Agenda item

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Resources which fall within the remit of this Committee.

Discussion:

The Committee received an overview of progress made on the areas within the scope of the Portfolio Holder for Resources which fell within the remit of this Committee.

The Portfolio Holder responded to Members’ questions and comments as

follows:

·         Flyover /marketing tool – The Portfolio Holder for Resources introduced a short video produced by Medway Development Company (MDC) to be used as a marketing tool to promote development at Chatham Waterfront. He provided an update on how works were progressing at the Chatham Waterfront site.

Concern was expressed that despite the extensive development taking place in Chatham, it had not been possible to include affordable housing provision in all of the various developments and where allocation was to be provided but could not be accommodated within the development site, this was being located elsewhere in Medway.

The Portfolio Holder advised that good quality off site provision of affordable housing had been provided in White Road, Chatham and would soon be provided at Britton Farm in Gillingham. He confirmed that all  the current schemes were providing 25% affordable housing provision.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Committee that as a Director of MDC and Chair of the Subsidiary Company undertaking development works, MDC was taking on the development of some challenging and difficult sites which were not always attractive to private developers. Therefore, it was not always possible to include provision of 25% affordable housing within all development on viability grounds.

·         Strood development – A Member requested an update on potential development of sites in Strood. In response, the Portfolio Holder advised that at the current time, as a small team, MDC was unable to take on the development of sites in Strood due to its other projects at Chatham Waterfront and Britton Farm in Gillingham.

·         Medway Development Company(MDC) – The Committee discussed the issue of developments being undertaken in Medway by MDC and in particular the information that MDC is a small company. Concern was expressed as to the risks of a small company taking on large development projects and the Portfolio Holder explained that beneath MDC was another company acting as managing agents for the developments. The Committee requested further information as to the relationship between MDC and the managing agents along with the make-up of MDC’s Board of Directors, and requested a staffing matrix, an oversight of minutes of Board meetings, information on cash flow and forecasts, draw down loans, balance sheets and information on risk analysis. It was noted that this information would be commercially sensitive when circulated. The Portfolio Holder offered for MDC to attend a meeting of the Committee to undertake a presentation on its work but the Committee requested that the information requested be supplied in the first instance.

·         Gillingham Town Centre - Concern was expressed as to the lack of investment in Gillingham Town Centre in comparison with that being invested in Chatham. Whilst it was acknowledged that attempts were being made to obtain investment from various funding streams, a view was expressed that by locating affordable housing away from development sites in Chatham and providing this elsewhere in Medway, e.g. Britton Farm, Gillingham did not make for sustainable communities and resulted in the Chatham Waterfront development not being inclusive. 

The Portfolio Holder supported the view that Gillingham would benefit from investment but unfortunately a recent bid for funding, had been unsuccessful. However, he gave an assurance that bids would be submitted if other funding opportunities became available.

·         Development timescales – Information was sought as to the timescales for the completion of development projects and the Portfolio Holder advised that residents would be living in Whiffens Avenue by December 2022 and it was hoped that marketing of Chatham Waterfront would begin soon. The marketing of Mountbatten House would be at a later stage so as not to compete with other sites being marketed in the Chatham area.

·         Bishops Palace and Brook Theatre – The Portfolio Holder provided an update as to works being undertaken on the Bishops Palace to stabilise the structure and advised that work on The Brook Theatre would begin soon. He agreed to supply information as to the anticipated start date of work at The Brook Theatre outside of the meeting.

·         CCTV – A Member requested whether a CCTV camera could be provided in Pig Alley, Luton. In response, the Portfolio Holder suggested that this request be formally made to the Community Safety Partnership Manager.

In response to questions, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that no CCTV cameras had been removed in the past 12 months and one additional camera had been provided. He advised that a number of cameras had been replaced to provide improved definition and zoom capacity and apart from the request received this evening for a CCTV camera to be located in Pig Alley, no additional requests had been received for CCTV cameras. He reminded Members that if Ward Councillors wanted CCTV cameras located at specific locations in their Wards, they should submit a request to the Community Safety Partnership Manager for consideration by the Community Safety Partnership.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Committee that CCTV camera activity levels were regularly monitored and if activity fell below a level set by the Information Commissioner, then the positioning of the CCTV camera would need to be reconsidered and possibly result in its removal.

The Portfolio Holder also reminded the Committee that arrangements could be made for Members to visit the CCTV control room upon request.

·         Community Safety Team – In recognition of the 56% increase in anti-social behaviour referred to in the Community Safety Partnership report, a Member asked whether the Portfolio Holder considered that the Community Safety Team was adequality resourced. In response, the Portfolio Holder advised that the Community Safety Team was a small but very effective team and that there were two Anti-Social Behaviour Officers employed by the Council. Unfortunately, due to a timing restriction on available funding, it had not been possible to recruit to a third post to cover Chatham Town Centre but alternative sources of funding was currently being investigated.  

·         Heat Networks Referring to the new Chatham Heat Network Study, the Committee asked that when available, an update be supplied to the Committee along with a copy to the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services in his role as Chairman of the Climate Change Member Advisory Group.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)    noted the report and thanked the Portfolio Holder for attending the meeting and answering questions.

b)    noted that if any Member wished to ask for a CCTV camera to be located in their Ward, they should submit a request direct to the Community Safety Partnership Manager for consideration by the Community Safety Partnership.

c)    requested that when available, an update on the Chatham Heat Network Study be supplied to the Committee along with a copy to the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services in his role as Chairman of the Climate Change Member Advisory Group.

d)    noted that the Portfolio Holder has agreed to supply information as to the anticipated start date of works to The Brook Theatre.

e)    requested that information be supplied as to the relationship between MDC and the managing agents along with the make-up of MDC’s Board of Directors, a staffing matrix and an oversight of minutes of Board meetings, information on cash flow and forecasts, draw down loans, balance sheets and information on risk analysis. It was noted that this information would be commercially sensitive when circulated.