Agenda item

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

Councillor Murray, supported by Councillor Griffiths, proposed a motion under Council Rule 16.1 to suspend Council Rules to suspend the time limit of 30 minutes for agenda item 7 (Public Questions).

 

In accordance with rule 11.4 of the Council Rules at the request of six Members, a recorded vote on the motion was requested:

 

For – Councillors Bowler, Colman, Cooper, Craven, Gilry, Christine Godwin, Paul Godwin, Griffiths, Harriott, Hubbard, Igwe, Juby, Kearney, Maple, Murray, Osborne, Price, Shaw and Smith (19)

 

Against – Councillors Avey, Baker, Brake, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Chishti, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Etheridge, Filmer, Griffin, Adrian Gulvin, Pat Gulvin, Hewett, Hicks, The Worshipful The Mayor, Councillor Iles, Irvine, Jarrett, Kemp, Mackinlay, Mackness, Maisey, Mason, O’Brien, Purdy, Rodberg, Royle, Tolhurst, Turpin, Watson, Wicks and Wildey (34)

 

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

 

The Mayor confirmed that public questions would last for 30 minutes, as set out in the Council Rules.

 

 

A.     David Scott of Chatham asked (in absence) the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

 

I read in the Sunday Times some time ago that in January the Government issued to all Councils a paper advising on the reduction of road sign clutter. My question is what assessment has been made of the potential for reducing clutter in Medway, what measures are currently underway, and what net reduction can we expect to see by, say, the end of 2014?

 

Councillor Filmer stated that last year a cross-party task group considered the issues of de-cluttering streets in Medway. This group considered current legislation, government policy and established best practice in relation to street clutter. It had also reviewed the current picture in Medway and held a De-Cluttering Stakeholder Event to understand the needs of local interested parties. The final report of the Task Group was presented to the Cabinet on 9 July 2013, where the decisions were agreed unanimously.

 

The agreed way forward focused on the development of a Streetscape Manual for Medway, with supporting policy documents, a quality assessment process and a pilot scheme in Strood High Street. The pilot scheme would last for 15 months so that accurate and meaningful data could be obtained. Before and after casualty and traffic data would be measured and a questionnaire would be put forward to local businesses and users of the High Street to determine the effectiveness and the impact of the pilot study. If the pilot was successful then the principles of de-cluttering would be rolled out across Medway on a case-by-case basis.

 

(There was no supplementary question).

 

B.    Chris Webb of Strood asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers, the following question;

 

What proactive measures has the Council taken to assess and provide for the necessary additional local services & infrastructure to deal with the impact of an increase in Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants into Medway after 1 January 2014?

 

Councillor Rodney Chambers stated that it was difficult to know what proactive measures to take when the government had made no official prediction and indeed neither could he as to the numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians who may enter the UK. However, the Council did have a responsibility in respect of housing, housing benefit and education.

 

In respect of housing, the range and extent of any issues was unknown but as part of the normal application process the Council was required to consider the nationality, immigration and residency status of those approaching as homeless.

 

As part of the recent review of the Allocation of Social Housing Policy and in common with most other local authorities, a two-year local residency requirement prior to the date of application was in place in Medway

 

With regard to housing benefit, the Council had a statutory responsibility to assess claims for housing benefit in line with government legislation. However, the government had made it quite clear that claimants from Bulgaria and Romania who were in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance would not be eligible for housing benefit from April. The housing benefit section was aware of the accession rights in relation to Bulgarians and Romanians. However there was no ability to predict the number that may wish to submit a claim.

 

With regard to education, there was a statutory duty to provide a school placement for all children who were of statutory school age who lived in Medway.  It was not possible to plan ahead until the Council knew the numbers of children who may be living here, their ages and if they had any special educational needs. There were mechanisms in place with housing and health to co-ordinate information in relation to new children arriving in Medway and the Council would be alert to the possibility of new families who may arrive from Romania or Bulgaria.

