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

·        Planning Policy - Local Plan

·        Markets

·        Planning - Development Management, including Planning Enforcement and applications for works to protected trees

·        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:

Medway Apprenticeships Service – A Member asked whether the Service had facilitated any apprenticeships for people with special needs or for care leavers. It was also asked what progress had been made in relation to the proposed Taxi Private Hire and Feasibility Study and what engagement had taken place. The Portfolio Holder said that apprenticeships were offered to all groups and that uptake and any improvements needed were monitored on an ongoing basis. In relation to taxis, meetings were being held with providers to discuss the challenges. This engagement was ongoing. A briefing note was requested to set out the number of young people with special needs and care leavers who had been offered apprenticeships.

Four Elms Hill Pollution Mitigation – In response to a Member’s question that asked what measures were in place to mitigate against pollution and what measures were planned, the Portfolio Holder said that the speed of vehicles was a factor and that this could be monitored. The volume of heavy traffic and the flow of this traffic were also important considerations. Monitoring needed to be continuous to demonstrate the success of mitigations. It was requested that a one page summary setting out mitigations at Four Elms Hill be provided to the Committee.

Confidence in the Local Plan – The Portfolio Holder was asked what confidence there was in the leadership of the Council being able to produce a Local Plan. She said that the Council had to follow Government requirements and that the Government had made changes to the requirements. The knowledge that the Council had in relation to the Local Plan was considered to be exceptional and far in advance of many other local authorities, many of whom had experienced significant problems in relation to their draft Plans. The cost of the Local Plan was substantial and there was a need to ensure it was correct. There had been announcements that the number of required houses had been increased. The Portfolio Holder said that it was extremely difficult to prepare the Plan in view of the changing requirements, but she was confident in the work that Medway was doing as a local authority.

Neighbourhood Plans – A Member said there had been very good work undertaken in relation to the development of Neighbourhood Plans. The Portfolio Holder agreed that good work had been undertaken by all parties. It was requested that thanks be given to the relevant officers in relation to Neighbourhood Plans and the Heritage Action Plan.

Chatham Docks – It was questioned what steps the Portfolio Holder and the Council had taken to explore compulsory purchase options of Chatham Docks. It was also stated that representative of the association of Chatham Docks commercial operators had written to the Council twice but not received a response. It was suggested that the Council should enter into more serious dialogue to explore options. The Portfolio Holder said that the matter had been considered but that the cost would be prohibitively expensive. The matter was currently a commercial decision for Peel Holdings and the operators of the Docks and was outside the control of the Council. She said that if she was provided the letters referred to then she would be able to provide an authoritative response and that to date no clear proposals had been put forward.

Local Plan evidence – It was asked why the evidence required in support of the Local Plan had not been presented to the Council in October 2021 and whether the Government had been responsible for further delays in January 2022 and the decision to revert to Regulation 18. It was also asked when data gathering would be completed and a detailed report containing the evidence would be available. The Portfolio Holder was asked to confirm that the Plan would not seek to change the designation of Docks to residential or mixed use land. 

The Portfolio Holder said that the presentation of evidence in support of the Local Plan had been due to Members having wanted to review some of the elements of it. Issues raised needed to be fully considered ahead of presentation of the Plan. Regulation 18 related to sites and it would be difficult to take this forward without the consultation process having been completed. The request for further evidence had made it impossible to move the process forward. It was not possible to confirm when the report would be available. The Portfolio Holder said she would be grateful for evidence provided and details of any commercial offer being made for the purchase of the Docks. In relation to the designation of the Docks, any challenges in relation to this designation would be part of a planning application and would be considered by the planning authority. It was considered likely that due to the complexity, the matter would be determined in the courts.

Local Plan Designation – A Member said that if the Council chose the designation of Chatham Docks to remain as employment land, this would be included in the Local Plan and would be considered by the Local Plan Inspector. It was requested that the Committee be provided with written updates to set out the process for gathering Local Plan evidence and the timetable for this.

Local Plan progress – A Member considered it to be unacceptable that 10,000 homes that were required under the Council’s housing targets had not been included in the Local Plan. It was requested that the documents more clearly showed ward level impacts, that Members be fully involved in the development of the Plan and that the evidence base be provided.

The Portfolio Holder said that several Member presentations had been provided and that there had been opportunity to challenge and ask for information. There was a clear process laid out by the Government. The evidence would be produced to facilitate the development of the draft Local Plan. She said that she would be happy to have a further meeting to discuss the issues.

Hoo Development Framework – Significant decisions had been taken by the Cabinet and Full Council in relation to the Hoo Development Framework that a Member said had not be actioned. This included the feasibility of sport and leisure facilities and surveys in relation to the future use of Deangate Ridge. The Portfolio Holder said there was a clear commitment to enhance leisure facilities on Hoo and requested that the Member provide the question in writing.

