Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 16 August 2012.

The record of the meeting held on 16 August 2012 was agreed and signed as correct by the Chairman. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Etheridge, Harriott and Stamp. 

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none. 

A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons. 

There were none. 

This report advises the Committee of the petitions presented at Council meetings, received by the council or sent via the e-petition facility, including a summary of officer’s response to the petitioners. There is also a referral of a petition for the committee’s consideration requesting the installation of a CCTV camera in Hartington Street, Chatham.

Discussion:

The Chairman welcomed a petitioner who addressed the committee to advise on a number of anti-social behaviour issues in and around Hartington Street in Chatham. The committee was informed that the police had been phoned and e-mailed about the various problems, which the Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) also knew about but no officers or PCSO's had talked to the young people who regularly gathered there. 

In response to council officers comments urging the public to continue to report incidents to the police, the petitioner asked what the point of this was when nothing happened as a result of the reports and therefore the petitioners had asked for a camera to be installed to stop this behaviour. Members asked if the installation of a gate would help with the problems described in the alleyway area and were advised that there used to be one but it had been ripped off its hinges.

The Ward Councillor supported the petition and information provided to the committee but noted that there was to be a public meeting held next week, with the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer First in attendance, to talk about the problems experienced in the All Saints area of Chatham. He proposed that the committee deferred consideration of this matter until after that meeting and that a report was submitted to the next meeting (in December), giving feedback on the outcome of the public meeting.

With regard to paragraph 3.1 of the report, which set out the response to other petitions, a Member raised concern at the response set out about speed bumps, as the “poor safety records are tackled first” was not factually correct as speed bumps had been installed elsewhere where there was no safety problems. Officers responded that, in some cases, speed bumps had been installed outside of council’s criteria but this had been resourced from a different budget. They also advised that the information in the report was a very short précis of the actual letter to the petitioners, which set out a lot more information than was detailed in the report.

Decision:

The committee agreed to defer consideration of the petition referral requesting a CCTV camera in Hartington Street, Chatham and asked that a report is submitted to the next meeting of the committee setting out the outcome of the public meeting to be held in All Saints on 9 October 2012.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth will be in attendance to give account of performance within the remit of her portfolio.  

Discussion:

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Strategic Growth, Councillor Chitty, addressed the committee outlining the main achievements within areas of her portfolio:

·        Chatham Waters – a £650 million comprehensive development that had been referred to the Secretary of State for decision. It would have important implications for employment opportunities for young people in Medway.

·        Building works at Victory Pier – which included residential, student and leisure facilities, making Gillingham an attractive place to live and study.

·        Development management team – continued to exceed government targets for processing major, minor and other planning applications. Between April – September 2012, a total of 675 planning applications had been received (compared to 765 in same time period in 2011). Work was on-going for the council to become a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging authority in 2014.

·        South Thames Gateway Building Control Partnership – all three local authorities involved in the partnership had agreed to continue for another five year term from 2012 – 2017, as it had proved to be financially viable, with flexibility and resilience through difficult economic times resulting in 21% savings and a £40,000 surplus last year which was being invested in a new IT system. Mid Kent Audit had cited the partnership as an example of best practice.

·        Economic development and social regeneration – tackling unemployment and improving skills was fundamental for the future. “Employ Medway” had directly helped over 800 people find work since Autumn 2009. Since April 2011, together with local partners, it had helped 141 long-term unemployed people to remain in employment beyond 26 weeks. 200 new apprenticeships had been created since May 2011, through joint working with partners. As part of this, the council had invested £200,000 in grants to local small businesses to take on young apprentices. The “Employment and Skills Centre” had opened In November 2011 and directly helped to set up 12 construction apprenticeships and three local people to access jobs on Phase One of Rochester Riverside development.

Overall, from February – August 2012, the number of Job Seeker Allowance claimants had fallen by almost 7% (over 500 local residents).
Business start-up and job creation initiatives had helped to create and protect 1,679 jobs in less than three years. Since March 2010, the number of Medway residents in employment had risen by 4,400, with a percentage increase from 66.5% in June 2010 to 69.4% in March 2012. The national average of people employed had shown no increase.

The council had also secured almost £5 million of EU funds since 2009 to deliver 12 new projects of economic and social regeneration. Over £12 million of external funding had also been secured over the same period.

·        Planning Policy and Design – the Medway Local Development Core Strategy was submitted for independent examination in February 2012 with the public examination sessions held in June 2012. This examination was suspended to carry out further work in assessing options for compensatory habitat for nightingales that may be affected by the proposed development at Lodge Hill.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 445.

In response to a previous committee request, this report provides detailed information on funding for road maintenance including the integrity of the utility companies reinstatement work. 

Discussion:

The Assistant Director, Front Line Services introduced the report setting out the background, in particular highlighting that in 2007 it had been identified that the highway maintenance accumulated backlog was around £12 million and that the roads were in a state of decline with the existing funding levels. Following this, a study was carried out which reported a funding shortfall of £13.95 million. However, recent one off investment of £4 million had been spent on resurfacing which had helped to slow the decline by dealing with around 10% of the backlog, which continued to grow year on year.