 

Mr Webb stated that in some areas of Medway many primary schools were currently operating well over their set admission number, therefore, how would the Council address what clearly would be the extra resources required by these schools to support the integration and educational needs of additional immigrant children?

 

Councillor Rodney Chambers stated that he did not know the numbers that Medway was likely to receive, but as far as schooling was concerned the Council would make the assessment at the time and he assured Mr Webb that the Council had robust procedures in place should the Council be faced with the situation where places had to be found for children settling here in Medway. He stated that despite certain suggestions that an avalanche of people would be coming to Medway, the Council had received no applications since 1 January to date.

 

C.    Sally Bragg, on behalf of Lindsey Burke of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

Will you help support the independent traders in their campaign to safeguard the historic Rochester High Street from Costa Coffee?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that this was a matter due to be considered at the Planning Committee on 29 January, therefore, it was entirely inappropriate for her to say anything which could be seen as influencing Members of the Planning Committee.

 

Ms Bragg, on behalf of Lindsey Burke, asked what was the Council's long-term policy for protecting the heritage of Rochester High Street, with mainstream brands coming in and squeezing out the independent traders and cheap-booze fuelled drunks colliding with tourists having a nice meal on a Saturday night.  She stated that it seemed the Council had no clear policy, leaving Rochester as a tourist haven by day and a seedy, intimidating place on Friday and Saturday nights.

 

Councillor Chitty stated that it was important to point out that the Council had no control over what kind of company wished to locate in Rochester High Street, or elsewhere, unless a planning or other consent was required, nor could it discriminate between independent and corporate businesses.

 

The Council was working very hard to promote Rochester as a major heritage destination with a vibrant evening economy. Later this year a full refurbishment of Eastgate House would begin that would extend the heritage offer even further. The Council would work closely with the police, licensees and other agencies through the Medway Community Safety Partnership to tackle anti social behaviour and other issues.

 

She stated that the Council would continue to promote Rochester as a destination of choice and a centre to be proud of. She stated that the Council was anxious to maintain and improve events, festivals and other promotional elements which would bring people into Rochester which in turn supported the economy. This had been traditionally very important in Rochester and a recognition of how the Council valued the independent traders and the whole of the Rochester community.

 

D.    Odette Buchanan of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

Has a comparative costing been done for Strood Library to stay on its present site and the Contact Point to be relocated there instead of moving it to the wrong end of the High Street into an unsuitable building?  If so how much cheaper would this be?

 

Councillor Doe stated that he did not accept that it was moving to the wrong end of the High Street or into an unsuitable building.

 

He stated that the Council had not undertaken detailed costings of such a move as this would not have been in keeping with the Council’s stated intention of establishing Community Hubs in each of the main town centres.

 

The proposed move would enable the Council to relocate the existing Contact Point and the library to a far more convenient location for customers, in an excellent building that would serve customers very well and and bring new life to the High Street in Strood.

 

Mrs Buchanan asked whether the idea of leaving the library where it was and having a Contact Point in a small retail unit in Strood High Street had been considered?

 

Councillor Doe stated that was one of the options that could have been followed and this was considered. However, experience elsewhere had confirmed that Community Hubs, when combined with libraries, were very successful. This combined model would help revitalise the High Street and also allow for staff to be used in the most efficient way providing better value for money.

 

E.     Marion Shoard of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

What mandate does Medway Council have to relocate the purpose-built and much-loved Strood Library – one of the last remaining public facilities in Strood – to a warehouse-like space at 133 High Street when it has failed to carry out any public consultation on the pros and cons of taking this step?

 

(The only aspect that has involved any consultation is the change of use of 133 High Street, but only strictly planning considerations were allowed to be discussed when this application was considered on 4 December 2013, with the result that factors such as the desirability or otherwise of getting rid of the existing Strood Library and the use of housing revenue grant money to fund the work at a time when homelessness in Medway is high and increasing were not addressed).

