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 Councillor Chitty, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation which fell within the remit of this Committee as set out below:

 

·         Economic Development

·         Employment

·         High Streets

·         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:

 

·         Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid – A Member requested an update on the Council’s HIF bid and in response, the Portfolio Holder advised that the outcome of the HIF bid was currently awaited. She advised that if the Council’s bid was unsuccessful, this would have implications for the delivery of the Local Plan.

 

She advised that the Local Plan was not solely concerned with the provision of housing but also covered other factors including employment, transport and health and leisure facilities. However, the success of the HIF bid would be essential to provide the infrastructure to support the Government’s declared level of housing provision required in Medway in future years.

 

·         Apprenticeship awards – The Portfolio Holder noted the Committee’s appreciation for the Consumer Challenge Quiz hosted by Bradfields Academy and the two trophies named after Andy McGrath and Councillor Mike O’Brien.

 

·         Vacancy rates in town centres and the future closure of Debenhams – A Member referred to vacant premises in town centres and, in particular, the closure of Debenhams store in Chatham and he sought information as to action taken by the Portfolio Holder and the Council to prevent the store from closure.

 

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that discussions had been ongoing with both Debenhams and their agent concerning the retention of the Chatham store. During discussions, it had been made clear that the Council was willing to take action within its powers to prevent the store from closure but unfortunately Debenhams had made an economic decision to close stores in Chatham, Canterbury, Ashford and Folkestone.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that all department stores were currently  facing a difficult financial climate as they were often located in large rented premises and retail shopping was increasingly moving online. This was having a detrimental effect upon the future of traditional shopping centres and High Streets.

 

She acknowledged the need for the Council to re-assess its aspirations for Chatham High Street and, if necessary, to encourage a reduction in the length of the retail element of the High Street. In addition, she reminded the Committee that the Council had invested in the future of the Pentagon Centre.

 

The Portfolio Holder referred to the Chatham Town Centre Forum and advised that the Forum was very positive about future opportunities and would be actively involved in influencing future investment.

 

In addition, the publication of Medway 1 promoting Chatham City Centre would encourage businesses to consider the opportunities that exist for investment.

 

·         South Thames Gateway Building Control Partnership (STG) – In response to a question as to the risk of potential claims, the Portfolio Holder provided an assurance that the STG Partnership was fully insured.

 

She confirmed that developers had a choice as to whether to use a private Building Control company or a service provided via a local authority. Since the fire at Grenfell Tower, a number of Building Control Inspectors were struggling to obtain insurance and, as a result there had been an increase in work for local authority Building Control services in inspecting and issuing paperwork. Staff at STG were receiving the required support and training and had the technology and equipment to cope with this additional workload.

 

Canterbury had recently joined the STG Partnership and other local authorities were expressing an interest in joining.   

 

·         Trading standards  - A Member praised the work of the Trading Standards team following a recent incident in Rochester and asked whether there was an opportunity to expand the team. In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that the Trading Standards team worked closely with other agencies and therefore it was not necessary to increase the size of the team. She commented that the incident referred to had been an excellent example of the Police and Local Authority working together in the community.

  

·         Start up Grants  - A Member requested further information on the types of businesses benefitting from the £500 start up grants and whether on-going support would be provided.

 

The Portfolio Holder agreed to provide this information outside of the meeting.

  

·         Independent Market Review – In response to a question, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that the independent market review was currently awaited and details would be provided to the Member concerned when received.

 

·         Flytipping – A Member referred to the level of reported fly tips and the statement that all had been attended, searched and cleared within one working day. He commented that this was not the experience in Princes Park Ward when at least two reported fly tips had stayed for longer than one week.

 

The Portfolio Holder agreed to check further on this outside of the meeting.

 

·         Retention of students in Medway – A Member sought information as to action taken to encourage students to remain in Medway once they graduated from one of the four Universities in Medway.

