Agenda item

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services Councillor Doe which fall within the remit of this Committee.

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress on the areas of work within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe as set out below:

·         Archives

·         Armed Forces Covenant

·         Events and Festivals

·         Greenspaces

·         Heritage

·         Leisure Services

·         Sporting Legacy

·         Theatres and Arts

·         Tourism

The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows: 

·         Responsibility for monitoring grounds maintenance performance – A Member sought information as to the rationale for transferring the team responsible for monitoring performance of grounds maintenance to Medway Norse in May 2017 and questioned whether there was sufficient accountability when the monitoring team now worked for the same company as that providing the service.

In response, the Portfolio Holder advised that a local authority can deliver services in a number of ways and the Council had a successful working partnership with Medway Norse. He confirmed that he was  satisfied that the current arrangements with Medway Norse delivered the best value for money.

The Member concerned then referred to public satisfaction targets for grounds maintenance which, at 70%, were considered to be low. He  stated that whilst cost savings had been made, it was not considered this had led to decreased customer satisfaction.

The Portfolio Holder advised that he considered the targets to be set at a high level and Medway compared favourably with other local authority areas.

·         Provision of publicity for non-Council operated tourist attractions – A Member referred to the strong tourism offer in Medway and suggested that the Council include the promotion of non-Council operated tourist attractions in its publicity campaigns.

The Portfolio Holder supported this suggestion and agreed to speak to  Communications concerning the possibility of including publicity for non Council operated tourist attractions in publicity campaigns, provided such attractions were not in direct competition with leisure services or tourist attractions provided by the Council.

·         The Strand and Splashes Leisure Pools – A Member asked the Portfolio Holder to acknowledge the positive outcomes following from the negative publicity concerning cleanliness of both The Strand and Splashes Leisure Pools in 2016.

The Portfolio Holder stated that The Strand Leisure Pool occupied a niche market and confirmed that work had been undertaken on the filtration system before the facility had re-opened for the Summer. Whilst it was recognised that improvements could be made at the Pool, there was a limit to how much the Council should invest in the current financial climate, taking into account that the facility was seasonal.

He further commented that Splashes Leisure Pool was an older facility and ideally could benefit from replacement in the longer term. He had established a Working Party to consider the future provision of the facility but recognised that to replace the pool would be very difficult in the current financial climate. In the meantime, staff at the pool were fully aware of the requirement to carefully check and maintain the equipment owing to its age.

·         Possible contracting out of Leisure Services – A Member referred to the contracting out of Leisure Services by Greenwich Borough Council and sought an assurance that Medway was not planning to contract out its Leisure Services.

In response, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that there was no current intention for Leisure Services to be contracted out. However, it was necessary to continually check that the Council was providing value for money and therefore if a model of service delivery was identified that provided a favourable option, it would be investigated.

·         Armed Forces Covenant – A Member referred to the Armed Forces Covenant and sought information as to how this Covenant had helped to ensure that there was no disadvantage to armed forces personnel.

In response, the Portfolio Holder explained the background to the existence of the Covenant. He gave an assurance that the Council worked closely with the armed forces and, as Armed Forces Champion, he personally attended Board meetings with the Army and regularly reassured them that the Council supported the presence of the armed forces in Medway.

He reminded the Committee that armed forces personnel could be posted to a new location at very short notice and this undoubtedly impacted upon the family, particularly if there were children involved. A Working Group was in the process of being established comprising officers from across the Council to ensure that if any problems arose involving armed forces personnel, they could be dealt with efficiently.

·         Tourism numbers – In response to a request for information as to the number of tourists visiting Medway over the past year, the Portfolio  Holder advised that there had been a 7% increase in tourism figures, albeit exact numbers were not to hand.

·         Relocation of Rochester Coach Park - A Member requested information as to possible locations for the provision of a replacement coach park in Rochester now that The Esplanade had been ruled out.

The Portfolio Holder stated that a number of possible alternative sites were currently being investigated, one of which had been The Esplanade. More work had yet to be carried out on this and whilst he was confident that a suitable site would be identified, he was not in a position to provide information on other possible sites at this meeting.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)            thanked the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services for attending the meeting and answering questions on his Portfolio; and

b)            noted that the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services will discuss with Communications the possibility of including publicity for non-Council tourist attractions in publicity campaigns, provided such attractions were not in direct competition with leisure services or tourist attractions provided by the Council.