 

Councillor Doe stated that the Council had a longstanding aspiration to establish Community Hubs in each of the main town centres, as set out in Medway’s Cultural Strategy, which was adopted in 2009. The Community Hub programme was a strategic approach to enhancing libraries as a highly valued public service, widening the offer available by establishing a gateway to Council services such as planning, housing, benefits and environmental services, and using flexible space to enable other public service agencies to operate from under the same roof on a surgery basis, including such things as health and debt advice.

 

He stated that consultation had been undertaken as part of the planning process, and that it was worth bearing in mind that this scheme had been developed following the demise of the earlier proposals for a Community Hub on the refurbished Tesco site, which had been the subject of considerable consultation at the time and had been very favourably received.

 

Miss Shoard asked why Councillor Doe and the Council refused to acknowledge that the existing library on Bryant Road was very conveniently situated to serve the people of Strood and it stood very close to the centre of town and to bus stops yet at the same time was located within a community of very cramped housing for whom it served as a very valuable "de facto" community centre. She stated that nobody lived on the High Street in contrast and asked whether Councillor Doe would accept that the comparison with Tesco was absurd. Tesco was going to foot the bill for the creation of a new library as part of planning gain. It was not going to be paid for out of the housing revenue fund and there would have been free parking there.

 

Councillor Doe stated that the Council had looked at the High Street site and that it was a perfectly valid site and one that would work. He stated that with regards to the question on whether the Council should be using the new type of housing finance, that this would serve quite a lot of people who were in the affordable housing groups because they would be able to access a whole range of advice that previously had not been so conveniently available to them in the right setting. He stated that, overall, this would be a great benefit to the people of Strood, although he did acknowledge that it was much easier to keep hold of the old things and always to oppose change.

 

F.     James Giller of Maidstone asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

My Name is James Giller and I am the Managing Director of Eagle Aero Engineering Ltd. Despite wishing to renew our lease at Rochester Airport, Eagle Aero Engineering Ltd were refused and after 3 years on site were forced to vacate Rochester on the 10th January 2014.

The Medway Council “To let Rochester Airport Kent by Informal Tender” states that bidders offer should include at (vi.) Confirmation that the current sub-occupiers can remain if they wish to.

 

Please tell us what Rochester Airport Limited stated in their winning bid submission in compliance to (vi) stated above?

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that Paragraph D1 1 of the Tender stated that,  “The airport is currently let to Rochester Airport Ltd until 12 January 2014 and there are various sub?occupiers at the airport. The council would like these occupiers to remain at the airport if at all possible". Eagle Aero engineering was listed on the schedule. Rochester Airport Ltd did not specifically confirm in its Tender return that all of the current sub-occupiers could remain.

 

He stated that Rochester Airport Ltd was the Council’s tenant at the airport and ultimately which sub occupiers (other than Medway Aircraft Preservation Society, which wais prescribed by the council), were allowed to stay was a matter for Rochester Airport Ltd and not the Council.

 

Mr Giller stated that in recent dealings with Rochester Airport people had experienced some very underhand and very unprofessional conduct and conduct that was not conducive as best business practice. He stated that in his experience this was just the latest in a long line of unusual occurrences. He asked, in the interests of the community, the residents and businesses that Medway Council served, would the Council submit that there had been sufficient unusual happenings to halt the current proceedings and that maybe the tender process itself had been flawed and if not rerun from the beginning that at the very least it should be paused and independently investigated.

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that he was unaware of the sort of irregularities Mr Giller referred to. However, he would discuss this with the relevant officers and if it was found that there were irregularities that were material to the tender process the Council would take appropriate steps.

 

G.    Sandra Busbridge of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

Since 2000 when Rochester Airport Limited first leased the airfield there has been an unprecedented expansion of sub occupiers on the site.

Helicopters, Gyrocopters and Microlite businesses currently bring higher levels of disturbance to local residents due to the machines operating at low altitude and lower airspeed than typical flying club aircraft.

 

Can you explain how Medway Council will control the Airport Operator’s future conduct with respect to sub occupiers and their operations to protect the community?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that noise issues would be subject to a rigorous assessment through the planning application process. Rochester Airport Limited was the operator of the airport and it was ultimately for them to exercise control over the activities of their tenants and airport users.

