| 554 | RECORD OF MEETINGS |
| | | The record of the meetings held on 20 November and 3 December 2008 were signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
| 555 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apology for absence was received from Councillor Bright. |
|
| 556 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | Councillor Godwin declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 (Presentations by Kent Police and Medway Council Road Safety Team) as he was a council appointed representative on the Kent Police Authority and retained his right to speak on this item.
|
| Councillor Tony Goulden declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 6(H) and 6(I) (Member's Item - Medway Tunnel as he was a Trustee of the Rochester Bridge Trust and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion. |
|
| 557 | PRESENTATIONS BY KENT POLICE AND MEDWAY COUNCIL ROAD SAFETY TEAM |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Chief Inspector MacKenzie and Inspector Lukey of Kent Police gave a presentation including the following points:
|
| | • | Medway Road Policing Plan - targets of overall reduction by 2010
|
| | • | Medway Police Tactical Response
|
| | • | Anticipated outcomes -
increase in detection of broad spectrum of road traffic offences
corresponding increase in public safety on roads
consolidation of efforts to achieve casualty reductions
increased public confidence and satisfaction
|
| | • | Delivery Plans -
speed enforcement operations
Multi-agency road checks
Drink-drive enforcement
Tactical operations-led campaigns
Department for Transport themed campaigns
Support of partner agencies' campaigns
|
| | • | Casualty figures decreasing.
|
| Members asked about statistics for cyclists, as it had not been included in the information that had been presented. Chief Inspector MacKenzie agreed that this data should be included in the future and asked anyone involved with community work to feed back any information about cyclists, for example, riding on pavements or without lights, back through the policing neighbourhood teams.
|
| Members also asked what liaison took place between the Police and the council about matters such as the installation of traffic calming measures. Chief Inspector MacKenzie responded that this was co-ordinated through the Local Strategic Partnership with Medway Council as the lead agency. He added that Kent Police and officers of the council met on a regular basis to look at intelligence, statistics and education campaigns and discuss the best way to deal with various problems including traffic calming.
|
| The council's Principal Road Safety Officer gave a presentation on the overview of the road safety service, including the following points:
|
| | • | Casualty reduction targets and progress so far
|
| | • | The scale of the problem in Medway
|
| | • | Delivery Programme
|
| | • | How Medway Council is reducing road casualties
|
| | • | Programme of works
|
| | • | List of various functions, plans and campaigns run by the council. |
|
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee thanked officers from Kent Police and the council's Road Safety team for their presentations and information. |
|
| 558 | PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR FRONTLINE SERVICES IN ATTENDANCE |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Portfolio Holder for Frontline Services, Councillor Filmer addressed the Committee on various topics within his portfolio of services including:
|
| | • | road safety (Members had heard details in the previous item)
|
| | • | recycling - current rate is 32.4%. The civic amenity sites had recently introduced recycling facilities for wood, there had been 390 tons of recycling from schools
|
| | • | parking and enforcement - car parks had been well utilised and income had risen slightly. The council was actively trying to introduce a car park to Medway Street and were also investigating the use of Gun Wharf as a public car park when work began on Chatham town centre. Officers were also investigating ways to use credit cards for payment in car parks and the use of IT provision for people to look on-line at penalty notices
|
| | • | highways - 42 road and pavement schemes had been carried out and funded by the Local Transport Plan and 50 capital schemes had been completed. Highway asset information had been gathered for recording on computer and over the next two years an additional £4 million would be spent on top of normal provision on Medway's highways
|
| | • | integrated transport - the council had applied for Community Infrastructure Funding (CIF) bids and £13 million had been granted to improve the quality of public transport and a separate fund of £1.5 million for Gillingham station accessibility improvements. Officers had also obtained £9 million funding for the A228. £500,000 had been saved through the procurement of a new contract for the Special Educational Needs yellow bus service by grouping routes together and this was working well.
