Agenda item

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation which fall within the remit of this Committee.  

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress on the area within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation as set out below:

·         Economic Development

·         Local Plan

·         Markets

·         Planning Policy

·         Regulation – Environmental Health/Trading Standards/Enforcement and Licensing (executive functions only)

·         Social Regeneration

·         South Thames Gateway Building Control Partnership.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation responded to Member’s questions and comments as follows:

·         Dovetail Games – In response to a question as to the background to this company, the Portfolio Holder explained that Dovetail Games was a newly created company in Medway specialising in computer games. Located at The Observatory in Dock Road, at start up, the company had 6 employees but now employed over 100 individuals.

·         Rochester Farmers Market – A Member asked whether the Rochester Famers Market had been successful at its new location. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the farmers market had recently been temporarily relocated to Blue Boar Lane Car Park. Whether the market would return to its previous site would depend upon the views of the traders once they had had an opportunity to trade at the new site for a period of time.

·         Strood Market – In response to a question as to the viability of the Strood Market, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that whilst the Saturday Strood Market was very successful, the Tuesday Market was less so. She referred to planned investment in Strood and stated that this may help to improve the Tuesday Market. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the total gross income from markets in 2014/15, set out at paragraph 2.2.1 of the report, did not include the Christmas Market as this was a leisure event and therefore did not fall within her portfolio. 

·         Innovation Centre – In response to a question as to the success of the Innovation Centre, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that the Centre had been incredibly successful and was now fully occupied housing 55 individual businesses.

·         South Thames Gateway Building Control (STG) – In response to a question as to why the STG was planning to spend its budget surplus of £30,000 on the development of a new website, it was explained that this funding was not just for the development of a website but to help STG develop its consultancy service.

·         Provision of Workspaces in Strood – A Member questioned whether the future occupiers of the new workspaces at Watermill Wharf would be offered low rent to help them become established. The Portfolio Holder agreed to supply information outside of the meeting relating to the likely rents to be levied for the workspaces at Watermill Wharf in Strood.

·         Medway Local Plan – A Member sought information on the progress of the new Medway Local Plan and whether the Portfolio Holder considered that not having an up to date Local Plan had a detrimental effect on defending developments in Medway. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that work was well underway on provision of a new Local Plan and that this would replace the 2003 Medway Local Plan and set a framework for development up to 2035. She acknowledged the difficulties encountered by a number of Local Authorities in not having their Local Plans accepted but was confident that now the criteria for the Local Plan was clear and had defined time constraints, Medway’s Local Plan would be accepted when submitted.

In response to concerns that the lack of an up to date Local Plan, provided a risk to defending developments in Medway, the Portfolio Holder stated that the Council’s Planning Committee was required to consider all planning applications on individual merits.

·         Lodge Hill – In response to questions as to why Land Securities had withdrawn from proposals to develop Lodge Hill, the Portfolio Holder advised the Committee that there appeared to be a misunderstanding surrounding the situation regarding Land Securities position at Lodge Hill. She clarified that at the time that Land Securities preferential licence had been due for renewal, the Company had chosen not to renew the licence.

·         Fair Traders Scheme – In response to questions about the effectiveness of the Fair Traders Scheme, the Portfolio Holder stated that the Fair Trader Scheme was a valuable scheme in bringing people together. She stated that she was happy to provide more details of the scheme if this was the wish of the Committee.

·         Tesco Site in Chatham – A Member sought an update on the former Tesco site in Chatham and the Portfolio Holder advised that this site provided opportunities for improving the gateway to Chatham Town Centre. However, Tesco currently had a long lease of the site and were in the process of considering possible options available. The Committee was informed that officers were continuing to work closely with Tesco and potential developers of the site.

·         Rochester Riverside – Information was sought as to when work would commence on the planned developments at Rochester Riverside and the Portfolio Holder confirmed that work had already begun on the extra care units. Although, this was not within her portfolio, she advised that negotiations for the development of the remainder of the site were proceeding well.

·         Section 106 Agreements  - A Member sought clarification as to why the level of funds receive through Section 106 agreements had been less in 2014/15 than 2013/14. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the level of funding received through Section 106 agreements was dependent upon the completion of the agreements and was not an indicator of the level of investment. She advised that the inclusion of a Section 106 agreement was only applicable for certain types of development and therefore the number of agreements completed in any one year were dependent upon the planning applications received. The Portfolio Holder also advised that she had requested a briefing for Members on the subject of Section 106 agreements and she undertook to ensure that the date of the briefing would be circulated to Members.

·         Penalty Charge Notices – A Member asked why there had been an increase in the number of fixed penalty notices issued for littering and dog fouling. It was confirmed that in addition to educating the public about litter and dog fouling, the Team had actively pursued the issue of fixed penalty notices. More staff were in post and this had resulted in an increase in the number of notices served.

Decisions: 

The Committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for attending the meeting and answering Member’s questions on areas of her portfolio and noted that;

a)            The Portfolio Holder will respond to the Member direct on the issue of the level of rents to be levied at Watermill Wharf

b)            Members will be advised of the date of the briefing on Section 106 Agreements as soon as possible.