Agenda item

This report sets out activities and progress on work areas within the Portfolio of the Leader of the Council, which all fall within the remit of this Committee. This information is provided in relation to the Leader of the Council being held to account.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which set out activities and progress on work areas within the Portfolio of the Leader of the Council, which all fell within the remit of this Committee, these being strategic leadership of the Council, communications and marketing, and finance.

The Leader responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

·       Covid recovery – In response to questions on the specific financial pressures facing unitary authorities and how to ensure that central Government recognised Medway’s need for support as part of the levelling up agenda, the Leader said that representations were being made through the Unitary Councils Network which had developed into an influential body. He added that, as chair of the Kent Leaders Group, he had made representations to ministers for levelling up to be on the basis of need, highlighting that Medway contained some of the most deprived wards. He expressed concern that, in the first round, central Government would focus more on geographical location, with preference being given to areas in the North and Midlands, but he would continue to lobby for adequate recognition of Medway’s need. The Leader agreed that the Finance Team had done a remarkable job in response to the pandemic, ensuring that grants were issued where they were needed. He added that some collection rates were way ahead of the national average.

·       Regeneration and Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid – Responding to a concern that Medway’s rail infrastructure would not be improved as part of the HIF, the Leader said that Southeastern railway had concluded that there would be no demand for such an improvement. Responding to concerns that conflict between the housing, transport and environmental policies would lead to a car-based development, the Leader said that people’s preference for cars could not be ignored and that Medway’s urban areas did not have the road space for meaningful dual use. He also made the points that cycle paths tended not to be used all year round by many people and that developers had to adhere to the Council’s parking standards. 

·       Communications and No Mow May – In response to a concern around the communication of this national initiative, the Leader expressed the view that the concept had been flawed as it led to a blanket approach which was not suitable, leading to poor sight lines at junctions for example. The initiative would not therefore be repeated in Medway next year in this form. In response to an observation that it encouraged hay meadows and therefore biodiversity, the Leader argued that, rather than simply allowing the grass to grow, more intervention was needed to create hay meadows and this would be explored.

·       Child Friendly City - The Leader explained that this would be a cross cutting corporate initiative putting children and young people at the centre of all the Council did. £1million from the additional resources grant had been allocated to support Medway’s businesses to offer apprenticeships to Medway’s young people, with particular focus on care leavers and those not in education, employment or training. The Rapture Gaming and Creative Festival at the weekend was an example of the focus on children and young people and was sold out for Saturday and nearly sold out for Sunday.

·       Proposed closure of the University for Creative Arts Rochester Campus and the options for the university to retain some presence within Medway - The Leader reported that the Vice-Chancellor had not responded to the Council’s approaches to engage on this issue and from the conversations that local MPs had held with him, it appeared that he had already determined that the campus would close. One issue was the high cost of maintaining the building and officers had sought to assist the University by identifying options for alternative premises. The Leader added that further and higher education were matters for central Government, but the Council would continue to do all it could to encourage the university to retain a presence in Medway as it had a long-standing association with Medway and should want to stay.

·       Digital Connectivity – The Leader agreed that the digital agenda needed to be relevant to all of Medway’s residents so that no-one was marginalised. It was important that the Council took advantage of Government initiatives in this area.

·       The popularity of housing schemes – The Leader said that Medway had always been an attractive option for people wishing to move out of London. However, a substantial number of the new homes on the Rochester Riverside development had gone to local people. He added that, in discussions with the Medway Development Company, he had emphasised that the pricing policy for new homes should set the standard rather than follow the market and should reflect all that Medway has to offer. The Leader said that part of maximising Medway’s offer was to ensure that new homes were as carbon neutral as possible. A good example of this was the new affordable housing scheme at White Road. 

·       The Government’s emerging thinking on housing development – The Leader said that this was an area of concern, particularly as the extension of permitted development rights might lead to the loss of premises, which could offer employment opportunities, to residential use. In working towards the Government’s housing targets, the Council would hold developers to account to ensure that appropriate standards were maintained.

·       Strood Waterfront and Medway Development Company (MDC) capacity – Responding to a question on why developers were not considering this development opportunity, the Leader clarified the distinction between this area and Civic Centre, Strood which had shown disappointing results when put to the market. MDC had been asked to develop a viable offer when it had the capacity to do so. Asked about MDC’s capacity, the Leader said that discussions had been held about options to grow the company’s portfolios, but it was considered that it should first focus on doing its current work well. With regard to Strood Waterfront, the Leader advised that the viability of the site was dependent on the resolution of complex issues associated with Kingswear Gardens and monies owed to Homes England. He said that he was not in favour of a temporary use for the site as this could lead to negativity when this use ended. 

·       External audit of the 2019/20 Statement of Accounts – Highlighting that the Council’s finances were extremely well managed by the Finance Team, the Leader stressed that there was no correlation between the fact that the 2019/20 accounts had not yet been signed off by the external auditor and the management of the Council’s finances.

·       Timescale for the redevelopment of Splashes - The Leader advised that the demolition of the existing building was planned for this year with the building of an improved facility starting during the latter part of 2022 once a contractor had been appointed.

·       City Status bid – The Leader expressed confidence in the bid due to what was being achieved to develop a city centre. With a regeneration programme of half a billion pounds which had not faltered during the pandemic, Medway had showed itself to be a resilient place deserving of city status.  

Decision:

The Committee thanked the Leader for his attendance and for his detailed responses.