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 made on the areas within the scope of the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation which fell within the remit of this Committee 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 responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

·         Rochester Airport  - A Member asked for an update on Rochester Airport. In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that development opportunities at Rochester Airport were a vital element for plans to provide a modern, commercial workspace in Medway supporting Gross Value Added (GVA) jobs.

·         Dickens World – A Member referred to the sudden closure of Dickens World and sought information on whether those members of staff who had lost their jobs were receiving support in securing future employment. He also enquired as to whether there were any plans for the future of the building. In response, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that officers were on hand to provide assistance to employees in such circumstances but it was not always possible to ensure participation by a private commercial organisation. She provided an assurance that any former employee of Dickens World would receive support from officers if they requested help. As to the future of the building, the Portfolio Holder advised that she was not aware of any future plans for the building at this stage.

·         Operation of the Environmental Protection/Noise Nuisance/Out of Hours Service

A Member referred to the current operation of the environmental protection/noise nuisance out of hours service and asked whether it was possible for the service to operate on Thursday/Friday and Saturday evenings as opposed to Friday/Saturday and Sunday. In response, the Portfolio Holder advised that she would have further discussions with officers to assess whether the statistics indicated there was a requirement for the operation of the service to be adjusted.

·         Gillingham Market  - A Member advised that a number of market stallholders who paid for their stalls on an annual basis at Gillingham Market had expressed concern that casual stallholders who attended the market on an occasional basis were often allocated pitches located in more favourable locations than those allocated to regular traders. The market traders considered this to be unfair. In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that this was the first time this had been drawn to her attention and she agreed to investigate and respond to the Member direct.

·         Employment statistics and employment in rural areas – A Member sought information on the trend in employment in Medway and in particular how this was affecting the rural areas. In response, the Portfolio Holder advised that overall there had been a steady rise in employment in Medway and she referred in particular to the success of the Employ Medway Service.

The Portfolio Holder stated that she wished to see continued employment and sustainability in rural areas but stressed that it was important to recognise that rural businesses were not solely limited to agricultural and horticultural employment. She recognised the importance of understanding how rural businesses could be supported and one example of this was the expansion of broadband into rural areas.

·         Local Growth Fund (LGF) – In response to a question on the Local Growth Fund (LGF) and, in particular, proposed works in Chatham, the Portfolio Holder explained the LGF and how works were prioritised.  She confirmed that funding was currently available and further funding was being sought for works between Chatham Station and Military Road in Chatham, both of which would improve the area. She stated that £1 million was available for improvement works in the area of Luton Arches, but she was unable to confirm detail for these works as the options available would be the subject of consultation.

·         Rochester Airport Enterprise Zone status – A Member referred to the current position concerning the Rochester Airport planning application and sought an assurance that the delays in determination of the planning application would not threaten the Enterprise Zone. In response, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that there were certain legal obligations that had to be completed with the planning application but she gave an assurance that there was funding available to ensure that the regeneration plans would proceed.

·         Environmental Enforcement  - In response to a question about untidy land, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that the Environmental Enforcement Team had pursued a number of successful prosecutions. However, if the Member considered that there were elements of the service that could be improved then information should be supplied that could be investigated.

·         Development Management -  A Member referred to the change to the threshold for a development to trigger provision of affordable housing and whether this had resulted in a reduction in the provision of affordable housing in Medway. The Portfolio Holder advised that as the housing market in Medway was more affordable than other areas in the South East, many people relocated to Medway from outside the area. She recognised the need for there to be a wide range of accommodation to be available of varying types including that suited to young people.

·         Planning applications relating to establishments selling alcohol and takeaway food – A Member referred to action by other local authorities to make it difficult for applicants to set up establishments that sell alcohol and takeaway food in certain areas and he referred to the proliferation of such establishments in the Luton area. In response, the Portfolio Holder advised that the Planning Committee was the responsible body for determining planning applications and Members of the Planning Committee were fully aware of the issues surrounding establishments selling alcohol and takeaway food.

·         Apprenticeships – In response to a question on the operation of the  apprenticeship scheme, the Portfolio Holder advised that officers set up apprenticeship schemes with local businesses and then matched apprentices to the various schemes on offer. Much of this work involved close liaison with the local colleges and universities.

·         Local Growth Fund Strood Civic Site Flood Mitigation Works – A Member asked why flood mitigation works were required at the former Civic Centre Site in Strood. The Portfolio Holder advised that such works were necessary, owing to the development plans for the site.

·         Local Plan – In response to a question on the Local Plan consultation process, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that officers undertook consultation through various methods, including staffed displays at community and village halls and in schools.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)            thanked the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation for attending the meeting and answering questions.

b)            noted that the Portfolio Holder will discuss with officers whether the level of noise nuisance complaints justified amendments to the Environmental Protection Team out of hours service to operate on Thursday/Friday and Saturday as opposed to Friday/Saturday and Sunday with the outcome of such discussions being notified to all Members of the Committee.

c)            noted that the Portfolio Holder will discuss with officers the issue of the allocation of stalls at Gillingham Market in the light of the concerns raised by regular traders.

d)            noted that there will be full engagement with residents as part of the consultation process for the Local Plan encouraging written responses and that there will also be full consultation with all Members of the Council.