 

(There was no supplementary question).

 

H.    Michael Busbridge of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

Most Councillors have been notified by James Giller about the refusal of Rochester Airport Limited to renew Eagle Aero Engineering sub occupancy lease. Whilst this is a business matter it could seriously affect the safety of residents.

 

The closure of Eagle Aero Engineering at Rochester airfield appears to compromise historical safety figures on which this Council is being asked to base its approval for the Masterplan and Rochester Airport Lease renewal.

 

This issue highlights the precarious nature of business relationships and operational aspects at Rochester Airport which in a worse case scenario could have fatal consequences for residents and aviators.

 

Please tell us what assessment has been conducted by Medway Council on the performance and certification of the replacement maintenance company and what credentials have been supplied by Rochester Airport Limited that attest to the continuity of safety for residents.

 

Councillor Chitty stated that as suggested in her previous answer, the Council was determined to ensure that safety issues were paramount, but Rochester Airport Ltd was the Council’s tenant at the airport and ultimately sub occupiers (other than Medway Aircraft Preservation Society) which it allowed to stay was a matter for Rochester Airport Ltd and not the Council.

 

Councillor Chitty stated that airport safety issues were a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. She stated that she would expand on this by seconding a proposal later in the evening as it related to the Rochester Airport Masterplan.

 

Mr Busbridge asked whether any of the documents had been seen by any of the councillors?

 

Councillor Chitty asked Mr Busbridge as to precisely what documents he was referring to.

 

Mr Busbridge asked whether any certification documents had been seen by any Member of the Council?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that she had seen some documentation and asked if there was some clarification on this matter she would be delighted to put the answer in writing to Mr Busbridge.

 

I.        Barry Luxton of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

It has been well publicised that Tandridge District Council have recently refused planning permission to the operators of Redhill Aerodrome for the installation of a paved runway. MP Sam Gyimah said it would have a “monumental impact” on residents and their quality of life.

 

Interestingly the location of Redhill airfield is quite rural in comparison to Rochester. It does not have houses less than 200 metres from the end of the paved runway and there is no financial contribution from the Council.

 

Please tell us why the Rochester Airport Masterplan will not have a "monumental impact" on residents and their quality of life given you have not yet carried out and published an environmental impact study.

 

Councillor Chitty stated that the developer would be required to submit information prior to a planning application to determine if an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. The impact of the proposals for development at Rochester Airport would be appropriately assessed and evaluated through the planning application process, in considering evidence and supporting information required on a range of technical issues.

 

Mr Luxton stated that the airport site was becoming a car park during rush hour and asked what provision did the proposal include to relieve the pressure on local roads?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that this would be an important part of the planning process.

 

J.      Leslie Ellison of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

Medway Council has publicised in leaflets and exhibition material that there will be an opportunity for comment at the planning stage should the Masterplan be approved by Council.

 

As a home owner living near to the airfield I cannot recall seeing any planning applications for buildings, change of use or the like for the airport previously.

 

Can you confirm what additional measures beyond normal practice the Council will be taking to notify businesses and thousands of residents living near to the airfield that a planning application for the paved runway has been submitted?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that no planning application had yet been submitted for developments at Rochester Airport in connection with the Masterplan. The applicant would be expected to arrange for consultation with the Council and the local community prior to the formal submission of a planning application. The applicant would also be expected to produce a Statement of Community Involvement to accompany an application, setting out how it would effectively consult on its proposals. Consultation on the planning application would be carried out in accordance with Development Management regulations. Given the level of public interest in this proposed development, the Council would arrange for broad publicity on the proposals and the submission of the planning application.

 

(There was no supplementary question).

 

K.    Gareth Batts of Strood asked the the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

Without any public consultation, this Conservative Administration has decided to move Strood Library from its current Bryant Road site to a new high street site. As seen by the petitions being handed in, thousands of residents in Strood are angry about this. By moving the library to a smaller site, not only is it reducing overall capacity in the library but it is also paving the way for the eviction of the current Strood Community Project who are leasing the site. The Strood Community Project is a local charity who are there for disadvantaged people in the area.

