| PRESENT: | |
| Committee members: | Councillors Andrews, Bhutia, Bright (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Crack, Godwin, Tony Goulden, Griffin and Hubbard |
| Substitute members: | Councillor Avey (for Councillor Hicks)
Councillor Kenneth Bamber (for Councillor Maisey)
Councillor Carr (for Councillor Hewett)
Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers (for Councillor Hunter (Chairman))
Councillor Juby (for Councillor Stamp) |
| In attendance: | Councillor Bowler, Ward Member attending for agenda item 5(I) (Member's item: Ward parking reviews), Councillor Chisti attending for agenda item 5(C) (Attendance of Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement), Councillor Mason, Ward Member attending for agenda item 5(A) (Petitions), Robin Cooper, Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture, Bob Dimond, Medway 2012 Manager, Stephen Gaimster, Assistant Director Development, Economy and Transport, Dave Harris, Development Control Manager, Richard Hicks, Assistant Director Customer First, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance, Nigel Holman, Acting Countryside Manager, Mark Johnson, Senior Transport Planner, David Lerew, Project Leader Medway Renaissance, Andy McGrath, Assistant Director Frontline Services, Jonathan Male, Legal Advisor, Martin Morris, Traffic Manager, Sara Purvis, Project Manager Chatham, Medway Renaissance, Caroline Salisbury, Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator, Ian Wilson, Head of Capital Projects, Road Safety and Networks, Brian Weddell, Assistant Director Medway Renaissance, Kevin Woolmer, Financial Advisor |
| 351 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting held on 27 August 2009 was signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
| 352 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hewett, Hicks, Hunter (Chairman), Maisey and Stamp. |
|
| 353 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillors Kenneth Bamber, Bright, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers and Hubbard declared that they were Members of the Development Control Committee and that for agenda item 5(F) Chatham Dynamic Bus Station - revised scheme they would listen to the debate and, if necessary, ask questions for clarification but would keep an open mind and not pre-determine any future planning application. |
|
| 354 | URGENT ITEMS |
| | The Chairman advised the Committee that he had accepted an urgent item as agenda item 5(F) as an early decision was required by Cabinet to progress with the planning application in accordance with the agreed programme.
|
| The Committee was also informed that the Chairman intended to vary the order of the agenda to hear agenda item 5(I) Member's Item: Ward Parking Reviews after agenda item 5(B) Maidstone Road Sports Ground, as members of the public were attending the meeting and he did not want them to wait until the end of the meeting to hear this item.
|
| The Chairman also informed the Committee of the recent death of Russell Davies, Waste Services Manager, and the Committee sent its condolences to Russell's family.
|
| Members also heard that the Chairman, Councillor Hunter, had become unwell whilst on holiday and the Committee wished him a speedy recovery. |
|
| 355 | PETITIONS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Councillor Mason (Ward Member), Ms. Debbie Hughes (petitioner) and Lieutenant Colonel Neil Jordan (petitioner) addressed the committee to highlight the problems encountered with the dangerous speeds and high volume of traffic using Higham Road in Wainscott.
|
| The committee was advised that residents were frustrated as there had been talk of improvements in this road for a long time but nothing had happened. There were traffic calming works and road improvements taking place in surrounding roads which encouraged traffic to use Higham Road as a 'rat-run'. There had been a great deal of development in Wainscott over the past few years with monies gained through legal agreements from developers due to be spent on other road schemes but not in this particular road. Petitioners asked whether the Council could re-negotiate the legal agreement for the Liberty Park development for monies to be made available for traffic calming in Higham Road.
|
| Officers responded that there had been a significant increase in the volume of traffic using the road, however a traffic speed survey had been carried out since receipt of the petition which recorded traffic from the east travelling at an average speed of 34 miles per hour and from the west at 33 miles per hour which were not excessive speeds. The Council's priority was to address areas where known and continuing personal injury accidents occurred and there were no recorded personal injuries in Higham Road. Officers had to look for patterns of accidents and injuries over time and designate the funding to those areas.
