Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Tranter with Councillor Purdy substituting and from Councillor Clarke with Councillor Griffin substituting. Apologies were also received from Councillor Williams.

To approve the Record of the Meeting held on 13 January 2022.

The record of the meeting held on 13 January 2022 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

There were no urgent matters.

The Chairman announced that he would be varying the order of the agenda so that Agenda item No. 6, Scrutiny of South East Local Enterprise Partnership, would be considered ahead of agenda item No.5, Attendance of the Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships. The remainder of the agenda was considered in the order as published.

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct.  Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 4.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

The Chairman announced that former Councillor, Alderman Ted Baker, had passed away. He had provided over 40 years of service to the people of Medway and had been one of the longest serving Council Members. He had been appointed as an Honorary Alderman in recognition of this. The Chairman said that Alderman Baker had never been happier than when on the campaign trail and had been particularly welcoming and encouraging to new Council Members.

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships Councilor Rodney Chambers OBE, which fall within the remit of this Committee.

Discussion:

The Committee received an overview of progress made on the areas within the scope of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Investment, Regeneration and Partnerships which fell within the remit of this Committee.

The Portfolio Holder responded to Members’ questions and comments as

follows:

Measuring value for money and Medway City Estate – It was asked how value for money was being measured in relation to areas such as flood defences and cycling initiatives and what the timescales were for completion of the slip road on Medway City Estate. The Portfolio Holder said that flood defences were specifically to protect Strood waterfront as defences there were at their weakest.

£2.5million of funding had been made available for cycling initiatives through the Growth Fund. Cycling routes had been installed in roads such as Beeching Way, City Way and on Gillingham Business Park, but it had been challenging to persuade cyclists to use the routes. Greater publicity could be considered. There was a need for routes in town centres but this was challenging due to roads being narrow. It was noted that the delivery of the Medway City Estate slip road fell within the Cabinet Portfolio for Front Line Services. The Assistant Director, Regeneration said that there had been minor delays and undertook to provide a more detailed answer to the Committee. The Council had funding for development of an Active Travel Plan which would assist in considering how to increase the effectiveness of cycling routes.

Strood Pier pathway and flood defence wall – A Member stated that the pathway from Canal Road to Strood Pier needed to be reinstated and that resources needed to be provided to enable this. In relation to the flood defence wall, comment was requested on the fact that the wall would need to be repositioned. The Portfolio Holder said that he had been trying to get Strood Pier back into use to facilitate greater use of the river and that this would assist people visiting Upnor Castle. In relation to the flood defence wall, it was agreed that a site visit would be arranged and that all Members of the Committee would be invited to attend.

Inclusion of outcomes in the report and funding for Gillingham – A Member was disappointed that there was not more information in the report in relation to outcomes as this had been previously requested. She also asked for assurance that the needs of Gillingham would be prioritised when bids for levelling up funding were made. The Portfolio Holder said that when bids were made for Round 2 of Levelling Up funding, Gillingham would have the highest priority but details and timescales were awaited from the Government. A cross party Town Centres Board had been established and a Town Centre Strategy for Gillingham was being prepared.

Chatham Historic Dockyard – Concern was expressed that access to the Dockyard was chargeable in view of Government funded projects being delivered there. The Portfolio Holder said that bids for funding had not had to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 769.

Thisreport sets out the work covered by the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP). Adam Bryan, Chief Executive Officer of SELEP, will attend this Overview and Scrutiny meeting to give a presentation on the SELEP with a focus on its impact on Medway, and achievements to date. The presentation will also cover the future operation of the LEP, in the context of the Levelling Up White Paper and discussions with local partners and will seek Member comment.

Discussion:

A presentation was given to the Committee by the Chief Executive Officer of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP). The key points of the presentation were as follows:

·       The area covered by SELEP was geographically the largest of the 38 LEPs across the country.

·       The LEP Board was supported in deciding what projects would be supported through LEP funding by the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership and three other federated boards.

·       Projects allocated LEP funding had to go through a rigorous business case development which was Independently assessed.

·       A number of working groups supported key sectors, such as housing, skills and Enterprise Zones.

·       The LEP had been responsible for looking after £589million of growth deal funding and approximately £200million of European funding. In total, the LEP had been responsible for stewarding around £850million of funding.

·       The strength of Medway coming together with Kent, Essex and East Sussex was considered to have helped communicate the needs of and opportunities available within the area.

·       The development of a strong intelligence base in relation to the local economy had underpinned the work of the LEP and enabled stronger decision making regarding which projects to support.

·       Lots of work had been undertaken in relation to skills and broadening digital skills, including working with education providers, such as Mid-Kent College.

·       Business Support had been important. Funding for Growth Hubs was delivered through the LEP with £2million provided through a Business Support Fund.

·       Support was provided through a number of funds, including the Local Growth Fund, Growing Places Fund, Sector Support Fund and the Getting Building Fund.

