Issue - meetings

Appendices 1-4 are set out in Supplementary Agenda No.1 

Background:

This report provided details of the public consultation process undertaken in relation to the draft Hot Food Takeaways in Medway Guidance Note.

The report gave details of the background to the development of the guidance note, stating that work on its preparation had emerged as part of a holistic package of measures to promote better health in Medway. It sought to manage the location and operation of new hot food takeaways particularly in locations in close proximity to schools.

Public consultation had taken place over a six week period, from 20 March 2014 to 2 May 2014, and it was noted that there had been 20 formal written responses received. In addition, it had been decided to seek the support of the Medway Young Inspectors to directly get the views of young people and it was reported that 147 young people had responded to surveys conducted by the Medway Young Inspectors. Other consultation was also carried out with a variety of stakeholders as detailed in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the report.

Details of a number of amendments to the guidance note, in response to the comments received during the consultation process, were set out.

The Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered this report on 3 July 2014 and its comments were set out in paragraph 6 of the report. The Portfolio Holder updated Members as to the comments, with regards to section 106 agreements and minimum floorspace. It was noted that the last bullet point under paragraph 6.12 of the report should read: “It was suggested there should be no minimum floor space requirement for new takeaways for the purposes of developer contributions under Section 106 agreements”. In addition, paragraph 6.14.8 of the report should read: “The Committee asked for an investigation into the possibility of there being no minimum square metre requirement for developer contributions under Section 106 agreements for all new takeaway premises designated with A5 Use Class”.

The Portfolio Holder further advised Cabinet that she had been informed that the Overview and Scrutiny discussion had referenced Batchelor Street and not Best Street, as set out within section 6 of the report.

A Diversity Impact Assessment had been carried out on the Guidance Note, as set out in Appendix 4 of the report. This noted that there was no direct impact on any protected characteristic group, as all planning applications were subject to a standard assessment process. The guidance note sought to improve the health of people in Medway through promoting a healthier environment, as part of a wider package of public health interventions.

Appendices 1-4 to the report were set out in Supplementary Agenda No.1 to the report.