|
| Members were concerned that action did not take place until injury or fatalities took place but also understood the monetary position. |
|
| | > Petitions (pdf file 20.5kb) |
| | > Petitions - Appendix A (pdf file 163.2kb) |
| | > Petitions - Appendix B (pdf file 179.6kb) |
| | > Petitions - Appendix C (pdf file 117.8kb) |
| | > Supplementary information for Petition report (pdf file 8.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | request that the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture seeks to re-negotiate with the developer of Liberty Park for monies to be spent on a scheme in Higham Road;
|
| | (b) | if re-negotiation was not possible, that officers report back to the Committee, with costs for traffic calming in that area. |
|
| 356 | MAIDSTONE ROAD SPORTS GROUND |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director, Customer First, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance introduced the report, updating Members on the work that had taken place since a petition referral on the sports ground was discussed at Committee on 7 July 2009.
|
| Councillor Godwin, as ward Member, advised that significant progress had been made with some items at the sports ground but the main focus for residents was the provision of toilets and re-instatement of the park attendant post. It was felt from the information shown in paragraph 2.5 of the report that the cost of converting the former attendant's hut into a toilet or the provision of a portaloo was not a significant cost and easily achievable.
|
Officers advised that there was no funding for the repair or replacement of a new pavilion/toilets and the intention was to remove the existing building, due to its poor state of repair, reinstate the grass and take no further action in relation to the provision of toilets. There were only two sites in Medway with park attendants and officers did not intend to re-instate the post at this venue.
|
| The lead petitioner, Mrs Coutts, and other petitioners addressed the committee, confirming their concerns about the lack of toilet provision and the lack of a park attendant. They stated that residents felt strongly about this and were prepared to raise funds for the re-instatement of the provision themselves.
|
| Members asked about funding received by the Council for a telecommunications mast sited in nearby Bourneville Road and whether that money could be used for the facilities asked for. Officers advised that these monies went directly into central funds. Members also asked whether a portaloo could be made available only during the summer months but the petitioners advised that it would probably be vandalised.
|
| A proposal was put forward to request a capital bid from the Members Priority Fund with a revenue budget request for 2010/2011 to pay for and maintain new toilet facilities at the sports ground but the Committee voted not to progress this further. |
|
| | > Maidstone Road Sports Ground (pdf file 26.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to endorse the officer actions in relation to Maidstone Road Sports Ground as set out in the report. |
|
| 357 | MEMBER'S ITEM: WARD PARKING REVIEWS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Councillor Godwin introduced the item stating his surprise when it emerged that there was no longer a programme of parking reviews. There were anomalies across Medway and although the reviews were a lengthy process there was validity in taking a uniform approach. This issue had been raised through a previous petition for a parking review for Rochester East ward which had significant support from residents and he felt that the Council should have a mechanism to deal with this type of request but not hold a full review. Therefore he wanted to know what was intended to replace reviews and was this best dealt with on a case by case basis. He felt that a uniform approach should be introduced, otherwise the situation would get worse if dealt with on an individual basis.
|
| Councillor Bowler, Ward Member for Rochester East ward, Joanne Allsop and Jocelyn McLean (local residents and lead petitioners of previous petition) addressed the Committee advising that out of the 78% of residents contacted, 77% were in favour of a ward parking review. The roads requesting a review were situated close to Rochester station and used by commuters to park, whereas other railway stations in Medway had permit schemes in the surrounding roads and that is why residents requested some type of parking review for the area, even the removal of yellow lines in Fort Street and Church Street to allow more parking would be helpful. It was acknowledged that seven years ago when residents were asked by the Council about holding a review, residents had petitioned against it but the situation had now deteriorated and residents views had changed considerably.
|
| Members asked why the income received by the Council from on-street parking could not be re-invested into parking reviews. Officers advised that these monies were used for road safety and highway schemes but that it was a matter of choice for Councillors on what the income should be used to fund. It required £1.8 million to action the remaining 12 ward parking reviews. However, officers did action a significant number of small changes when action was required for safety reasons and would investigate whether the removal of small sections of yellow lines in local streets, as suggested by the residents, would be possible.