National Apprenticeship Week – In response to a question that asked whether the Council could consider hosting an Apprenticeship Fair as part of National Apprenticeship week in February 2023, the Portfolio Holder said that the Council would be promoting this initiative. Businesses and apprentices would be invited. Medway, as an authority, had committed to take on apprentices.

Viability of markets – A Committee Member expressed concern about the slow recovery of some markets from the impact of the pandemic and asked whether there was a strategy to address this. The Portfolio Holder said there was strong commitment to the Farmer’s Market in Rochester and that Gillingham Market was doing well. Strood Market had become non-viable as only two stalls had remained and the costs to the Council had been substantial. There was a strategy in place but there was not a single document available that covered Medway. It was requested that the relevant documents be provided to the Committee as well as income data for the markets for the previous five years.

Innovation Park Medway – The Portfolio Holder was asked to provide an assessment of how the development of Innovation Park Medway (IPM) was going, how many businesses had signed up to locate there and how many of these were research and development businesses. The Portfolio Holder responded that the development of IPM was fundamental to the growth of employment in Medway.  Details of ongoing negotiations were confidential and could be disclosed once contracts had been signed. Contracts had not yet been signed but a number of businesses had made firm commitments that they wished to be part of the development. In relation to risks, potential occupiers would be considered based upon how they met requirements of creating jobs, the type of jobs created and their flexibility to widen the opportunities available. It was requested that, subject to the signing of contracts, further information be provided to the Committee in relation to occupancy rates.

Affordability of Section 106 Contributions – Concern was raised that some developers were indicating that they were unable to afford S106 contributions and it was questioned whether the £8million figure set out in the report was optimistic and whether work could be undertaken to address the issues. The Portfolio Holder said that S106 criteria were clearly defined. The funding was not available to spend until completion of the relevant development and had to be spent in relation to this development. The Planning Committee was responsible for identifying S106 uses and any issues would need to be considered by that Committee.

Advice for new Portfolio Holder – A Member asked what advice the Portfolio Holder would give to the next holder of her Cabinet Portfolio. She said that there was a need to be knowledgeable, to read the relevant guidance and planning policy and to work hard.

Planning enforcement staffing resources – It was asked what was being done to ensure that sufficient staff resources were available to deal with planning enforcement. Concern was also raised that there were delays in national level inspectors visiting Medway. The Portfolio Holder said she would encourage Members to commit to finding the funding to ensure the staffing resources were available and agreed that there were a number of national level challenges.

Air Quality Management Areas – Concern was expressed in relation to the Action Plan for the Four Elms Hill Air Quality Management Area, particularly that air quality would not be improved quickly enough and that a number of issues highlighted by the Committee had not been addressed. The Portfolio Holder said that net zero pollution was expected to be achieved over a period of time. She said that readings were taken in several areas, including Four Elms Hill and that obligations had to be fulfilled.

Local Plan Questions – In the context that since 2014, £1.25million had been spent on consultants to assist in developing a draft Local Plan, A Member set out a number of questions in relation to the Local Plan. It was requested that answers be provided to the Committee in advance of the Full Council meeting on 10 November.

• Who were the consultants and what was their expertise?
• In what year were they hired and what was put out to tender and what areas of the Local Plan were they directed to?
• From their services, how was the draft Local Plan enhanced, ensuring compliance with Government regulations?
• In which years had the Government made changes to the Local Plan process and what the effects were on specific parts of the Local Plan process?
• Considering the amount of time that had passed since 2014, the number of man hours by both Council staff and consultants, why was the draft Local Plan not robust enough to withstand minor changes in its production?

Decision:

The Committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for attending the meeting and answering questions and:

a)    Requested that responses to the questions raised in relation to the Local Plan process and expenditure on consultants be provided to the Committee.

b)    Requested that a briefing note be provided setting out the number of young people with special needs and care leavers who had been offered apprenticeships.

c)    Requested that a one page summary setting out mitigations at Four Elms Hill be provided to the Committee.

d)    Requested that the Committee’s thanks be passed to the relevant officers for their work in relation to Neighbourhood Plans and the Heritage Action Plan.

e)    Requested that briefing notes be provided to set out the process for gathering Local Plan evidence and the timetable for this.

f)      Requested that any documents relating to the Council’s Markets strategies and income data for the last for years, for markets in Medway, be provided to the Committee.

g)    Requested that, subject to the signing of contracts, further information be provided to the Committee in relation to occupancy rates at Innovation Park Medway.

h)    Requested that the response to the questions provided to the Portfolio Holder in relation to the Hoo Development Framework, specifically the feasibility of sport and leisure facilities and surveys in relation to the future use of Deangate Ridge, be provided to the Committee.