Agenda item

The report sets out a response to a member’s Item regarding the legal ownership and maintenance of retaining walls. 

Discussion:

Councillor Stamp introduced this item and showed photographs to the committee to illustrate the issues he raised with regard to the retaining wall on the A289 Gillingham bypass. He explained that he had concerns about the budget information provided in the report and asked for clarification on the following points:

·        did the £250,000 budget also include the cost of inspecting the 150 highway retaining walls the council maintained?

·        was the £200,000 - £300,000 fund in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) budget (currently used for the retaining walls along the river at The Esplanade) a recurring cost or could it be freed for maintenance use on retaining walls?

·        were there other sources of funding, such as monies from a section 106 legal agreement from the Victory Pier development to be used for works of this type?

·        could the future Community Infrastructure Levy be used for maintenance works?

·        how did other Local Authorities deal with problems such as this?

·        could the council introduce a policy to control and regularise the maintenance of retaining walls and also signpost the public to help and advice on this matter?

Officers responded to the issues raised by Councillor Stamp advising that the £250,000 revenue budget did include the cost of inspecting 150 walls

across Medway with not much left to improve the condition of the walls. Most of the maintenance work was paid for from the LTP budget, or in extreme cases, paid for by the council when it responded to an incident. The £200,000 - £300,000 set aside for structural repairs had historically been ring-fenced to maintain the Esplanade wall, as there were no other available routes for residents to access their properties and without regular maintenance it would collapse into the river. 

The committee was informed that s106 legal agreement funding and the future Community Infrastructure Levy would only allow for those monies to be spent on new structures caused by and required for the new developments. It could not legally be spent on something that was already in the location that required maintenance.

Members were also advised that other Local Authorities with similar terrain, such as Kent, Surrey and Derbyshire, were in exactly the same position as Medway as they were unaware of the extent of their liability in the same way as members of the public and reacted to incidents and information from the public.

In response to future maintenance work, budgets and a policy for retaining walls, officers advised that they had previously considered whether it would be practical to undertake a survey across Medway and then establish whether those walls were in council or private ownership but this was a mammoth task as there were thousands of walls in Medway and this would require too much officer time and money. Following this, the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture had requested that officers bi-annually inspect the list of 150 known walls with the worst 21 walls set as a priority for future maintenance works, as they would have a serious impact on the highway were they to fall.

The committee discussed the retaining wall at Pier Road, Gillinghamand whether vibration from the building of this major highway had worsened the condition of the wall, together with whether it was in private or council ownership. Officers advised that they believed that the wall was built prior to the development of the houses situated above the wall and therefore was in private ownership. A member of the public, Ms Robinson, addressed the committee advising that she had documentation to prove that the wall was built in 1924 and the first property was not built until 1929 and so the wall had not been built to protect the houses. Officers responded that in cases where development was expected, the land would have been built into an embankment (with a retaining wall) to support the houses. Ms Robinson responded that her documents showed that the wall had been built to facilitate the highway. Following a request for clarification by Members, officers advised that the council had powers to undertake the required work and surcharge the owners of the properties behind the wall but would prefer to reach an amicable agreement.

Councillor Stamp asked officers to consider the Pier Road and Lower Woodlands Road walls a priority due to their proximity to the A289 and the economical implications for the council should the wall collapse and the road have to be closed.

A proposal was put forward to request officers to continue to pursue the powers available for on-going work at the Pier Road retaining wall and identify the ownership of the wall.  Members of the Labour group suggested that the proposal should be extended to request officers to seek to identify ownership and condition of all of the retaining walls in Medway.  On being put to the vote the original proposal, set out below, was agreed.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)   thank officers for the comprehensive report and answers provided to Members’ questions;

(b)   request officers to continue to pursue the powers available for on-going work at the Pier Road retaining wall and identify the ownership of the wall, including to contact Ms Robinson in order to review the documentation she had offered.