|
| A proposal was put forward to ask officers to re-investigate a possible scheme to respond to the petition for a review in Rochester East ward but the Committee voted not to progress this further. |
|
| | > Ward Parking Reviews (pdf file 77.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to take no further action. |
|
| 358 | ATTENDANCE OF PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Portfolio Holder addressed the committee outlining the main achievements within areas of his portfolio:
|
| | • | The Audit Commission had noted the success in targeted work to improve community safety and said that more people in Medway felt safe
|
| | • | There had been a 60% reduction in abandoned vehicles
|
| | • | The Council had an excellent CCTV system and had recently won a tender to operate CCTV for Swale Council which would bring an income of £150,000 per year
|
| | • | There had been 8,192 environmental enforcement incidents investigated
|
| | • | Environmental Health had visited food premises and local restaurants to ensure they were safe and four premises had been closed
|
| | • | Trading Standards had undertaken 108 undercover operations to test the sale of alcohol to underage customers which had helped to assist in significantly reduced anti-social behaviour.
|
| Members asked about:
|
| | • | graffiti
|
| | • | reducing drug usage
|
| | • | how often CCTV cameras were checked and repaired if not working and assurance that they were only used for the detection of crime
|
| | • | capacity to operate the additional CCTV for Swale Council
|
| | • | Strood Alcohol Control Zone boundary
|
| | • | Dog fouling |
|
| | > Attendance of Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Enforcement (pdf file 19.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee thanked Councillor Chishti for attending the meeting and the information and answers he had provided. |
|
| 359 | INCREASING ADULT PARTICIPATION IN SPORT (NI8) |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Medway 2012 Manager introduced the report giving an overview of the current situation, setting out what would be put in place over the next few months to improve the situation and longer term plans for future generations.
|
| Members asked whether shooting facilities would be provided in the future and were advised that a pistol range was intended as part of new modern pentathlon standard training facilities to be introduced at the Black Lion Leisure Centre.
|
| The Committee also asked about the rationale used in the Sport England survey in comparison with the Council's own survey and were advised that Sport England had held a telephone survey of 500 residents, whereas the Council had used a part telephone, part street survey of 2,000 residents.
|
| Members also asked about the use of the river for sporting activities such as rowing and sailing. Officers responded that this was not felt to be appropriate given the problems in accessing the equipment and facilities for this. |
|
| | > Increasing Adult Participation in Sport (NI8) (pdf file 28.8kb) |
| | > Increasing Adult Participation in Sport (NI8) - Appendix A (pdf file 20.9kb) |
| | > Increasing Adult Participation in Sport (NI8) - Appendix B (pdf file 15.3kb) |
| | > Increasing Adult Participation in Sport (NI8) - Appendix C (pdf file 21.3kb) |
| | > Increasing Adult Participation in Sport (NI8) - Appendix D (pdf file 22.4kb) |
| | > Increasing Adult Participation in Sport (NI8) - Appendix E (pdf file 20.1kb) |
| | > Increasing Adult Participation in Sport (NI8) - Appendix F (pdf file 8.7kb) |
| | > Increasing Adult Participation in Sport (NI8) - Appendix G (pdf file 9.0kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the report and supported the initiatives to increase adult participation in sport and physical exercise. |
|
| 360 | LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director Development, Economy and Transport and Senior Transport Planner introduced the report which set out the preparation of the third Local Transport Plan (LTP) which was a statutory requirement and described the strategy for the future. There were clear links being developed between this plan, the Local Development Framework and the Community Plan documents. The third plan would be evidence based and would concentrate on wider connectivity and climate change issues.
|
| The Committee commented on regional strategies and national and regional proposals in conjunction with the Medway tunnel and proposals for a new Academy and changes at Medway Maritime Hospital.
|
The Committee also discussed partnership arrangements with utility companies for co-ordinated work to create minimum disruption on the roads.
|
|
| | > Local Transport Plan (pdf file 112.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended to Cabinet the following:
|
| | (a) | the production of a Medway Transport Strategy to cover the period 2011 to 2026 , together with supporting Implementation Plans covering successive three year periods;
|
| | (b) | the national Transport Goals to be refined to incorporate sub-regional and local objectives;
|
| | (c) | the formation of an LTP3 Cabinet Advisory Group;
|
| | (d) | the LTP3 programme for the production and consultation as detailed in the report;
|
| | (e) | delegated authority for the consultation of the draft Implementation Plan to be granted to the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Frontline Services. |
|
| 361 | CHATHAM DYNAMIC BUS FACILITY REVISED SCHEME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director Medway Renaissance introduced the report reminding Members that this had been part of the plans for regeneration in Medway for a considerable time and this revised scheme would lead to a planning application being submitted prior to Christmas. The Development Control Committee had requested revisions to the original plans and the revised scheme was attached to the report.