·       Headline figures for the area covered by the LEP included 106 Local Growth Fund Projects supported, 21 sector support fund projects, 41 Getting Building Fund projects and 29 Growing Place Fund projects. In total, the funding had supported the creation of nearly 25,000 jobs and just over 25,000 new homes. Total Local Growth Fund funding across the region had been £578.9 million.

·       The biggest SELEP investment in Medway had been Strood Town Centre which had received over £8 million. 15 projects in Medway had received funding totalling just over £43million.

·       The Levelling Up White Paper had been published at the start of February 2022. This set out that local authorities would have a growing role in the reshaping of the UK economy and that LEPs would continue to play a vital role in supporting local businesses and the local economy until local devolution arrangements were put in place. Going forward, LEPs would need to work with local authorities to add value although they would not have the same role as previously in stewarding capital funds. LEPs would continue to have a role around convening business and developing regional strategy.

Following the presentation, Committee Members asked questions. The following issues were discussed:

• Job creation, results monitoring and staffing – A Member expressed concern that the figure of 25,000 jobs created in 10 years was low and asked how the effectiveness of results was measured. It was also asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 770.

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Hackwell which fall within the remit of this Committee.

Discussion:

The Committee received an overview of progress made on the areas within the scope of the Portfolio Holder for Business Management which fell within the remit of this Committee.

The Portfolio Holder thanked teams that had helped compile the report, particularly the bereavement, emergency planning and registration teams, in view of the challenges they had faced due to Covid. Other Members of the Committee added their thanks. The work of the Engagement Wardens and Dog Wardens was also highlighted.

The Portfolio Holder responded to Members’ questions and comments as

follows:

Targeted street cleaning inspections – Noting that the amount of litter varied street to street due to factors such as housing density and the number of parked cars, a Committee Member said that he would like to see inspections target the areas that attracted the most litter. The Portfolio Holder advised that the inspection teams inspected streets in every Medway ward and that they undertook targeted inspections but he acknowledged that the figures could be better. The Portfolio Holder would shortly be going on a round with an inspection team.

Emergency Planning Team capacity – A Member was concerned that the staff capacity of the Emergency Planning Team had been reduced and highlighted the importance of it being well resourced and effective. The Portfolio Holder said that he had recently approved recruitment of a post to make a temporary position permanent. He believed that there were currently three people within the Team but undertook to confirm this following the meeting.

Inspections of recycling bin sites and thanks to staff – In relation to the weekly inspections or recycling ‘bring sites’, it was requested that future Portfolio Holder reports include details of which sites had been visited and when. The Member also requested that the Portfolio Holder pass on thanks to those involved in the response to recent flooding in Canal Road, Strood.

Requests for further information – A Member requested that information on inspection visits to recycling street bin sites, Waste Wardens and the areas they cover, details of how dog fouling had been tackled across Medway and details of whose responsibility it was to refer injuries caused by dogs to the Police, be included in the next Portfolio Holder report to be presented to the Committee.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)    Noted the report and thanked the Portfolio Holder for attending the meeting and answering questions.

b)    Expressed its thanks to various Council teams, particularly the bereavement team for their work in response to the challenges they had faced due to Covid and to those involved in the response to recent flooding in Canal Road, Strood.

c)    Requested that the following information be included in the next Portfolio Holder report to the Committee:

i)    Details of inspection visits to recycling street bin sites.

ii)   Details of the role of Waste Wardens and the areas they cover.

iii)Details of how dog fouling had been tackled across Medway.

iv)Details of whose responsibility it is to refer injuries caused by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 771.

The Council is undertaking an intensive programme of strategy refresh and development spanning regeneration, economic development and employability and skills.

SQW have been appointed to undertake the programme of strategy refresh and development and presented the approach being taken in developing this strategy suite to the Committee in January 2022.

Significant progress has since been made and after extensive internal and external stakeholder engagement, SQW have prepared a first working draft of the strategy suite issued for Officer review in mid-February 2022, with the exception of the River Strategy, which is being produced from scratch and will follow in the Summer

Summary documents of each of the strategies are appended to the report, these include Medway 2037, Innovation Strategy, Town Centre Strategy, Skills and Employability Plan, and the River Strategy and SQW will present these detailed summaries at the meeting. 

Discussion:

A presentation was given to the Committee by a representative from SQW Consultants in relation to the Medway 2037 Strategy refresh. The key points of the presentation were as follows:

·      Drafting of the Strategy was nearly complete. The development of the Strategy was about refreshing the existing core Medway 2035 Strategy rather than starting again.

·      The Strategy would aim to provide space for projects to evolve whilst providing a framework for the Council to work with partner organisations.

·      Some of the key themes included Climate Change, Levelling Up and Covid.

·      The six key priorities from Medway 2035 had been retained. Innovation had been removed as a key priority and replaced with town centres. The removal of innovation was due to this cross cutting all the other priorities. It had instead been included as part of an Innovation and Creativity cross cutting theme along with Climate Change and Net Zero and Growth for All. 

·      There would be a fully aligned Action and Delivery plan to underpin the Strategy.

·      There should be more emphasis on achievements to promote Medway as an inward investment proposition.

