Agenda item

This report sets out progress made within the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships, Councillor 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:

River Strategy – In a response to a question about when this would be published, the Portfolio Holder said he understood that the River Strategy was due for consultation.

Pentagon Healthy Living Centre (HLC) – In response to a question about when it was expected that the HLC within the Pentagon Shopping Centre would open, the Portfolio Holder clarified that he was responsible for securing funding and spending of funding allocated but not for scheme delivery. The Assistant Director, Regeneration said that work was ongoing with the NHS and the Integrated Care Board to deliver the HLC at the Pentagon. Design work was taking place and it was anticipated that the centre would open in mid-2024.

The Paddock – In response to a question about the timescales for the Paddock public realm work it was explained that a contractor was due to be appointed in April 2023. In relation to design changes made to the Paddock public realm proposals due to the impact of inflation, it was asked what the changes were and whether there was any information available regarding the cost of maintaining the fountain. The Assistant Director said that the changes had focused on material quality while ensuring that they were fit for purpose and that there would also be a reduction in artistic elements. The ecology element had not been reduced. A cost figure was not currently available for the fountain, but it was confirmed that the fountain would be maintained.

Former Debenhams site – A Member asked why the former Debenhams building had been acquired by the Council given that its sale was now being considered. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the Debenhams site had been acquired by the Council to secure the usability of the site and give the Council control over its future use. Market testing was now being undertaken to explore future options for the site. He added that the building had not initially been part of the Future High Street Fund proposals as the Debenhams store had still been open at that point. The Assistant Director said that future uses may be divided separately between the ground and first floors of the building or there could be a single bid covering use of both floors. March 2025 was the drop-dead date for the ground floor to be operational.

Brook Theatre - In relation to the Brook Theatre, the Portfolio Holder explained that the holistic approach referred to in the report was about joining up work using funding that had been secured from the Future High Street Fund and from the Levelling Up fund. This funding would be used to improve the creative digital offer and to better utilise the space. There was also a need to make the building fit for purpose. In response to a further Member question about remedial work needed at the Brook Theatre, the Assistant Director said that a survey had showed there to be no immediate danger. Remedial work required would be further identified once the building was temporarily closed.

Levelling Up Fund – A Member highlighted that it appeared that local authorities that had received Levelling Up Funding during Round 1 were disadvantaged during Round 2 and might not have had any chance of securing funding. Given that the Council had spent £140,000 on its bid, it was asked whether any feedback had been received on the Council’s bid.

The Portfolio Holder understood that the Government had received bids with a total value that was vastly in excess of the funding available. There had been no communication in advance of the Council submitting its Round 2 bid that it would be unlikely to receive funding due to it having secured Round 1 funding. The Portfolio Holder said that bids submitted had been strong and that all relevant criteria had been met. The Government had announced that there would be a Round 3 of bidding for which guidance was awaited. Clarification was being sought on whether the Council would be able to resubmit its unsuccessful Round 2 bid. The Assistant Director said the relevant Government department had provided limited feedback and had offered to provide more detailed feedback when the details of Round 3 were announced.

A Member asked if feedback could be provided in writing and requested that this be provided to the Committee. He said that if the Council was unable to resubmit its Round 2 bids as part of Round 3, it should be looking to recover its costs. It was requested that the Committee be provided a briefing note to set out feedback received from the Government and details of the Round 3 arrangements.

In response to a Member question about further rounds of Future High Street Funding, the Assistant Director said that it was not expected that there would be any further rounds as this had been superseded by the Levelling Up Fund.

Innovation Hub Medway Feasibility Study – In response to a question asking whether there was a potential tenant to run the Hub and whether it might be possible for the Council to run it, the Assistant Director said that it was not considered viable for the Council and that this had gone out to the procurement. It was anticipated that the Hub would be attractive to digital and startup businesses. Engagement was taking place through the Medway Forum of local businesses, but this was at an early stage. Members would be welcome to provide any suitable contacts.

Station approach road – In response to a question about the Strood Station access road and the access to the station forecourt, the Assistant Director said this was being finalised and that it required a licence agreement with Network Rail, which was being negotiated.

Staff resources – A Member asked whether there were sufficient staff resources available to deliver the multiple regeneration projects that were being progressed. The Assistant Director said that while additional resource would always be welcomed, the resource available was manageable. Recruiting suitable staff was a significant challenge and work was taking place to ensure the Council would be an attractive place to work.

Strood Riverside development – It was asked whether there were concerns about the viability of development at Strood Riverside, whether it would be viable for Medway Development Company (MDC) to take a lead role if no grant funding was available and whether the decision to demolish the former Civic Centre had been wrong. It was also requested that a Member visit be arranged for Members to be able to walk around the site and provide feedback.

The Assistant Director said that the aim was to deliver the development through MDC and that were financial advantages to the Council of doing so. The viability would be increased in the event of grant funding being secured from One Public Estate. The Portfolio Holder said that demolition of the former Civic Centre building had been necessary to maximise return on investment in view of the small footprint of the site.

Locate in Kent Funding – Responding to a question about Locate in Kent funding, the Portfolio Holder did not consider that reduced funding would have a significant impact on its effectiveness in attracting inward investment. It was considered that Locate in Kent offered good value for money.

A vote of thanks was given to the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, for his fifty years of service in Local Government.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)    Noted the report.

b)    Requested that the Committee be provided a Briefing Note to set out feedback received from the Government in relation to Levelling Up funding and details of the Round 3 arrangements.

c)    In the event that the Levelling Up funding Briefing Note demonstrated that the Council was unable to resubmit its Levelling Up Round 2 funding bid during Round 3, the Committee requested that a letter be sent to the Government requesting reimbursement of the costs associated with the Council’s Round 2 bid.