Agenda item

This report sets out a response to an issue, raised by Councillor Paterson, concerning projects in and around Rochester and a request for provision to be made for bringing local stakeholders together to consider a proactive, co-ordinated strategy to safeguard historic buildings and secure the long-term economic success of Rochester.

As the request for this Member’s item was received on 25 May 2018, just preceding a Bank Holiday weekend and the half-term week, it was not possible to finalise the report in time for despatch with the main agenda. Under Section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972, the Committee may consider the report, even though it has not been open to public inspection for five clear days before the meeting, as long as the Chairman is satisfied the item should be considered as urgent business by reason of special circumstances, which must be specified in the minutes. On this occasion the Chairman has confirmed he is satisfied that the report should be considered as an urgent item, as the next meeting of the Committee is not until 23 August 2018, which would involve a delay in scrutiny and discussion of the matters raised by Councillor Paterson on behalf of local residents.

Discussion:

Councillor Paterson thanked the Chairman for agreeing to accept his Member’s Item on the agenda at short notice.

He referred to a number of issues affecting Rochester, in particular the  proposed hotel, replacement coach park, short and long term car parking and the proposed sale of the Conservancy Board Building and expressed concern that these issues were being dealt with in isolation and without a co-ordinated approach. Whilst he appreciated that the involvement of a number of groups and bodies had been referred to within the Director’s response in the report, he expressed concern that there was not an over-arching body co-ordinating a strategic vision for Rochester. Therefore, in his Member’s item he was seeking provision for bringing together local stakeholders to enable a co-ordinated, joined-up approach so that all projects could be considered in the round.

Councillor Paterson expressed concern that the response from the Director, set out at paragraph 4 of the report, failed to address the question asked and did not provide a response to the issues that would arise in the future affecting Rochester.

In response the Director for Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation and Deputy Chief Executive stressed the critical role that Rochester plays in the rich heritage of Medway. He set out that the Council’s approach to Rochester was underpinned by a strategic view and he referred to the Cultural Strategy which had been recommended to Cabinet for approval by this Committee and subsequently approved by Cabinet and endorsed by the Arts Council and a number of other bodies. In addition, Medway’s Destination Management Plan was developed with Visit Kent, the leading destination management organisation in the country. The Council also worked closely with the Medway Tourism Association which represented people across Medway and was independently chaired. All of these were encompassed within a wider strategic approach through the Medway Local Plan which would set out a vision for Medway for the next 20 years. The Council had also been commended on its Strategic approach, its consultation and engagement through the recent Corporate Peer Challenge.

The Director also referred to the free events and festivals programme offered throughout Medway, many of which were held in Rochester, and which is one of the largest in the country.

Cllr Paterson advised that he was specifically concerned with the built heritage of Rochester and therefore any reference to the events and festival programme was irrelevant in this context.

The Director responded by confirming that all Council property holdings in Rochester were currently being assessed so as to identify those that were of specific historic importance following the review announced by the Leader.

The Committee discussed the item having regard to the points raised by Councillor Paterson and the Director.

A Member referred to the existence of the Rochester City Centre Forum and advised that this Forum encompassed a broad range of representation from stakeholders in Rochester and dealt with local issues. Representatives included traders, residents, historic associations, the King’s School and the City of Rochester. In the past, meetings had also been attended by the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders and the Director for Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation and Deputy Chief Executive. In recent months, the Forum had debated the possibility of setting up a Neighbourhood Plan. He was therefore of the opinion that there was a facility in place for local stakeholders to come together to discuss matters of interest in Rochester.

Another Member supported Councillor Paterson in that, as Ward Councillor, Councillor Paterson was reflecting the views expressed to him by residents and those within the local community and he felt that the issues raised had not been sufficiently addressed by the Director in his response. He considered that consultations on matters such as the re-location of the coach park and the pick-up and drop-off points at the proposed hotel were being carried out in isolation and were piecemeal and therefore the public did not have confidence that such proposals were being handled coherently and strategically.

Reference was also made to the loss of a Bank and ATM machine in Rochester High Street. Whilst not a Council service, this was an important facility which should be available in a town where tourism is actively encouraged.

Arising from discussions, a Member expressed a view that in his opinion decisions concerning some issues affecting Rochester were not transparent and open and this was not helped by the fact that Rochester West Ward was represented by two elected Councillors representing two different political parties. This meant that they may not be receiving the same level of information. Reference was made to the Rochester City Centre Forum and it was suggested that perhaps this Forum could be afforded a role in engaging with people on matters affecting Rochester.

Decision:

The Committee thanked Councillor Paterson for his Member’s Item and noted the item.