|
| 'The Paddock' area would now remain intact apart from some amendments for crossings. The information centre and toilets were originally due to be enclosed but it was now proposed to simplify this to provide a roof arrangement. There were also an additional six stopping places located on the site of the Sir John Hawkins flyover, three used for bus layover and the remaining three used by motorway bus services and the park and ride schemes.
|
| Members asked whether the revised scheme would be delivered within budget and, because of the reduction of the previous scheme, whether it would be delivered at a lower cost. Officers responded that the scheme would be delivered within budget but because of the additional design costs for the revised scheme it would not be at a lower than previously reported.
|
| The Committee also asked whether work had taken place to accurately locate the sewers and cables located in that area of Chatham and were advised that enough research had taken place to satisfy officers about the locations and a Constraints Plan had been produced. Officers added that there was always unforeseen incidents during the development of a new scheme, particularly in an area such as this, but as much preparation as necessary had taken place.
|
| Members asked for assurance that there were no significant disadvantages to the revised scheme in comparison to the original plans and were assured that there were not and that the design team had tried to keep as many of the benefits of the original scheme as possible. The main difference was the loss of a central pedestrian crossing point to provide a strong pedestrian connection between the shops and the waterfront and the central island now had a more open route. The bus operator, Arriva, had also written to the Council advising that they were happy with the capacity of the redesigned layout. |
|
| | > Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility Revised Scheme (pdf file 133.7kb) |
| | > Plan 1 Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility Revised Scheme (pdf file 2.1Mb) |
| | > Plan 2 Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility Revised Scheme (pdf file 497.6kb) |
| | > Plan 3 Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility Revised Scheme (pdf file 335.5kb) |
| | > Plan 4 Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility Revised Scheme (pdf file 1.7Mb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee recommended to Cabinet that:
|
| | (a) | a planning application is submitted for a revised scheme (as described in the report, and as shown in the sketches appended to it);
|
| | (b) | the loss of existing public open space in the proposed site is advertised in the local press in accordance with s123 (2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture is delegated authority, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community Services, to consider any objections and determine whether or not to appropriate land. |
|
| 362 | PROVISION OF RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DISABLED PARKING BAYS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director Frontline Services introduced the review that had been carried out by a task group of Members. It had been set up due to a number of enquiries received from the public and the review had resulted in a number of proposed changes to the existing policy, the key issue being the financial implications. There were two options about the financial aspect set out for Members consideration at paragraph 7.3 of the report. The task group's full recommendations were set out at the end of the review document on page 119 of the agenda.
|
| The committee asked for clarification that there would be a right of appeal for applicants in the new policy and officers confirmed that there was. Members welcomed the addition of carer's bays and asked how these would work in practice. Officers advised that the carer's bays were for exceptional circumstances only and generally would not be part of the policy.
|
| In response to a question about the current financial situation, officers confirmed that the current budget of £35,000 was only for the installation of new bays and did not include maintenance work or removal of old bays. Also, that there was no waiting list for new bays to be installed. |
|
| | > Provision of residential on-street disabled parking bays (pdf file 111.6kb) |
| | > Provision of residential on-street disabled parking bays - Review Document (pdf file 657.7kb) |
| | > Provision of residential on-street disabled parking bays - Diversity Impact Assessment (pdf file 116.8kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The committee agreed to request of the Cabinet the following:
|
| 1(a) | additional funding of £35,000 for the installation of disabled parking bays is considered as part of the budget setting process for 2010-2011 and onwards, and that this figure is reviewed annually;
|
| 1(b) | upon reaching the approved budget, no further applications are processed until the commencement of the new financial year;
|
| 1(c) | funding of £17,500 for the re-charge of the Occupational Therapy service to make the relevant site inspection, is considered as part of the budget setting process for 2010-2011 and onwards (however, this is to be reviewed annually).
