| 405 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting on 28 August 2008 was signed by the Chairman as correct with the following clarification:
|
| That the Committee had previously agreed (minutes of 29 July and 28 August 2008) that it should be minuted that the spokesperson for the Labour Group had requested particular items to be added to the Committee's work programme. In future, this should be recorded in the minutes but not shown in the work programme and therefore the references to the Labour group spokesperson shown in the work programme on this meeting's agenda should be removed.
|
|
|
| 406 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tony Goulden and Sylvia Griffin. |
|
| 407 | PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT IN ATTENDANCE |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Councillor Chishti addressed the Committee on various topics within his portfolio of services including:
|
| | • | Re-location of three officers to work alongside the Police, to co-ordinate the tasking of the community safety team, PCSO's and Police officers to avoid any duplication of tasks
|
| | • | Area Action Plans
|
| | • | Cleaning-up of local communities
|
| | • | Alcohol Control Zones
|
| | • | 23 new PACT (Police and Communities Together) groups
|
| | • | Environmental Health
|
| | • | Alleygating
|
| | • | Community Safety team
|
| | • | Public Service Agreement
|
| | • | Public perception of feeling safe from crime
|
| | • | Community Safety Partnership
|
| | • | Trading Standards - counterfeit goods and underage sales
|
| | • | Food safety
|
| Members questioned Councillor Chishti about the following matters:
|
| | • | Knife crime -a briefing note was requested on the statistics of knife crime in Medway
|
| | • | CCTV
|
| | • | Training and risk assessments for safer communities officers
|
| | • | Planning compliance (Section 215 notices) - a briefing note was requested on the statistics of these
|
| | • | PACT funding
|
| | • | Future extension of Alcohol Control Zones
|
| | • | Test purchasing operations
|
| The Chairman thanked Councillor Chishti for attending the meeting and the information and answers he had provided to the Committee. |
|
| | > Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement in attendance (pdf file 99.0kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee requested that in the future guidance is provided to Portfolio Holders asking that their initial presentation is no longer than 20 minutes. |
|
| 408 | CORPORATION STREET DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture introduced the report outlining the consultation that had been carried out about the three areas within the Corporation Street, Rochester location - the Corporation Street Quarter, the City Wall Quarter and the Station Quarter. The Committee was advised that the framework gave a clear vision for the future for Medway residents and inward investors.
|
| The Committee was advised of the key features that included:
|
| | • | Star Hill junction - to be enhanced as a better area for pedestrians
|
| | • | Corporation Street - multi-storey car park
|
| | • | Appropriate heights for proposed new buildings - 3-5 storeys
|
| | • | Widening of Corporation Street - with trees, cycle lanes and bus priority measures
|
| | • | Blue Boar car park - convert to a pedestrian space for exhibitions and concerts, retaining parking
|
| | • | Station area proposals
|
| Members asked about the proposed multi-storey car park on the market site and officers advised that there was no funding available from the regeneration projects to finance the car park at the present time which meant that the Council would have to enable development to achieve funding for it. The Committee asked why it could not be located nearer to the station for use by commuters, especially with the anticipated increase in train users in the next few years. Officers responded that in practical terms, the advantage of the proposed site was that it is owned by the Council, which made the development much easier, especially as it was sited at the main entrance to the Rochester Riverside development and the hotel zone and there would be a lot of car park demand created by that development.
|
| Members suggested that a car park could be built on the river-side of Rochester Street beside the existing passenger tunnel. Additionally, it was suggested that the car park could also be re-located to the car sales/garage site nearer to the station to serve as a dual purpose as it would also serve the station. Members asked that officers gave serious consideration to these suggestions. However, if the car park could only viably be built on the market site, Members asked that that the design of the building should be interesting and that it would not visibly look like a multi-storey car park.
|
| The Committee also expressed concern over the 3-5 storey building height proposal, as this would obliterate any views of the castle and cathedral, especially from the train. Officers responded that the existing one to two storeys would not have sufficient impact to improve the character of the street and the street needed to be commercially viable for development. In response, Members asked that the roof line of buildings was not allowed to be built in mono-block appearance (all at the same height) but rather that the roof line was broken up by different levels to add interest and allow for glimpses through to the castle and cathedral.
|
| Officers were also asked to re-consider the proposals for the Blue Boar car park and asked to investigate whether the proposed building could be built along the frontage of Corporation Street, leaving the High Street as an open space, rather than blocking it off. At festival times in particular, this area became extremely busy. |
|
| | > Corporation Street Development Framework (pdf file 483.5kb) |
| | > Appendix 2 Corporation Street Development Framework (pdf file 61.2kb) |
| | > Appendix 3 Part 1 Corporation Street Development FrameworK (pdf file 3.7Mb) |
| | > Appendix 3 Part 2 Corporation Street Development Framework (pdf file 15.6Mb) |
| | > Additional papers (pdf file 4.5Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee endorsed the minor changes to the draft Corporation Street Development Framework and asked that the comments detailed above were referred to the Cabinet for consideration. |
|
| 409 | KENT COUNTY COUNCIL SELECT COMMITTEE - HIGH SPEED 1 (CTRL) DOMESTIC RAIL SERVICES |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman advised that Councillor Ken Bamber had represented Medway Council at the Kent County Council (KCC) Select Committee and that Members would have a chance of considering it's own recommendations when Network Rail published the draft Route Utilisation Strategy.
