary business to oversee activities and management at the Maidstone Road Sports Ground;
|
| | (v) | investigate claims that the ground was not being visited on a daily basis by contractors and report the results to the Ward Members.
|
|
|
| 115 | A MASTERPLAN FOR CENTRAL STROOD |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Medway Waterfront Regeneration Manager from Medway Renaissance introduced the report reminding the Committee that it had first considered this matter in January 2009 and requested a draft plan to be submitted to this meeting. The masterplan would help to inform the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy and guide development decisions for the area. It was now proposed to take the masterplan out to public consultation as it was crucial that the final proposals had public support. The results of the consultation would be reported back to this Committee when completed.
|
| Martin Harradine, Director at AZ Urban Studio Consultancy, was introduced to the Committee and gave a presentation on the key issues and points considered in the masterplan. These included; that the plan extended beyond the Waterfront Action Area in the 2003 Local Plan, potential development sites represented 35%-40% of the study area, many of the current proposals were already being developed and the key issue was the environmental street scene - to gain better connections between each part of the town.
|
| Members discussed the traffic problems in Strood along the A2 and the Cuxton Road to and from the M2 junction, together with access roads to and from the new development at Temple Marsh.
|
| Officers responded that the Local Transport Plan 2006 had identified the issues raised by Members about the current road network and the need for improvements. The masterplan identified environmental improvements and the two plans would work in parallel to secure co-ordinated improvements for the benefit of Strood.
|
| The Committee also discussed the possibility of fitting a full-time bar across the entrance to Jane's Creek to make it non-tidal. Officers responded that work was on-going with the Environment Agency to work on a Strategic Flood Strategy for Strood, which included Jane's Creek.
|
|
|
| | > A masterplan for Strood (pdf file 119.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended that Cabinet endorses the draft masterplan proposals for the purposes of public consultation within the local area, with the results reported back to the Committee at an early date. |
|
| 116 | ROCHESTER CASTLE CONSERVATION PLAN |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Tourism and Heritage Manager gave a presentation highlighting the extensive history of the site, the recent health and safety works and conservation projects that had been carried out and the new interpretation installations and audio guides. He advised that this new Conservation Plan, the first for the Castle, had involved a major research project to gather all the historical information together and produce a definitive gazetteer to the evolution of the castle. English Heritage had co-funded the Plan and would adopt it later this summer.
|
| The Plan assessed the heritage significance of the site and had established a rating for the various parts of the castle site. The key issue was the need to conserve the Keep in the most appropriate fashion in order to reduce the rate of decay. The option to roof the Keep had again been assessed but there was no agreement to progress with roofing at this point in time - it was regarded as a highly controversial intervention, after 350 years without a roof. Other issues highlighted in the Plan included the need to better understand the archaeology of the Castle Gardens and the need to improve visitor facilities. One current proposal was to convert one of the two medieval mural towers by restoring the floor and installing a café. Above that, it was proposed to have a new educational facility for school groups. There were also proposals to reduce the speed of traffic in Boley Hill, remove the car park and restore the grass over the moat and possible restoration of the medieval bridge under Epaul Lane.
|
| The Committee thanked officers for the presentation and work undertaken but expressed disappointment that roofing was not being proposed at this point in time to protect the building from further ruination and damage by weather. Members also asked why the replacement of the dressed stone was not being put forward as a proposal.
|
| Officers responded that a proposal for installing a roof had been a matter of debate for many years but there was currently no consensus for this. It was possible that it would cost approximately £8-10 million, as it would have to include the full conservation of the exterior elevations, not just the roof and new floors.
|
|
|
| | > Rochester Castle Conservation Plan Appendix (pdf file 256.8kb) |
| | > Rochester Castle Conservation Plan (pdf file 133.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended that Cabinet adopts the Conservation Plan for Rochester Castle and requested that officers are asked to investigate the possibility of replacing the loss of dressed stones and that further work is undertaken on the feasibility and costs of reinstating a roof on the castle. |
|
| 117 | CONTRACTS FOR THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director, Front Line Services, introduced the report and advised that a tenderer had raised concerns with regard to the evaluation process of the bids. The Council was in the process of obtaining external advice for clarification and as a result, recommendation 10.1 (disposal of residual waste) was being withdrawn from the agenda. However, the principles behind the elements of disposal could still be discussed but not the specifics of the tender bids for this contract.
|
| The Committee commented that if a recommendation was withdrawn but the current timetable adhered to, this would not allow Overview and Scrutiny Members to discuss and consider the recommendation for this contract. Officers responded that Cabinet would consider the matter on 14 July 2009 and forward recommendations to Council on 30 July 2009 where all Members would be able to discuss the specifics of this contract before a decision was made.
