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 introduced a short video produced by Medway Development Company (MDC) to be used as a marketing tool to promote development at Chatham Waterfront.

The Portfolio Holder responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

Unauthorised traveller encampments – A Member asked the Portfolio Holder for his view on new powers to tackle unauthorised traveller encampments. The Portfolio Holder considered that they would help. It needed to be considered that travellers had a significant level of rights. The process for dealing with encampments started with welfare checks. This would be followed by the issuing of a Section 75 notice which usually gave three days for the site to be vacated. Where this was not complied with, the Council needed to return to court to obtain a section 76 notice. Where this was not complied with, the Council could then instruct bailiffs. In the most recent year there had been 18 incidents but only one had required bailiff involvement. The Portfolio Holder said that Medway’s response had improved significantly. He thanked officers for their work and local MP, Tracey Crouch, who had moved a parliamentary amendment to enable costs to be charged back. The Portfolio Holder said that the powers would only be used where necessary. The issue was primarily a Council responsibility but the Police could take action in specific circumstances.

Chatham Waterfront video, the former Debenhams building and Chatham infrastructure – A Member asked how much the promotional video the Committee had just been shown on Chatham Waterfront had cost. They also asked the Portfolio Holder for his view on using the former Debenhams building as a community facility, including relocating Chatham Library to it. He also asked how the infrastructure in the centre of Chatham would cope with the expected population increase of 2,000 due to the development taking place there. The Member also asked for clarification of what the table at 22.4.6 of the report in the agenda was showing. This related to the Pentagon Centre.

The Portfolio Holder advised that the video had cost £9,000. This had been produced in lieu of an architect’s model which would have cost £150,000. A marketing exercise was taking place to consider the future use of the Debenhams building and a number of interested parties had come forward. The vast majority of people moving into new developments were existing Medway residents who were therefore already using local infrastructure. Additional infrastructure would be provided, including a substantial Healthy Living Centre on the first floor of the Pentagon Shopping Centre. The Pentagon was now trading well and there were few empty shops on the ground floor. There had been significant interest from potential new occupiers. The Pentagon was making money and while this was not as much as expected, it was making a positive contributing to the Council’s budget. It had, like all shopping centres, been affected by the Covid pandemic.

The Council had purchased nine residential properties to be used for temporary accommodation and this was due to be increased imminently. Some long-term leases had been bought from Peel Ports to enable the Waterfront development and development in Strood to go ahead. A chain of warehouses used by a distribution company had also been bought, which had been very profitable. As part of the First Homes project, the majority of homes sold at Garrison Point would be affordable housing. This would provide a 30% discount on purchase price. Affordable housing had also been provided at White Road, which had been occupied for two years and affordable housing was under construction at Britton Farm, Gillingham. The Portfolio Holder was proud of the record of regeneration in Chatham and considered that the infrastructure would be able to cope.

Cost of architect and apartments – A Member questioned why the cost of the architect model had increased from £90,000 in March 2022 to £150,000 currently. It was also asked how much the apartments at Garrison Point cost.

The Portfolio Holder said that the £90,000 cost was for an architect model for the Waterfront and that the additional amount was for Garrison Point and other developments. Architect models were expensive as they were labour intensive with computer generated images being far more cost effective. The price of the apartments ranged from around £200,000 to just over £300,000.

Fly tipping, Rochester Pier and Chatham Library – A Member, referencing a link between large scale flytipping and organised crime, asked how enforcement officers were working to address this. It was also questioned when the damage to Rochester Pier would be fixed. The Member added their support to the suggestion that consideration should be given to relocating Chatham Library to the former Debenhams building.

The Portfolio Holder said that the existing Chatham Library and Hub was of good quality and was well used and positioned. Relocation was not considered to be a viable option and there were plans to further enhance the existing facility. In relation to flytipping, there had been some large tonnages involving building materials that had cost a lot to clear up. He felt that the fines the courts were able to give were not an adequate deterrent. He considered that officers had worked effectively with the police and there had been some successful prosecutions.