|
| 2 | Cabinet to agree that if (a), (b) and (c) above are agreed by Council during the budget setting process of 2010-2011, that officers implement the new Residential On-street Disabled Parking Policy from 1 April 2010.
|
| 3 | Cabinet to agree (if funding is agreed at the Council's budget meeting in 2010), as part of the Registrar Services 'Bereavement Pack', that a leaflet is included to ask relatives to return any blue badges and to inform the Traffic Management team of any residential disabled parking bays the deceased may have used. Following further investigation by officers, this may lead to the removal of the disabled parking bay to return the space to general on-street parking provision.
|
| 4 | Councillors are asked to notify the Traffic Management team of any residential on-street disabled parking bays that they believe are no longer required or used for officers to investigate further may lead to the removal of the disabled parking bay to return the space to general on-street parking provision.
|
| 5 | ask officers to revisit all forms and documentation when the policy has been agreed to include further information for applicants. This should include information on use of bays, enforcement around display of blue badges, etc.
|
| 6 | ask officers to set up a shared database between the traffic section and customer first (issuers of the blue badges) so that any badge that has been returned to either department is recorded and available for either section to view in order to follow up about any matter with regard to a disabled parking bay, as necessary. |
|
| 363 | MEMBER'S ITEM: NEW HOUSEHOLD WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE |
| | Discussion: |
| | | Councillor Godwin introduced the item asking for clarification as to whether the new contract did, or did not, provide black sacks to properties unable to use wheelie bins as there were contradictions in what had been said at a previous meeting and the information in the report.
|
| The Assistant Director Frontline Services responded that there was an option in the contract for the Council to ask the contractor to provide black sacks, if that was what the Council decided to do.
|
| In response, Councillor Godwin stated that he was therefore happy to accept the recommendations in the report. |
|
| | > New Household Waste Collection Service (pdf file 79.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed that consideration of whether the Council should ask the contractor to provide black sacks to households not suitable for wheeled bins should be referred to the Waste Contract Task Group. |
|
| 364 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman advised the Committee of four additional items on the Cabinet's recently published Forward Plan within the remit of this Committee:
|
| | (a) | Air Quality Management Action Plan - outcome of consultation
|
| | (b) | Parking standards review - outcome of consultation
|
| | (c) | Rochester Riverside Management Company
|
| | (d) | Gateway 3 Contract Award - waste disposal and collection services
|
During discussion of whether these and other items on the Forward Plan detailed in paragraph 4 of the report should be considered by the Committee, officers advised that they would be unable to bring information on the waste disposal and collection services contract report to the meeting prior to Cabinet as insufficient information would be available at that time.
|
|
| | > Work Programme (pdf file 67.7kb) |
| | > Work Programme - Schedule (pdf file 68.4kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed:
|
| | (a) | to request that the following items are submitted for consideration prior to Cabinet:
|
| | • | Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report - 2 December meeting
|
| | • | Waste Strategy Review - 13 January meeting
|
| | • | Air Quality Management Action Plan - outcome of consultation - 13 January meeting
|
| | • | Parking standards review - outcome of consultation - 13 January meeting
|
| | • | Rochester Riverside Management Company - 13 January meeting
|
| | • | Gateway 3 Contract Award - waste disposal and collection services - 16 February meeting (after Cabinet decision)
|
| | (b) | to request a Briefing Note on Gateway 3 Contract Award - Twydall Accessibility Project;
|
| | (c) | to note that the report on the Masterplan for Central Strood had been deferred to the next meeting;
|
| | (d) | to continue with a previous decision to request a Briefing Note on Chatham World Heritage Management Action Plan;
|
| | (e) | that a previously proposed task group to look at ways of commemorating Charles Dickens' bicentennial in 2012 should not go ahead but that interested Members of the Committee should be invited to meet with officers to put forward their suggestions and ideas for a piece of public art;
|
| | (f) | that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Spokespersons should hold a one-off work programme meeting to consider options for an in-depth review and be given delegated authority to identify a topic for future in-depth scrutiny. |
|