|
| Members asked questions and made comments which included:
|
| | • | which roads would be listed for road maintenance and repair for the next year
|
| | • | did the council own its recycled material as the price for this material had collapsed over the last year. The Portfolio Holder assured Members that the council's contractor had complete ownership of recycled waste
|
| | • | endorsement of the use of advertising in car parks to increase revenues which would lead to a freeze in car park charges
|
| | • | integrated bus timetable and evening provision of bus services
|
| | • | shortage of garden wheelie bins
|
| | • | misinformation in a weekend newspaper article with regard to Medway dumping 10% of recycling in landfill sites and ability for the council to get the correct messages and information to the public
|
| | • | compensation claims for A228 - request that no money from the Local Transport Plan should be used for compensation
|
| | • | impact of Public Transport Corridor through Chatham - possible knock-on effect for general traffic
|
| | • | assurance that there would not be any cuts to frontline services in the budget for 2009/2010. |
|
| | > Portfolio Holder for Frontline Services in attendance (pdf file 27.2kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for Frontline Services for attending the meeting and requested:
|
| | (a) | that a briefing note is circulated of the two-year programme of roads and maintenance and repair for 2009-2011 when it is finalised;
|
| | (b) | that a printed version of the integrated bus timetable is produced as soon as possible for the public;
|
| | (c) | that a briefing note is circulated detailing the number of claims for compensation for the A228 that have been rejected. |
|
| 559 | PETITIONS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman welcomed Mr Goodwin to the meeting, as lead petitioner for the petition detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 and the appendices of the report. Mr Goodwin addressed the committee explaining why the petitioners were dissatisfied with the response provided by officers. He advised that every resident in Bulrush Close, Walderslade had signed the petition, as they were all very concerned about damage to their properties from trees that had been planted next to their garden boundaries on council-owned land.
|
| Details from The Association of British Insurers website were circulated to Members showing the safe planting distance of trees to a building. Mr Goodwin highlighted the Horse Chestnut tree shown as being safe at 23 metres whereas the trees planted along the boundary to his property, including a Horse Chestnut, was 7 metres away. The main cause for concern was the damage the tree roots could do to the house foundations. At present they were very young trees but as they grew, they could damage the properties and block off sunlight.
|
| Councillor Burt also addressed the committee as ward Member in support of the petitioners' request, highlighting the points raised in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the report. He advised that the trees had probably been planted as part of a hedgerow but over time there had been removal of certain trees and much taller specimen trees were now left which would cause a problem for residents when insuring their properties in the future.
|
| The Chairman asked for clarification from the petitioners as to whether they wanted the trees topped and coppiced or removed completely and Mr Goodwin responded that they wanted the trees removed. The cost for doing so now was not great but as the trees got bigger this amount would increase.
|
| Members asked Mr Goodwin whether his house was currently insured and whether he had been refused insurance or had to pay an extra premium because of the trees. Mr Goodwin responded that his house was currently insured but would change and become more difficult as companies received claims for damage to the foundations. Members asked what type of foundations the properties had and Mr Goodwin responded that he believed they were probably 'raft' foundations.
|
| The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture highlighted the photographs shown in the appendices which gave an idea of the site from the council's side of the boundary which was an important view for members of the public using the open space behind the houses. He advised that if Members requested for the trees to be removed this would cost approximately £2,200. However, if the trees remained officers would carry out routine maintenance, as with all trees on council owned land. |
|
| | > Petitions (pdf file 1.1Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee agreed:
|
| | (a) | to note the response and appropriate officer action to petitions detailed in paragraph 3 of the report;
|
| | (b) | that no action is taken with regards to the petition detailed in paragraph 4 of the report as there were no arboricultural reasons to justify the request to remove the trees which is in accordance with the adopted tree policy;
|
| | (c) | there were no technical or health reasons to go against officers advice but officers were requested to monitor and treat the trees appropriately in due course. |
|
| 560 | PLANNING OF CENTRAL STROOD |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Local and Regional Planning Manager introduced the report which was submitted in response to a request at the last meeting of the committee. The report emphasised that officers were aware of the issues in Strood and had in place plans to deal with these.