Rochester Pier needed extensive work and consideration was being given as to how to take this forward as the cost of the work required was considerable. Options could include creating a Trust but this was not an option while the Council owned the pier. £130,000 was available to fund refurbishment of the Pier. The Council did not own the river bank that the pier sat on, which made the situation more complex.

Rapid deployment cameras – In response to a question that asked whether rapid deployment cameras could be used at flytipping hotspots, the Portfolio Holder said that this was not possible as these cameras were specifically used at crime hotspots to establish whether the level of anti-social or criminal behaviour in an area warranted having a permanent camera. This would then be considered by the Community Safety Partnership. Cameras had been deployed nine times during the previous 12 months.

Pentagon Centre, Splashes Leisure Pool and CIPFA best practice – A Member asked what percentage of the top floor of the Pentagon Centre Shopping Centre was currently occupied and for confirmation that the costing of the Splashes Leisure Centre presented to the last Full Council meetings was final. The Member also suggested that the Council should follow best practice that stated that members of executive bodies should not sit on boards.

The Portfolio Holder advised that the first floor of the Pentagon Centre had been largely vacated to enable the provision of the Healthy Living Centre. Wilko would be moving from this floor and had approached the Council to request that they extend their premises on the ground floor. In relation to Splashes, the Portfolio Holder understood that the figure presented to Council had included a contingency to ensure that no further funding would need to be requested.

The Portfolio Holder said he saw no reason for him to not sit on the Board of Medway Development Company and that it was normal practice within public companies for major shareholders to be represented on the board. MDC had delivered regeneration that the private sector could not as no interest had been expressed in the redevelopment of Chatham town centre. It had been viable for a Council owned company to become involved as it was able to accept lower profit margins than the private sector. The Portfolio Holder said the fact that he and the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services sat on the Board enabled the Council’s interests to be best represented and to ensure that good quality, affordable developments were brought forward. 70.43% of properties at Garrison Point had been sold and it was expected that 80% would have been sold by January 2023 when the first residents moved in. This was considered to have been a strong performance. 72 properties had been sold so far at Garrison Point.

Heating at the meeting venue – In response to a Member who questioned whether the meeting should have been held at the St George’s Centre in view of how cold the venue was and asked whether the Portfolio Holder would apologise, the Portfolio Holder apologised and said proposals were being considered to rearrange meeting rooms at the Gun Wharf Council offices to enable it to accommodate all Council meetings. He acknowledged that the St George’s Centre was not fit for purpose for some of its current uses.

Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Programme and discounted homes – A Member asked for clarification of the work included in the HRA programme. They also asked about the discount offered on some of the homes sold as first homes at Garrison Point. The Portfolio Holder said that £10million funding had been secured from Homes England for each of Garrison Point and Chatham Waterfront and that further funding was expected. In relation to HRA, significant work had been undertaken around school extension projects and in other areas such as replacement heating systems.

Community Payback Scheme – A Member expressed concern that while the Scheme was due to be developed in Chatham and Luton, that other parts of Medway might not benefit. The Member also said that no contact point had yet been provided to Councillors and highlighted concern about transport for those involved in the scheme and the range of projects that could be undertaken.

The Portfolio Holder said that Chatham and Luton had been identified as areas for the Community Payback Scheme to be developed in first because of the particular challenges faced in those areas. Any Members who had projects that they would like to be considered for inclusion in the Scheme were encouraged to highlight these. It was acknowledged that there was a transport issue where those involved were young people. For Under 18’s, every task had to be individually risk assessed.

Unauthorised encampments and Splashes Leisure Centre – A Member commented that the report stated that Medway Norse were exploring prevention measures for unauthorised traveller encampments when this was something that Councillors had been requesting for 12 years. In relation to the redevelopment of Splashes Leisure Centre, it was questioned whether the amount of additional funding agreed by Full Council had included a contingency. The Portfolio said he understood that it had and offered his apologies if this was not the case.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and thanked the Portfolio Holder for attending the meeting and answering questions.