 

I welcome the news that the current hall is to be kept for the community to use, however will the Portfolio Holder look at converting the caretaker’s house at the back of the current library site (which I believe is not being lived in at the moment) to be the new contact point for Strood? This will help keep the current library on the same site as well as allowing the Strood Community Project to stay where they are.

 

Councillor Doe stated that he had dealt with the question of consultation in his previous answer. He stated that the question of the Strood Community Project (SCP) was something that required clarification because it had been claimed that the Council was responsible for evicting the SCP. He stated that this was not so and when the Council had originally made an outline deal with the owners of the property, it was vacant and the Council had contracted with them for vacant possession. He stated that, subsequently, he suspected that the issue of obtaining relief from empty business rates may have come into the equation. He understood that the owners had then entered into an agreement with the SCP either through a lease or a licence. This was a matter between the owner and the SCP. He stated that at no time should the owner ever have given that licence but he was sure that the owner would have explained to the SCP that this was for a limited period.

 

He also stated with regard to the question of the caretaker’s house at the back of the current library site, that it was totally unsuitable for the position of a Community Hub and therefore was not being considered.

 

Mr Batts said that Councillor Doe and Robin Cooper had stated that the Council’s proposals for the Strood Hub would bring great benefits to Strood by increasing footfall for the retailers so enhancing the High Street environment. He asked whether Councillor Doe could explain how the Council’s planning application which was approved to change the use of the retail unit to a library would enhance the High Street environment. He stated that this was another loss of a retail outlet for the community of Strood.

 

Councillor Doe stated that the shop had been vacant for some time and there was no prospect of it reopening as a retail shop in the immediate future. He stated that the Council was acting in accordance with government guidance and other guidance about the need to bring people into High Streets. This proposal would achieve this and in doing so would cause visitors to look at the other offers within that High Street and thereby bring in more business to the shopping centre.

 

L.     Janet Stephens of Rochester will ask the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

The Medway Council document  “To let Rochester Airport Kent by Informal Tender” does not include a statement to bidders about their potential liability for property value loss compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 when the airfield is reconfigured.

 

A modest five percent loss in property values for approximately 2000 homes near the airfield may amount to £25 million or more.

 

Whether you believe or not that local property values close to the airfield will be affected by Medway Council's Masterplan, as a duty to your electorate I hope you agree that the liability should have been stated in the tender document to protect home owner losses and ensure the successful bidder is able to meet their financial liability should it arise.

 

Can you guarantee Medway Council have notified Rochester Airport Limited of this potential liability and that the company is sufficiently funded to withstand a multimillion pound compensation payment prior to signing the new lease?

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that the Council and Rochester Airport Ltd were aware that the Land Compensation Act 1973 entitled certain property owners in limited circumstances to compensation where the value of their property was depreciated, as a result of the increase in physical factors (including increase in noise) resulting from the use of new public works (including improvements at airports).

 

By law, the airport operator was responsible for compensation of this type and in addition to this, there was a clause in the agreed main lease of the airport, which required Rochester Airport Ltd to indemnify the Council against the costs of any such claims.

 

However, compensation was only claimable if there was an increase in the physical factors including noise, resulting from the use of the new public works. In this case, the proposed paved runway would mean that aircraft would be able to take off quicker and be at a higher altitude by the end of the runway thus reducing noise. This being the case, it seemed unlikely that any claims for compensation could be successful.

 

Ms Stephens stated that part of her question was should it have been included in the tender documents and about the compensation, she had seen that the Council was indemnified and with regards to this, it was a shame that the public were not similarly indemnified.

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that this was a statement but in any event the Compensation Act should cover Ms Stephens's concerns.

 

The Mayor informed the meeting that the time limit for public questions had expired and that the remaining public questions (M-V) would be answered in writing.