·      Unlocking the waterfront regeneration in Strood would be a key priority. An increased spotlight on Gillingham and Rainham was proposed.

·      An increased focus on the river Medway was proposed with a real focus on what the river meant to the local economy.

·      The opportunities around emerging sectors would be key and what this would mean for existing sectors.

·      A standalone town centre strategy had been developed which defined overarching priorities. A Place based approach to delivery was proposed. There was recognition that each town centre was different with different strengths and opportunities. It was recognised that town centres had changed over the last few years with there being a focus on a range of uses rather than exclusively on retail. The creation of a Town Centre Innovation Fund was proposed.

·      There needed to be a balance between short term and long term delivery.

·      The development of partnership structures would be important to ensure that this potential and the capacity of each organisation was fully utilised.

·      The Innovation Strategy would aim to support businesses to innovate and provide space for innovation and to support emerging opportunities.

·      The Employment and Skills Approach would focus on five key priorities – raising and responding to employer demand, developing progression routes for young people, building an adaptable and resilient workforce, ensuring opportunities for everyone and leading by example.

• The River Strategy was currently being prepared with the target being to adopt it by Summer 2022. This would balance commercial/industrial use, leisure, tourism, recreation, ecological/environmental uses and considerations.

Following the presentation, Committee Members asked questions. The following issues were discussed:

Implementation of Strategy and River Strategy - It was asked how the Strategy would be implemented and who would take ownership of this. In relation to the development of the River Strategy, it was asked why there had not been such a Strategy previously. It was stated that the river was commercially important  ...  view the full minutes text for item 772.

Medway’s Council Plan 2021/22 sets out the Council’s three priorities. This report and appendices summarise how we performed in Q3 2021/22 on the delivery of the two priorities relevant for this Committee: Place and Growth.

This report also presents the Q3 2021/22 review of the Council’s Strategic Risk Register.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out performance for Quarter 3 against the Council's two priorities Place and Growth insofar as they fell within the remit of this Committee, along with a review of the Council’s Risk Register.

The following issues were discussed:

• Achievement of housing delivery targets and Local Plan dates – It was questioned whether the status of the housing completions target should be green as the report stated that there had been 1,082 completions in 2020/21 while the report mentioned a target of 1,586. It was also asked whether a reference in the report to the Local Plan 2021 to 2037 should now be 2022 to 2038. In response, the Corporate Performance Lead said that the housing target figures would be checked and that date references to the Local Plan would be changed as appropriate.

• Strategic risks – In relation to delivering regeneration, climate change and the Housing Infrastructure Fund having a red status in the Strategic Risk Register, a Member said that there needed to be a clearer focus on the reasons and that this information needed to be provided in a more prominent way.

• Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) – A progress update on the HIF was requested including a breakdown of the risks. The Assistant Director, Regeneration said that the Council had been granted an extension for the HIF work until March 2025 to give extra time to redesign and undertake further public engagement. This was seen as positive as it would help ensure that what was delivered would be sustainable.

• Overspending on HIF – Noting that the Council would be required to fund 1% of any overspend on the HIF and that other funding sources may be sought after this, a Member asked whether that meant that the Council would be responsible for identifying funding or whether the Government would provide support and whether there were any precedents. The Assistant Director said that funding could come from a number of areas, such as Government funding, or S106 developer contributions, but that the aim was to stay within the existing £170million budget.

• Potential Development on greenspaces – A Member strongly expressed her concern that the report stated that the Housing Revenue Account was looking at a green space as having the potential for the development of nine housing units.

Decision:

The Committee considered the Q3 2021/22 performance against the measures used to monitor progress against the Council’s priorities and:

a)    Requested that the green status of the net additional homes provided target (NI154) be checked as the report stated that there had been 1,082 completions in 2020/21 while the report mentioned a target of 1,586.

b)    Requested that strategic risks be given greater prominence in future performance monitoring reports.

c)    Requested that an update on the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) be provided to the Committee.

d)    Requested that the Assistant Director, Regeneration provide an update to Councillors Etheridge, Browne and Curry in relation to concerns raised about the potential development of greenfield sites.

This report advises the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fall within the remit of this Committee including a summary of the response sent to the petition organiser by officers.

Discussion:

It was noted that a petition in relation to traffic calming in Edwin Road, Gillingham had been referred to the Committee for consideration and would therefore be considered at the June 2022 Committee meeting.

Decision:

The Committee noted the petition responses and appropriate officer action in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows the Committee 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 Committee received a report setting out the current work programme.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)    Noted the current work programme.

b)    Agreed that the report on the Four Elms Hill Air Quality Management Area, currently listed on the Work Programme for the June 2022 meeting, instead be considered at the August 2022 meeting, subject to a briefing note on progress being provided to the Committee in the interim.

c)    Agreed that the Medway Investment Plan be added to the Committee Work Programme for consideration at a meeting later in the year.

d)    Agreed that Councillor Osborne’s Member’s item on sewage discharges be included on the Committee agenda for June.