Agenda item

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe which fall within the remit of this Committee.

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress on the areas of work within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, as set out below:

· Archives

· Armed Forces Covenant

· Events and Festivals

· Greenspaces

· Heritage

· Leisure Services

· Sporting Legacy

· Theatres and Arts

· Tourism

The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

Splashes Leisure Centre, Hoo leisure provision and greenspaces funding – It was asked what the expected Council subsidy of the new Splashes Leisure Centre would be and what leisure provision was planned on the Hoo Peninsula. In relation to greenspaces. It was asked whether some of the income generated by events held on Council owned greenspaces could be used to contribute to the greenspaces budget. In response, the Portfolio Holder said that the exact amount of subsidy that Splashes would require had not been finalised but it was expected that an ongoing commitment would be needed as was the case for all Council run swimming pools. It was considered that the new pool would be well used by the local community. In relation to Hoo, the Portfolio Holder was looking to ensure that it had good leisure provision but that could not be delivered immediately as it was dependent on housing development. The Portfolio Holder did not consider that recharging income generated by events at greenspaces would be worthwhile and this was not something he was considering.

Rochester Post Office – Noting that Rochester Post Office was due to close at its current premises, it was asked whether the Council would support the Post Office to find alternate premises. The Portfolio Holder said it was important for a Post Office to be retained in Rochester and work was taking place to look at other premises, including whether the Post Office could be located at the Rochester Community Hub.

Leisure Provision, College of Art and Public Footways Officer – A Member asked whether there was confidence that the Council’s other four leisure centres could be maintained to an acceptable standard as Splashes was developed. It was also questioned how the Council could help to identify premises for the College of Art. The Member also asked why Medway did not have a dedicated Public Footways Officer. 

The Portfolio Holder advised that the Council’s other leisure facilities would be maintained to the required standard and Members were encouraged to report any issues. He had met with the Head of Mid Kent College and considered that the College of Art would be a viable proposition. The Council would offer assistance where it could. Councillor Doe set out the current financial challenges and how they impacted on having a dedicated Public Footways Officer, but did not consider this to have had an impact on reported issues being addressed.

Twydall play schemes – A Member asked when Twydall would be added to the list of priority play schemes as she had been advised previously that it would be added to the 2022/23 list. The Member said that play equipment at the Beechings Playing Fields was in need of renovation and suggested that greenspaces in Twydall were underused for events. The Portfolio Holder undertook to look at the Twydall play area and the netball courts, to investigate whether any S106 funding could be obtained and to keep the Member updated on progress. In relation to greenspaces, there was no intention to exclude Twydall from hosting events and this could be considered further. £500,000 had been invested in the local Community Hub.

Local Access Forum – Concern was expressed that it was a statutory function to run a Local Access Forum and to manage footpaths and that not having a dedicated Footpaths officer appeared to amount to reduced commitment. The Portfolio Holder said that steps had been taken to ensure that greenspaces were run in accordance with the Council’s green agenda. He said that he had not heard the case for an additional officer to be provided but that this did not mean that the relevant work was not being done and he did not accept that the standards of greenspaces in Medway had reduced.

Spotlites Theatre Company – Referencing a planning application that had been submitted in relation to the Buzz Bingo site, a Committee Member said access to the car park had been blocked off and that there was a risk that the Company would not be able to remain at the premises. It was asked what the Council could do to support Spotlites. The Portfolio Holder said that it was a planning matter but that he was prepared to engage with Spotlites Theatre regarding the issue.

Hoo leisure facilities – Concern was expressed that development of leisure provision on the Hoo Peninsula appeared to be dependent on increases in future population. It was also asked how often the Future Hoo Delivery Board met and whether minutes of its meetings were available.

The Portfolio Holder said that while the questions raised were outside of his Portfolio responsibilities, he had no doubt that a leisure centre would be provided. The Director of Place and Deputy Portfolio Holder confirmed that the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holders were the Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships and the Leader’s Portfolio.

Use of S106 Funding and Splashes charges – A comment was made that S106 funding from areas such as Rainham, the Strood Peninsula and Cuxton were used to support Great Lines Heritage Park when residents in these areas were unlikely to benefit. It was asked whether non-Medway residents would be charged higher fees for using the new Splashes Leisure Centre than Medway residents and whether there would be sufficient parking available. The Portfolio Holder said he was sympathetic to the idea of Medway residents paying less but that pricing was yet to be determined. It was considered unlikely that there would be a significant number of centre users travelling from outside Medway and that parking provision was likely to be adequate.

Shorts Brothers and Temple Manor – Noting that the report set out that  2023 was the 75^th anniversary of the Short Brothers aviation firm leaving Medway, it was asked why this part of Medway’s heritage had not been celebrated previously. It was suggested that more needed to be done to promote other heritage sites in Medway, such as Temple Manor. The Portfolio Holder said a flying boat landing in the River Medway had previously been planned but that this had been cancelled due to equipment breakdown. He had been in contact with the Shorts family and was keen that the legacy be celebrated and considered that Medway’s archives were an appropriate place. In relation to Temple Manor, the Portfolio Holder had requested that work be taken forward to look at developing a better access to the site along with associated parking.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)    Thanked the Portfolio Holder for his attendance at the Committee.

b)    Noted that the Portfolio Holder would further consider options for relocation of Rochester’s Post Office and requested that the Committee be updated on progress.

c)    Noted that the Portfolio Holder would investigate funding options for play equipment and netball courts in Twydall.

d)    Noted that contact would be made with the Spotlites Theatre Company regarding potential support that the Council could offer to them.