Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Clarke.

To approve the Record of the Meeting held on 9 June 2022.

The record of the Meeting held on 9 June 2022 was agreed as correct and signed by the Chairman.

A request was made to thank Southern Water for a useful site visit which had taken place since the last meeting [minute no.46 9 June 2022].

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.

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 a change to the agenda order. Agenda items were considered in the following order:

5. Petitions

7. Four Elms Hill Air Quality Action Plan

8. Shared Prosperity Fund Investment Plan Submission

6. Call-in – Future Hoo Progress Report

9. Work Programme

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 organisers by officers. Two petitions have been referred to the Committee for consideration at this meeting.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which advised the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fell within the remit of the Committee, including a summary of the responses sent to the petition organisers by officers.

Two petitions had been referred to the Committee for consideration.

The first petition referral related to the condition of the access road at the rear of Granville Road, Gillingham. It was requested that the Council make long-lasting repairs to the surface of this road and improve the drainage to prevent flooding.

The lead petitioner was invited to speak to explain why the Council’s response to the petition had been referred to the Committee and made the following points:

·       Circa 20/30 years ago, residents paid an annual maintenance fee to the Council. This arrangement had since terminated, and the area had fallen into disrepair. There were now concerns over accessibility, safety, and incidences of anti-social behaviour.

·       An independent engineer’s report had been commissioned by the lead petitioner which costed the works to flatten the track and improve drainage at circa £50-60,000.

The petitioner was pleased to report that the Council had agreed to a course of action since the report had been published. The Strategic Lead Front Line Services subsequently confirmed that in addition to carrying out option 4 (raise the footpath) as set out at paragraph 5.2.4 in the report, capacity within existing budgets would be utilised to carry out option 2 (regrade the track and fill/surface with compacted stone) this financial year. The Strategic Lead, Front Line Services undertook to meet with the lead petitioner to co-design the resolution.

In discussing the petition, the following responses were made to comments from Members:

·       Involvement of Ward Councillors – recognising the variety of opinions among residents over action to be taken in this area, it was requested that ward councillors be involved along with the lead petitioner to discuss the design of the resolution.

·       Criteria for remedial works on unadopted highway – it was explained to the Committee that remedial works on unadopted highways were considered on a case-by-case basis. To provide more clarity, a briefing note was requested setting out the criteria which needed to be met.

The second petition referral concerned trees on Gillingham Green at the rear of Layfield Road. It was requested that the Council carry out urgent maintenance on the trees, reduce them in height and remove overhanging branches.

The lead petitioner was invited to speak to explain why the Council’s response to the petition had been referred to the Committee and made the following points:

·       Whilst the environmental and health and wellbeing benefits of the trees were acknowledged, it was explained that as the trees were overgrown, there were concerns over safety. Owing, also, to a reduction in natural surveillance, concerns had been expressed around incidences of anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping in the alleyway.

·       The trees blocked out light and caused issues in the summer months with pollen. Residents could not open their windows or put washing out.

·       Concern  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

This report advises the Committee of a notice of call-in received from eight Members of the Council regarding the Cabinet decisions (26 July 2022) on the Future Hoo Progress Report.

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding a call-in received from eight Members of the Council regarding the Cabinet decisions taken on 26 July 2022 on the Future Hoo Progress Report.

Councillor Mrs Turpin, as the lead call-in Member, explained the reasons for the call-in, as set out in paragraph 2.12 of the report to the Committee. She noted that

• at the Cabinet meeting on 26 July, several changes had been made to the Medway Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Appendix 5 to the Cabinet report), however, she did not believe the revised figure agreed at the meeting was correct.

• all the additional rail infrastructure funding had been removed, queried therefore how a functioning railway station could be delivered. Removing the highways funding lines did not mean that these projects were no longer required

• the sports centre delivery was in question,

• health and social care funding estimates had been removed, but the point was made that these were still needed to give an indication of what could actually be delivered.

• the purpose of the HIF was to have the infrastructure in place before housing was built. The funding was now uncertain, given the significant reliance on S106 contributions and the fact that in many areas funding sources were still to be determined. Without more certainty around funding it seemed unwise at this point to go out to consultation.

Other Members who had called in the decisions made the following points:

·       It was unclear whether the HIF project was on track financially

·       Whilst the proposed projects in theInfrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) were welcomed, whether they could be funded was a significant concern

·       The validity of the documents agreed by Cabinet was questioned

·       There were concerns about the removal of the budgetary pressure for passenger subsidies, given the need to identify funding for the railway station

·       The removal of the funding set aside for the Hoo Peninsula Road additional costs, including contingency, was a concern given high inflation and the impact on construction costs

·       There was a need for certainty as to whether projects could still be delivered given the changes made by Cabinet to Appendix 5

·       There had been insufficient engagement with local Members

·       There was too much reliance on S106 contributions and greater clarity was needed, particularly as elements of this were higher risk and the amounts being sought were higher than usual

·       Cabinet had set aside feasibility funding in 2018 to allow detailed consideration of a possible sports centre, but no work seems to have taken place, even though the present sports centre was not adequate.