|
| Members responded that the report did not set out a timetable of preparation and works which was the main request at the last meeting. Officers responded that the work required would be carried out in the first part of 2009 and it was vital that it was completed by the middle of the year in order to fit in with the preparation of the Local Development Framework. |
|
| | > Planning of Central Strood (pdf file 40.8kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee:
|
| | (a) | endorsed the early preparation of a Strood Central Area Masterplan as part of the emerging Core Strategy for Medway;
|
| | (b) | requested that a draft plan for central Strood is submitted to the first meeting of the committee in the next municipal year. |
|
| 561 | REGENERATION FRAMEWORK 2008/2009 PROGRESS REPORT |
| | Discussion: |
| | The Strategy and Support Manager at Medway Renaissance introduced the report advising that it set out the progress that had been made during the past year and listed the priorities and ambitions in the Regeneration Programme for the forthcoming year.
|
| Members welcomed the future activity and asked that some of the projects were interlinked and considered together, such as Strood Centre and Infrastructure with the Corporation Street development. Members also asked about the Chatham Road works phase 2 and 3 and were advised that publicity was due to be published soon setting out the sequence of works. There would also be a series of articles in newspapers.
|
| The committee commented on the total amount of money being spent on the new bus facility and asked that Ward Members were kept fully informed of developments for the Quality Public Transport corridor.
|
| The Strategy and Support Manager introduced Brian Warner to the committee as a "Medway Ambassador" who were volunteer members of the public who helped to promote Medway. Mr Warner addressed the committee stating that he had lived in Medway for over 30 years and was involved in local community work. He was keen to promote Medway and this was an excellent scheme that he wanted to be involved in.
|
| The "Ambassadors" were a group of people from many different backgrounds represented from various organisations and as he was a sales representative whose sales area covered half of England, he was in a good position to promote Medway throughout that area as much as possible. He thanked officers in Medway Renaissance for the support they gave to people in this scheme. The committee thanked Mr Warner for his attendance and wished him and the other Ambassadors success in the future. |
|
| | > Regeneration Framework 2008-2009 Progress report (pdf file 37.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee:
|
| | (i) | noted the report;
|
| | (ii) | requested a timetable of works with the breakdown of monies allocated to each project set out in the appendix when available;
|
| | (iii) | requested a briefing note detailing the breakdown of costs for the new bus facility;
|
| | (iv) | requested officers to keep Ward Members fully informed of all future development of the Quality Public Transport Corridor;
|
| | (v) | asked that an update report is submitted in six months time. |
|
| 562 | LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN - DELIVERY REPORT |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Integrated Transport Manager gave a presentation on what had been achieved in the first two years of the plan. Members were advised of an informal meeting with the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) and the Audit Commission about the delivery report but that officers were still awaiting a formal response. There were 25 targets and 21 of these had been achieved or were on-track, two required further work and two had been removed after advice from GOSE.
|
| The presentation gave details of the targets that were on-track which included more accessible bus stops, bus patronage, buses running on time and cycling trips. The two areas requiring further work were to reduce the number of pupils travelling to school by car and to reduce the number of Air Quality Management Areas. The number of pupils travelling by car had increased by 2% but officers had concerns about the data collected and the next collection, which was happening later this month, would hopefully be more accurate. There were currently six Air Quality Management Areas and the target was to revoke three by 2010.
|
| Members expressed their concern about the Air Quality Management Areas and asked whether there was any potential to establish new ones. Officers responded that modelling and assessments were currently being carried out. Although there were currently six areas, this did not stop other areas being declared. |
|
| | > Local Transport Plan - Delivery report (pdf file 53.3kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee supported the proposed actions, as detailed in the response letter to Government (attached as Appendix A of the report) and requested that a briefing note is circulated on the process of designating new Air Quality Management Areas. |
|
| 563 | DRAFT CAPITAL AND REVENUE BUDGET PROPOSALS 2009/2010 |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chief Finance Officer introduced the report advising that all Members had been sent the original Cabinet agenda setting out the proposals in November 2008 and this report now highlighted areas within the budget relevant to the Regeneration, Community and Culture Directorate. The committee was invited to question any of the assumptions that had been made in the budget proposals and make any observations where it believed savings and/or priorities should be.
