Agenda item

To advise the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fall within the remit if this Committee including a summary of the responses sent to the lead petitioners by officers.

 

Discussion:

 

The Committee received a report setting out a summary of petitions received by the Council which fell within the remit of this Committee.

 

Paragraph 3.1 of the report set out a summary of responses to petitions that had been accepted by the petition organisers.

 

In accordance with the Council’s petitions scheme, four petitions had been referred for discussion by the Committee and the lead petitioners were in attendance and invited to address the Committee.

 

A summary of the points raised for each petition and the Committee’s discussion is set out as follows:

 

A)           Petition regarding reduced opening hours for the Strand Swimming Pool.

 

Mr Wright on behalf of the Friends of the Strand Pool outlined the basis of both the paper and on-line petitions and the concerns of the petitioners as they related to:

 

·         The reduced opening hours of the pool both in terms of the hours and days when the pool is open to the public.

·         The lack of consultation on the reduced opening hours/days.

·         The last entry time of 4pm at the pool precludes people from  using the pool after work.

·         The condition of the pool and the maintenance of the pool filtration equipment which had led to silt in the base of the pool and the formation of algae. This had resulted in negative publicity both in the local press and on social media which had affected numbers of visitors using the pool in 2016.

·         The lack of data recording the number of users of the pool.

·         The inadequate staffing levels at the pool, although it was recognised that the new Manager had had a positive influence at the facility.

·         Queries regarding the Director’s response and the figures quoted as to the salary expenses for staffing the Pool.

·         No separate budget existing for the operation of the Strand Pool.

·         The reduction in opening hours at the Strand Pool is denying people the opportunity to use the pool for outdoor swimming in saltwater which has positive health benefits.

·         Whilst the Friends of Strand Pool commended the Council on allowing under 16’s and over 60’s to swim free of charge, this was only of benefit if the Pool was open for use.

·         The Council should be taking the opportunity to benefit from the national resurgence in the popularity of outdoor swimming by increasing marketing the pool.

·         If the pool is to only open when the outside temperature is 24 degrees, the Council does not have membership information or a user database so is unable to contact people to inform them when the pool is to be open.

·         The Friends of Strand Pool are happy to assist the Council in cleaning and painting the pool before the 2017 season and would like to work with the Council on widening marketing of the pool so that it can be open between the months of May – September.

 

With the agreement of the Chairman, a leaflet produced by the Friends of the Strand Pool was circulated prior to the meeting.

 

In response, the Assistant Director Physical and Cultural Regeneration  thanked the lead petitioner for his comments and gave an assurance that when officers were alerted to the filtration issues at the pool, immediate action was taken to alleviate the problem. The water had been tested and declared safe. A survey had since been undertaken on the filtration system and results were awaited. He stressed that as the Strand Pool was a saltwater pool which drew  water from the river it was prone to silting whereas this would not occur in a non saltwater pool.

 

He confirmed that evidence from previous years indicated that usage of the pool reduced when the outside temperature fell below 24 degrees. When the pool was open to the public, a specific number of staff were required to be on duty. As the outside temperature had a direct effect on the numbers of visitors using the facility and the subsequent income received, the Council had to have regard to the cost of opening the pool when usage figures were very low. He confirmed that he was willing to work with the Friends of Strand Pool to assess whether there were opportunities that had not yet been explored to increase usage.

 

The Head of Sport, Leisure, Tourism and Heritage also thanked the lead petitioner for the help and support that officers had received from the Friends of Strand Pool and he reassured the lead petitioner that the Council was committed to provision of the outdoor pool and continuing to work with the Friends of Strand Pool. He advised the Committee that the Council had supported the Group by part-funding a website to help the Group increase membership.

 

The Committee then discussed the issues raised and a summary of the discussion and officers’ responses as follows:

 

·         The Committee congratulated the Friends of Strand Pool on the professional way in which they had conducted themselves in their engagement with the Council and the support they had provided at the Pool.

·         A Member expressed concern that public perception was that the future of the Pool was at risk and, the reduction in hours and days of opening would result in a reduction in visitor numbers which could affect the viability of the facility. In response, the Head of Sport, Leisure, Tourism and Heritage confirmed that the Council was committed to the provision of the Strand Pool as part of its leisure and sports provision.

·         A Member suggested that consideration be given to amending the opening hours from 11am - 5pm to 1pm – 7pm so that people were able to use the pool after work. In response, the Head of Sport, Leisure, Tourism and Heritage stated that current usage data indicated the busiest hours of use at the Pool were between 11 – 12 noon. Therefore to change the opening hours as suggested could affect the current busiest opening period. 

·         In response to suggestions that there be a separate budget for the operation of the Pool, the Head of Sport, Leisure, Tourism and Heritage agreed to investigate this possibility but commented that when the Pool was open but not busy, pool staff were often re-directed to work elsewhere at the Leisure Park and therefore this may prove difficult in attempting to split the budgets.

·      A Member suggested that consideration be given to whether the operation of the Strand Café could come back to the Council so that any profits could be re-invested at the Strand Leisure Park. In response, the Head of Sport, Leisure, Tourism and Heritage advised that the café lease was due for renewal in 2017 and would progress through contract procedures as part of the Council’s wider catering facility contracts.

