Agenda item

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth will be in attendance to give account of performance within the remit of her portfolio.  

Discussion:

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Strategic Growth, Councillor Chitty, addressed the committee outlining the main achievements within areas of her portfolio:

·        Chatham Waters – a £650 million comprehensive development that had been referred to the Secretary of State for decision. It would have important implications for employment opportunities for young people in Medway.

·        Building works at Victory Pier – which included residential, student and leisure facilities, making Gillingham an attractive place to live and study.

·        Development management team – continued to exceed government targets for processing major, minor and other planning applications. Between April – September 2012, a total of 675 planning applications had been received (compared to 765 in same time period in 2011). Work was on-going for the council to become a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging authority in 2014.

·        South Thames Gateway Building Control Partnership – all three local authorities involved in the partnership had agreed to continue for another five year term from 2012 – 2017, as it had proved to be financially viable, with flexibility and resilience through difficult economic times resulting in 21% savings and a £40,000 surplus last year which was being invested in a new IT system. Mid Kent Audit had cited the partnership as an example of best practice.

·        Economic development and social regeneration – tackling unemployment and improving skills was fundamental for the future. “Employ Medway” had directly helped over 800 people find work since Autumn 2009. Since April 2011, together with local partners, it had helped 141 long-term unemployed people to remain in employment beyond 26 weeks. 200 new apprenticeships had been created since May 2011, through joint working with partners. As part of this, the council had invested £200,000 in grants to local small businesses to take on young apprentices. The “Employment and Skills Centre” had opened In November 2011 and directly helped to set up 12 construction apprenticeships and three local people to access jobs on Phase One of Rochester Riverside development.

Overall, from February – August 2012, the number of Job Seeker Allowance claimants had fallen by almost 7% (over 500 local residents).
Business start-up and job creation initiatives had helped to create and protect 1,679 jobs in less than three years. Since March 2010, the number of Medway residents in employment had risen by 4,400, with a percentage increase from 66.5% in June 2010 to 69.4% in March 2012. The national average of people employed had shown no increase.

The council had also secured almost £5 million of EU funds since 2009 to deliver 12 new projects of economic and social regeneration. Over £12 million of external funding had also been secured over the same period.

·        Planning Policy and Design – the Medway Local Development Core Strategy was submitted for independent examination in February 2012 with the public examination sessions held in June 2012. This examination was suspended to carry out further work in assessing options for compensatory habitat for nightingales that may be affected by the proposed development at Lodge Hill. The Cabinet approved a Development Brief for Lodge Hill in December 2011.

In the year from April 2011 to March 2012, 809 dwellings were completed in Medway, which was just short of the 815 target. The number of affordable housing completions remained well over 25% of the total number of houses built. A “Housing Design Standards” document had been produced and adopted as planning policy to address officers and Members concerns on the adequacy of new dwellings and laid down minimum dwelling sizes and other standards that new development would be expected to meet. The Gillingham Gateway environmental improvement scheme had vastly improved the ‘entrance’ to Gillingham centre. Funding for the scheme had been through S106 contributions.

Members asked:

·        for further clarity over the employment figures quoted by the Portfolio Holder, as this had previously been reported to be 6,200 more people employed than previously but was now reported as 4,400 people.

The Portfolio Holder assured the committee that the previous figure of 6,200 might have included seasonal employment but that she had ensured that the latest figure was included in her presentation and was confident that 4,400 more people were now working in Medway than two years ago. 

·        why did the latest statistics not show this increase in employment and resulting decrease in unemployment and did the figure of 4,400 include those who had lost jobs.

The Portfolio Holder responded that it was the net figure that had been quoted which was why the figures were coming down.

·        following discussions which took place when the Portfolio Holder last attended the committee in 2011 about the economic challenge for High Streets and car park charges in Medway, Members asked what had changed in Medway’s High Streets during the previous year and the impact of this, either good or bad and what specifically had the Portfolio Holder done that had made a difference.

Councillor Chitty stated that she had responded in detail last year about the Mary Portas national review of High Streets and the variety of opinions over car park charges. However, Medway’s car park charges remained lower than elsewhere in Kent. Medway’s empty shops and vacancy rates remained below the South East average and however much she would like to see the High Streets flourish, there would always be a higher turnover of businesses during a recession. The “Partners for Growth” scheme for new business had given grants to help small businesses establish themselves and out of the 91 set up with the help of this grant, only three had not survived the first year. When asked if these businesses were located in a High Street, Councillor Chitty responded that they were mainly service industries.

The Portfolio Holder also advised that the Town Centre Forums remained strong and that she worked closely with them as part of the team, as she thought it was important to hear what people had to say for herself. For example, Strood Market had been strengthened and was working well alongside the shops in the area and there had been no increase in the number of unoccupied properties. However, there were continuing challenges and problems but she would look to build on the current successes and engage in a number of initiatives. Councillor Chitty offered to engage with the committee further on possible future initiatives.

·        for more information about the infrastructure and roads to the Rochester Riverside development.

The Portfolio Holder advised that although this was not within her remit, a road to the development had recently been approved and the funding would be there for the infrastructure. This would make the site more attractive for developers.

·        if the successful apprenticeship scheme would be continued.

Councillor Chitty advised that £100,000 had been spent on this scheme last year and another £100,000 in this year resulting in 200 apprenticeships. This would help to make a strong bid for continued funding in the third year. Due to this scheme’s success, the council had also gained another project called “100 in 100”. A large number of the apprentices and gone on to find further employment.

·        about the “Portas Funds” for High Streets and whether the council had applied for funding from this scheme.

Councillor Chitty advised that funding had not been applied for under this initiative due to the way the bid had to be put together, as it could result in the council spending more money to produce the bid than it would get from the fund. Members expressed concern, as this could give a negative perception to Medway retailers when other Local Authorities received funds from the Portas scheme. The Portfolio Holder responded that she had looked very carefully at the funding and the necessary criteria required and that local retailers would have to invest substantial funds themselves as part of the bid. The council would not apply for this type of funding unless there was a clear confirmation from retailers that they were happy to invest in the scheme as well. A Member asked Councillor Chitty to send him information about the process that had been gone through and the reasoning why the council had decided not to apply for the Portas funding, including what conversations took place with retailers about this.

·        what contingency plan was in place for the development of the area from Sun Pier to Star Hill, Rochester should the current bid for re-development be unsuccessful.

The Portfolio Holder advised that she had every reason to believe the council would be successful with its current bid. If not, it would apply to another appropriate funding scheme.

Decision:

The Committee thanked Councillor Chitty for attending the meeting and the information and answers she provided.