The Committee was advised that the current maintenance investment on road resurfacing for 2012/2013 was £1.275 million; the consequence of which would result in a further decline in the road network of approximately 1% this year and a similar decline expected each year after that. An additional investment of £1 million - £1.275 million per annum would stop this decline and would, through proper targeting, start to show a reduction over a ten year plan in the number of roads requiring maintenance. The Assistant Director reminded Members that this problem was not specific to Medway but an issue for many Local Authorities across the country but that Medway compared well against other authorities in the South East region.

Members were further advised that there was a significant volume of work created through the number of notifications from the utility companies, particularly as there had been substantial work recently from Southern Water and South East Gas networks and the council was working closely with one of these about the quality of their reinstatement work. The law allowed the statutory undertakers (utility companies) to make a temporary repair following the completion of their work and the company then had six months to replace it properly. The council did not carry out 100% inspections of all replacement works; it would take another 8.5 full time members of staff to achieve that. However, the highway inspectors were about to use new ground-penetrating radar technology to assist them, which produced a 3D map of the work carried out beneath the surface without having to take a core sample.

The Committee commended officers on the thorough and detailed report and discussed a number of issues including:

·        The use of the chemical repair ‘Viafix’ by the highway inspectors, with 643 potholes repaired instantaneously in 2011-2012 and Members were pleased to note that none of the repairs using ‘Viafix’ (which began two years ago) had required further work carried out on them;

·        The level of maintenance on Medway’s roads was very important to residents (reported through the council’s opinion polls and directly to Ward Members) as it had a real consequence on their physical environment;

·        If the budget continued in its present form, then the actual structure of some roads (the foundations, rather than the surface) would become affected with a higher financial consequence for the council;

·        The problem of poor road structure with less funding than required to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 446.

This report updates Members on the progress of the Partnership in its first term and its plans for the future. 

Decision:

The Director of the South Thames Gateway (STG) Building Control Partnership introduced the report highlighting that the three councils involved in the partnership had unanimously supported the continuation of the partnership into a second five-year term until March 2017. He advised that the report updated Members on the progress of the partnership in its first term and its plans for the future, which included potential expansion with other Local Authorities joining the partnership.

The committee asked about the planned investment into a new IT system and was advised that this would allow the Building Control Surveyors to use mobile technology whilst on site involving a tablet or i-pad, which could also print information whilst on site, rather than the officer having to return to the office.

With reference to the 24 hour, 365 day out of hours emergency service (referred to in paragraph 3.6 on page 41 of the agenda), Members asked how many emergencies, using this service, had been attended to date. The Director advised that he was unsure of the total number but it was within a 2 hour response time and was usually as a re-active response alongside the emergency services, for example for fires, collapsed buildings, tiles fallen from a roof, etc.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)         thank the Director of the South Thames Gateway Building Control Partnership for the report and his answers to Members’ questions;

(b)         request a Briefing Note with more detailed information on the 24 hour emergency service provided by the partnership.

This report requests that the Committee considers the revised draft of the Developers Contribution Guide and provides any comments for consideration by Cabinet. The draft has been updated to address issues raised by consultees. 

Discussion:

The Assistant Director, Housing, Development and Transport introduced the report, stating that since its original introduction in 2008, there have been a number of changes which justified a review of the Guide. The average collected through S106 agreements amounted to over £2 million per year but given the current market conditions, this figure could reduce.

The draft revised Guide had been subject to a consultation exercise and the views of consultees, including developers, had been considered. The section on affordable homes had been rewritten although it still sought 25% affordable homes on any site meeting the Council’s size thresholds. The Assistant Director also updated the Committee on the introduction of the forthcoming Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which would replace the existing S106 regime. This was likely to be introduced in either late 2013 or early 2014.

Members discussed a number of issues including the need to update the section on environmental mitigation. Members also asked whether the proposed charging levels had been benchmarked against other Local Authorities in order to remain competitive. The reference to Metropolitan Park (Great Lines Heritage Park), affordable housing mix, internal space standards and corrected officer contact details for Adult Social Care were also discussed.

The Assistant Director responded that Medway was competitive in terms of house building compared to other Local Authorities in Kent, and this was demonstrated by the number of completions (808 for 2011/2012).  The reference to the Metropolitan Park stemmed from a historical reference in the South East Plan but would be changed in the final version of the Guide. The affordable housing mix was based on the housing needs survey, space standards were based on government guidance and the officer contact details for Adult Social Care would be updated.

Decision:

The Committee endorsed the Developer Contributions Guide and referred it to Cabinet for approval.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows them to adjust it in the light of latest priorities, issues and circumstances. It gives Members the opportunity to shape and direct the Committee’s activities over the year.  

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report highlighting a number of proposed changes to the work programme, which had been discussed with the Chairman. 

A Member asked for an item to be added to the work programme with regard to his, and other Members’, concerns about the weakness of the council’s present Planning Policy with regard to the urban environment. In particular, he raised the issue of the use of gardens for development and the cumulative effect of this type of development on the density of buildings within the urban area, which was detrimental to the quality of life for residents already living in the urban area. He asked that a report was submitted setting out how this policy could strengthened the council’s powers to refuse this type of development.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)   the following changes to the work programme:

(i)   the report on Housing and Tenancy Strategy to be deferred to the

      meeting on 13 December 2012:

(ii)  an additional report on the Housing Allocations Policy be submitted to

      the meeting on 31 January 2013;

(iii)a report on the six month review of the Fair Access to Credit task

      group report to be submitted to the meeting on 11 April 2013;

(b)request a report on strengthening the council’s Planning Policy with regard to development in the urban environment.