Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 13 January 2011.

The record of the meeting held on 13 January 2011 was agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct.  

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chishti, Clarke, Filmer, Tony Goulden, Val Goulden, Gulvin, Haydock, Hunter and Murray.  

Councillor Griffiths declared a personal interest in any discussion that may take place during the course of the meeting with reference to NHS Medway because he is a Non-Executive Director of the Trust and a Non-Executive Director of Medway Community Healthcare.

Councillor O’Brien declared a personal interest in any discussion that may take place during the course of the meeting with reference to the NHS because some of his family members are employed by the NHS.

The Mayor informed Members of a number of forthcoming charity events and encouraged them to support them in aid of the Mayor’s Charities. These included the Mayor’s Ball on 19 March and a theatre night on 6 April 2011. 

The Mayor also advised that he had received apologies for absence from Tony Dance, one of the Independent members of the Standards Committee.

There were none. 

The following petitions were received and referred to the appropriate Directors:

Councillor Godwin presented a petition with 482 signatures requesting that the Family Services at White Road Community Centre, Chatham are kept open.

Councillor Griffin presented two petitions. The first, with 31 signatures, requested that the current parking restrictions on the left side of Cecil Road, Rochester are lifted between 8am and 6pm on a Saturday. The second petition, containing 60 signatures, requested that traffic calming measures are introduced in Rochester Avenue, Rochester similar to those introduced in King Street, Rochester.

Councillor Jones presented two petitions. The first, with 29 signatures, was from the residents of Granville Road, Cavendish Avenue, Portland Road, Maple Avenue, Oak Avenue and Elm Road in Gillingham requesting the introduction of a local residents’ parking scheme in the area. The second petition, also with 29 signatures, was from residents of Camden, Leslie, Shottenden, St. Andrews, Baden and Milner Roads, Gillingham requesting the introduction of a local residents’ parking scheme in the area.

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

(A)       Garry Harrison of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

“What does the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services intend to do to contribute to the success of the Strand, which historically has been both a key play area for Gillingham and Medway and also a summer destination for families from all of North Kent?”

Councillor Doe responded by thanking Mr Harrison for his question and for his positive comments about the Strand. He stated that the Strand had been a popular facility for some time and the council had carried out a number of modernisations and invested in the region of £180,000 over the past four years for landscape improvements, upgrading swimming facilities, improvements to tennis courts, the miniature railway, play areas, crazy golf and improving the signage. He stated that he believed the site was well managed and maintained but that thought should now be given to the next phase of improvements for the Strand, particularly with regard to flooding which obviously had caused some problems.  The Council had been in discussion with the Environment Agency about this and whilst he wanted to retain the essential character of the Strand, there were longer-term works that needed to be done.

Garry Harrison asked a supplementary question as to whether there was a timescale set for each phase of the works?

Councillor Doe responded stating that the major works would not be done before the start of the current season, as they needed to be planned. He advised that a variety of methods of funding were being investigated, as there was unprecedented pressure on Council capital funds and a number of other options were being considered, such as land raising which showed the council’s commitment to the area.  He hoped there should be significant change between the end of this season and the start of the next but it may be that it would have to be delivered over a two year period as it depended on the availability of funds.

(B)            Danielle Amusa of Chathamasked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks, the following question:

“Our services at the White Road Family Centre receive an annual budget of £1000. If the services were to close, has Medway Council considered the additional costs and the impact it will have on the local community?”

Councillor Wicks thanked Ms Amusa for her question and stated that the £1000 budget, which came from revenue funding held by All Saints Sure Start Children’s Centre to support parenting and family support activities at the White Road Community Centre, had not been cut. 

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services stated that the suggestion that the White Road Community Centre was to close could not be further from the truth, although a lot of people were being led to believe otherwise.  Medway Council had recently invested and refurbished the centre, as part of a social regeneration project to transform it into a community hub  ...  view the full minutes text for item 832.

Discussion:

Members received and debated the Leader’s report, which included the following:

·        HMS Chatham

·        Community hubs

·        Recent inspection of Children’s Services

·        Cross-party tributes to Bob Wade, Community Engagement Officer who died recently.

Discussion:

Members received a report on Overview and Scrutiny activities. The following issues were discussed during the debate:

·        Out of area provision of Special Educational Needs services

·        Changes to the Phlebotomy service

·        School admissions

·        Empty properties

·        Disabled adaptation grants.

The report included details of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and the proposal that the review and scrutiny of flood and risk management be added to the terms of reference of the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Kenneth Bamber, supported by Councillor Wildey, proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council agreed to add the responsibility for the review and scrutiny of flood and coastal erosion risk management functions under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s terms of reference.

How successful have PACTs been in improving the engagement between residents and the Council and partner agencies?

“How successful have Partners and Communities Together (PACTs) been in improving the engagement between residents and the Council and partner agencies?”

Councillor O’Brien responded that PACTs sat alongside a number of other community engagement tools used by the Community Safety Partnership and had been a huge success in Medway. There were now over 20 PACTs actively running across the authority. Some had been set up to deal with specific issues and had ceased to be active once those areas of community concern had been dealt with. Others had grown and evolved and become a real hub of community focus and interest, such as the Gillingham Green PACT which had recently carried out an environmental check of the area and identified an area near Layfield Road that would benefit from a waste bin, which had since been installed.

