Agenda item

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services will attend the meeting to give account of his performance against Council targets in his portfolio for matters within the remit of this committee. 

Discussion:

The Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, addressed the committee outlining the main achievements within areas of his portfolio, including:

·        Safe roads in Medway – although the national figures for people killed and seriously injured (KSI) on roads over the past 10 years was increasing, Medway continued to see a steady reduction in these numbers, helped by a small team of officers who worked extremely hard on road safety schemes, improving cycle ways, road markings and speed limits.

This team also now managed all school crossing patrols.

The walking bus scheme currently operated at 45 schools with about 850 children participating.

·        Highways – many road and pavement re-surfacing schemes were to take place in the next three months (as detailed in the supplementary agenda), which should help to see resident satisfaction figures (to be discussed later on the agenda) improve. Medway was currently undergoing several long-term works by statutory undertakers (water, gas, broadband, etc.) and this was probably reflected in the recent figures. The council had coped well with the bad winter weather on the roads and the supply of salt had been increased and had lasted throughout the winter. A recent problem had been flash flooding and gulleys becoming blocked. The council had a programme of works to clean them but some required more attention than others and, at times, this was more of a re-active service to reports of blockage.

·        Medway Tunnel  - a new fibre optic network had been installed through the tunnel to the CCTV unit at the council.

·        Parking services – the CCTV enforcement car continued to visit schools in Medway to make the area surrounding the school safe for children as they started and finished their school day. Despite adverse publicity, there were more requests from residents for the CCTV car to attend a location than complaints received.

A programme to power pay and display machines by solar energy had been on-going throughout the past year and 90% of machines now operated by solar power.

The service was looking to introduce an online permit application facility, which would also make renewal of permits easier for residents.

·        Integrated transport – Chatham waterfront bus station had opened and usage had increased from 8.4 million journeys to 9.5 million journeys during 2011-2012 throughout Medway.

The ‘Bikeability’ scheme continued and work on cycle routes was on-going.

·        Concessionary bus travel – the council had written to over 40,000 residents notifying them that their concessionary pass was due for renewal at the end of March 2013.

·        Waste - resident satisfaction with the various waste services currently stood at: waste collection – 92.75%, recycling – 84%, graffiti removal – 76% and street cleaning – 74%.

The council continually considered new ways to increase the recycling rate together with different ways to recycle. Officers were waiting the outcome of a bid to government to introduce a weekly recycling collection service.

Members asked:

·        whether the quality of the blue bags could be improved, as they did not seem strong and the handles broke?

The Portfolio Holder advised that new bags had been sourced which were made of stronger materials that did not seem to deteriorate.

·        whether the value of recycling materials was reduced if it was contaminated with garden waste? This had been asked because operatives had been seen using the garden bin to transport recycled waste to the collection vehicle.

Councillor Filmer advised that he would look into this, as he did not think this should happen.

·        the Portfolio Holder to ensure that officers monitored the quality of
re-instatement materials used by the utility companies when they replaced roads and pavements, to ensure that it was of high quality and would not deteriorate quickly. He was also asked what evidence the council had that re-instatement works were of sufficiently high quality to withstand future bad winter weather and if the council instructed the companies to replace any poor quality materials, otherwise it would have to pay for unnecessary works in the future with monies that could have been used elsewhere.

Members also asked the Portfolio Holder to ensure that, in the future, the council’s own re-instatement works were to a high standard in order to set an example as this had not been the case for works around Gillingham Railway Station.

The Portfolio Holder advised that more monitoring was being carried out than previously and core samples were taken to check the compatibility with existing materials. This was carried out to a national standard and there was now better liaison between the council and the utility companies that were notified to replace their re-instatement work when necessary. He added that public perception about replacement materials was understandable, as no matter how high the quality of replacement materials; it took a number of years for it to look the same as the surrounding area and not like a patchwork.

·        could the Portfolio Holder arrange a Member’s visit to the Traffic Management Centre?

Councillor Filmer advised that he would arrange this visit.

·        whether the road safety team monitored traffic lights and the number of cars that continued to drive through a red light? This matter had been raised, as more incidences of this seemed to be happening on a more regular basis around Medway.

Councillor Filmer advised that he would discuss this with the Assistant Director of Front Line Services.

·        if the council could promote residents concerns to the relevant train companies about the recent announcement of increases to fares?