·         The Head of Sport, Leisure, Tourism and Heritage acknowledged that the Council had not undertaken consultation on the reduced hours of operation of the Pool and apologised for this. However, he confirmed that officers were now working closely with the Friends of Strand Pool on matters concerning the Pool.

·         A Member referred to the Council’s e-petition facility as compared with the change.org website which was increasingly being used as an alternative by people setting up e-petitions.The Director of Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation commented that whilst the Council had a comprehensive petitions scheme in place, officers were always happy to consider feedback and review the arrangements to see whether improvements could be made.

 

The Director of Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation explained that the Council was operating in a constrained financial environment. In recent years, funds had been invested in the Pool, its changing rooms and in the Strand Leisure Park as a whole but it was necessary to recognise that local authorities were now faced with restricted budgets. Therefore, future investment at the Strand would have to be considered alongside other funding priorities. However, he reiterated that the Council had no plans to close the Strand Pool.

 

Decision:

 

The Committee:

 

a)            noted the petition response and the officer actions set out in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.7.of the report;

b)            thanked the Friends of Strand Pool for their petition and the work that they have undertaken with officers recognising their involvement and interest in the Strand Pool, and noted that officers are actively involved in working with them on a defined programme reviewing cleanliness of the Pool, demand for the facility, temperature triggers for opening the Pool to the public, increasing income from the facility to aid the cost of running the Pool, methods of recording visitors and decoration and physical conditions of the Pool.

 

B)           Petition for a speed camera on Walderslade Road

 

Mr Jones outlined the basis of his petition seeking the installation of a speed camera in Walderslade Road between the Poacher’s Pocket Pub/Restaurant and the junction of Weedswood Road. He explained that when temporary cameras had been in place, drivers slowed their vehicles but when the temporary cameras had been removed traffic speed had increased.

 

The Acting Assistant Director Front Line Services advised that the enforcement of speed limits was the responsibility of Kent Police and Police records indicate that no serious or fatal collisions have been recorded at this location in the last 7 years. In response to the concerns raised by the Lead Petitioner, the Road Safety Team would undertake further liaison with the Police and ask if they could increase enforcement at this particular site and keep the area under review.

 

Decision:

 

The Committee:

 

a)            noted the petition response and the officer actions set out in paragraphs 4.10 and 4.12 of the report;

b)            noted that officers will liaise with Kent Police regarding the possibility of increasing the frequency of siting mobile cameras at this location and requesting that this be kept under review.

 

C)           Petition to make the crossing on Rochester Road, Halling safe

 

Ms Catlin outlined the basis of her petition seeking the installation of a new central island crossing in a safer position, in addition to the existing one located by Elm Haven Marina layby and for a reduction in the speed limit on Rochester Road.

 

She explained that whilst she had received a response from the Director of Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation that a speed limit review would be undertaken of the section of road between the White Hart Public House to St Andrews Park, this did not this provide a guarantee that this would produce a positive outcome.

 

Ms Catlin outlined the problems experienced by residents in trying to cross the road without a central refuge.

 

Prior to the meeting, at the request of Ms Catlin an email from Ms Catlin on 8 August to the Director had been circulated to all Members of the Committee, along with the Director’s response dated 2 September 2016.

 

The Acting Assistant Director Front Line Services confirmed that officers were working with the lead petitioner on this issue and that traffic counter assessments were in the process of being undertaken within the next 2 weeks. In addition, a site review would be undertaken in the next six weeks in response to the request for a central island refuge. Once these assessments had been completed, the outcome would be reported to the lead petitioner. It was however stressed that any works that may result arising from the assessments would have to be considered along with other funding priorities when the Council set its budget for 2017/18.

 

Decision:

 

The Committee noted the petition response and the officer actions set out in paragraphs 4.15 and 4.17 of the report and thanked officers for their quick response in taking action in response to this petition.

 

 

D)           Petition objecting to the new pavements of Williams Street, Rainham

 

Mrs Lee outlined the basis of her petition and expressed dissatisfaction with the newly constructed footpaths in William Street in that they sloped at varying angles towards the road surface, thus putting children in pushchairs, elderly, disabled and those in mobility scooters at risk. She requested that new footpaths be constructed to provide a continuous level surface between the garden wall and the kerb from end to end of William Street with vehicular crossings having a dropped kerb.

 

With the agreement of the Chairman, additional information supplied by Mrs Lee from an Engineer was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting.

 

The Council’s Responsive Maintenance Engineer responded and confirmed that the 1:40 gradient was a standard design for a footpath and was used by all local authorities. Such gradient was required as a minimum so as to ensure the discharge of rainwater towards the road and to prevent the formation of algae on the footpath.

 

He confirmed that the footpath in William Street was particularly narrow and was generally 1.2m wide along most of its length with the levels at the back of the pavement and of the road surface being fixed. These constraints had been fully considered and taken into account for these resurfacing works and the engineer had spoken to a number of residents, including the lead petitioner, and had made specific alterations to the pavement outside a number of properties as a result.

 

Decision:

 

The Committee noted the petition response and the officer actions already undertaken as set out in paragraphs 4.20 and 4.22 of the report.