 

The Portfolio Holder advised that there were a number of apprenticeship schemes available in Medway which could lead to full time employment and also opportunities for graduates to work in Medway on outreach work. Opportunities were also available at the Innovation Park Medway for workspace and hot-desking to help kick-start businesses.

 

·         Statistics within the report  – A Member referred to various statistics detailed within the report and, in particular, employment statistics (paragraph 2.1), the level of take up of the Innovation Studios Medway (paragraph 2.5.1), vacancy rates in town centres (paragraph 2.7.1) and flytipping (paragraphs 6.6.13 and 6.6.14) and expressed concern that these statistics in isolation had little meaning without being put into context.

 

The Portfolio Holder thanked the Member for his observations and noted that there was an overarching theme to the points that he raised. She agreed to take this on board for future reports. In the meantime, she would endeavour to provide the Member concerned with the information requested outside of the meeting. 

 

·         Heritage Action Zone (HSHAZ) Programme – A Member referred to the Council’s bid for £1.6 million from the Heritage Action Zone programme and questioned the area that would benefit from this funding.

 

In response, the Director Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation and Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that the success of the bid was dependent upon completion of the bidding process and the funding would be directed towards the area of Chatham/Rochester from Sun Pier to Star Hill.

 

·         Provision of a free to use ATM in Rochester – A Member reminded the Portfolio Holder that when she last attended the Committee in March 2019, she had agreed to pursue the provision of a free to use ATM in Rochester. The provision of this facility would be beneficial when events and markets were held in the town, and he requested an update.

 

The Portfolio Holder reported that since March 2019, she had actively pursued the provision of a free to use ATM in Rochester both with banks and in shops but unfortunately had not been successful.

 

The Member referred to the fact that ‘free to use’ ATM’s levied a higher charge that those such as Link Machines where there was a fee and he suggested that consideration be given to approaching retailers who currently offered a fee paying ATM to assess whether there was a way forward where the fee could be removed. He agreed to speak to the Portfolio Holder outside of the meeting.

    

·         Sale of inappropriate items at Rochester Christmas Market – A Member commended the action taken by Trading Standards at the 2018 Rochester Christmas Market and sought an assurance that action would be taken prior to the 2019 market to ensure that inappropriate items were not available for sale.

 

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that contact would be made with the 2018 tradersso as to avoid a repeat of incidents in 2018 and Trading Standards would also visit each stall once they were set up to check stock.

 

·         Trading Standards – Freedom of Fear – A Member sought information as to whether Trading Standards were promoting steps to support workers under the Freedom of Fear Campaign.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that the safety of shop workers was paramount and many retailers had introduced CCTV at their premises for this reason. She confirmed that many traders were in contact with each other to report specific problems and could also report direct to the Police.

 

·         Street scene enforcement - A Member sought further information on the enforcement of litter fines by a private company.

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that there would be no change to current litter enforcement as strict protocols were in place to ensure that enforcement was carried out fairly.

 

She noted the concerns expressed as to the level of enforcement activity outlined in the report and the number of prosecutions and offered to pick this up in a separate briefing session for Members.

 

·         Strood Town Centre Forum – A Member asked whether there were plans for the Strood Town Centre Forum to be resurrected and the  Portfolio Holder agreed to ask officers to pursue this. 

 

Decision:

 

The Committee:

 

a)            thanked the Portfolio Holder for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions.

 

b)            noted that there will be an informal Member Briefing on Environmental Enforcement.

 

c)            noted that the Portfolio Holder will let the Member concerned know when the independent market review is received.

 

d)            noted that the Portfolio Holder will let the Member concerned know the types of businesses which have been awarded start up grants and whether ongoing support would be provided.

 

e)            noted that the flytip figures stated in paragraph 6.6.13 of the report will be clarified.

 

f)             noted that the Portfolio Holder will revisit the statistics identified by the Member concerned in the various paragraphs of the report and will respond to the Member direct.

 

g)        noted that action will be taken prior to the 2019 Rochester Christmas market to ensure that inappropriate items are not offered for sale.