Councillor O’Brien stated that Community Officers attended each PACT together with representatives from Medway Police. They listened to residents’ concerns and arranged for any issues to be dealt with swiftly. The recent PACT Task Group had been charged with assessing the effectiveness and future of PACTs in Medway and had confirmed that PACTs were a good way of bringing residents together to develop priorities and action plans at neighbourhood level alongside other opportunities for community engagement currently on offer. He advised that the review document had been welcomed by the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) which was looking to support and engage even more closely with Medway’s PACTs to ensure their future success. He also reported the launch of the first marine PACT at Gillingham Marina. The first meeting had been well supported by the marine community and with a steering group in place he was certain it would go from strength to strength.

Councillor Bhutia asked a supplementary question of Councillor O’Brien to find out how he was working to engage young people in community safety?

Councillor O’Brien replied that it was the perceived poor behaviour of young people that had emerged as a common theme amongst PACTs. However, there was a lack of young people that took part in the PACT process and the challenge had been how to bring children, the schools they attended and the surrounding community closer together. He stated that two secondary schools had recently experimented with a new style forum to achieve this. The Schools and Community Together Committee (SACT) brought together pupils from all year groups to discuss community projects and to learn about the impact of graffiti, litter and other forms of anti-social behaviour to raise the profile of the school and community and to maintain the trust of its neighbours. The idea was to embed its ethos into the daily routine of every pupil through pastoral lessons and regular assemblies. The chairs of each SACT would also attend the local PACT meetings. Both schools were also looking into setting up pupil-led computer classes for senior citizens, tea dances and a community sow and grow gardening scheme. He advised that pupils were identifying the same  ...  view the full minutes text for item 835A)

In these times of financial stringency when is Councillor Chambers going to look at the size of the Cabinet?

“In these times of financial stringency when is Councillor Chambers going to look at the size of the Cabinet?”

Councillor Rodney Chambers replied that the size of the Cabinet and the responsibilities of the Portfolio Holders were always under consideration and any changes that may be proposed would be brought forward to a future annual meeting of Medway Council.

Councillor Juby did not ask a supplementary question but stated that he looked forward to the changes that any new Leader of this Council would carry out in May, as he thought the Cabinet size needed to be reduced in line with the reduction in the number of staff in the Council.

Following my previous question on 13 January, could the Leader of the Council provide an update on the "extensive discussions" from week commencing 17 January regarding funding arrangements for the Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility?

“Following my previous question on 13 January, could the Leader of the Council provide an update on the ‘extensive discussions’ from week commencing 17 January regarding funding arrangements for the Chatham Dynamic Bus Facility?”

Councillor Rodney Chambers advised that he had personally met with the Thames Gateway Minister Bob Neill, MP who had assured him that he would assist with unblocking any issues around funding for the bus facility. He advised that the bus facility was still on track for opening around the first week of June, as reported to the cross party Chatham Board on several occasions. It was also still on budget and there was no overspend or underspend anticipated on the project. Senior officers were also in regular close dialogue with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).

Councillor Maple thanked Councillor Chambers for his answer. He referred to the supplementary question that he had asked on 13 January 2011 which was around a firm commitment on the funding being available after 31 March 2011. He asked again whether there would be a specific update on the funding continuing to be available from the HCA following 31 March?

Councillor Rodney Chambers replied that he had no reason to believe that more funding from the HCA would not be forthcoming.

This report seeks Council approval to the Local Transport Plan (2011 - 2026), following public consultation on the provisional plan, as part of the Council’s Policy Framework.

Discussion:

This report sought Council approval to the amended statutory Local Transport Plan (2011 – 2026) following public consultation on the provisional plan, as part

of the Council’s Policy Framework.

Councillor Chitty, supported by Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council agreed to adopt the revised Local Transport Plan (LTP) 3 Transport Strategy detailed at Appendix 5 of the report.

This report seeks Council approval to declare the Queen’s Court site surplus, so that it can be disposed of by the Assistant Director of Housing and Corporate Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance, at best consideration, thereby removing the previous conditions attached to ensure the development of affordable supported housing.

Discussion:

This report sought Council approval to declare the Queen’s Court site, Rainham surplus, so that it could be disposed of at best consideration. The site had previously been declared surplus with conditions to ensure the development of affordable supported housing. Following the unsuccessful marketing of the site and on the basis that it was no longer required by Adult Social Care for supported living, it was proposed to sell the site without the previous conditions attached.

Councillor Jarrett, supported by Councillor Mason, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Decision:

The Council declared the Queen’s Court site surplus and delegated authority to the Assistant Director of Housing and Corporate Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance, to sell the property at best consideration and that this authority supercedes the previous authority delegated on
5 March 2009.

This report details a decision taken by the Cabinet under the special urgency provisions contained within the Constitution.

Discussion:

This report detailed a decision taken by the Cabinet under the special urgency provisions contained within the Constitution on proposed staffing reductions.

Decision:

The Council noted the report.  

No motions were received for this meeting.

There were none.