Agenda item

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships Councilor Rodney Chambers OBE, 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 Strategic Investment, Regeneration and Partnerships which fell within the remit of this Committee.

The Portfolio Holder responded to Members’ questions and comments as

follows:

Measuring value for money and Medway City Estate – It was asked how value for money was being measured in relation to areas such as flood defences and cycling initiatives and what the timescales were for completion of the slip road on Medway City Estate. The Portfolio Holder said that flood defences were specifically to protect Strood waterfront as defences there were at their weakest.

£2.5million of funding had been made available for cycling initiatives through the Growth Fund. Cycling routes had been installed in roads such as Beeching Way, City Way and on Gillingham Business Park, but it had been challenging to persuade cyclists to use the routes. Greater publicity could be considered. There was a need for routes in town centres but this was challenging due to roads being narrow. It was noted that the delivery of the Medway City Estate slip road fell within the Cabinet Portfolio for Front Line Services. The Assistant Director, Regeneration said that there had been minor delays and undertook to provide a more detailed answer to the Committee. The Council had funding for development of an Active Travel Plan which would assist in considering how to increase the effectiveness of cycling routes.

Strood Pier pathway and flood defence wall – A Member stated that the pathway from Canal Road to Strood Pier needed to be reinstated and that resources needed to be provided to enable this. In relation to the flood defence wall, comment was requested on the fact that the wall would need to be repositioned. The Portfolio Holder said that he had been trying to get Strood Pier back into use to facilitate greater use of the river and that this would assist people visiting Upnor Castle. In relation to the flood defence wall, it was agreed that a site visit would be arranged and that all Members of the Committee would be invited to attend.

Inclusion of outcomes in the report and funding for Gillingham – A Member was disappointed that there was not more information in the report in relation to outcomes as this had been previously requested. She also asked for assurance that the needs of Gillingham would be prioritised when bids for levelling up funding were made. The Portfolio Holder said that when bids were made for Round 2 of Levelling Up funding, Gillingham would have the highest priority but details and timescales were awaited from the Government. A cross party Town Centres Board had been established and a Town Centre Strategy for Gillingham was being prepared.

Chatham Historic Dockyard – Concern was expressed that access to the Dockyard was chargeable in view of Government funded projects being delivered there. The Portfolio Holder said that bids for funding had not had to be made by local authorities. The Dockyard had made a bid to bring an historic building into use to create employment, which was the goal of the Growth Fund. This had resulted in five businesses locating at the building employing 200 people.

Innovation Park Medway – More detail was sought on what the catalytic section of the Runway Park was and whether businesses locating on the park were still able to benefit from up to £55,000 business rates relief per year for five years due to its status as an Enterprise Zone. Another Committee Member asked if there were any businesses that were currently looking to move to the Park. The Portfolio Holder advised that the local authority had also been able to retain business rates paid by new businesses. The Government had declined to extend the five year relief period but the local authority would still retain the whole of the business rates due for a period of 19 years. The Council was currently in dialogue with four businesses who were interested in locating at the park.

Medway Apprenticeship Advice Service – In response to a Member who suggested that the figure of 20 apprenticeships supported by the Medway Apprenticeship Advice Service was low, the Portfolio Holder said that support available from the Kent and Medway Skills Commission had not been considered sufficient and that the Council had established its own skills agenda and developed a Skills Strategy within six months. The availability of careers advice in schools had also been a concern. The Council now employed Enterprise Advisors from the business community to work with schools on the provision of careers advice.

Detail provided in reports – A Member said that the report provided needed to contain more detail and be more precise and that this had been requested at a previous Committee meeting. The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that there had not always been sufficient outcome data available previously and said that this could be included in future reports.

Congestion problems, project governance and Amazon depot – A Member highlighted ongoing parking and congestion problems, obstructive parking and flooding in Strood, concern relating to the reconfiguration of the Knights Road / Commercial Road junction and the design of the plaza at North Street / the A2. The Member also mentioned governance issues in relation to the Berwick Way works and questioned the benefit of Amazon locating in Strood in view of associated traffic issues. He looked forward to receiving updates on these areas in the future. The Portfolio Holder said that his Portfolio Holder responsibility was around ensuring that funding was spent as allocated. Economic development was the responsibility of the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Economic Growth and Regulation and Highways were the responsibility of the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services. The Member looked forward to receiving feedback from the relevant Cabinet Members.

Decision:

The Committee:

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

b)    Requested that a briefing note be provided to the Committee in relation to the City Estate / Berwick Way slip road delivery.

c)    Noted that the Portfolio Holder would investigate reinstating access to the pathway linking 41 Canal Road to Strood Pier.

d)    Requested that it be arranged for Members of the Committee to visit the former Civic Centre site in Strood to look at the flood defence wall.

e)    Requested that more detail, including project outcomes, be provided in future Portfolio Holder reports.