|
| Members commented and asked questions on the following:
|
| | • | collection/street cleansing contract - the variant bid received for this contract was welcomed, especially that it would enable a wider range of plastics and batteries to be collected. However, concern was expressed that only two boxes (total volume of 110 litres) would be supplied for use by residents. Officers responded that the contractor had stated that it was not necessary for the recyclate to be put into boxes and, for example, paper could be put out for collection in cardboard boxes or carrier bags. This was a variant bid in a restricted process which could not be negotiated. However, this would not preclude a variation to the service in the future but the key point was that it would be environmentally and financially a better option to hold a separate paper collection for recycling locally;
|
| | • | clarification that kitchen waste could be left in the container for the fortnightly collection with garden waste, or be disposed of in the weekly residual waste collection was given;
|
| | • | disposal of residual waste - the Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats thanked officers for their hard work during the tendering process but stated that he did not think it had necessarily come up with the best solutions. The competitive dialogue process had been used and working with the cross party task group had eliminated, at an early stage, the opportunities for a weekly recycling collection service. It also meant that the Council now had two options for waste disposal and both involved incinerators. He felt that people who lived near incinerators perceived them to be dirty, unhealthy and messy places;
|
| | • | concern over the uncertainty that residents not able to accommodate a wheelie bin would not be provided with sacks by the Council as an alternative and that a two-tier service would be developed. Officers responded that the changeover to the new service would be in 18 months time, thereby allowing sufficient time to consider the options and put any proposals through the budget setting process. Member's would be invited to assist with developing suitable solutions and the contract being considered was about the provision of bins. Officers stated that there would be no compulsion in forcing residents to accept a bin, however bins would only be issued to properties which were capable of storing them sensibly;
|
| | • | Household Waste Recycling Centres - clarification was provided that the operation of the three Household Waste Recycling Centres would be procured separately and the tenders for this service would be sent out later this week.
|
|
|
| | > Contracts for collection and disposal of waste (pdf file 113.0kb) |
| | > Appendices 1-5 (pdf file 274.0kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended the following to Cabinet:
|
| | (a) | to note the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) result for the processing of garden/kitchen waste and recommend the award of the contract to Company E;
|
| | (b) | to note the MEAT result for the collection/cleansing service and recommend the award of the contract to Company H for its variant bid;
|
| | (c) | to recommend to allow the cleaning of the streets in Cuxton and High Halstow to be carried out by the respective parish on an agency basis at their quoted prices.
|
|
|
| 118 | AUDIT COMMISSION REGENERATION INSPECTION REPORT |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture introduced the report, highlighting that Medway had received one of the highest scores in the country due to many factors which included; the social, physical and economic improvements that had taken place, resident's satisfaction, the uplifting of the skills deficit and social regeneration. An action plan had been produced to respond to three points raised in the inspection report (detailed at Appendix B of the report) and the second action point (how to measure regeneration performance better) proposed extending the role of Councillors in managing performance by strengthening arrangements for the scrutiny and challenge of performance.
|
| Members congratulated officers on the high achievement gained from the inspection and stated that it had been a good decision to set up Medway Renaissance as the delivery vehicle for the major regeneration projects.
|
| The Committee considered that the action plan for the involvement and understanding of local people did not go far enough to achieve the required result. The proposed actions did not seem like real engagement and Members asked officers to be more pro-active and investigate more innovative solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
| | > Audit Commission Regeneration Inspection report - Appendix A (pdf file 295.0kb) |
| | > Audit Commission Regeneration Inspection report - Appendix B (pdf file 165.7kb) |
| | > Audit Commission Regeneration Inspection report (pdf file 110.8kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee endorsed the Council's action plan in response to the Audit Commission Regeneration Inspection report and recommended that officers consider setting up a permanent sub-group of representatives on the Citizen's Panel, who live in areas of regeneration, to look at, consider and give regular feedback on regeneration matters. |
|
| 119 | REGENERATION FRAMEWORK 2009 - SIX MONTH PROGRESS REPORT |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Medway Renaissance Strategy and Support Manager introduced the six month progress report, which had been requested by the Committee in January 2009.
|
| The Committee was advised that all of the main projects were now in the delivery phase, funded by the Homes and Communities Agency but the monies had to be spent by March 2011. Members were further advised that the masterplan for the Rochester and Hotel Quarter had been completed, the Temple Waterfront planning application had been submitted and was now being considered, Chatham Phase 2 roadworks had been approved - contractors were on site and the Sir John Hawkins flyover had been closed.
|
|
|
| | > Regeneration Framework 2009 six month progress report - Appendix 1 (pdf file 112.6kb) |
| | > Regeneration Framework 2009 six month progress report (pdf file 99.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | The Committee requested a detailed performance monitoring report on all Chatham and Gillingham projects (including Medway Park) to a future meeting of the Committee, in approximately six months time.
|
|
| 120 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Committee considered the work programme for 2009-2010.
|
|
|
| | > Work Programme - Appendix A (pdf file 104.5kb) |
| | > Work Programme - Appendix B (pdf file 108.5kb) |
| | > Work Programme report (pdf file 87.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee:
|
| | (a) | requested that a report on the Social Regeneration Strategy Review is submitted to the next meeting as pre-decision scrutiny;
|
| | (b) | noted that a report is submitted to a future meeting of the Committee on the arrangements for scrutiny of crime and disorder which will be the responsibility of this Committee;
|
| | (c) | noted that the Member's Item on road resurfacing had been deferred until the next meeting;
|
| | (d) | noted that all relevant Portfolio Holder's had agreed future dates to be held to account and these would be added to the work programme.
|
|
|