|
| Members advised that they did not want to comment on the work of the KCC Select Committee until they had seen the published document and recommendations.
|
|
|
| | > Kent County Council Select Committee - High Speed 1 (CTRL) Domestic Rail Services (pdf file 149.7kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee requested that:
|
| | (i) | The KCC Select Committee - High Speed 1 (CTRL) Domestic Rail Services recommendations are sent to the Committee when they are published for further consideration by the Committee and that Councillor Kenneth Bamber, as Medway Council's representative at the KCC Select Committee, is invited to the meeting;
|
| | (ii) | officers await the proposals set out by Network Rail in their draft Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) due to be published in early 2009 and that a presentation and report is submitted to an appropriate meeting in order that Members may consider this matter and the proposals fully. The Committee could then make a decision as to whether it wished to respond to the draft proposals.
|
|
|
| 410 | VERGE PARKING BAN PILOT SCHEMES |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director, Frontline Services, introduced the report advising that the pilot scheme had been introduced in Autumn 2007 with the purpose of making it illegal to park on verges in three specific locations in Medway. It had become clear that since its launch, residents now realised it was an illegal activity and stopped parking there. Therefore it was seen as a success, although the locations were chosen as areas likely to succeed.
|
| Officers were now recommending a set of criteria shown at paragraph 3.3 of the report for possible future schemes, although it was important to consider the effect on residents if there were no other parking alternatives.
|
| Members discussed whether the schemes had caused any displacement of parking to other areas. Officers responded that they had received no complaints from the public in surrounding areas but that this was an important issue to be considered when implementing a similar scheme.
|
| Members also considered the problem of dropped kerbs sometimes crossing grass verges and also that planning permission was being given for paved front gardens when there was already access and parking provision to the rear of a property. Officers agreed to investigate the concerns raised and report back to the Committee at a later date.
|
|
|
| | > Verge parking ban pilot schemes (pdf file 138.9kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to recommend to Cabinet:
|
| | (i) | the retention of the current verge parking ban orders;
|
| | (ii) | the 'rolling out' of verge parking orders, in principle, throughout Medway on a phased basis and the site appraisal criteria being met as outlined in paragraph 3.3 of the report, prioritising them on the basis of road safety network management, the acceptability to local residents and the effect of the amenity to the neighbourhood;
|
| | (iii) | that any future requests are ranked and scored in terms of priority;
|
| | (iv) | that adequate funding is provided through the budget setting process.
|
|
|
| 411 | FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS POLICY |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Head of Property introduced the report setting out the background and legal requirements, together with the advantages and dis-advantages of sprinkler systems.
|
| Members discussed the draft wording set out in Appendix A and asked for some revisions.
|
|
|
| | > Fire Sprinklers Systems Policy (pdf file 130.2kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee referred the following revised recommendations to Cabinet for consideration:
|
| | (i) | fire sprinkler systems should be considered using risk assessments and guidance when major new build or refurbishment works are carried out within the Council's property portfolio. A decision to be taken on the results of the risk assessment and financial viability;
|
| | (ii) | when being refurbished Council sheltered housing schemes and residential homes should be risk assessed and if given a high and medium risk status then fire sprinkler systems should be installed. A decision to be taken on the results of the risk assessment, feasibility and financial viability;
|
| | (iii) | in respect of Schools the Council carries out a risk assessment in accordance with BB 100 for all new and major refurbishment projects. The results are implemented and fire sprinkler systems are installed for all high and medium risk school properties.
|
|
|
| 412 | PETITIONS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Members considered the response to petitions presented at Council meetings on 12 June, 31 July and 18 September within the remit of this Committee.
|
|
|
| | > Petitions (pdf file 145.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the response and appropriate officer action. |
|
| 413 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman advised that two new items had been added to the Cabinet's Forward Plan within the remit of this Committee. The two reports were a Sports and Recreation Strategy and a Tree Policy.
|
| A Liberal Democrat Member requested that, following consideration of the Museum Acquisition and Disposal Policy 2008-2012 at the last meeting, officers investigate and report back on possible sources of funding for a proposed dedicated museum in Medway.
|
| The Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator advised Members of a referral from the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee which suggested that this Committee received a feasibility report on the 'Safe Drive, Stay Alive' campaign. However, on further investigation, officers advised that the Council was already actively involved in a similar campaign called 'Licence to Kill?' and a paper was circulated to Members outlining a new phase of the campaign due to start in November 2008.
|
|
|
| | > Work Programme schedule (pdf file 132.9kb) |
| | > Work Programme (pdf file 80.7kb) |
| | > Additional papers (pdf file 120.3kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee requested the following additions and amendments to the current work programme:
|
| | (i) | the Sport and Recreation Strategy and the Tree Policy are submitted for consideration as pre-decision scrutiny;
|
| | (ii) | the attendance of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth is deferred to a later meeting;
|
| | (iii) | a report is added to the work programme within the next six months on possible funding sources for a proposed dedicated museum in Medway;
|
| | (iv) | the referral from the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 'Safe Drive, Stay Alive' campaign is not progressed, as the 'Licence to Kill?' campaign is already in operation.
|
|
|
|
|