The Portfolio Holder advised that he had already sent letters to South East Trains and the Transport Secretary about this matter and had also asked to look at the formula used to set the increase, as it added approximately £200 on the annual fare to London, at a time when wages were not increasing.

·        if the Portfolio Holder, together with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, monitored the impact of car parking charges on the local economy to understand its impact during difficult trading circumstances? Was there any evidence that people were using the free superstores and centres instead?

Councillor Filmer confirmed that he did monitor car park charges, comparing them to other Local Authorities but advised that Medway could not compete with out of town retail outlets such as Bluewater and Hempstead Valley as they provided free parking. The number of people continuing to use car parks in Medway demonstrated that the council was not over-charging for their use and many nearby authorities charged much higher prices.

·        if the gulley cleaning programme had been partially responsible for the blockages that had happened during heavy rainfall? If so, was the Portfolio Holder looking to improve this and within what timescale?

The Portfolio Holder advised that all gulleys were cleaned annually and for most of them this was sufficient but a small number would need to be
re-visited, as they required more care. Recently, each year’s weather had been very different and flash flooding had been a specific problem for this year. Officers were currently looking at the gulleys that were known to have problems in order to make improvements and this work would be completed within the next six months.

·        if the programme of pavement weed killing was still in operation, as there were several locations where this did not seem to happen?

The Portfolio Holder advised that this was still carried out two or three times a year and he would investigate the locations drawn to his attention.

·        for confirmation of the legality of the CCTV enforcement car.

Councillor Filmer advised that the legality of the CCTV car had been challenged and tested at the Adjudication Tribunal, where it had been found to be totally legal. 

·        when would the council obtain software for vehicle licence plate recognition for use on the CCTV system?

Officers advised that the government would need to issue a legal ‘statutory instrument’ to allow this and, as this had not happened since 2004 when the legislation was enacted, and following a letter from Norman Baker MP, it was thought that it was unlikely to happen in the future.

·        if health visitors and carers could be given assistance with special parking permits to allow them to park closer to their clients houses during their working day?

The Portfolio Holder advised that he would investigate this further.    

·        how residents would be notified about the new on-line parking permit renewal facility?

Councillor Filmer advised that he would ask officers to liaise with the council’s Communications team about how to take this forward and that this might include an article in the Medway Matters newsletter.

·        the Portfolio Holder to investigate the provision of clear sacks in Gillingham. Additional money had been set-aside in the budget to provide these to residents every 12–13 weeks throughout the year. However, there had been a backlog of provision in Gillingham of up to 6–8 weeks and therefore the contractor had not provided as many as had been contracted for.

Councillor Filmer advised that he would investigate this.

·        when signage in Area C at the Chatham waterfront bus station would be installed to the same quality as Areas A and B?

The Portfolio Holder advised that he would discuss this with officers.

·        when would the Love Medway App have the facility to report pot holes?

Officers advised that the IT links between the council and the contractor were currently not compatible but that this would be in place by April 2013.

·        if the Portfolio Holder had considered the use of smartphone or text for payment of car park charges, as other Local Authorities did? Another Member asked, if the new technology was not financially viable, perhaps consideration could be given to residents being able to use the ‘Oyster card’ system in Medway, as it was an existing technology and many residents who worked in London already used this scheme.

On behalf of the Portfolio Holder, the Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture advised that a pilot scheme might be trialled in a car park in Rochester but there was a cost element to the council for each transaction.

The Portfolio Holder advised that he would look into possible use of the ‘Oyster card’ in Medway.

·        the Portfolio Holder to provide a list of schools the CCTV enforcement car had visited during the past year.

Councillor Filmer agreed to provide this information to the committee.

·        what statutory powers did the council have to ensure that road works were completed on time and could the companies be made to use more people in order that the works were completed as quickly as possible?

On behalf of the Portfolio Holder, the Assistant Director of Front Line Services advised that there were standard powers under the Traffic Management Act and that the council did hold discussions with the utility companies which included the length of time for a project. The companies could be fined if they overran but this was not a significant amount of money. There was an option to introduce a permit scheme for road works and also a licensing scheme, which had to satisfy a higher level of permissions and if the company stepped outside of this, they could be heavily penalised but this seemed to currently only be available in certain areas of the country.

Decision:

The Committee thanked Councillor Filmer for attending the meeting and the information and answers he had provided.