The Director of Place and Deputy Chief Executive apologised to Members for the issues with Appendix 5 of the Cabinet Report in particular, acknowledging that whilst these were complex matters, the information should have been made clearer. Responding to the points raised by members of the Committee;

·       that Cabinet Members had not had enough time to read the amended papers after the adjournment, he noted the changes to Appendix 5 had been requested by Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

The purpose of the report is to present the Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) for the Four Elms Hill Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) to the Committee. The Committee is asked to recommend the AQAP to the Cabinet for approval. The AQAP has been produced to satisfy the requirements of the Environment Act 1995.

Discussion:

This report was introduced by the Head of Regulatory and Environmental Services. He explained to the Committee that production of the Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) for the Four Elms Hill Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) was a statutory duty. The AQAP had been developed through external and internal engagement with stakeholders and had been consulted upon between 7 March 2022 and 24 April 2022. Details of the consultation were set out in section 5 of the report.

Members expressed several concerns, including:

·       whether the AQAP would, in practical terms, reduce emissions within the AQMA.

·       that emissions would increase in the short term as vehicular usage associated with new developments in the area increased.

·       that there was too great a reliance on the delivery of zero emission Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs) and that uptake of these vehicles depended on National factors. Consideration was also given to uptake of residential and commercial electric vehicles and reference made to barriers such as cost and access to charging stations.

·       that more action ought to be taken now, for example, including a requirement for developers to utilise low emission/electric vehicles during the construction phase of any project.

·       that the response ‘no further/reduced development on the peninsula’ was the highest selected action at the conclusion of the consultation exercise, yet the report noted at paragraph 5.8 that this was not feasible in the context of the ongoing Local Plan work. A view was expressed that the AQAP should feed into the Local Plan work which had yet to be agreed.

In response, it was explained to the Committee that creating the AQAP was a complex process which took account of growth associated with the emerging Local Plan (including the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF)) and future air quality challenges. Modelling had looked at three scenarios:

·       2019. This was a baseline case which had been adjusted to align with monitoring data.

·       2024. This assumed 2024 emission factors and 2037 traffic flows associated with the emerging Local Plan. This was a worst-case scenario.

·       2030. This assumed 2030 emission factors and 2037 traffic flows associated with the emerging Local Plan. This a more realistic scenario, however it was conservative.

Emphasis had been given to three measures (the HIF relief road; zero emission buses through the AQMA; and zero emission HGVs and LGVs through the AQMA) as they were quantifiable, unlike some other measures within the Plan.

It was recognised that the dispersion modelling exercise had indicated that with the HIF relief road and zero emission buses only passing through the AQMA, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide were predicted to still exceed the nitrogen dioxide annual mean air quality objective at Four Elms Hill. However, a phased move toward low emission/electric HGVs/LGVs over the next 10 to 15 years would make a significant impact on concentrations of nitrogen dioxide.

Nationally, the Government had committed to bringing forward this technology but despite recent advancements in this area there was some uncertainty about the speed of uptake.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

Government announced the launch of the new £2.6 billion UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) in mid-April 2022. SPF is a significant component of the Government’s ambitious Levelling Up agenda and succeeds EU structural funds.

This report is on the Investment Plan for submission to Government.The Cabinet considered the report on 26 July 2022. The Cabinet decisions are set out at section 4 of this report.

Discussion:

The Assistant Director, Regeneration introduced this report which set out details of the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) Investment Plan for submission to the Government. He explained that the Government had allocated Medway Council £1,854,688 SPF investment. This funding would be split across three years in a tapered manner (Year 1: circa £225,000; Year 2: circa £450,000 and Year 3: circa £1.18m). The submission deadline for Investment Plans was 1 September 2022 upon which the funding allocation would be ratified.

Consultation had recently been undertaken with key stakeholders representing various organisations in Medway, including the voluntary and community sector (VCS). Informal expressions of interest were invited to understand the kinds of projects that might come forward. Projects must align with both SPF investment priorities and Medway 2037 priorities.

Recognising the need to carefully manage and monitor the SPF to ensure maximum impact for residents, Members welcomed an opportunity to discuss in more detail the Council’s intended delivery strategy and projects as they were developed.

With reference to paragraph 3.3.6 of the report, clarity was also sought on whether the Committee would be sighted on the outcome of monitoring and evaluation of the SPF.

In response, the Assistant Director, Regeneration assured the Committee that the investment plan would be refreshed annually, and he undertook to report back to the Committee following receipt of the first tranche of formal bids for funding in the Autumn. A suggestion was made that consideration be given thereafter as to any need for a working group to be established to give oversight.

Decisions:

The Committee:

a)    noted the proposed Investment Plan for submission to the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC) as set out in the summary at Appendix 1 to the report, and

b)    agreed to receive a further report on the Shared Prosperity Fund Investment Plan in December 2022.

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 Democratic Services Officer Introduced the report and noted the addition of an update report in the Shared Prosperity Fund Investment Plan in December 2022 agreed under agenda item 8 (Shared Prosperity Fund Investment Plan Submission).

Decision:

The Committee:

a)    agreed the Committee’s proposed work programme, attached at Appendix A, and

b)    agreed the recommendations of the pre-agenda meeting set out at paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5 and the proposed addition to the Work Programme at paragraph 3.6, which has been requested since the pre-agenda meeting.