|
| Members asked about the Members Priorities budget shown in Table 1 on page 81 of the agenda, as it was not obvious what the money had been spent on and questioned how priority for each scheme was determined. Officers responded that a block allocation of funds was set in the budget each year and then Members put forward their proposals for consideration by the Chief Finance Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder. Schemes were reported in the capital budget monitoring reports submitted to Cabinet on a regular basis.
|
| The committee questioned the first line of Appendix 3 on page 95 of the agenda asking whether the £302,000 major pressure for 'increments' was for all services or only those within the directorate. Members thought it seemed an excessive amount if workforce planning was being carried out correctly. Officers responded that this was an incremental pressure for the directorate and not the whole council. This budget was constructed by reference to individuals in their current posts and the pressure shown indicated the extra salary they would receive when rising another point within their salary scale, which happened each year until they were at the top of the pay scale for that post. Members questioned whether this was a real budget pressure, as it was known about each year but officers responded that in financial terms it was considered as an annual pressure.
|
Members also asked about additional energy costs predictions, as set out in paragraph 5.13 of the report and whether officers would negotiate a new energy contract later in the year. Concern was expressed that costs were predicted to increase when costs were falling. Officers responded that the costs from the previous budget had been inflated by 40% across the council to reflect the impact of new contracts (for one year) negotiated in the autumn of 2008. The energy contracts would be re-negotiated in 2009 and it was becoming increasingly likely that current prices would reduce. Members added that the council should invest in other measures for energy efficiency to reduce costs in the long term.
|
|
| | > Revenue and Capital budget proposals 2009-2010 (pdf file 94.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee:
|
| | (a) | noted the initial capital and revenue budgets and requested that the comments and suggestions set out above are forwarded to Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 February 2009, including that Cabinet investigate rigorously the procurement of energy savings;
|
| | (b) | requested a briefing note on the Members Priorities budget, setting out the priorities and projects together with how much had been spent on each project. |
|
| 564 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman advised the committee that he had agreed that a petition referral should be added to the work programme for the next meeting. |
|
| | > Work Programme (pdf file 40.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee noted that a petition referral on the installation of an alley gate in Chatham had been added to the work programme for 25 February 2009. |
|
| 565 | MEMBER'S ITEM - MEDWAY TUNNEL |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Councillor Godwin introduced the report and advised Members that paragraph 2.1 set out his issues of concern. However, the key issue was the long-term risks of ownership of the tunnel and the significant financial burden it would have on the council. Whatever sum of money was transferred from the Rochester Bridge Trust to the council, there would be a time in the future when the money would run out and the burden would fall completely on the council. He asked for a prediction of how long the current funding was likely to last and whether any future financial planning had been set in place.
|
| The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture responded that officers' best estimate of funding (including monies from the South East of England Regional Assembly (SEERA), the Rochester Bridge Trust, the Local Transport Plan and the council) would be sufficient until 2013-2015. Officers were also lobbying the government and local Members of Parliament requesting that the tunnel's status was changed so that it received central government funding. Currently it was considered to be only 725 metres of tarmac and received no government funding for the tunnel's structure, although other tunnels across the country did receive funding as they were all located on major trunk roads.
|
| The committee asked the Director to investigate other ways of trying to achieve funding including working with SEERA to put pressure on the Department for Transport, through Section 106 legal agreements on large developments that would create further traffic using the tunnel (such as the development at Chattenden) and the Medway Ports Authority. |
|
| | > Member's item - Medway tunnel report (pdf file 35.8kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee:
|
| | (a) | noted the report;
|
| | (b) | recommended that the Cabinet produces a funding plan for the Medway Tunnel with effect from the financial year 2010/2011;
|
| | (c) | asked that the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture investigate further means to obtain funding for the future of the Medway Tunnel and take on-board the suggestions as set out above. |
|