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

·         Employment

·         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:

·         Town Centre Management – A Member referred to the pilot highway licensing scheme for goods, tables and A-boards on the public highway in Chatham. He expressed concern that some stall holders strayed beyond the boundary of their pitch. He also identified a perception that, due to illegal trading in the area, street trading was associated with crime, anti-social behaviour and inadequate policing.  The Portfolio Holder responded that the use of A-boards was regulated. The policing issue had recently been discussed at the Chatham Town Centre Forum and it was recognised that very few people caused a majority of the issues. The Council worked closely with the Police, Community Safety Wardens and charities to improve the offer in the area as a matter of high priority.

·         Chatham and Gillingham - A Member noted that the large empty retail unit in Chatham did not create a welcoming environment and asked what was being done to progress the economic development of the town centres.  The Portfolio Holder responded that town centre regeneration was a long term strategic process; she cited the example of Strood which, having had many empty units 20 years ago, had now found its niche and was thriving.  The refocussing of Chatham High Street was progressing and involved close liaison with local residents who were positive about the future. A Member reported that there was now only one PCSO in Gillingham and expressed concern about anti social behaviour and the reluctance of some elderly residents to visit town centres for this reason. The Portfolio Holder said that this was not part of her portfolio, but referred to the positive and collaborative work of the Community Safety Partnership. She advised that Members and officers were reviewing regeneration opportunities for Gillingham and proposals would be presented to Members when these had been developed. The Assistant Director Front Line Services undertook to raise with colleagues Members’ concerns about anti-social behaviour in order that further information could be provided.

·         Local Plan – A Member referred to the implications of Lodge Hill for the next stages of the Local Plan. In response to the consultation on the Development Options document, around 11,000 specific representations had been received on the proposals for Lodge Hill. A breakdown of this figure was requested to show the number of positive and negative responses. The Portfolio Holder undertook to provide this to Members of the Committee.  She added that the Council was working closely with Government officers and was aware of and responsive to the challenge of the Local Plan process.

·         Local Growth Fund for Strood Civic Site Flood Mitigation Works – A Member noted that flood mitigation measures, for which £3.5 million LGF funding had been awarded in 2016/17, had not yet commenced and expressed concern that, as a result, the area was still prone to flooding. The Portfolio Holder responded that the funding was in place for use as part of the future development of the site.  A Member expressed concern about drainage and flood protection for Rochester Cathedral. The Assistant Directors undertook to provide responses on flooding in Strood and at Rochester Cathedral.

·         Economic Regeneration/Social Regeneration – A Member expressed the view that the statistical information provided within the report should include comparative data for previous years and other local authorities.  He had referred to last year’s report and noted that the target for jobs created and safeguarded had reduced from 400 to 300, despite 759 jobs being created last year. The number of intensive assists to local businesses, interest free loans and start up grants, and apprenticeships had also reduced. The Portfolio Holder responded that the business community in Medway was very buoyant and optimistic with businesses expanding and employing more people. The current statistics therefore provided a more accurate baseline than last year and reflected a positive position. Employ Medway had been very successful throughout 2016/17 and had helped people who had been long term unemployed  move into employment or start up a business. Fewer people had applied for interest free loans and start up grants, but this funding continued to be promoted and had not been reduced. 

·         Development Management – A Member noted the high performance for processing planning applications and asked if the targets had been revised.   The Portfolio Holder advised that these performance figures were subject to seasonal variations and that performance could be more accurately measured at the end of the year. The Assistant Director Physical and Cultural Regeneration undertook to respond on how Medway had performed significantly above the national average during January to March 2017.

Decision:

The Committee:

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

b)     requested that officers provide further information on anti-social behaviour, particularly in Chatham and Gillingham, to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committees;

c)      noted that the Portfolio Holder will ask for a breakdown of the positive and negative responses to the proposals for Lodge Hill to be provided to members of the Committee;

d)     noted that officer responses would be provided to Members on flooding in Strood and at Rochester Catherdral;

e)     requested that consideration be given to providing comparative data for previous years and other local authorities in future reports; and 

f)       noted that an officer response will be provided to Members on how  Medway had performed significantly above the national average during January to March 2017 in respect of planning applications.